Talk:Ai sponge

Project's closure on July 26

Despite ai_Sponge being an extremely popular project, the only source I could find for it's Uberduck-related shutdown is ai_sponge's Discord server (which I obviously can't use as a source). I tried to make-do with the UberDuck blog, knowing that still wouldn't suffice.

When a verified article or video discussing sponge_ai's shutdown is released, I'll be sure to add it SMT153 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

icebergcharts.com as a source

would this be possible to use for sources? Memory 001 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Memory 001: Unfortunately not since it's not from a reliable source. Johnson524 01:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

eh, i guess thats reasonable. although, i was the one who made that iceberg along with a very active member of the ai sponge server. Memory 001 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

actually no, MULTIPLE people that were in the server. should of specified that. they took screenshots and documented most of the incidents and stuff that happened there Memory 001 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply @Memory 001! I didn't know you were a server member of ai_sponge. With that information, the iceberg could potentially have been used as a primary source of information: but unfortunately, since 1. the iceberg is hosted on icebergcharts.com and not an official ai_sponge website, 2. it doesn't appear that there is anywhere on the page that says it was made by server members/important figures in the community, and 3. since Wikipedia really dislikes self-published sources and blogs in general, there are not enough ways to verify the validity of these claims, and thus the iceberg can't be used on the page. I'm not saying it's not good work though, as it does look like a lot of time was put into making it, but it wouldn't work as a reference. I hope this reply was helpful, and if you have anymore questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you for your work on ai_sponge, cheers! Johnson524 02:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the use of it as a source would be valid and warranted albeit in a limited manner that is sufficiently verifiable. Primary sources aren’t bad sources unless their use amounts to original research Jack4576 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jack4576: I still believe the iceberg source is unusable for the conditions I stated above. If Memory 001 had gone ahead and added the iceberg chart to the page as a citation: I would have reverted it, as it does constitute as original research knowing that they helped create it. And while I don't doubt the information is false, the iceberg being hosted on a secondary website and not an official 'Ai_sponge" webpage really downgrades it's reliability for me, as theoretically, anyone could have created it. Cheers! Johnson524 03:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

not sure how useful this info would be, but i'm simply listing it anyway

There happens to be a few youtube videos that documented ai sponges downfall, such as ai sponge news. those do not originate from the iceberg. Memory 001 (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Memory 001: Those videos could potentially be useful, as long they don't fall into the same trap as the iceberg did in not being made by a clearly-marked primary source (like ai_sponge's YouTube channel). This comes from WP:RSPYT, which states otherwise that: "Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all."

If you had to ask me personally, I do disagree with the way YouTube videos are handled on Wikipedia. While the policy in place now is a catch-all solution to avoid adding unreliable information, it disregards much of the quality content, updates, and breakdowns of topics made by creators who often put lots of research into their work. Not to mention, also making it exceedingly hard to make an article about something on YouTube, which for the most part goes unmentioned by large media outlets. So I'm against the current policy, but I'm also not in a position to change it either, oof. I'm sorry, but I hope you understand, cheers! Johnson524 10:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's IAR the policy for being silly. Include the videos here if you wish, if they would improve the article Jack4576 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jack4576 would happy to see alao.

espicly to maybe reacrte the masterpice 46.210.20.144 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that I think the policy could/should be improved in some way, but at the moment, Wikipedia operates under verifiability, not truth. Johnson524 03:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think reliance on it, in a restrained and appropriate way, would be in breach of that policy. Jack4576 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

But nevertheless, IAR is also policy. Jack4576 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

AI Generated Sponge is returned

I found the channel AI Sponge Rehydrated. Should add the article with the external link with AI Sponge Rehydrated YouTube Channel? 47.234.198.142 (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This channel doesn't advertise itself as official or as made by the original creators of ai_sponge. Even if it was, we would need a reliable secondary (preferably news) source talking about it to establish notability first. Johnson524 23:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I miss Uberduck as well. They had a lot of license characters. They had Disney characters like Marsupilami, Nickelodeon characters like SpongeBob or Rocko. And even Cartoon Network characters like the Powerpuff Girls and even PBS Kids characters like Sesame Street. Sadly, They all got removed due to a lawsuit by the voice artists or copyright holders. I decided to close my Uberduck account. I had to put all my Uberduck videos on private via to avoid copyright strike. And @Johnson524 I have question for you, Do you miss Uberduck? Marsupilami: "No, Maurice! Those Flowers are for your lady, Not for your lunch! Now what are you gonna give her? (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@BuddyBoy600: Of course 😢 ai_sponge really was unique when it was around. Johnson524 12:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, It was discontinued due to a lawsuit and I heard on Uberduck's Subreddit that the founder of Uberduck (ZWF) had to face charges and was put to jail sentence. Marsupilami: "No, Maurice! Those Flowers are for your lady, Not for your lunch! Now what are you gonna give her? (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyways here is the documents on the list of Forbidden characters on Uberduck. [1] Marsupilami: "No, Maurice! Those Flowers are for your lady, Not for your lunch! Now what are you gonna give her? (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)