User talk:BeeryUSA

Caillou

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:UNDUE. Blogs and message board posts are not considered to be reliable sources, and alternative viewpoints (such as the one you have added to the article) are not represented without a reliable source (and even then it may be given less weight then that which you are trying to give it). Thank you. Evil saltine (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So if thousands of individuals find Caillou to be harmful to their kids, the fact that there are no 'reliable' sources means that those thousands of people don't actually exist? That's what you seem to be saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeryUSA (talk • contribs)

No; it means you can't put it in Wikipedia, because you can't verify it. Verifiability is an official policy here. For all we know, the "thousands" of people making this claim, may be three guys in Grosse Pointe with a fast cable connection and too many pseudonymns, who've decided to stir up trouble. Nothing is supposed to go into this encyclopedia without being sourced to something verifiable. If it appeared in print somewhere, in a newspaper article or in Chatelaine or somewhere, then we'd have something to go on. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You can go to the websites I cited or you can do a simple search and find literally hundreds of people who claim to dislike the show and who think it is adversely affecting their kids. Wikipedia should at the very least note that fact, but it doesn't because apparently Wikipedia doesn't ascribe any reliability to anything found on the web - ironic, since that unfair anti-web bias is precisely why Wikipedia is so poorly regarded.

Look, the point is, Caillou is being given a free ride by Wikipedia, and that means that other things are being given a free ride. I come to Wikipedia for information - to get the WHOLE story, not just the part that's nice and won't get anyone bent out of shape. I used to be a fan of Wikipedia - I used to defend it against folks who sneered at it. Not anymore. I won't be using it as a source anymore (it used to be the place I'd go to first) and I'm now one of Wikipedia's many detractors. Nice work!

Edit War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - Evil saltine (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Blogs, message boards, online forums: like bar-room chatter and break-room chats, these are not considered reliable sources; they are not verifiable, and verifiability is one of the core principles of this project. Certain websites have such strict filters that posts to them may be used in very limited circles to document certain facts; but a post to a message board is not the equivalent of an article in a newspaper or magazine. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By that same standard, Wikipedia is not 'reliable' or 'verifiable' either. From now on I will take a leaf out of your book and I will regard Wikipedia in the same way. You can't have it both ways. You must either accept info found on the web or you may as well shut Wikipedia down today, 'cos like it or not, Wikipedia is only the web equivalent of bar-room chatter.

You are correct. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source according to our policies on verifiability. This has always been the case. --Onorem♠Dil 16:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

Before continuing reverting please note WP:SPS (wich is part of WP:VER), wich clearly states "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)