Talk:Customer says Verizon confuses dollars and cents

Thinking to unpublish?[edit]

As usual ;) Rather than unpublishing, please add a comment here as to what to fix, or better yet, just drop a brief note to towsonu2003 at gmail dot com. If you can't help but unpublish it, you need to please add a reason here in the discussion page so we can fix it :) thanks Towsonu2003 18:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said we were going to unpublish? It's an interesting story, I'm in favour of keeping it. -- Zanimum 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually happens with my stories (someone unpublishes it without noting what was wrong in the discussion page) so I put that text to the article I publish ;) Towsonu2003 19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a response from verizon pls, at the very least, we can note Verizon's apparent e-mail offer to halve the charges, as detailed on the blog[1].

also, all the info in this article is sourced from one party in a dispute, and shld be attributed to him. i.e. "Verizon charged him $72" shld be "He says Verizon charged him $72" — Doldrums(talk) 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Zanimum 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title change[edit]

I deleted the word "bill" from the previous title. It was confusing (I had no idea what "Verizon bill" meant, then I figured that out but it isn't only the "bill from Verizon" that confuses cents and dollars, it's also at least 2 reps who think .002 cents = .002 dollars -listen to recording for clarification-). Seems to me it looks better now. Towsonu2003 19:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I'm new to Wikinews and really don't know the procedure, but can Slashdot (where anyone can write news) and Blogspot (more precisely, a blog on Blogspot) considered sufficiently reliable sources? I see a loophole for sneaking in non-independently sourced news. (194.157.147.21)

A couple of external links seem to have been added, and while I don't necessarily doubt the authenticity of the recording, an audioclip on YouTube isn't too verifiable a source, is it? This whole article strikes me more as a blogosphere meme than an actual piece of reliable news, and I'm doubting if it should be on Wikinews at all. 194.157.147.21 19:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are no news sources that are currently reporting this on Google news [2]. —F e llow Wiki News (W) 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blogosphere" is a new arena for news reporting. Many news agencies pick up news from ppl's blogs. By now, blogs have to be seen as a valuable source for news. I think the fact that news agencies aren't interested in this particular item isn't relevant... Towsonu2003 19:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]