PenguinLover1123 wrote:

No support, due to this:

dhuls wrote:

I also think the ST trusts all of the image hosts enough so that no inappropriate content gets on Scratch, and a lot of images come from Wikimedia Commons.

lapisi wrote:

PenguinLover1123 wrote:

No support, due to this:

dhuls wrote:

I also think the ST trusts all of the image hosts enough so that no inappropriate content gets on Scratch, and a lot of images come from Wikimedia Commons.

once again, vandalism can change Wikipedia images at random, meaning even if the image isn't inappropriate now, it could change at any time, causing you to get alerted and possibly banned, if you look at the Scratch Wiki page for image hosting, you can see that Scratch stopped allowing Imgur to be used as an image host for having inappropriate images, meaning that can happen

lapisi wrote:

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

Pharynelsius wrote:

Can't anyone upload any image they'd like on the whitelisted hosts? I don't see why Wikipedia is an exception.

ScolderCreations wrote:

Pharynelsius wrote:

Can't anyone upload any image they'd like on the whitelisted hosts? I don't see why Wikipedia is an exception.

wiKipedia images can be changed by anyone

dhuls wrote:

ScolderCreations wrote:

Pharynelsius wrote:

Can't anyone upload any image they'd like on the whitelisted hosts? I don't see why Wikipedia is an exception.

wiKipedia images can be changed by anyone

Which also means vandalism can be reverted by anyone.

dhuls wrote:

ScolderCreations wrote:

Pharynelsius wrote:

Can't anyone upload any image they'd like on the whitelisted hosts? I don't see why Wikipedia is an exception.

wiKipedia images can be changed by anyone

Which also means vandalism can be reverted by anyone.

lapisi wrote:

once again, vandalism can change Wikipedia images at random, meaning even if the image isn't inappropriate now, it could change at any time, causing you to get alerted and possibly banned.

Xolay wrote:

dhuls wrote:

jackson49 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

hiPeeps124816 wrote:

k7e wrote:

There are also some bad images on Wikipedia which might show up on the forums.

thats an understatement
support wikipedia isnt just for kids

The same can be said for literally every other whitelisted image host (even Scratch, as it's for 8-16)

True, but Scratch moderation is better than Wikipedia

Also true, but the other image hosts…

I also think the ST trusts all of the image hosts enough so that no inappropriate content gets on Scratch, and a lot of images come from Wikimedia Commons.

but if wikipedia gets banned I have to log in and I wont get any image in my siganture

lapisi wrote:

dhuls wrote:

ScolderCreations wrote:

Pharynelsius wrote:

Can't anyone upload any image they'd like on the whitelisted hosts? I don't see why Wikipedia is an exception.

wiKipedia images can be changed by anyone

Which also means vandalism can be reverted by anyone.

and then if it gets reverted before the report is seen by the ST then the person who reported it would get an alert for false reporting even though it was inappropriate when it was reported

Codingfairy07 wrote:

lapisi wrote:

once again, vandalism can change Wikipedia images at random, meaning even if the image isn't inappropriate now, it could change at any time, causing you to get alerted and possibly banned.

Same as the scratch wiki.

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

Codingfairy07 wrote:

lapisi wrote:

once again, vandalism can change Wikipedia images at random, meaning even if the image isn't inappropriate now, it could change at any time, causing you to get alerted and possibly banned.

Same as the scratch wiki.

Well yes, but actually no.

The Scratch Wiki allows less people to edit than Wikipedia, AND is censored, unlike Wikipedia, so the Scratch Wiki is more secure than Wikipedia.

Also, support.

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

Codingfairy07 wrote:

lapisi wrote:

once again, vandalism can change Wikipedia images at random, meaning even if the image isn't inappropriate now, it could change at any time, causing you to get alerted and possibly banned.

Same as the scratch wiki.

Well yes, but actually no.

The Scratch Wiki allows less people to edit than Wikipedia, AND is censored, unlike Wikipedia, so the Scratch Wiki is more secure than Wikipedia.

Also, support.

Every image has an Undo button, and the AF images are separate from the regular images.

And since Wikipedia has such a high amount of editors, vandalism is reverted so quickly you probably won't get into any trouble on Scratch.

It has been also reported that the images can “expire” over time and be replaced with an advertisement.

dhuls wrote:

If we ban Wikipedia, we should also ban Imageshack, as, according to the Wiki

It has been also reported that the images can “expire” over time and be replaced with an advertisement.

(src)

Codingfairy07 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

If we ban Wikipedia, we should also ban Imageshack, as, according to the Wiki

It has been also reported that the images can “expire” over time and be replaced with an advertisement.

(src)

Also, imageshack costs money.