Talk:Snopes.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Snopes)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
News This Snopes.com has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Requested move (2011)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Snopes.comSnopes – Attempting to reverse move from 2009. It isn't usually referred to as Snopes dot com. See common name. Marcus Qwertyus 13:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It's Snopes.com in their logo, and the site's welcome reads "Welcome to snopes.com..." It's hard to tell which is more popular in news and book sources via search engines, as searches for "snopes" also return hits for "snopes.com", and many sources use both. I don't see that "snopes" is more common to the point that we should use it in preference to what the site calls itself. Unfortunately the MOS isn't much help either.Cúchullain t/c 15:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is an unusually difficult topic to research for commonality. This search vs. this search gives at lest a place to start, indicating that it is rarely just referred to as snopes in writing. But that search is not a very string indicator. This is one of the rare instances where I think anecdote will have to also play a big part in my opinion. Unlike many other websites, I have almost never heard this referred to without the .com and I've heard it many times with. On that basis, and not a great one (but the same logic basis as the nomination), coupled with my search, oppose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless convinced otherwise. I'd normally be inclined to go with the nominator on this as I generally feel that an established website's name has enough familiarity to dispense with the domain (i.e. Wikipedia) when writing about it. However, giving it a quick google news search as "snopes" turns up 6/11 uses of snopes.com vs. 5/11 for snopes alone on the first page. Google books and scholar are of no help, even correcting for Faulkner, as most hits are for the characters. So based on general ghits and google news hits, it appears that snopes.com has a slight edge. I myself use just snopes, but I couldn't find an applicable guideline that suggests my own preference should be given priority. Maybe I'll write one up. freshacconci talktalk 01:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Accuracy[edit]

[personal comments removed] I am not generally discussing snopes.com, I'm addressing concerns that *should* be addressed in some manner in the article about snopes.com. It is well within the realm of Wikipedia, along with the responsibility of the editors of Wikipedia to present unbiased and complete information. There is question to the veracity of Snopes. A quick google search can establish that. If nothing else, the opinion that snopes is not entirely dependable deserves mention if for no other reason, it occurs at the same if not greater rate than people who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy beyond that of the terrorists (oh, look, there's a 9/11 conspiracy article in wikipedia). Beyond that, there is no legitimate criticism of the site, of which, there is plenty (such as: no real investigative training, snopes is just a projection of the two owner's opinions and judgements, some of the topics covered are highly technical in nature and neither has any documented technical expertise, etc.).

The biggest point though is that the site is a subjective interpretation of data by the two, and they don't always get access to all of the necessary data and still blindly charge forward with a determination. Check this out: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2007/05/annie_jacobsen_vindicated.html (don't pay attention to the website itself (I wouldn't dare try to pass that off as a source) so much as look at both the snopes article he links, then look at the Washington Times article along with the Air Marshal report that the Times links)

This is nothing against them as people (and before someone tries to say I've a political motivation: I'm a libertarian who enjoys watching the Left and Right slug it out, so snopes feeds that in some ways as well), but we have to acknowledge that it's just two people who can be wrong. Good god, even one of the urban legends mentioned in the article is not as black and white as is made out to be by snopes (Ring Around the Rosie) -- even wikipedia's own article devoted to the song has enough sense to couch the veracity of the Plague link with "many folklorists" because whether it is true or not is still a subject for debate. It's unlikely, yes; however, that does not merit a strong determination, yet snopes has no problem with painting with a broad brush and saying it's plainly false. See, no where is there the integrity to point out that all of their determinations are simply as best they understand what's happening.

As for there not being a running ton of articles and sources about just how accurate snopes actually is, there are a few reasons. Firstly, who really has the time to investigate a lot of stuff that has absolutely no real importance (which is the primary fodder of the snopes website)? Part of what makes an urban legend an urban legend is how it is difficult to verify, happening in some distant place to persons only hazily identified. Secondly, why bother debunking any claims made by them? Again, most of the stuff on that site has little bearing on anyone's life. It's just not important enough to merit effort. Also, as is pointed out by the article, news sources have cited it as being true: why would they go through the embarrassment of proving wrong a source that they've used. You'll also notice that many of the times that snopes was sourced it was on fairly unimportant pieces for relatively unimportant details (such as the fee for the AmEx Centurion Card: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/07/27/some-credit-cards-put-foreign-transaction-fees-on-vacation/ where it was just easier to google something up than bother trying to get in touch with someone at AmEx). For something important, no self-respecting journalist would rely solely on a site like snopes (or really, any site), opting instead to get in touch with principles.

