Outside of the parent's bad attitude, he does have a good point. No timestamp on the article makes it hard for me to place the story in context.
It is one of my pet peeves when I come across some morsel of information online but I can't evaluate if it is still applicable because there is no timestamp anywhere.
That's a pet peeve of mine, also. There's usually a date, but often not near the top and/or not in a standard format. Then there are these sites that use relative times, e.g., 0 minutes ago, or 865 days ago ...
In the current case, there is a timestamp of sorts at the bottom of the page: "Updated December 27, 2012 Copyright 2012 Cockeyed.com".