Social Actions
Let's be honest here. Can a user actually love, favorite, view, follow, and comment without breaking 3.5 of the ToU?
Dhuls (Talk|891 Contributions|Scratch) 01:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, these features, though included in scratchclient, should not be listed on the Scratch Wiki since using them breaks the ToU.
Support for removing them
leahcimto talk • contribs • profile 21:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No support. Making Scratch Crash breaks the Terms of Use, but it still exists. Same with Making Invisible Code. Just because something breaks the Terms of Use, does not mean that is an excuse to remove it. There should be a warning telling users that executing the code in a way that breaks the Terms of Use can get the user an alert or a ban.
TheTrillion • Talk • 2,622 contributions • Scratch 21:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't entirely understand the subject of the article, but assuming I don't need to, Support. This would definitely break the Terms of Use, so the Scratch Wiki shouldn't be telling people how to do this.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 04:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are plenty of tutorials online about how to make bombs, an illegal action that is nonetheless documented with the clear warning that such things are documented for the sake of learning. Our policy with this kind of thing is keep it if it's otherwise a legitimate contribution, unless the Scratch Team specifically requests we remove it. No support unless a Scratch Team member specifically says to remove it.
kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 03:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I guess Kenny2scratch and TheTrillion have a point. I'm going to change my opinion to No Support. Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 07:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- After thinking about it for a while, I think I'm going to have to agree with TheTrillion and Kenny2scratch here. As long as it's clear we're not condoning the actions, I don't think it's bad to just include the information along with a warning. Of course, as Kenny2scratch mentioned, if the Scratch Team specifically asks us to remove it, then that's a different story.
bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- After thinking about it for a while, I think I'm going to have to agree with TheTrillion and Kenny2scratch here. As long as it's clear we're not condoning the actions, I don't think it's bad to just include the information along with a warning. Of course, as Kenny2scratch mentioned, if the Scratch Team specifically asks us to remove it, then that's a different story.
- I guess Kenny2scratch and TheTrillion have a point. I'm going to change my opinion to
- There are plenty of tutorials online about how to make bombs, an illegal action that is nonetheless documented with the clear warning that such things are documented for the sake of learning. Our policy with this kind of thing is keep it if it's otherwise a legitimate contribution, unless the Scratch Team specifically requests we remove it.
- I don't entirely understand the subject of the article, but assuming I don't need to,
I also agree that there is educational value to explaining how to use the API. While we shouldn't explain how to do anything that would be a security or privacy breach, I think that users can benefit from learning how the API of the site works and how to use it (for example, if making suggestions that involve these APIs, an example to follow for designing their own site, etc.). In this case there isn't a security or privacy breach, so I don't see any harm as long as we include the disclaimer. But of course as others have said, if the Scratch Team asks us to remove it, we will remove it without protest.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