Even their own FAQ brings this to light: "Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate? A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic..."; however this article weasels itself away from that (yes, I know that the line in the article that says "emphasizes reference" is a nod in that direction, but it's written in a way that indicates that snopes itself is the reference and is not talking about how they refer you to other sources. I don't see how anyone can see this as acceptable. And again, I have nothing against the people who run snopes or the fans of it. From what I can tell they get things right far more than not, but that doesn't remove the fact that it's just two people and not a giant team of researchers. Also, note that I fully believe that they do not intentionally mislead people; however, just like in choosing to listen to my doctor about a heart condition instead of my well meaning friend, we have to admit that there is room for and a correct level of skepticism.

Another example of Snopes being subjective opinion and judgement: http://www.care2.com/causes/slacktivism-why-snopes-got-it-wrong-about-internet-petitions.html Legit Critcism (albeit from a biased source, but actually read the article and see what objections were brought up and why. While Insight might be a biased publication, the exclusion of information supplied by a Terrorism expert casts doubt on some of the Mikkelson's judgement, especially with the quotes from Barbara) (which is blocked for some reason, but actually read he article before you snap judge): http://www.freerepublic[]com/focus/f-news/968235/posts Here is some more criticism for the interpretation of a potential law: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=42497 This one, http://www.urbanmyths.com/index.php?/Classics/snopescom-wrong-again-woman-gets-drugged-at-the-gas-station.html , is pretty interesting because the snopes page (which is linked in the article) essentially accuses the victim of lying and the Houston television station of more or less the same (which is also linked) in order to maintain the "false" status of the urban legend even though this could easily have became an "undetermined". Also, claiming that they know what Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds was actually about? Come on. The Beatles were stoned out of their minds when they wrote that, I sincerely doubt any of them were/are able to remember...

  • shrugs* Maybe y'all will listen, maybe not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.27 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I do agree that two people are not always going to be 100% accurate. But what do you feel we should specifically change in the article to address this concern? Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

|}

Sorry I didn't get back sooner, honestly, if I could nail it down directly I'd do the edit myself; however, I don't have enough confidence in my abilities to attempt such (part of the reason I've never registered an account here). I would definitely clear up the line about how snopes emphasizes reference to be more in tune with what the FAQ actually states. Additionally, I'd include a section concerning the controversy surrounding some of their more political articles even if it has to be fairly strongly qualified.

Additionally, the point should be made that there are times where the opinions stated on snopes are at odds with experts in the field, along with mention of how neither one is a technical expert in many of the fields about which they speak. To those that think this is an attack on them, it's not. Because of this, I believe it needs to be mentioned that the "true", "false", or "undetermined" is their subjective evaluation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.27 (talkcontribs)

I think editors here would be open to discussing these matters in the article provided that they were sourced to appropriate secondary sources as per Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, etc. Also, please don't use this page to attack other editors because you disagree with them. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal interpretations of the subject have no place in the article. Wikipedia articles are written according to reliable sources, and no where in those long posts are any mentions. Who are the "experts in the field" whose opinions are "at odds" with those on snopes.com? Where is the "controversy" surrounding their political articles? We don't have to say that blogs, forum postings, and the like don't belong in encyclopedia articles.--Cúchullain t/c 12:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@Gamaliel, hiding an entire comment that does address issues with an article, claiming it was "general discussion about snopes" *is* a whitewash attempt. If y'all disagree with me, that's fine, but to attempt to sweep it under the rug? I'm sorry, I'm not going to sit quietly and let that happen (which if you'll check the edit history, you'll see what I'm talking about). As to the sourcing, what do you call those links? Good lord, one contains a link to an NBC affiliate -- are they not a reliable secondary source, can not just looking at the story on NBC and the snopes website be enough confirmation? I linked that article not to suggest it as a source but because it contained the two links that showed a flat out contradiction between snopes and a federal agency (and no, looking at two links is not the same as original research). Outside of that, the authors of the Insight Article actually interviewed Barbara, I looked but could find absolutely no evidence that they were sued for a retraction under grounds of defamation. Also I pointed to snope's very own FAQ. Incidentally, the tone of both your reply and that of chuchullain's is that of a personal attack, in that neither of you directly the information directly pertaining to this article, giving every indication that nothing more than a cursory glance was leveled...replies such as that make it very, very difficult to assume good faith.

