Fact-Checking Scans: Who says a fake can't surpass the original?

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I got permission from @Antvasima to create this, I would have yesterday but i'm lazy I had other priorities.

Basically, the idea is to create a new thread inside the Wiki Management section where reputable community members, or staff, can review scans that are the most likely to be forged or edited in some other way (Tier 1 revisions, massive verse upgrades/downgrades, etc.) All scans of this nature should be verified here in order to verify their legitimacy. This would feasily reduce the likelihood of a DMC situation from ever popping up again, without imposing some draconian policy.

Now, how can you detect edited scans?

1. The easiest way to do that is look inside the work itself, the easiest way to do this is to find online screenshots, or youtube playthroughs. Or if possible, acquire the original work yourself and skim through it.
2. Use Photo forensics software. A simple tool that can easily be used is https://fotoforensics.com/.
FotoForensics is a highly effective tool that is utilized by many people to determine the authenticity of an image. This unique tool utilizes a combination of various data types, including JPEG, ELA, and metadata, to accurately analyze and assess an image. Unlike other online tools, FotoForensics takes a different approach to image analysis. When you submit an image for analysis, the process begins with Error Level Analysis (ELA), which is a highly advanced technique that can detect even the slightest modifications or tampering that might have been done to the image. The initial outcome of the analysis is presented alongside the original image that you provided, allowing you to easily compare and contrast the results. If the uploaded image has been tampered with or modified, the analyzed result will display a range of vibrant colors, indicating the areas where the image has been altered. However, if the image is unaltered and authentic, the analyzed image will only show white color, making it clear that the image is genuine.

In addition, FotoForensics provides a range of alternative analysis methods, which can be easily accessed through the left-hand menu. These methods allow for a more precise assessment of the image, enabling you to determine if any modifications or alterations have been made to the image. The tool's user-friendly interface makes it incredibly easy to use, even for those who are not experts in the field of image analysis.
3. Scan metadata using a Tool. I personally use https://metadata2go.com/ .
There was an alternate proposal made by @TheUnshakableOne , where a new staff role would be created to handle these issues. Ant deemed it not necessary, but in case there is low community participation, this should be given a thought.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't think this is prudent. The vast majority of scans aren't fake, and rather than doing photo forensics it would be most prudent to go find the scan yourself if you suspect an alteration. We don't really need a thread for that. For scans where it is impossible to access the content they simply won't be allowed if they can't be found somewhere. The rule for disallowing inaccessible content already has a very large amount of votes, so this would be redundant to that.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I don't think this is prudent. The vast majority of scans aren't fake, and rather than doing photo forensics it would be most prudent to go find the scan yourself if you suspect an alteration. We don't really need a thread for that. For scans where it is impossible to access the content they simply won't be allowed if they can't be found somewhere. The rule for disallowing inaccessible content already has a very large amount of votes, so this would be redundant to that.

the amount of content that is truly inaccessible and cannot be used is pretty damn low. hell, i even found older versions of poc from a single google search.

 

[Deagonx]

the amount of content that is truly inaccessible and cannot be used is pretty damn low

Indeed. Which is why they will not be allowed, and why photo forensics are not necessary (since you can just go get the scan itself). I don't think this is worth another Wiki Management thread.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Indeed. Which is why they will not be allowed, and why photo forensics are not necessary (since you can just go get the scan itself). I don't think this is worth another Wiki Management thread.

The fact that staff got fooled in the first place into accepting this implies the contrary. There is a difference between "impossible to find" and "extremely hard to find." I'd arguably say that no form of media is completely inaccessible to find online, just some may be extremely hard to obtain.

 

[Deagonx]

The fact that staff got fooled in the first place into accepting this implies the contrary.

I disagree, I think it implies that we never should've accepted scans from content we cannot verify.

I'd arguably say that no form of media is completely inaccessible to find online

You would be objectively wrong. Or rather, you are likely misunderstanding what is meant by "inaccessible." When the 1.0 content of PoC was removed from the game it became completely inaccessible. The fact that the 1.0 apk can still be found doesn't change this, because they do not load the entirety of the games content onto the apk, the app is a tool for accessing the servers. It's not practical to store all of the games data on the apk.

When an online game updates something out of the game, or when the servers go offline, the content does indeed become completely inaccessible and it should not be allowed unless someone captured the relevant scans in a video or archival effort outside of this community (note, finding it in a video doesn't mean it is "accessible" it means it is "archived" which is a different concept). So my stance is a firm "disagree" on the creation of an additional thread or role for scan photo forensics.

 

[Dereck03]

Yes, I also think this will be a waste of time/not necessary, since by default the scans most likely to be faked are the most controversial ones that can give high tier or broken abilities and normally people every time something is proposed ask for the sources to have a clear evaluation or just look for themselves for that information.

The fact that staff got fooled in the first place into accepting this implies the contrary. There is a difference between "impossible to find" and "extremely hard to find." I'd arguably say that no form of media is completely inaccessible to find online, just some may be extremely hard to obtain.

I saw this as another opportunity to further broaden the scope of our evaluation and further refine our standards for accepting evidence and paying more attention to possible fabricated evidence.

Also as deagon said, the thread he made proposes a solution, so this one would be redundant.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Yes, I also think this will be a waste of time/not necessary, since by default the scans most likely to be faked are the most controversial ones that can give high tier or broken abilities and normally people every time something is proposed ask for the sources to have a clear evaluation or just look for themselves for that information.

I saw this as another opportunity to further broaden the scope of our evaluation and further refine our standards for accepting evidence and paying more attention to possible fabricated evidence.

Also as deagon said, the thread he made proposes a solution, so this one would be redundant.

barring inaccessible media would also be redundant, as the fact that scans can be obtained and posted means that the media is not actually inaccessible

 

[Deagonx]

as the fact that scans can be obtained and posted means that the media is not actually inaccessible

That's not what "inaccessible" means here. That content is archived, not accessible. A scan of content is not the content itself. A video of a game is not the game itself.

(note, finding it in a video doesn't mean it is "accessible" it means it is "archived" which is a different concept).

Now, whether or not you agree with the semantic approach here, the fact remains that we are talking about two different things. The rule we are creating addresses content that cannot be accessed in the manner I am describing above, and does not apply to scans.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@BasedNecoScaler69 @Deagonx @Dereck03 @Antvasima Bump.

 

[Dereck03]

This seems to be rejected.

Also as deagon said, the thread he made proposes a solution, so this one would be redundant.

As this was already applied.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This seems to be rejected.

Close it, then.