Talk:Snopes: Difference between revisions

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: "For Fact-Checking Website Snopes, a Bigger Role Brings More Attacks", The New York Times on 25 December 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing C‑class 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.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

The current article discusses Snopes as though it were a long-term “fact checker”, and one of the oldest such existing. This is factually wrong. Snopes’s focus only began moving in this direction with 9/11, and it only became dominant with, roughly, the Obama campaign. This, of course, roughly tracks the growth of wide scale politicized BS online, with readers questions shifting from folktales to those about suspicious “news” items. The article really doesn’t reflect this in several ways. Brunvand pointed out that a mom-and-pop website was good enough that he felt no need to make a one-man website of his own, but the site has evolved a good deal since then. The article emphasizes that the founders were rather apolitical, but only one of the founders is left, and I don’t think that Brooke Binkowski is a Rockefeller Republican like Dave...and I strongly suspect that is the reason she was let go, although as likely to avoid the appearance of partisanship than its existence on the site. The article doesn’t really reflect this, either.

Saying that Snopes is widely known isn’t puffery, but making positive statements about its current form based on what it looked like two decades ago might be. Qwirkle (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your own original research is not an acceptable source for article contents. The following sources all categorize snopes as one of the oldest fact-checking sites: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...but the NYT says otherwise, right in the article on the top of the page. No one is questioning that Snopes is the oldest surviving big urban legend site, but the Frogboys aren’t showing up because Snopes is pointing out that Red Bull contains no bovine spooge. The fact-checking that has caused controversy is political, and the NYT writes as though that only began with the Trump campaign. Not just the controversy, but the emphasis. Now if you think that I am using “fact checker” narrowly, yeah, I am. I am using it as opposed to “folklorist,” even though the two can obviously overlap. If you make a venn diagram of “folklorists” and “fact-checker,” Barb and Dave lived for years in just the one circle. They studied folklore. Stuff passed by word of mouth, or mimeograph, or xerox, and then by email, If it wasn’t a foaftale of some sort, it wasn’t in their sights.

Now, the stuff on the CNN site is purely folkloric. Yupp, snopes has been doing that back to ‘94, which is to say three years after the AFU archive. Not oldest there, even.

The Times-Union piece explicitly notes the shift from folklore to politics, notes that they were uncontroversially held to be pretty accurate before they started addressing controversial matters.

The Poynter piece is...unfortunate. It’s a muddled mess, and it doesn’t talk much about the site’s evolution, except as it concerns the lawsuit. Whatever Poynter’s standing as a whole may be, that article needs a boulder-sized grain of salt.

The Fox piece explicitly notes the Snopes site’s changes of focus, with the earliest version a UL “encyclopedia” much like TAFKAC, not a fact-checking site in any sense at all, but that evolved with readers sending new stories, or at least those new to them. Mikkelson explicitly notes that the emphasis on the political side only came with 9/11.

The Sun-Star Philippines? Now, that has the smell of a tendentious search, but it’s not a bad article.

So, if you want to argue that the idea that Snopes is the oldest is sourceable but untrue, knock yourself out. Qwirkle (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. None of the NYT sources used say that.
2. Your own WP:OR doesn't change what the source say, no matter how much you disagree with them. You are the only one insisting that "fact-checking" is an exclusively political phenomenon. To be fair, you're not explicitly repeating that, but your argument requires it to be true to be consistent, so... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when someone makes a distinction between two things that overlap in a conversation, then from there on past it helps to stick with that distinction. Mighta saved some grief above in the section above. I thought it was obvious in context, but, obviously not.

Snopes began life as folklore website, not a general interest fact-checking website like, say, the Straight Dope, or a political fact-checker like PolitiFact or FactCheck and so forth. It was a year or two before it had much more than material borrowed from Usenet, some of which, of course, was Dave and Barb’s own work. Like the AFU FAQ, it assessesd the possibility that a rumor or legend was reality based; that wasn’t an innovation, but it was easier to search and easier on the eyes. Over time, readers began asking about stuff they had read,or heard elsewhere, and the site began to focus on that (and began gathering income). It went a while before it started to have much in common at all with, say, PolitiFact.

When that happened, when it stopped focusing on sewergators and choking Dobermans, and went political is disputed among the sources you brought in. The NYT seems to think it was our current Comanitee-in-Chief’s campaign, others (not in the sources you’ve gathered above) put it to Obama’s campaign, David Mikkelson himself to 9/11. Either way, though, praise for a site’s or person’s accuracy based on one subject doesn’t always translate to another, and the fact that Brunvand gave them a nod a couple decades ago is only relevant to what they covered then. Qwirkle (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seperately, yes, I think the readers, or at least a good portion of them, do see “fact-checking” almost entirely in terms of political disinformation and misinformation, not mere error. If they didn’t, a google for “fact-checking” would bring up more simple references, and less debunkers. Do you disagree? Qwirkle (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothering to read your comments because I'm not seeing any sources in them. Unless and until you can provide sources to support your suggested changes, there's nothing to discuss here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With one exception, it is discussing the sources you brought in above. I’ll leave the implications of that as an exercise for the reader. Qwirkle (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would work better if you found some sources to support your content, but I'm happy enough with that move. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m thinking something along the lines of “Widening use of the Internet not only spread traditional ULs, but rumors and misinformation with political implication. This became a larger part of Snopes work. Different observers tied the growth to events like 9/11 (cite to DM interview) and presidential campaigns (lots of other potential cites there.) Coverage of traditional folklore remained strong, however, and Snopes was listed second only to AFU (described as “dormant”), in Brundvand’s 2012 “Encyclopedia of &cet.”, and the only website mentioned in his 2014 ←”Colossal (?) Book &cet.”

