Amra 130 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Tyler#_note-1 "Since Tyler got demoted once again, there is speculation that both Tyler and Rosenfield are on their way out at WCBS-TV,[2] possibly to WABC-TV, also in New York City, if current anchor Liz Cho decides to follow former anchor Diana Williams in requesting a lighter workload." How so Jim and Dana will jump to WABC if Liz Cho requests a lighter workload? Only I can hope they work for WABC, but as you all know WABC doesn't hire the demoted personnel from others stations. My bet is if Jim and Dana jump ship IF they do, it will be to WNBC, or they would remain at WCBS and rescue the 11PM news from the bullshit they are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad 276 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Thats why Wikipedia will never be a credible source of information. Unless there are references to back it up. Always check for the references at the end of the article to see whether or not the information is credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amra 130 Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 Thats what I mean, I never use wiki as a reliable source, but is funny as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbs2idiots 21 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Tyler#_note-1 "Since Tyler got demoted once again, there is speculation that both Tyler and Rosenfield are on their way out at WCBS-TV,[2] possibly to WABC-TV, also in New York City, if current anchor Liz Cho decides to follow former anchor Diana Williams in requesting a lighter workload." How so Jim and Dana will jump to WABC if Liz Cho requests a lighter workload? Only I can hope they work for WABC, but as you all know WABC doesn't hire the demoted personnel from others stations. My bet is if Jim and Dana jump ship IF they do, it will be to WNBC, or they would remain at WCBS and rescue the 11PM news from the bullshit they are in. Dont ever trust wikipedia. I dont know who in their right mind wrote that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYNW 0 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Well, if you'd trust the above statement, you shouldn't really have a computer. Most of the content on wiki have credible sources, and it should be the second thing you look at before you believe anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Observer 0 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Wikipedia is great if you use it as a form of comedic entertainment. According to the world's reliable source for news, the BBC, there is some scandal involving the pornographer that started Wikipeida who was paid off to edit someone's entry there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7291382.stm The person making the allegations is more credible than the one making the accused in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clind 2 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 In many respects, at least in my own opinion, Wikipedia may be best seen as a starting point for information with hopefully some references you can look into, then you can move forward and look for more information, overall weeding out the problematic edits and the actual factual information. Don't throw out a whole organization due to some problems by some people with too much free time or improper knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.