Talk:Broadband users kicked off service for constant questioning

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Nyarlathotep
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It needs more sources and I have slight feeling its not exactly news. But I might be wrong. --TUFKAAP 12:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Other organisations are certainly deeming this newsworthy now: The Register Dan100 (Talk) 20:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

By the looks of it - a large number of users think that it is important.

This might be newsworthy for a specialist news site, but not for a general news site. -- 23:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

This article kicks off with a blatent POV. Should be 'alleged'. (above IP comment also mine) Moving back to development till someone rewrites, and we can decide if this is newsworthy. Tagging apropriatly. --Barberio 23:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I personally find this article very intereasting and news wrothy. Bawolff 23:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Quote from the Content Guide - News is relevant. Being Wikinews — global and internet-based — stories about local news may need to have their relevance explained for our international audience. Stories should appeal to a large number of people.

This doesnt meet that standard. --Barberio 23:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

standard... there is no standard... they were kicked off because they asked too many questions and raised too much contoversy... what's POV about that --> fact. All the doubting leads to nothingness. -Edbrown05 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think this appeals to a large number of people. The majority of people wouldn't want there isp to do this so there intereasted in a story about it happaning to someone else. Also isn't wikinews moving towards more local news anyways, notwidthstanding that this in my opinion is intreasting to an international audiance Bawolff 23:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand Barberio, I don't think he has the context. -Edbrown05 23:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

A lot of things are being claimed as facts in this article with little support. Example - "Woverly ultimately received a telephone call from Plusnet stating that"... No, Wovely *claims* to have received a phone call.

Marking POV and taking back to development. DO NOT REMOVE THESE TAGS TILL THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN RE-WRITEN. I still belive this article not to be widespread enougth in its intrest. --Barberio 10:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe anything Barberio says. -Edbrown05 17:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
This is public interest stuff, and important for people to make an informed decision. It seems pretty NPOV to me. This company has 200,000 users, I think it's in the wider public interest to know these things, the sources are provided along with the article so the user can make up their own mind. Controversial, yes. NPOV, yes. -- 18:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Part of the problem about whether or not this is POV/NPOV is the fact that we have yet to see a PlusNet response to this other than the termination of services. We are having to rely on the forums (never a good idea since they have limited standards of conduct and accuracy), as well as our own opinions of what is "right","wrong" and "just" in this situation. If anyone has their response, I am interested in knowing what it is. I don't live in the UK, but I can certainly see this type of event occuring in the US and recieving a very similar response.

Woverly "claim" stuff put in. -Edbrown05 04:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've eliminated the npov tag and published, people seem to have cleaned it up a bit. I moved it to Sept. 2, but I did not move it to Sept. 3rd. I hope this is a reasonable compromise between those who feel it is important and those who do not. - Nyarlathotep 00:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply