Snopes caught lying and deceiving readers

[Toni]

So, to sum up - Snopes co-owner posted something without attribute, it was brought to their attention, and they banned him and removed the articles and wrote an apology?

That's where we are with this, right? Feels like a very good outcome. Now we know they mean business about integrity, even if it means cleaning their own house.

Well, that's great. Thanks for the articles shoring up their reliability, RVonse. You must be very relieved and comfortable using them as a source going forward, knowing they have this level of integrity and self-reflection.

It only makes me wonder how many articles BuzzFeed did not catch. And not just 1 article but 60 articles mind you. This supposed organization with one of its founders proven without integrity yet advertising integrity as its final product.

You and others can believe them if you want. I'll go elsewhere to seek accurate content.

You seem unable or unwilling to understand the details deference between presenting something false as a fact and presenting someone else’s work or words as your own, without attribution. Both are far outside the bounds of good journalism but one is pretending something not true is a fact which is worse than using someone else’s work without giving them credit.

 

[funinspace]

So, to sum up - Snopes co-owner posted something without attribute, it was brought to their attention, and they banned him and removed the articles and wrote an apology?

That's where we are with this, right? Feels like a very good outcome. Now we know they mean business about integrity, even if it means cleaning their own house.

Well, that's great. Thanks for the articles shoring up their reliability, RVonse. You must be very relieved and comfortable using them as a source going forward, knowing they have this level of integrity and self-reflection.

It only makes me wonder how many articles BuzzFeed did not catch. And not just 1 article but 60 articles mind you. This supposed organization with one of its founders proven without integrity yet advertising integrity as its final product.

You and others can believe them if you want. I'll go elsewhere to seek accurate content.

Just what organization do you think is perfect?

Do you think Fox News (and various clown shows), Breitbart, rsbnetwork, Glenn Beck, Zerohedge, or others such as these would face their internal issue head on, admit the failure, and work to fix it?

I'm not sure what drives you on judging the quality of sources, but it sure seems quite eclectic and strange.

Here is a sample of your worries from a year ago August:

Do you think our county will blow up into a civil war? Or will everyone just magically go back home again after Biden gets elected? Or something else? Will there be any statues or federal buildings left? How about Mt Rushmore?

Wow, we are still here...

How are Gordon Chang's destruction of the PRC going? Remember our 2019 discussion on his fixation on with prediction dates back to 2006?

Or maybe back in 2018 when the hordes of Democrats were walking away from their party?

 

[funinspace]

RVonse should start citing funinspace, as he is the SMARTEST SMARTASS

View attachment 34923

I found the error in this "proof". Its big problem is the sign of the square root. The "proof" starts with it in step 3, and ends with it in step 8. It starts with the square root having a negative sign and ends with it having a positive sign, thus changing from -1/2 to +1/2. Doing so adds 1 to the overall expression, changing 4 to 5.

Duh...but, did you find the error in the snarky joke?

 

[Rhea]

Duh...but, did you find the error in the snarky joke?

Smartass.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, when the world is so full of disinformation and fake news, there is literally no way of knowing what's true or false, so just go with your gut, even if your gut says Snopes is a bad source of factual information and Fox News and Qanon are good sources of factual information.

What you already want to believe is always true when you have no way of actually figuring it out and don't know what "critical thinking" means.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, plagarism has turned into a big yawn in recent years. We voted the most famous plagarist in recent memory into the Oval Office, so, yeah...meh.

Person A: You hear Al Franken was accused of rape?
Person B: It wasn’t rape but instances of inappropriate touching. And he resigned.
Person A: What matters is he was guilty of some bad stuff.
Person B: You said rape, it wasn’t rape.
Person C: Apparently sexual harassment isn’t a problem anymore.
Person B: *brain explodes*

 

[Elixir]

Well, when the world is so full of disinformation and fake news, there is literally no way of knowing what's true or false, so just go with your gut, even if your gut says Snopes is a bad source of factual information and Fox News and Qanon are good sources of factual information.

What you already want to believe is always true when you have no way of actually figuring it out and don't know what "critical thinking" means.