One of my least favorite things about Wikipedia is people who show up with a crystal ball and insist they can divine the motives of others. It's perfectly normal practice here to collapse or delete long off topic comments and that's hardly evidence of any sort of nefarious motives. It's foolish to double down on your rash remark, and if you continue down this road you'll find that your negative viewpoint regarding Wikipedia is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy. You speak of good faith but fail to acknowledge that multiple editors are making an effort to identify your concerns and potential solutions, which is ample evidence of our good faith despite the chip on your shoulder. That said, in regards to your links, I pointed out the WP:RS policy specifically because at first glance the links you provided seem a bit sketchy and may not meet this criteria. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be a good place to inquire. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@Chuchullain: it is a verifiable fact that the two people who write snopes are not doctors, lawyers, chemists, etc. They still write on topics that are outside of their expertise, which makes everything they put up a subjective evaluation. Again, look at the links. Even if you don't want to give the Insight article any credence, I think you have to give some credence to the host of non-profit sites that echo the sentiment that online petitions are not "slacktivism" by mirroring the article written by the creator of petition.org (if I remember correctly, it's in the above) who describes what niche they fill (which seemed good enough to use as a source in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_petition) -- not to mention if you poke around in google for long enough you can find it hosted at a .edu I'm pretty sure that the United States Federal Air Marshals are experts in terrorism. I'm also pretty sure that the Mikkelsons are not. Snopes says that an event was not a walk-through of a terrorist group. The Air Marshals say it was. The mention is in the links, which you are showing beyond a doubt that you've not bothered even looking at (which provide a link to a reliably published news story that itself provides a link to the Air Marshal's report). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.25 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Drop the combatative attitude, it does nothing for your case. I did vet all the links you provided, and they were all inadequate to support changes to the article. If you must have specifics, whatswrongwiththeworld.net is a blog and freerepublic.com is a forum; neither can be used as a source and neither warranted further inspection. Care2.com is a social network for activists. The comment could only be used (if at all)to show that that individual had disagreed with snopes on that particular issue, and that's not particularly important for this article. And urbanmyths.com is just some other urban legends website, if it could be used for anything it would only be for the fact that they disagree with snopes on this one issue (and I tend to doubt it's important enough for that).
As to the news sources you gave, the general consensus is that sewnd.com is not a reliable source.[1] And obviously the Fox Business link didn't actually criticize Snopes and can't be used as evidence that criticism exists. I don't see any evidence that this "controversy" is important to anyone other than these critics.--Cúchullain t/c 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

food buying from China ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.173.6.50 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Spiders[edit]

I've removed this from the article:

Snopes has come under criticism for containing untraceable information. In an article entitled 'Spiders inside her' [2], snopes claim that in 1993 a columnist called Lisa Holst wrote about the myth of swallowing spiders in a magazine called PC professional. Websites such as "eight spiders" [3] have researched this topic and found that there is no record of the magazine existing and no information about Lisa Holst.

I believe this information is probably true and Snopes screwed up in some way. But this can't go into the article because we can't document every blog and webforum criticism, so unless this gets picked up by a mainstream source who factchecks it in a reasonable way (besides "I can't find it on the google!") it has to stay out. Gamaliel (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think if you're going to call Snopes' credibility into question, you need to provide more reliable sources (see WP:RS for more information on what is considered reliable or not) than a blog called "eight spiders" run by some guy using the first name of "Nick". The site is nothing more than a personal online diary and there is no real information on that site regarding who Nick is, where he's getting his information, or who has editorial oversight over what he posts online. WTF? (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Setting aside the question about Lisa Holst and the 1993 magazine article, other references in 'Spiders inside her' are questionable: the author's name is wrong for the 1997 newspaper column, and the 1954 book does not contain any stories about swallowing spiders. These two things are easier to verify than proving the non-existence of a person or magazine. I don't think Snopes screwed up, but rather created a meta-article about how people will believe anything they read on the internet. CAMusicFan (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

About.com[edit]

I removed the external about.com link per WP:ELNO as the site isn't particularly relevant to this subject and it looks like it's just promotional. And no, it should not go in the "see also" section either. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 14:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Folklore Society and crediting as owners[edit]

I'm really confused by this sentence from the article: "The Mikkelsons founded the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society and were credited as the owners of the site until 2005.[6]" That sounds like it's saying that the Mikkelsons were credited as owners of Snopes until 2005, but not afterward? The page that's linked to by the reference (http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=55;t=000490;p=0) doesn't seem to support that assertion. Maybe the sentence is just trying to say that the words "San Fernando Valley Folklore Society" used to appear on the Snopes front page (which the reference does seem to support), but if so it's badly phrased, and I don't think we have any information about when that phrase stopped appearing on the front page. So, anyone know what that sentence is intended to mean? I'm inclined to remove it, but I may just be misunderstanding it. --Elysdir (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I invite our IP to discuss why (s)he thinks edit warring here is appropriate. Removing sourced content is not acceptable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good call. The IP's only edits are negative one directed against Snopes. No valid reasons have been given. --Dmol (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The edits are definitely not WP:NPOV and are backed by unreliable sources or just the IPs own WP:OR. STATic message me! 04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)