Did snopes debunk itself?

[buddhist]

Except Snopes hasn't been debunked, and they few things online that try to debunk them are not themselves accurate ... non-political Snopes is a remarkably non-biased and highly credible source...

I understand your claim, but I don't know this for myself.

 

[buddhist]

So you're saying that all articles in Snopes are all wrong?

No, I'm saying that I have no reason to trust snopes as a whole.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I understand your claim, but I don't know this for myself.

You can go research, I have. That's how I know those few that make a big deal over having discredited Snopes and proven this Liberal bias cover the same few things and misrepresent Snopes. It's also how I know that if that is all they can find, out of the thousands if not millions of fact checks, that is very impressive.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, I'm saying that I have no reason to trust snopes as a whole.

Which is a healthy attitude to all blogs, websites, news media, and so on.

Even reading scientific articles, you should read with a small amount of skepticism. Many times, things aren't reported accurately or just misunderstood even by the reporters. I always take Wikipedia, Snopes, even dictionaries, with some level of critical thinking. Someone, a person, wrote what I read, hence there's some bias.

What I'm saying, this news shouldn't have changed your way of reading Snopes. You should have had a healthy skeptical attitude to their writings as well as any other from the beginning, and not start just now because of this.

I go to Wikipedia and Snopes to get the first glimpse of information, and from there, and through searching/researching I keep on digging for information from other sites. Only when I get a couple can I feel more convinced.

 

[Ouroboros]

One more thing. The article you're linking is from Daily Mail, who has been in several legal disputes: Daily Mail - Wikipedia

So if they're been involved in libel, can we trust this article that you've provided or is there a double standard that we can trust Daily Mail, but not Snopes?

What if we could find unethical things from the owners of Daily Mail as well? What if we do some research and if find any indiscretion, then we should consider this article debunked as well?

 

[buddhist]

One more thing. The article you're linking is from Daily Mail, who has been in several legal disputes: Daily Mail - Wikipedia

So if they're been involved in libel, can we trust this article that you've provided or is there a double standard that we can trust Daily Mail, but not Snopes?

What if we could find unethical things from the owners of Daily Mail as well? What if we do some research and if find any indiscretion, then we should consider this article debunked as well?

Debunking the organization (e.g. Daily Mail, Snopes, etc.) is a separate issue from their content (like this article). But yes, I don't come from a position of automatic trust for the Daily Mail, or for Snopes either ... which is why I put a question mark in the title of this thread.

 

[Augustus]

Debunking the organization (e.g. Daily Mail, Snopes, etc.) is a separate issue from their content (like this article).

What do you mean debunk an organisation?

 

[buddhist]

What do you mean debunk an organisation?

It possesses less credibility.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Debunking the organization (e.g. Daily Mail, Snopes, etc.) is a separate issue from their content (like this article). But yes, I don't come from a position of automatic trust for the Daily Mail, or for Snopes either ... which is why I put a question mark in the title of this thread.

And I don't get that about Snopes. Out of their 41 categories in their archives, only a few a politically related. Literally it is mostly and overwhelmingly non-political, and fact checking urban myths, odd news stories, and various strange things people hear. As for their politics, it seems to me they are less biased than your average Liberal considering they are labeling the claims of the 3 million votes Hillary won with being illegal votes as unproven. I doubt they are 100% accurate, but their system of citing sources makes it easy to follow their research, and dig deeper if you want.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Snopes is awesome. The only problem with it is that its so darn slow. They don't add content fast enough.

 

[Ouroboros]

Debunking the organization (e.g. Daily Mail, Snopes, etc.) is a separate issue from their content (like this article). But yes, I don't come from a position of automatic trust for the Daily Mail, or for Snopes either ... which is why I put a question mark in the title of this thread.

But do you know if the article is true and not just a fake to put Snopes in bad light?

 

[buddhist]

But do you know if the article is true and not just a fake to put Snopes in bad light?

Nope, I don't. That's why I simply quoted it in my OP without comment for consideration by the RF community. It may be true, it may be not.

 

[james bond]

You're missing the point that what you posted has literally nothing to do with any liberal bias whatsoever.

An attention seeking **** pulled off a prank on a plane and a fact checking website rapidly debunked it as a publicity stunt carried out by an attention seeking ****.

You claimed that even them covering the story in the first place = liberal bias and getting 'faked out', and that the story appearing in their timeline of recent stories magnified this flagrant bias??



They are going to employ multiple fact checking organisations, including Snopes I believe. If a story is reported as fake news, then they will get multiple organisations to independently check it.

Anyway, you have no problem with bias, as long as the bias is right wing. So if Facebook won't publish right wing fake news because of 'liberal bias' you can always get your fake news elsewhere.

>>Anyway, you have no problem with bias, as long as the bias is right wing.<<

Is the converse true or do you enjoy being a ginormous hypocrite? First, the right wing and my politics do not jibe. I'm more slightly to the right of center. My point was snopes = liberal and thus biased. From the responses I've been getting, this seems to be what most people, including liberals, believe.

David Mikkelson
"David Mikkelson founded snopes.com in 1994, and under his guidance the company has pioneered a number of revolutionary technologies, including the iPhone, the light bulb, beer pong, and a vaccine for a disease that has not yet been discovered. He is currently seeking political asylum in the Duchy of Grand Fenwick."

