stop allowing wikipedia to be used as an image host

Jackson49_test

Bump

IndexErrorException

No support, ive never even heard of this issue before, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to block an entire image host.

k0d3rrr

XxhackerlolxX wrote:
No support, ive never even heard of this issue before, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to block an entire image host.

However, the OP did say:

OP 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

SavetheAtlantic

k0d3rrr wrote:
XxhackerlolxX wrote:
No support, ive never even heard of this issue before, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to block an entire image host.
However, the OP did say:
OP 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

That is incredibly unlikely. Wikipedia will outright not allow you to replace an image with another unless you're an admin.

ScratchCat1038

SavetheAtlantic wrote:
(#165)
k0d3rrr wrote:
XxhackerlolxX wrote:
No support, ive never even heard of this issue before, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to block an entire image host.
However, the OP did say:
OP 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
That is incredibly unlikely. Wikipedia will outright not allow you to replace an image with another unless you're an admin.

Uh, no. Any registered user with at least 4 days of tenure and 10 edits (the confirmed status) can unless they are protected against uploading.

op456

Full support. Considering Wikipedia's uncensored (Titled “Not Censored”) policy, I'm surprised they're allowed as a host on this site.

Wikipedia hosts images that are not always appropriate; and has previously made headlines for such reasons. Wikipedia has publicly said it's not always appropriate, and thus can't be appropriate for Scratch either.

At current, I can find a few images that might not be appropriate for Scratch on Wikipedia's file collection (I say might as some of the images could be open to interpretation).

Wikipedia also hosts images of album covers and others, which do occasionally include profanity (which, looking through Wikipedia's images, happens quite often).

Last edited by op456 (June 11, 2022 13:54:21)

op456

mumu245 wrote:
dhuls wrote:
lapisi wrote:
meaning that either way somebody is getting an alert despite having not done anything wrong
again, alerts for a report that turns out to be false are quite rare.
And again, permalinks exist, so it you want to link to an old version of The Blue Marble, you would use https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/97/20200925203543%21The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg and not https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

and plus, most images are actually on WIkimedia Commons, and the real links are at upload.wikimedia.org.
That's what I said. Allow Wikimedia Commons.

I can't say I'm in favour of this either - Wikimedia Commons also has hosted images not always appropiate.

SavetheAtlantic

ScratchCat1038 wrote:
SavetheAtlantic wrote:
That is incredibly unlikely. Wikipedia will outright not allow you to replace an image with another unless you're an admin.
Uh, no. Any registered user with at least 4 days of tenure and 10 edits (the confirmed status) can unless they are protected against uploading.

What I mean is that if the new version is deemed too different vandalism bots will pick up on it and it will be reverted. Besides, there's not really that many active autoconfirmed users who are willing to vandalize Wikipedia, and are also a Scratcher, and also willing to post inappropriate images in the forum. Frankly, this issue is blown way out of proportion.

op456

SavetheAtlantic wrote:
ScratchCat1038 wrote:
SavetheAtlantic wrote:
That is incredibly unlikely. Wikipedia will outright not allow you to replace an image with another unless you're an admin.
Uh, no. Any registered user with at least 4 days of tenure and 10 edits (the confirmed status) can unless they are protected against uploading.
What I mean is that if the new version is deemed too different vandalism bots will pick up on it and it will be reverted. Besides, there's not really that many active autoconfirmed users who are willing to vandalize Wikipedia, and are also a Scratcher, and also willing to post inappropriate images in the forum. Frankly, this issue is blown way out of proportion.

Not necessarily - vandalism bots on Wikipedia pick up vandalism, not necessarily inappropriate images - which exist. Thus, a legitimate image uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use that is valid under Wikipedia's rules can contain profanity and things Scratch would consider inappropriate. There's all types of things this could include, such as art and sculptures (depending on freedom of panorama laws per country), album covers, company logos etc.

Considering this range of fair use images, someone could use the image host for one of these images that Scratch doesn't allow for. The image rules on Wikipedia don't ban inappropriate images, and thus we shouldn't be using them.

dhuls

People realize we could always just, not use the images?
Plus, it's not like the other image hosts are any better
For example, Photobucket

Photobucket may moderate Content. However, we are not responsible for what you have uploaded and we are under no obligation to modify or remove any inappropriate Content. We have provided some tools on the Site, such as links to “flag as inappropriate,” so you can let us know if you find Content offensive. As a general rule, we allow “not safe for work” aka “NSFW” Content subject to our community standards set forth in these Terms. We reserve the right to change the designation of your Content and/or albums from “public” to “private”. We will not, however, change your “private” setting on your Content or albums to “public” without you asking us to do so on your behalf.

https://app.photobucket.com/legal/terms-of-service

SavetheAtlantic

dhuls wrote:
People realize we could always just, not use the images?
Plus, it's not like the other image hosts are any better
For example, Photobucket
Photobucket may moderate Content. However, we are not responsible for what you have uploaded and we are under no obligation to modify or remove any inappropriate Content. We have provided some tools on the Site, such as links to “flag as inappropriate,” so you can let us know if you find Content offensive. As a general rule, we allow “not safe for work” aka “NSFW” Content subject to our community standards set forth in these Terms. We reserve the right to change the designation of your Content and/or albums from “public” to “private”. We will not, however, change your “private” setting on your Content or albums to “public” without you asking us to do so on your behalf.
https://app.photobucket.com/legal/terms-of-service

Oh and don't forget that nothing is stopping you from just… adding inappropriate images in a project?

The benefits of having a free, widely accessible source of images with a wide variety outweigh the cons of “someone might do something they can already do” which as far as I'm concerned has never actually happened.

musicROCKS013

SavetheAtlantic wrote:
The benefits of having a free, widely accessible source of images with a wide variety outweigh the cons of “someone might do something they can already do” which as far as I'm concerned has never actually happened.

