Talk:Snopes

Spiders

I've removed this from the article:

Snopes has come under criticism for containing untraceable information. In an article entitled 'Spiders inside her' [1], 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" [2] 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)

I know this is a stale discussion, but this text was removed from the article again today. I thought I would leave a crumb trail here for anyone researching this further. One reason for the confusion on this is the magazine is actually PC Professionell, a German affiliate of PC Magazine published out of Munich. It is ISSN 0939-5822. It only published under that name from 1991 to 2007, but that ISSN also links to some other titles like "PC Direkt" and "PC Pro". There does not appear to be an archive for it on the web. Any research to dig up this article would have to take place in a German library. As the Snopes article indicates, this same fact (and misspelled source) has been reiterated in several books, but its not clear who is copying whom. --Krelnik (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Malware

If a corporation or other business trips, that deserves documenting. If Snopes or the owners have something to say about putting malware on the site, that also deserves documenting. The section on Malware should stay.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This happened back in 2008 and Zango was reportedly removed by Snopes in response to the criticism. This has WP:WEIGHT problems as it has been given a section to itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is at best a tempest in a teacup. I don't think it deserves mention at all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And, nothing was being 'pushed' there were popup ads (which SNopes has, which I detest) advertising Zango. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems like this was a brief moment in time. I don't see what is so encyclopedic about it that it deserves mentioning. It certainly doesn't deserve an entire section unto itself. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The material (diff) is WP:UNDUE and documenting "trips" is not the purpose of Wikipedia. What independent reliable sources have written an analysis on the matter (not just "something happened and later it didn't happen")? Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I originally wrote this section, with 2 reliable citations. I think it's absolutely important to have something as serious as malware on the site be covered in the wikipedia page. It is certainly conceivable that people will still have the malware from snopes on their computers or laptops. If it is undue to have its own section then fair enough but why on earth would you not include something as substantial as this on the page? Key facts, with reliable citations, should be on the page. Why the need to whitewash, it's just weird.Wikiditm (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If it were news of long term significance I would say go for it. However, a zillion websites have had junk on them, with reasons ranging from stupidity to malware served by ads. Consider Lenovo#Security where people purchased laptops which had built-in malware—that is worth a section because it really is significant, as confirmed by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection at all. Lenovo gave its users malware, and we have reliable sources for that, so we covered it. Snopes gave its users malware, and we have reliable sources for this, so we.... suddenly don't cover it. It's significant, important, useful, well sources information. The article isn't encyclopaedic if we randomly leave out bits of information.Wikiditm (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Snopes did not give any users malware, go read those sources again. They had popups that advertised software that was considered malware. That is a rather large difference. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

They were making money off hosting pop-ups leading to malware sites. The difference is small and pedantic, and not in any wikipedia guidelines. The fact is that this is reliably sourced, important information, not least because some readers may still have the malware that snopes was pushing.Wikiditm (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Users may or may not have that malware, and the point is moot, since that is original research. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to put the key point in bold: a zillion websites have had junk on them [so it is not a notable feature of a website]. Malware on a website would be notable if it was repeatedly put there by purposeful actions of the site's owner. In the Lenovo case, the issue is hardware and is a completely new (and repeated) form of customer abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

And, tv channels, radio stations, tv shows, radio shows etc have had ads for all kinds of crap. We don't list those either. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Web sites often have packages of advertising with no control over what is in them. The indications are that Snopes removed Zango after it was pointed out to them, and did not add it deliberately themselves. The wording about Snopes "pushing" Zango like drug dealers was non-NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "pushing" was used in the citation sources.Wikiditm (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for what seems to be click bait dramatic effect. Nothing was pushed on anyone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources say pushed. To say otherwise with no sources is original research.Wikiditm (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

And Techspot says "peddling" and "divvying up ads", but we wouldn't use those terms unquoted in Wikipedia's voice. It would be clearer to explain what "pushed" actually means in this sense: to a casual reader it suggests that the website was somehow forcing Zango software onto readers' computers against their will, but it seems the case that they were just displaying ads for Zango? --McGeddon (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 site and logo redesign

The site has launched a new design in the last 24 hours, including a new logo with a sans-serif typeface. The article will need to reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Barbara Mikkelson

All I'm trying to do is remove a falsehood from the article. But Dr.K keeps reverting my edits because he says Barbara's history with the page should still be mentioned in the article. OK, Dr. K. Go ahead and do that then. Write it up. Your efforts would be better spent there instead of reverting my attempts to simply remove an untrue statement from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetIsSeriousBiz4RealUGuyz (talk • contribs)

We have other refs that say she is one of the people that runs it. Please don't edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. InternetIsSeriousBiz4RealUGuyz should stop edit-warring and removing sourced information otherwise this will end up at the edit-warring noticeboard. His/her source does not mention what he is insisting on adding to the article while comments by people at the end of the article are not reliable sources. In fact even in the comments area there is this exchange: "Cheryl asked him about that, and apparently Barbara is no longer involved with the site. Make of that what you will." But then "Cheryl" replies: "To clarify, he says it's more accurate to say that Barbara no longer does press interviews." which is not the same as "Barbara is not involved with the site". What we have here is original research and edit-warring, which have to stop. Oh, and I forgot to mention the personal attacks. They have to stop too per WP:NPA. Dr. K. 22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There is an WP:OR problem here, but there appears to be some truth in what InternetIsSeriousBiz4RealUGuyz is saying. The Snopes website had a major revamp in October 2015, and now appears to be written by a range of contributors and Barbara Mikkelson is not among them, although David Mikkelson is still contributing. The Gizmodo article is from 2014 and gives David Mikkelson as the creator of the site, although it is generally agreed that the site was created by Barbara and David Mikkelson. There are comments at the bottom of the Gizmodo article saying that Barbara Mikkelson is no longer involved with the site, but these do not constitute a reliable source. I suspect that there is a reason for Barbara's apparent absence from the site nowadays, but without reliable sourcing it is hard for the Wikipedia article to mention it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• About snopes.com is interesting because it names David Mikkelson as the founder of the site and mentions Barbara only once in passing. It's all a bit weird as she is pretty much absent from the site in its current form. Barbara's name is also notable by its complete absence in this December 2015 news article in The Washington Post. All of the sources naming Barbara and David as a husband and wife team are now several years old. It is unclear if they are still married; if they are not, it would explain a good deal about the current situation. In this version of the article, the citation given does not support the claim in the WP:LEAD that Barbara Mikkelson is involved in running the site due to the October 2015 redesign of the site. Many of the citations in this article no longer work and need a cleanup.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I flagged the page for cleanup.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Snopes a "reliable source" for Wikipedia content?

Does anyone know? Keizers (talk)

The best forum for that discussion would be at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The archives for that page [3] shows the site has been discussed a couple times in the past. It appears prior consensus was that the site can be treated as a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Snopes.com seems to suggest that, if Snipes mentions its source, use that. My personal preference would be to steer clear of citing Snopes on politically sensitive stuff.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

nxtdoor.com

Is nextdoor.com a legit thing. You go on line to www.nextdoor.com/join and enter a 6 letter code. Sounds a little strange to me.