Just ... QFT

 

[TomC]

On many of the forums I frequent, Snopes was/is always the fact checking bible that everyone runs to settle an argument.

I have no idea what other forums you frequent, but I don't see Snopes referenced around TFT much.

Personally, I can't imagine using it for a source on anything particularly important or controversial. Same with Wikipedia. Casual subjects like urban myths or the spawning habits of salmon, sure. But not stuff like politics, hot button social issues, or religion. Maybe as a broad overview, with links to more information. But that's about it.

However, I gotta say, I see your OP as an endorsement of Snopes. If the worst crime against truth is plagiarism, that puts them pretty high on the accuracy scale, which I care far more about.
Tom

 

[scombrid]

Snopes is good, but it helps to also read what other reputable fact check sites say about things before assuming they got everything right.

But the point is this. They are politically biased just like facebook, google, twitter, and the rest. They might seem good if they bring non political truth to the table but how do you trust these organizations when they have a political ax to grind?

The answer is that you can't. If you prefer just to feed your dopamine receptors, continue on believing Snopes like Jimmy and others. But it is not reality, they are in fact a political organization.

I keep getting paid advertisements from Prager U on my facebook feed. What is the nature of Facebook's bias exactly? Likewise, after Phil Valentine died the other day I read through his facebook page and it has post after post mocking vaccination, masks, etc... with promotions of the 'documentary' "Plandemic". That seems super biased to me. The only bias I ever really found on Youtube was that it was pro "WOO". It allows woo peddlers to censor their channels and it actively deletes debunks of woo when the woo peddlers complain about "harrassment" from debunkers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Snopes is good, but it helps to also read what other reputable fact check sites say about things before assuming they got everything right.

But the point is this. They are politically biased just like facebook, google, twitter, and the rest. They might seem good if they bring non political truth to the table but how do you trust these organizations when they have a political ax to grind?

The answer is that you can't. If you prefer just to feed your dopamine receptors, continue on believing Snopes like Jimmy and others. But it is not reality, they are in fact a political organization.

How many more fallacies will you stuff in this thread?

 

[laughing dog]

But the point is this. They are politically biased just like facebook, google, twitter, and the rest. They might seem good if they bring non political truth to the table but how do you trust these organizations when they have a political ax to grind?

You presented no evidence that the actual content of any fact check is wrong or that there is a bias in how or what they check. None whatsoever.

The answer is that you can't. If you prefer just to feed your dopamine receptors, continue on believing Snopes like Jimmy and others. But it is not reality, they are in fact a political organization.

In what sense do you mean that Snopes is a "political organization"? I ask, because any organization can be viewed as "political" which makes your statement rather pointless.

 

[Angry Floof]

Personally, I can't imagine using it for a source on anything particularly important or controversial. Same with Wikipedia.
Tom

Neither claims to be a source on anything, but both provide sources that can be checked. Ever notice the little superscript numeral hyperlinks throughout a Wikipedia article? Those are links to each specific supporting reference at the end of the article, just like any scientific or academic paper.

 

[TomC]

Personally, I can't imagine using it for a source on anything particularly important or controversial. Same with Wikipedia.
Tom

Neither claims to be a source on anything, but both provide sources that can be checked. Ever notice the little superscript numeral hyperlinks throughout a Wikipedia article? Those are links to each specific supporting reference at the end of the article, just like any scientific or academic paper.

Perhaps you missed the part of my post referring to "broad overview with links to more information"?
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Snopes is good, but it helps to also read what other reputable fact check sites say about things before assuming they got everything right.

But the point is this. They are politically biased just like facebook, google, twitter, and the rest. They might seem good if they bring non political truth to the table but how do you trust these organizations when they have a political ax to grind?

The answer is that you can't. If you prefer just to feed your dopamine receptors, continue on believing Snopes like Jimmy and others. But it is not reality, they are in fact a political organization.

How many more fallacies will you stuff in this thread?

It's sufficient to keep in mind that RVonse's use of "you" is self referential. When he says
"how do you trust these organizations when they have a political ax to grind? The answer is that you can't."
one should read:
"how do I trust these organizations when I believe they have a political ax to grind? The answer is that I can't".

