Ugh, yeah, not wikipedia. There's some stuff I wouldn't want to see end up here.

mumu245 wrote:

But add Wikimedia Commons, as those don't change.

yep, they won't change, remove wikipedia and add wikimedia, Better safe than sorry

I changed my mind – Support for reasons said above.

Wikipedia contains articles about inappropriate things. Those articles contain images.

No support.

The Wikimedia Foundation has already faced trouble for that, and they explained that Wikipedia and other services hosted by them are solely for educational purposes.

Perhaps consider blocking these articles from being posted, but avoid blocking the biggest knowledge database on the internet from being mentioned in Scratch.

josueart wrote:

(#268)
No support.

The Wikimedia Foundation has already faced trouble for that, and they explained that Wikipedia and other services hosted by them are solely for educational purposes.

Perhaps consider blocking these articles from being posted, but avoid blocking the biggest knowledge database on the internet from being mentioned in Scratch.

the problem here is vandalism, not the images already there, reminder that this started because on April Fools Day one year the image on the Wikipedia article about April Fools Day had it's main image replaced with an image of a certain male body part that I can't say, contrary to what may be popular belief the ST is actually really fast in responding to reports, only taking one day to do so, now remember that the Wikipedia image stayed vandalized for the entire day and it becomes clear that there is way too much potential for false bans, say someone were to link that Wikipedia page (perhaps as a way of revealing an April Fools joke?) before it got vandalized, then it gets vandalized and someone reports the post, then the ST sends an alert to the one who posted the link.

see the problem here?

Bump
Sorry, you have to wait 60 seconds between posts.

I don't remember Wikipedia not allowing inappropriate content as long as long as it's for documentation purposes. so that's a problem.

I mean, support, this does mean there could be bad people on Scratch tricking people into seeing sus pictures, but more reason, why would I ever need a photo of say, an apple on the forums?

Also,

dzje wrote:

Bit of a stretch, but having Wikipedia as an image host for the forums could also encourage Scratchers to upload images onto Wikipedia only to use here, which I'm certain wouldn't be appreciated.

yeah, I don't think Wikipedia would like some kid's banner on their image hosting. (No offense, if your name is some kid.)

Olimon7661 wrote:

I mean, support, this does mean there could be bad people on Scratch tricking people into seeing sus pictures, but more reason, why would I ever need a photo of say, an apple on the forums?

I've used Wikipedia images so I could add album covers to my signature.

Wikipedia has auto mod that changes vandalism and grief. Must’ve bugged during that time, but will hopefully be fixed. Wikipedia is meant to provide information to many people. Millions of signatures would be broken doing this! No Support!

lapisi wrote:

on April Fools Day this year, I was using Algodoo and found the “buy more polygons” joke, I clicked the link, which lead to the Wikipedia page for April Fools Day, the only problem was that the main image was replaced with an extremely inappropriate image, and according to the Scratch Wiki the forums allow Wikipedia to be used as an image host, this has the potential for inappropriate images to accidentally be uploaded to the Scratch Forums because at the time of uploading they weren't inappropriate

What's stopping someone from uploading an inappropriate picture on another image hoster?

forgot about this topic lol

tagrim123 wrote:

(#274)
Wikipedia has auto mod that changes vandalism and grief. Must’ve bugged during that time, but will hopefully be fixed. Wikipedia is meant to provide information to many people. Millions of signatures would be broken doing this! No Support!

it was there all day, which could have disastrous consequences if it happens again on more relevant images, either that or someone just uploads an inappropriate image that's already on the site

as for the signature thing, remember how evil kumquats started?

sevenlayersofbread wrote:

(#275)
~whole OP quote snip~
What's stopping someone from uploading an inappropriate picture on another image hoster?

presumably moderation on those image hosts, but Wikipedia allows inappropriate images in certain contexts for educational purposes while Scratch doesn't allow it under any circumstances

I'm surprised WINC isn't brought up more often. There's only 4 people (now 5) that mentioned it here.

Support because of this policy.

dzje wrote:

Bit of a stretch, but having Wikipedia as an image host for the forums could also encourage Scratchers to upload images onto Wikipedia only to use here, which I'm certain wouldn't be appreciated.

It wouldn't be, see WP:NOTGALLERY.

PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:

I changed my mind on this post.

Wikipedia already is known as the most popular dictionary and encyclopedia on the internet, so it wouldn't make sense and it would be an outrage if the ST blocked their website as a whole due to the inappropriate images used in articles.

With everyone else's reasoning in this topic, I think that the ST should consider blocking articles from being posted that could contain any type of image that isn't censored or is inappropriate to Scratch Team's standards of the main website.

…so close? Because I can if you want me to.

dzje wrote:

What use is, for example, this picture of a tree for discussion about an introductory programming language? I see very few cases where someone would use a Wikipedia image properly for the forums.

you can't take an exampe and present it as good judgement for all cases. i can't imagine anyone using that tree either, but there are other images than a tree on wikipedia, which some might find useful.

still, no support. unless scratch somehow finds a way to block certain images from appearing on here - which wouldn't resolve vandalism issues

Indecisive support for now, as the pros and cons are… Mixed. Probably will change my mind if somebody posts a never-seen-in-this-topic-before argument.

Support because people could get banned over this issue even when they weren’t initially doing anything wrong

yes because theres sus pictures on wikipedia and people can just change pictures