# Talk:Ai sponge

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)

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)

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)

@Belbury: I still can't believe it, but I can confidently say now that there are no reliable sources that exist which talk about the project's closure. I searched for hours using Google, newspaper archive, and internet archive, and every reliable source that exists on this topic has been added to the page. I think it would be misleading, however, to say the project hasn't ended, since it has, and I wanted to ask you if you think this would be an appropriate use of a primary source to cite this? Here is a screenshot of a post by the owner of the project announcing its closure on 26 July 2023 I can upload this image to Commons or if its not freely licensed to Wikipedia if need be so the link doesn't go to Fandom, but this is the most direct source on the project's closure that exists. Do you think this would be an appropriate use of a primary source? Cheers! Johnson524 20:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, was editing the article while you were writing that.
I agree that it would be misleading to say that the stream still existed when it didn't. But we can use the original stream URL as a WP:PRIMARY source for the fact that, right now, the original stream URL is unavailable due to TOS/guideline issues.
I doubt we could use a second-hand screenshot of a Discord post, though, as that could have been written by anybody. The current Wikipedia article doesn't even mention a "Jazza", the user who's being quoted there. Belbury (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Belbury: I know 😭 It was a long shot, and since he wasn't in any of the sources, I didn't even know who Jazza was until I read that. I suppose we could use another primary source to cite who Jazza is, but at that point we just look like Fandom with all that unreliability. Since the article is otherwise 'complete' though, I really wanted to nominate it for GA, but with what looks to be a forever-present citation needed tag on the page, I'm not sure if that'd be possible now.
I believe the end goal of all articles is to become GA's, and after the rewrite, I really wanted to see the page get to that point, or at very least in a state without citation needed tags. Can you think of a more reliable way to phrase the end date so the tags aren't needed? How would you feel about going back to a the which just states that "the last mention of the project by a news source was in July 2023.[1]" or something along those lines? Thank you for all the work you've done for this page, cheers! Johnson524 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd expect the reader to interpret "the last mention of the project by a news source" as just the end of the project's passing mainstream interest, rather than the likely closure of the website. Plenty of things outlast their final news coverage. A reader wanting to check the July 2023 closure date that we're claiming should be given more convincing evidence for that than the date of the most recent press mention that we could find.
I don't see any problem with omitting the exact start or end date for something, where we aren't able to source it.
It would be good to have a source that says that the stream has definitely ended, though, if that's what happened. The WP:PRIMARY "as of December 2024, the channel is unavailable" is a bit mild for not ruling out temporary downtime or a move to a different location. Belbury (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

https://ibb.co/LdcG9rpV Mypc252wastaken (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mypc252wastaken, funny enough I tried to add the same image to the article myself during the Good Article review. Unfortunately, since there are no reliable sources which talk about JAZZA or state he ran the stream, this person and thus their word is unreliable as it is uncited. This image/quote is furthermore not used in any of the reliable sources I could find, so even though it would be useful on the page, it can't be added. Cheers! Johnson524 11:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Recently, there seems to be a YouTube channel that serves a similar purpose. Should we add information about this? https://www.youtube.com/@AISponge3 2601:182:81:36B0:BD19:71A5:7BE8:E3B9 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since there are no reliable WP:SECONDARY sources which discuss AI Sponge: Rehydrated, that is sources which are not connected to the people who are directly involved in the project, it cannot be added. When getting this article to GA status, I did extensive searching to find one since I personally believe it should be added, but none appear to exist at the moment. If you or I find one sometime in the future I'll be happy to add it to the page. Cheers! Johnson524 13:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This comes off as overly speculative when writing in Wikivoice. We might wanna reconsider changing it Trade (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done, cheers! Johnson524 19:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)