Why doesn't this guy just admit in his signature that he spends a lot of money on drugs and prostitutes instead of lying?

I think the cons believe there are much more liberals who believe fake news and lying websites than vice versa. Look at the fact checking websites in the USN article below. Most cons have come to the conclusion who's checking the fact checkers?

What conservative fact checking sites are out there?

Here's a USN opinion article on who's checking the fact checkers?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

 

[james bond]

The entire reason Snopes exists is to evaluate whether a news story is real or not.

You didn't answer about World Net Daily http://www.wnd.com/ . Maybe it can be a judge of fake news.

EDIT: It took no time at all to see what is fake news? This would not appear in snopes I believe.

Fake Obama Birth Certificate Was An Inside Job
‘Fake’ Obama birth certificate was ‘inside job’

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You didn't answer about World Net Daily http://www.wnd.com/ . Maybe it can be a judge of fake news.

EDIT: It took no time at all to see what is fake news? This would not appear in snopes I believe.

Fake Obama Birth Certificate Was An Inside Job
‘Fake’ Obama birth certificate was ‘inside job’

Of course it won't! SNOPES IS NOT A NEWS SOURCE!

 

[james bond]

It's not a news source either.

Maybe you're not a Facebook user? FB has posts which has news articles in it listed as posts. Same with Twitter, but I think it's all under twitter news.

 

[james bond]

Of course it won't! SNOPES IS NOT A NEWS SOURCE!

You don't have to repeat and SHOUT. I get it, but look at this News Archives | Snopes.com . It's liberal bias. Thus, why not World Net Daily?

 

[Augustus]

Is the converse true or do you enjoy being a ginormous hypocrite? First, the right wing and my politics do not jibe. I'm more slightly to the right of center. My point was snopes = liberal and thus biased. From the responses I've been getting, this seems to be what most people, including liberals, believe.

I'll remind you that this is what I was replying to:

We just had another liberal create fake news for his own negative pub and of course snopes sucked it up.

FACT CHECK: Delta Ejects Passenger for Speaking Arabic

I'm still at a complete loss as to how this could be seen as evidence of 'liberal bias' or 'sucking it up'. If this is the standard of 'evidence' you rae using then why should anyone trust your judgement?

As I said previously:

No single source should be the judge, but it is fairly reliable as a judge. Of course, you still have to apply your critical reasoning as you would with any source though.
There may be legitimate criticisms of the website, but this certainly isn't one of them.

When you make a sweeping generalisation such as 'snopes = liberal and thus biased' it is simply a way of dismissing anything you find politically unappealing without having to evaluate it on its merits.

While pure objectivity is impossible and all intellectual endeavours contain some form of bias, I've yet to see any evidence presented that Snopes contains a systematic liberal bias that makes it worthless as it is too unreliable.

I certainly don't advocate treating its word as error free, gospel truth. There may even be be bias, I just haven't seen any substantial evidence presented to justify the idea that it contains a significant and systematic liberal bias.

Here's a USN opinion article on who's checking the fact checkers?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

That article is referring to a site that evaluates the accuracy of political statements rather than one which aims to identify fake news like Snopes. The vast majority of stories on Snopes are not political ones, and the ones they do cover are not quite as subjective as evaluating the nuances of political discussions.

Anyway, it's not Snopes so doesn't really matter in this discussion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That article is referring to a site that evaluates the accuracy of political statements rather than one which aims to identify fake news like Snopes. The vast majority of stories on Snopes are not political ones, and the ones they do cover are not quite as subjective as evaluating the nuances of political discussions.

The political stuff they do cover, I've found it to be pretty unbiased, especially with their "liberal" use of identifying half-truths, mixtures, and other things when the fine tuned speeches of politicians are neither entirely honest or downright lie.

 

[james bond]

I'll remind you that this is what I was replying to:



I'm still at a complete loss as to how this could be seen as evidence of 'liberal bias' or 'sucking it up'. If this is the standard of 'evidence' you rae using then why should anyone trust your judgement?

As I said previously:

No single source should be the judge, but it is fairly reliable as a judge. Of course, you still have to apply your critical reasoning as you would with any source though.
There may be legitimate criticisms of the website, but this certainly isn't one of them.

When you make a sweeping generalisation such as 'snopes = liberal and thus biased' it is simply a way of dismissing anything you find politically unappealing without having to evaluate it on its merits.

While pure objectivity is impossible and all intellectual endeavours contain some form of bias, I've yet to see any evidence presented that Snopes contains a systematic liberal bias that makes it worthless as it is too unreliable.

I certainly don't advocate treating its word as error free, gospel truth. There may even be be bias, I just haven't seen any substantial evidence presented to justify the idea that it contains a significant and systematic liberal bias.



That article is referring to a site that evaluates the accuracy of political statements rather than one which aims to identify fake news like Snopes. The vast majority of stories on Snopes are not political ones, and the ones they do cover are not quite as subjective as evaluating the nuances of political discussions.

Anyway, it's not Snopes so doesn't really matter in this discussion.

Too much to get into, but why not have wnd.com as judge of fake news? snopes.com has a questionable founder and co-founder.