Something like that. It’s a week before I get my paws on something with a real keyboard, so I’m not in a hurry. Qwirkle (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source that says "snopes is not one of the oldest fact checking websites", or at a minimum, says "these are the oldest fact checking websites:" and then lists sites without including snopes.com. Find one source that makes a compelling case for that (the argument you've presented here is anything but compelling. Have you realized yet that your argument relies upon at least two mutually exclusive premises yet?) and I will discuss whether that source is a better one than the ones we have already. Find multiple sources saying that, and we can skip the discussion and skip straight to changing the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given the present direction of the site, it's weird that it nowhere mentions the debunking of 'fake news', which is a focus of this BBC interview article with the founder. Onanoff (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2012, FactCheck.org reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases." --This should be removed. Factcheck.org is biased and unreliable. The article is written by a guy who spends all his time trying to discredit republican politicians. Not to mention, "...free from bias in all cases" Is this what you consider credible? Delete the line. It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. 174.23.179.172 (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done. I fixed the date given; it should have been 2009. As for the rest, umm, no. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Just because you hate that the site calls you and people you like out on your conspiracy theories, does not make the website illegitimate. Wikipedia is not a forum. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Factcheck.org is biased and unreliable." -- No, it isn't. "The article is written by a guy who spends all his time trying to discredit republican politicians." -- False. Aside from it not being all his time, this is an assertion of motive that cannot be substantiated. It's not the fact-checker's fault if Republican politicians tell a vast number of lies. If reporting their lies discredits them, then that's hardly an inappropriate outcome. "Is this what you consider credible?" -- Yes. "It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia." -- Of course it should; it's an objective statement about what FactCheck.org said about Snopes. -- Jibal (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Factcheck.org is not a reliable source, this shouldn't even be controversial to say now. They have clearly been dishonest and misleading in enough of their reporting to be discounted as credible.67.79.70.148 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factcheck.org is a highly respected, award winning site. It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. O3000 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not controversial, because it is blatantly wrong. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In January, 2019, some troll (no home or talk page) changed the lede from "is one of the first online fact-checking websites" to "claims to be one of the first online fact-checking websites", and marked this significant change as a "minor change" -- this was obvious vandalism, but did not get caught at the time. 11 months later, I spotted this baseless change and reverted it back to the former consensus-based text. But there's always got to be someone who can't leave well enough alone and can't be bothered to look at or understand the historical context, and such a person reverted my correction for no good reason and with no discussion here, then managed to realize that "claims to be" is nonsense and reverted himself, but couldn't leave well enough alone and ended up changing it to "is a fact-checking website"--a degradation of information for no good reason. (See the comment near the top of this page giving 5 different links identifying Snopes as one of the oldest online fact-checking sites.) I don't spend my life editing WP and I refuse to get into edit wars with this sort of incompetence, so I'm simply bringing this to the attention of others so it is understood how the article got to be the way it is. I won't comment further. -- Jibal (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this person was editing in good faith. WP:AGF. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this change and let it go because although it probably is the oldest I could find no source that verifies this. O3000 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from higher up on this very Talk page: "The following sources all categorize snopes as one of the oldest fact-checking sites: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]." --Shadow (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the records do reveal, as any nasty marital dissolution will, are struggles over money and control. For at least some months in 2016, the records show, Snopes was pulling in more than $200,000 a month in advertising sales.

https://www.wired.com/story/snopes-and-the-search-for-facts-in-a-post-fact-world/

Am digging around for stuff not listed on the wiki site, whether there is veracity to the fraud allegations namely.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-tacoma-based-snopes-debunker-fake-news.html 09:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.48.246 (talk)

The lede fails to mention the controversies about Snopes, some of which apply to the whole concept of fact-checking entities in general. I tried to include a sentence regarding Snopes' controversy with labeling satire articles as "false", but some editors are reverting it. I request a discussion so that we may come to a consensus on including significant content in the lede. --The owner of all ✌️ 16:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes labels satire as satire, and even has a page devoted to explaining why they do it.

Furthermore, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body. The body contains no claims about their coverage of satire being controversial, because no-one has ever presented a reliable source claiming that Snopes' coverage of satire is controversial.