Most of the rest of us have the wherewithal to follow up on sources provided by Snopes, FactCheck.com or whoever we choose to reference. Naked assertions are not usually acceptable to reasoning people.

 

[TomC]

How many more fallacies will you stuff in this thread?

It's sufficient to keep in mind that RVonse's use of "you" is self referential. When he says
"how do you trust these organizations when they have a political ax to grind? The answer is that you can't."
one should read:
"how do I trust these organizations when I believe they have a political ax to grind? The answer is that I can't".

Most of the rest of us have the wherewithal to follow up on sources provided by Snopes, FactCheck.com or whoever we choose to reference. Naked assertions are not usually acceptable to reasoning people.

I think that the problem [MENTION=563]RVonse[/MENTION]; is having is that reality tends to have a strong liberal bent.
Tom

 

[bilby]

How many more fallacies will you stuff in this thread?

It's sufficient to keep in mind that RVonse's use of "you" is self referential. When he says
"how do you trust these organizations when they have a political ax to grind? The answer is that you can't."
one should read:
"how do I trust these organizations when I believe they have a political ax to grind? The answer is that I can't".

Most of the rest of us have the wherewithal to follow up on sources provided by Snopes, FactCheck.com or whoever we choose to reference. Naked assertions are not usually acceptable to reasoning people.

I think that the problem [MENTION=563]RVonse[/MENTION]; is having is that reality tends to have a strong liberal bent.
Tom

It's the other way around; The US political spectrum has shifted so far to the right that only its far left wing (which is right of centre on a world scale) remains in any way connected to reality.

US conservatives have never had a solid grounding in reality, and have always preferred mythical constructs such as Christ, freedom, and self-reliance as alternatives to fact, despite none of these having one iota of evidence for having ever existed in human history.

 

[TomC]

I think that the problem [MENTION=563]RVonse[/MENTION]; is having is that reality tends to have a strong liberal bent.
Tom

It's the other way around; The US political spectrum has shifted so far to the right that only its far left wing (which is right of centre on a world scale) remains in any way connected to reality.

US conservatives have never had a solid grounding in reality, and have always preferred mythical constructs such as Christ, freedom, and self-reliance as alternatives to fact, despite none of these having one iota of evidence for having ever existed in human history.

Perhaps you think I'm mistaking the U.S. political spectrum for reality?
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Personally, I can't imagine using it for a source on anything particularly important or controversial. Same with Wikipedia.
Tom

Neither claims to be a source on anything, but both provide sources that can be checked. Ever notice the little superscript numeral hyperlinks throughout a Wikipedia article? Those are links to each specific supporting reference at the end of the article, just like any scientific or academic paper.

Wikipedia does have bias problems but it's with what they choose to include, not with the facts presented.

 

[Elixir]

Wikipedia does have bias problems but it's with what they choose to include, not with the facts presented.

Really? From what I've seen and heard from them, they constantly reach out for more inclusions. It would kinda defeat the purpose if they were to do the opposite.
But the salient point bearing on RVonse's inability to find any confidence in anything, is that Wikipedia's material is extensively footnoted, sources are identified and often linked, and points of possible contention are often notated with requests for more information. I find Wiki extremely valuable in making quick determinations as to whether a question is worth pursuing. As far as factual matters, it's only good for simple facts of the variety that SIRI or ALEXA could answer.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wikipedia does have bias problems but it's with what they choose to include, not with the facts presented.

Really? From what I've seen and heard from them, they constantly reach out for more inclusions. It would kinda defeat the purpose if they were to do the opposite.
But the salient point bearing on RVonse's inability to find any confidence in anything, is that Wikipedia's material is extensively footnoted, sources are identified and often linked, and points of possible contention are often notated with requests for more information. I find Wiki extremely valuable in making quick determinations as to whether a question is worth pursuing. As far as factual matters, it's only good for simple facts of the variety that SIRI or ALEXA could answer.

Or in other words, Wikipedia makes a great hub for referential cross-linking.