You have a point, but this doesn’t change the fact that people uploading an inappropriate image to scratch via a project are doing it intentionally. However, people using Wikipedia aren’t doing this with malicious intent, and could be false banned or muted.

SavetheAtlantic

musicROCKS013 wrote:
SavetheAtlantic wrote:
The benefits of having a free, widely accessible source of images with a wide variety outweigh the cons of “someone might do something they can already do” which as far as I'm concerned has never actually happened.
You have a point, but this doesn’t change the fact that people uploading an inappropriate image to scratch via a project are doing it intentionally. However, people using Wikipedia aren’t doing this with malicious intent, and could be false banned or muted.

But in order to post an inappropriate image on the forums in the first place, you need to have malicious intent.

musicROCKS013

SavetheAtlantic wrote:
But in order to post an inappropriate image on the forums in the first place, you need to have malicious intent.

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

lapisi

just a reminder that this all started because the image on wikipedia labeled as “An April Fools' Day prank marking the construction of the Copenhagen Metro in 2001” was changed to an image of a certain male body part and stayed that way for the entire day (long enough for a kid to be traumatized by it, long enough for it to be reported on Scratch, and long enough for the ST to see the report of the post while the inappropriate image is still there and respond accordingly)

EDIT: and to add more clarification, here's a previous post that explained what happened in more detail

lapisi wrote:
DevonianMapping wrote:
(#136)
Look, the inappropriate images are on Wikipedia for educational purposes, but I don't know if Scratch will acknowledge that. Some support.
I'm not just talking about the ones that are supposed to be there, I suggested this because on April Fool's Day last year on Algodoo there was a message “You are running out of polygons! Please consider buying more at www.algodoo.com/buy_more_stuff.html” the URL is just a “not found” page but clicking it takes you to the Wikipedia page for April Fool's Day, and the first image was vandalized into a very inappropriate image, and it stayed that way the entire day and got changed back the next day. Now imagine someone posted that image before it was vandalized, and then it got vandalized and someone saw the post and reported it, if the report is seen by the ST before the image got changed back then the person who posted it would get an alert for posting an inappropriate image despite the image not being inappropriate when it was posted, if the report is seen by the ST after the image is changed back then the person who reported it would get an alert for false reporting an image that is obviously not inappropriate despite the image having been inappropriate when it was reported, meaning that either way somebody is getting an alert despite having not done anything wrong

Last edited by lapisi (June 11, 2022 18:03:54)

ScratchCat1038

SavetheAtlantic wrote:
(#168)
ScratchCat1038 wrote:
SavetheAtlantic wrote:
That is incredibly unlikely. Wikipedia will outright not allow you to replace an image with another unless you're an admin.
Uh, no. Any registered user with at least 4 days of tenure and 10 edits (the confirmed status) can unless they are protected against uploading.
What I mean is that if the new version is deemed too different vandalism bots will pick up on it and it will be reverted. Besides, there's not really that many active autoconfirmed users who are willing to vandalize Wikipedia, and are also a Scratcher, and also willing to post inappropriate images in the forum. Frankly, this issue is blown way out of proportion.

The thing is a scratcher could post a perfectly good image, and then some random dude on Wikipedia vandalizes the image, and someone on Scratch thinks the user that posted the image before it got vandalized could think they maliciously posted a bad image, report it, and the user would get alerted for something that wasn't their fault at all.

And don't forget #169. The bots only pick up text vandalism so image vandalism would have to be reverted by a human, which may take some time.

Last edited by ScratchCat1038 (June 11, 2022 18:32:29)

gdpr5b78aa4361827f5c2a08d700

XxhackerlolxX wrote:
No support, ive never even heard of this issue before, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to block an entire image host.

no support, i'd never even heard of the slave trade until i heard of the slave trade, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to ban an entire slave trade.

seriously though, you ought to look into the problem first before going as far as like actually making a forum post.

disclaimer i dont like slave trading

Last edited by gdpr5b78aa4361827f5c2a08d700 (June 11, 2022 20:46:57)

SavetheAtlantic

potatophant wrote:
XxhackerlolxX wrote:
No support, ive never even heard of this issue before, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to block an entire image host.
no support, i'd never even heard of the slave trade until i heard of the slave trade, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to ban an entire slave trade.

seriously though, you ought to look into the problem first before going as far as like actually making a forum post.

disclaimer i dont like slave trading

The fact that you're comparing a minor nuance in the forums nobody has abused in 10 years to the atrocities of the Atlantic Slave Trade really says something

SavetheAtlantic

ScratchCat1038 wrote:
The thing is a scratcher could post a perfectly good image, and then some random dude on Wikipedia vandalizes the image, and someone on Scratch thinks the user that posted the image before it got vandalized could think they maliciously posted a bad image, report it, and the user would get alerted for something that wasn't their fault at all.

And don't forget #169. The bots only pick up text vandalism so image vandalism would have to be reverted by a human, which may take some time.

Do you know how incredibly unlikely that is?

lapisi

SavetheAtlantic wrote:
(#179)
ScratchCat1038 wrote:
The thing is a scratcher could post a perfectly good image, and then some random dude on Wikipedia vandalizes the image, and someone on Scratch thinks the user that posted the image before it got vandalized could think they maliciously posted a bad image, report it, and the user would get alerted for something that wasn't their fault at all.

And don't forget #169. The bots only pick up text vandalism so image vandalism would have to be reverted by a human, which may take some time.
Do you know how incredibly unlikely that is?

do you know how incredibly unlikely it is that malware is disguised as a Scratch browser extension? we're still not allowed to discuss browser extensions on Scratch because of the possibility of malware despite how unlikely it is

Discuss Scratch