Snopes

[Must4ng s4lly]

I have seen people refer others, or me, to www.Snopes.com so I decided to check it out completely.

I spend the better part of a day reading all of the material offered on "Urban legends" by the Snopes website. I read through all of the categories listed.

I think it would benefit us all to read into this and decide for ourselves if what Snopes is purporting to be absolute truth really is that. Absolute truth.

I found several items to be of Dubious nature. Where do the people at Snopes get their info??? How do they know all the truth and we do not....

Just a thought!

[slipknottin]

Usually they say where they got their information.

I wish they became partners with mythbusters.

[geoffgarcia]

...

I think it would benefit us all to read into this and decide for ourselves if what Snopes is purporting to be absolute truth really is that. Absolute truth.

I found several items to be of Dubious nature. Where do the people at Snopes get their info??? How do they know all the truth and we do not.

Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate?
We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site's name indicates that it contains reference pages. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.
http://snopes.com/info/faq.asp

[aquariumfishguy]

Exactly... just as some of the non-religious (and religious) folk out there take CNN as a bible. Never trust one source, they are all biased and they are all fouled up in one way or the other.

[Timmain42]

Exactly... just as some of the non-religious (and religious) folk out there take FOXNews as a bible. Never trust one source, they are all biased and they are all fouled up in one way or the other.

Fixed. Sorry, but FOXNews is much worse at spreading disinformation, one-sided political views and general BS than CNN. By far.

[slipknottin]

Never trust one source, they are all biased and they are all fouled up in one way or the other.

So snopes is biased and fouled up?

Ill be waiting for this evidence you must have to make such comments.


Or was your post merely to bring up another discussion you had in another thread and it had nothing to do with the topic at hand?

[aquariumfishguy]

Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but what I was saying is at the end of it all, there are human beings behind these websites. People should never trust one news site, and yes, I would bet there are mistakes within snopes.

[greeneyedlady]

People should never trust one news site, and yes, I would bet there are mistakes within snopes.


About time somebody admitted that :rolleyes:

[OrionGirl]

Do I think that Snopes is always 100% right? Nope--but they are a heck of a lot more reliable than the anonomous emailers that send out a lot of the email stuff going around. And, of course--Snopes will admit if they were mistaken and post a correction--more than many places. Of course, I don't rely on just one news source for my information. I've double checked articles from Snopes with other reliable sites and libraries--but posting one reference to Snopes, which does include their references, is better than taking everything you see online or in your email box at face value. What it comes down to--you believe what you want to believe.

[happychem]

I think that AFG's skepticism (if it is that) is valid. It's never a good idea to believe 100% what you read, even scientific literature (which is reviewed by others in the same field who may or may not agree with the authors) is only as good as the most recent findings, which can often be shown false or incorrect down the road with new data.

However, a site like snopes should be comended for what they do. People as a general rule believe what they hear far too quickly, and the more sensational, the faster they believe. We don't have to look any farther than our hobby to find unsubstantiated myths which are propagated without a shred of reasoning or supporting science. Certainly there's a chance that they get some things wrong, but the fact that they provide references gives the reader a way to check up on them. Yes, of course, those references are supporting their story, but they give you a starting point for research, from there you can look for all references on the topic, read up and judge for yourself the validity and soundness of the arguments presented.

As for the media, trust the actual information presented, never the manner in which it's presented or the conclusions. Never believe that you're getting the whole story or the whole truth. If there's background music or sound effects (a la Hardcopy), change the channel and believe nothing. It doesn't matter who you're listening to, they've all got a spin, some are just better than others.

Here's the bottom line: If you don't know anything about a subject, doubt everything you're told until it's proved to you. That doesn't mean that you can't treat your new knowledge as guidelines, just that you shouldn't accept it as truth. If you do have (some or plenty) of background in the subject, compare the new info against what you know, does it make sense or not? Go back to the basic principles, irrefutable truths and decide whether the new info or your older info makes more sense.

Finally, take medical research findings with a grain of salt, every few years something new comes out that either completely debunks the older study or at least tweaks it a little.

[aquariumfishguy]

Happychem said it best - and yes, my skepticism is towards news media in general. And slip - no, I wasn't talking about snopes or any one site. ;)