Can we trust Snopes?

[keith99]

Yes, let's check out the first example....I think this is the trail going backwards....
Did it have anything to do with Obama?

The first link below gives a case #09-5103 referring to the Appeals Court
http://www.supremeco...les/09-8857.htm

This link is to that case 09-5103. Notice it says that Brown had originally filed on January 4, 2008 and that it was a civil action suit.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...B4E85257FCD00409B1B/$file/09-5103-1212928.pdf

Here is the case filed on January 4, 2008, who was originally filed against?
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv00013/129093

This is exactly what Snopes says, right? That there are cases but they are nothing like what is claimed in the OP.

Come on folks, in the U.S. it is no surprise that cases are files against the President and that those cases get defended by the U.S. Attorney's office. DOH!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I find snopes to be somewhat mostly accurate, but in some cases they tend to misconstrue things or "guess". A good example of that is whether or not Clinton was a bona fide draft dodger. Another example is them "debunking" daily caller over the stupid flags at the DNC. Snopes was dumb enough to claim there were flags there from day one, but then used pictures from DAY 2 to prove it. Yep, flags were there on day one, during the pledge and I believe the anthem, but then they were carried away.

So, I use snopes much like I use Wiki. I look for the sources THEY used and go straight to them.

 

[keith99]

I find snopes to be somewhat mostly accurate, but in some cases they tend to misconstrue things or "guess". A good example of that is whether or not Clinton was a bona fide draft dodger. Another example is them "debunking" daily caller over the stupid flags at the DNC. Snopes was dumb enough to claim there were flags there from day one, but then used pictures from DAY 2 to prove it. Yep, flags were there on day one, during the pledge and I believe the anthem, but then they were carried away.

So, I use snopes much like I use Wiki. I look for the sources THEY used and go straight to them.

Snopes or for that matter just about any source is usually not the answer for a judgment call. They can give enough correct information to make the call, but one can still make the call differently than they do. And even more for details. It is quite reasonable for Snopes to call something true if only minor details are wrong or unknown. But if the particular detail is what is at issue even with total trust of a site like Snopes one needs to actually read the whole article, not just point the their final overall answer.

 

[Cearbhall]

I suspect it's because they show things to be false which Brinny wanted to be true....

I don't want to appear cynical, but I will be shocked if your question gets properly answered.

Here I am trying to be polite so that she answers and gets backed into a corner, and ya'll are cutting to the chase.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple

Wrong. This may result in an endless regress, but this somewhat recycled rumor has been floating around for years, and has been ruled FICTION by truthorfiction.com, which is often held up as a 'conservative' version of snopes.

Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded emails. We regard David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and operators of Snopes.com, as colleagues and professional researchers who have earned a good reputation for what they do.

Factcheck.org has also looked into it.

Mikkelson even faxed us a copy of his voter registration form. He asked us not to post an image of it here, but we can confirm that it shows he declined to state a party affiliation when he registered last year, and also that when he registered in 2000 he did so as a Republican.

 

[tulc]

I find snopes to be somewhat mostly accurate, but in some cases they tend to misconstrue things or "guess". A good example of that is whether or not Clinton was a bona fide draft dodger. Another example is them "debunking" daily caller over the stupid flags at the DNC. Snopes was dumb enough to claim there were flags there from day one, but then used pictures from DAY 2 to prove it. Yep, flags were there on day one, during the pledge and I believe the anthem, but then they were carried away.

So, I use snopes much like I use Wiki. I look for the sources THEY used and go straight to them.

so if they can't give an accurate answer (with support) they don't pretend to have an answer?
tulc(is trying to understand the point)

 

[hownow]

Thanks for your post essentialsaltes. Snopes is pretty reliable. Sometimes they get snarky, but generally if they are debunking something it's pretty accurate debunk. That's been my experience, anyway.

 

[brinny]

I meant that I doubt you or anyone else has access to credible information that would justify a lack of trust in snopes. I am not necessarily saying snopes is reliable, just that I would be very surprised if you (or anyone else) can provide evidence that they are not (reliable).

Aah, ok.

'nuff said.

Thank you for elaborating. It clarified much.

 

[brinny]

Okay then.

same.

 

[rambot]

So Snopes continues to be a pretty reliable source for PRIMARY sources.

Any source that has reliable primary sources should be held with pretty high regard; even if you end up disagreeing with the facts that the primary sources show.

I'm not overly surprised by this though (WND writes bunk, puts up an editorial correction... I wonder how much research went into their initial article?

Remco

 

[Nithavela]

Snopes propably is sometimes wrong, yes. Your point?

 

[The Cadet]

Please clarify:
What does she need to give you an example of?

An example where snopes was wrong. Your OP is not one; in fact, it's exactly the same crap argument WND posted.

 

[rambot]

Snopes propably is sometimes wrong, yes. Your point?

And even though snopes probably IS wrong sometimes, I have yet to see an example of it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can't trust Snopes. They often try to report the facts.

That's why I get all my information from Alex Jones.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

And even though snopes probably IS wrong sometimes, I have yet to see an example of it.

The truth is that relying on any one single source is probably not a good idea--regardless of how trustworthy it is. So Snopes alone shouldn't be taken as gospel; but when it is corroborated then yeah, it's worth regarding as trustworthy. We would all do well to never take things and just accept them--though we all, no matter how much we may try to be critical thinkers and willing to do some homework, can fall victim to confirmation bias. But hopefully the more we can recognize that in ourselves the better we can become at being willing to check and double check the facts to try and have our facts straight.

The problem, of course, is that nearly most times I hear Snopes decried it almost never is because of this reason, it's never because we should be willing to check sources--it is almost always because facts and fact-checking itself is to be regarded as suspect, and that one should instead rely on a very different source, one that does no fact checking or sourcing or which has a track record of just saying anything that feeds a particular narrative (I'm looking at you WND).

The allergic reaction to intellectual honesty, fact checking, and critical thinking is often regularly astounding to me.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

1. Site Information

About snopes.com
Because snopes.com is all about rumors, it was only a matter of time before rumors began to circulate about it and its operators, such as the following:
Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

 

[USincognito]

Unfortunately it's been a while since i've utilized Snopes.

Since you have declared them unreliable, I would think you could remember at least one example. I can think of plenty of things I've read, and debunked, on Christian Forums.

All you have done so far is shown us you don't like the content.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

1. Site Information

About snopes.com
Because snopes.com is all about rumors, it was only a matter of time before rumors began to circulate about it and its operators, such as the following:
Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

Linky link?

 

[BlueBrown]

1. Site Information

About snopes.com
Because snopes.com is all about rumors, it was only a matter of time before rumors began to circulate about it and its operators, such as the following:
Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

What a load of horse hockey.

 

[USincognito]

Linky link?

The link is to Snopes and they're talking about the sorts of rumors that are spread about the site. I'm not sure why Vanilla Sunflower posted the way she did, but here's the rest of that page explaining the facts contra the rumors.

The snopes.com web site is (and always has been) a completely independent, self-sufficient entity wholly owned by its operators and funded through advertising revenues. Neither the site nor its operators has ever received monies from (or been engaged in any business or editorial relationship with), any sponsor, investor, partner, political party, religious group, business organization, government agency, or any other outside group or organization. David Mikkelson's participation in U.S. politics has never extended beyond periodically exercising his civic duty at the ballot box. As FactCheck confirmed in April 2009, David is a registered independent who has never donated to, or worked on behalf of, any political campaign or party. David is wholly apolitical, vastly preferring his quiet scholarly life in the company of his cats and chickens to any political considerations.​