As if that weren't enough, labelling satire as false is only controversial among those who rely on spreading fake news with tiny little "satire" disclaimers for political gain. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself explains that Snopes labeled some content from Babylon Bee as false. Not "satire". The owner of all ✌️ 17:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the whole section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. If those events described in that section are true, then those events are significant enough that they should be mentioned in the lede. The owner of all ✌️ 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the amount of coverage it's getting in the article needs to be seriously trimmed down. The events it mentions were barely blips on the radar, and the fact that this subsection is in the "accuracy" section is a pretty blatant NPOV violation, as it says absolutely nothing about Snope's accuracy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've corrected this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but I will end my part in the discussion here before I get banned. The owner of all ✌️ 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't want to get banned, you should perhaps look back more than a single edit before accusing someone of lying in their edit summary. Also, there's no chance that the Babylon Bee thing deserves to be the single largest section in the entire article, longer even that the section about the still ongoing legal fight for the ownership of the company. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Edit warring over this won't help, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. That's not a "consensus version". It was added a month ago, and I guarantee keeping it won't garner a consensus, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's classic undue emphasis, putting the Babylon Bee stuff into the lede. It's in the article, but not everything in the article belongs in a well-crafted lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MPants had complained at the 3RRN that I said I would withdraw from discussion. To be clear, I am withdrawing from discussion to change the lede section. I still believe it is inadequate but I do not believe I will achieve consensus to change it.

However, the reason I made a couple of reverts in a row is because MPants made his own changes that, while related to the topic, are distinct from what I was proposing. He said above, "Note: I've corrected this", and then he removed the Babylon Bee controversy section from under "Accuracy", while adding his rewrite as a couple of sentences under "History". I don't have a strong opinion where that content should be, organization-wise, but I do object to how MPants took a verifiable and well-sourced section of paragraphs and reduced it into just a couple of sentences.

I was told by another editor that I have to gain consensus to keep that content. I disagree with that, but if that's what we're going to go by then it should also be noted that a couple of editors in the sections above, agreed to add the Babylon Bee controversy section, and the actual addition of the content was executed by a third user. So in addition to myself, it can be presumed that those four of us believe that that content should be in the article, and that MPants and Orangemike should try to gain consensus to remove or reduce that content.

The owner of all ✌️ 01:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Babylon bee issue was a minor controversy: it really boiled down to whether Snopes was being "nice enough" to the Bee. It was rather simply resolved by Snopes identifying satire, as I mentioned above. But, a small number of conservative talking heads who've been complaining without evidence about Snopes' accuracy and biases for decades seized upon it to try and turn it into a bigger deal and a condemnation of Snopes. They failed for the most part, but they managed to get some additional coverage in the RSes.

Now, Snopes is, at this very moment, involved in a years-long court battle over the ownership of the company, a battle in which Mikkelson's opposition have been found by multiple courts to be fighting using virtually every dirty trick in the book. This is a fight that has consumed an enormous proportion of their financial resources, and which has impacted their ability to grow to keep up with the demand for their services severely. The coverage of that in this article is 96 words.

The section you were edit warring over is 641 words: or six and two thirds times longer.

There is no world in which the controversy surrounding the Bee could ever come close to justifying even twice the coverage of Snope's legal fight. The import to the subject of this article from the Bee issue was the introduction of a single new rating. The import to the subject of this article from the court case is existential. I'll note now that the coverage gave to it was 377 words: or 3 times the coverage of the Proper Media fiasco. It's still vastly over-represented in this article, relative to it's importance to the subject.

Spending this much verbiage on this issue is akin to walking into an emergency room with a gaping chest wound showing your visibly beating heart and insisting that the doctor's x-ray and perform immediately surgery to remove the 5mm splinter in your pinky.

See WP:DUE, which discusses how we weigh the inclusion of facts in our articles to understand why this won't work. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that after I posted my comment above, the very next edit was the bot archiving some old sections. One of those sections is the Babylon Bee section that I was referencing. So that section is now in the archive instead of directly on this page. The owner of all ✌️ 06:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DUE, the current level of mention of the Babylon Bee stuff is perfectly appropriate. It's not significant enough in the bigger picture of the history (and it is about the history of the website, rather than any real critical evaluation of its accuracy) of Snopes to merit mention in the lede, nor was it significant enough in the history of the Snopes website to merit more detailed, lengthier mentions than what it has. Grandpallama (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please kindly cease arbitrarily deleting parts of this article's accuracy section relating to a Snopes article's inconsistency with their stated standards of fact checking and conclusion. Pointing out a significant logical flaw is neither original reporting nor indicative of a non-neutral point of view, unless we are to take the rather weak position that simple logic is a matter of opinion. If you think there is a problem with the sources or the conclusion, please state your reasoning here, make constructive edits, and thus improve the section. Thank you.

You were inserting your own original research by drawing conclusions from information presented in your sources and presenting that conclusion directly on the page. I would also add that your conclusions were spurious and illogical. So stop edit warring over this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]