Can we trust Snopes?

[VanillaSunflowers]

Linky link?

Yes, the link is in the Snopes title itself in my post. I thought the link color would stand out more if bolded.

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,

I excerpted what was posted in the OP to start the conversation that continued at Snopes site itself. It would be against all sorts of rules to post the whole thing.

 

[super animator]

Can you people type out the acronym for WND for people who are not familiar with this?

 

[Shemjaza]

Can you people type out the acronym for WND for people who are not familiar with this?

World Net Daily is a conservative American newspaper with a somewhat unreliable reputation.

 

[super animator]

World Net Daily is a conservative American newspaper with a somewhat unreliable reputation.

Ty. I think it's common courtesy to type out acronym first before using it for the lurkers to understand it.

 

[The Cadet]

World Net Daily is a conservative American newspaper with a somewhat unreliable reputation.

"Somewhat".

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ten-most-absurd-stories-santorum-worldnetdaily

WND is completely insane. It belongs in the same category as Conservapedia; a website whose reputation is so bad that if you cite it, you are in violation of Scopie's Law and have lost the argument.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Here I always thought WND stood for Wacky Nuts Daily.

 

[Rick Otto]

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

Thank you. Well put.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.​

Well... you checked my inner skeptic at "chickens".
I have six legal chickens and seven undocumented.
But if we don't start getting eggs again soon, soup and stir fry might the future for somebody, says the wife.

On the other hand, I'm more of a dog person, so the cats just affirm my suspicions.
lol

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

Right. Yeah, that's the way it works.
Thanks for that about instructions... do remember where you heard that?

 

[Rick Otto]

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

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

-CryptoLutheran

Behave.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Right. Yeah, that's the way it works.
Thanks for that about instructions... do remember where you heard that?

What?

 

[Rick Otto]

Given that is exactly what the OP does, I'll take that as endorsement of my position. Thanks.

And maybe I should point out the irony in you attacking me for not addressing the content of the OP (even though I linked to where Snopes actually did), while completely not addressing the content of my post. Congrats on that.

Given that I also don't speak for Snopes, that would be why I linked to their statement which does address the "content" of the topic. Have a good day.

Thank you, I did and continue to have more, Cute Tink.

 

[Rick Otto]

He literally just did what he said I did, even though I did actually address the OP, but hey whatever...

Yep, whatever.

 

[Rick Otto]

As noted, you quoted it and said "I know, right?" and that it was "spot on". I'd find it rather hard to believe that you were unaware of what he said. I've already posted my response to that and you quoted that as well.

Mapping your brilliance. Love it.
Me some too!

 

[Rick Otto]

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).

Everything seems to be arguable.

 

[Cute Tink]

Thank you, I did and continue to have more, Cute Tink.

Thrilling debunk of everything I said. New York Times Bestseller list in your future.

 

[Rick Otto]

Thrilling debunk of everything I said. New York Times Bestseller list in your future.

Ratings are everything.

 

[cow451]

'Tis good to get to the bottom of if something is reliable, tho', isn't it?

My experience with Snopes is that they are not accurate and therefore not trustworthy.

Investigating them is a GOOD thing.

Yes?

Believing chain emails is a dumb idea and simply lazy. If you go to Snopes or any similar website, they cite sources that you can check. I had a friend that used to send me junk that he thought sounded good to him. But he was too lazy to check the evidence. After a few times of being presented with some additional information, he took me off his "forward" list.

If you have any experience with writing, many of these cons are easily spotted by writing style. One clue is the "pass it on" exhortation. These emails are basically like click bait.

 

[keith99]

Believing chain emails is a dumb idea and simply lazy. If you go to Snopes or any similar website, they cite sources that you can check. I had a friend that used to send me junk that he thought sounded good to him. But he was too lazy to check the evidence. After a few times of being presented with some additional information, he took me off his "forward" list.

If you have any experience with writing, many of these cons are easily spotted by writing style. One clue is the "pass it on" exhortation. These emails are basically like click bait.

Another is that they are almost always date free. E.g. they say last Thursday instead of March 1st,2016. They also tend to be short on names and other specifics that would make a search easy.

The lack of date is a biggie, the writer wants them to get passed on and it takes time to build. If it seems current news people pass it on, if it looks like last year's news it gets tossed. Many email chains are decades old. (The Mrs. Fields cookie recipe story predates both Mrs. Fields and the internet! Of course the names have changed over the decades).

 

[Rick Otto]

Care to give an example?

Their article on the government buying guillotines denies it saying no evidence is ever given.
Even a gullible kook like me could find this:

"
1- 8 The General Assembly finds that while prisoners condemned to
1- 9 death may wish to donate one or more of their organs for
1-10 transplant, any such desire is thwarted by the fact that
1-11 electrocution makes all such organs unsuitable for
1-12 transplant. The intent of the General Assembly in enacting
1-13 this legislation is to provide for a method of execution
1-14 which is compatible with the donation of organs by a
1-15 condemned prisoner.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/Archives/19951996/leg/fulltext/hb1274.htm