Jason Unger

Wikipedia Update 2: On-and-off for Dan and Keith

Posted by junger - 05/11/06 at 08:05:18 am

I don't want to make this one story the only thing I have to cover, but the entry for Dan Abrams on Wikipedia keeps on going back and forth on whether or not he is dating Keith Olbermann.

Continue reading Wikipedia Update 2: On-and-off for Dan and Keith…

Wikipedia Update: It's Over for Dan and Keith

Posted by junger - 05/10/06 at 05:05:27 pm

Sorry to say it … but it's over for Dan Abrams and Keith Olbermann. As of 20:12, 10 May 2006 (which isn't until later, but I guess Wikipedia is on a different time zone), Dan is no longer currently dating his MSNBC co-worker Keith.

Now we'll have to see if either of them responds to this on their shows tonight … I've got both TiVo'd (there's a first time for everything).

Wikipedia: MSNBC's Dan Abrams Dating Keith Olbermann

Posted by junger - 05/10/06 at 01:05:12 pm

The good folks at Wikipedia are up to it again. According to the user-edited online encyclopedia, MSNBC's Dan Abrams (of The Abrams Report) is currently dating another MSNBC personality … Countdown host Keith Olbermann.

Continue reading Wikipedia: MSNBC's Dan Abrams Dating Keith Olbermann…

The Problem With Wikipedia as a Reliable Source

Posted by junger - 04/27/06 at 07:04:19 pm

I love Wikipedia. It's one of my favorite sites out there, not only because there is so much information, but because it really gives you a general feel for various opinions on certain topics. And I don't really mean politics — I mean more about culture.

But I digress, before I even begin. My problem with Wikipedia is that, although I would consider it to be fairly accurate, it is not a legitimate source of information for legitimate publications. Why? Because you just never know.

On the Baltimore Sun's Podcasts page, they include a link to the Wikipedia entry on podcasts. Now, while I'm sure that this entry probably does a better job of explaining podcasts than the guys at the Sun could do, by directing potential consumers to the Wikipedia entry, the Sun is endorsing what is in the entry. They can't be sure that someone won't come along and edit the entry in a way that they wouldn't endorse.

What would Wikipedia say? They'd say that their editors would clean up the mistakes. And most of the time, I'm sure that would happen. But what about the "one time" when the entry contains completely false information, like in the John Seigenthaler case?

Imagine if a legitimate publication — be it newspaper, magazine, or even Web site — links to that information. When the libel suit comes to their door, are they going to blame Wikipedia? I doubt a judge would accept that in court.

On a similar note, the Ithacan Online of Ithaca College has a good article about professors allowing Wikipedia as a resource for students' papers. If I were a professor, I wouldn't accept it. But I still love it.