From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver


Just curious, but for a website called RationaleWiki, this Snopes article here isn't rationale at all. Perhaps a little elbow grease and dropping the allying political slant, and actually presenting a neutral, rationale article on Snopes would work better. Adios. (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have any specific issues with the current text, please point them out. Otherwise, please stick to that "adios".--ZooGuard (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral doesn't fly around here. We try to be as biased as possible (for science, against bullshit). Personally, I like neutral more, but hey, rules of the site: Nullahnung (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What can anyone possibly find wrong with the article. Could possibly be expanded a bit but … Scream!! (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "Woo-pushers, the fringe on either end of the political spectrum, and those who benefit from these stories tend to dismiss Snopes as wrong or biased, despite research showing it isn't" could do with a cite and one or two hmorous examples. Apart from that, it's fine. SophieWilderModerator 07:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Searching for "Snopes bias" unveils a lot of stuff, including a case where a particular accusation went viral... and then was rebutted by the very site to which Snopes was compared unfavorably. They also post a lot of their incoming mail on their message board: --ZooGuard (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
After the XKCD, I remember looking for a while for more information on snopes, but couldn't find anything. Kinda bummed me out since I like Snopes a lot and use it to call my family out on shit all the time. Searching for "Snopes bias" didn't help, and neither does linking to their fanmail board. I don't know if my search engine is giving me skewed results based on my ip/history (incognito mode's doesn't seem to make a difference). Any chance you throw down what journal & issue the research was found in -- or whatever you found? -- (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


Hey, may I be able to insert the link to the new site, alongside the old one?

Snopes. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

What's new about it? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Far as I know, new updates and such go there now. The old site is still up with all of the info, but it is not updated there any more. I think. I'll have to check. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Ethics Alarms: Snopes disagrees with things Republicans says and I hate that[edit] FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We live in a post-fact society. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)



— Unsigned, by: ReptoidKiller / talk / contribs

(Why is this still here?) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 18:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Why not? (also autoarchive requires a signed datestamp to archive ever, so ... ) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for linking to the Daily Heil[edit]

...but what the heck is going on over at Snopes? :/ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, a rather sleazy article by the Daily Fail, dwelling on the irrelevant sex worker aspect. More relevant are the alleged embezzling and possible libertarian connection for parsing of truth. Bongolian (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, check out the Snopes "About Us" page.[1] There's no mention of the divorce or Kimberly LaCapria, the new libertarian editor. Rather David Mikkelson, makes a specific point of his political independence.
As FactCheck confirmed in April 2009, David is a registered independent who has never donated to, or worked on behalf of, any political campaign or party. David is wholly apolitical, vastly preferring his quiet scholarly life in the company of his cats and chickens to any political considerations.
Bongolian (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Infowars grabbed the article so you know it's fake. Fake news it accusing legit sites of fake news.*sigh*—CheeseburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 06:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Also snopes is nonprofit. I don't know how you can fund prostitutes off a nonprofit site.—CheeseburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk)
Actually The Daily Fail article describes it as a for-profit company. Bongolian (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Snopes is now trying to get donations on GoFundMe, supposedly the fist time they've asked for mony.[2] I wonder if this is divorce-related. Bongolian (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Fact Checking[edit]

Funny that most of the time only 1 or 2 people even do the fact checking (and some have been rather biased in their reports before) and there is many questions regarding transparency. --Řïmũŗû ŢèmpéŝţRimuru Slime.png 13:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That article seemed like concern trolling to me. Some parts were particularly disingenuous, such as trying to suggest it is wrong to say if you're legally unable to discuss details of your divorce due to a confidentiality clause.
I am much more interested in situations where Snopes have been caught lying or distorting the truth, but this article does not provide any examples of that.
Where have they been biased in their reports before? CowHouse (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Most of the fact checkers on snopes are leftist and have a habit of letting their bias ooze out without knowing, and they have done some "fact checks" that seem to be questionable such as their response that CNN did not set up the Muslim protest against ISIS, the rules are that reporters can't mess with the events to get a nice shot, they have to let the settings be and take it as is, however they fail to mention this. It's like how people who film documentaries can't get involved or mess with the current conditions to save an animal. They let the animal die and just film as they are to have no involvement with what is going on.--リムルテンペストRimuru Slime.png 15:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
How do you know they are leftist? Wasn't one of the problems that they are not transparent about their political leanings?
Since you didn't link anything, I will assume you were referring to this. Have any of the demonstrators admitted they were actors (or has anyone proven this)? The Snopes article showed that the demonstrators were genuine. It was definitely "staged" in the sense that they organised their positions to fit neatly in the shot, but that's a big difference between "staged" meaning that they were essentially paid actors and fake.
I'm not sure what "rules" you are referring to, but even if it breaches CNN's rules, I still agree with the verdict that it is false to suggest it was "fake news" or "staging a narrative". CowHouse (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, this is one of those fact checks where you could reasonably criticise the verdict either way. It was staged, but it's difficult to say the negative portrayal of CNN was entirely fair or accurate. CowHouse (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
As for the left
And these are the rules, if CNN has been "organizing" people then they have violated these rules
Why didn't snopes talk about his video? this is from the same event.--Ultimate SlimeRimuru Slime.png 17:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Daily Caller? That's your source? Seriously? Evil Zionist (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
And? it has the tweets and what they used to do, just because a site might have some wrong things doesn't mean it all is, same goes vise versa, just because something might get many things right it does not mean it always is.--King RimuruRimuru Slime.png 18:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rimuru Tempest, would it be fair to say you have a bias against the left?
And forgive my ignorance, but do these rules apply to CNN?
Evil Zionist is right, The Daily Caller is itself a very biased source and does not have a reputation for accurate reporting. It is fair to question such a source, and whether or not the tweets in question have been taken out of context (quite a few of them were clearly jokes). The article also had quite a broad scope for what is considered left-wing. For instance, that article suggests it is leftist to be against ultra-thin models and pro-anorexia websites, and apparently saying there is no proof of creationism is left-wing.
Oh, and there's also a very good reason why Snopes didn't discuss that video in their article. That reason being that time is linear:
June 5, 2017: Snopes article
June 7, 2017: Youtube video CowHouse (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I am neither left nor right, not even centralist. and what I mean by they did not mention its is the fact they did not update their content ,which is possible for them to do (as you will see below), or make a new topic about it. Snopes has made its own fair share of mistakes to which snopes updated their content on the 28th because it (because they updated it you can't view the original which was published on the 26th)--Řïmũŗû ŢèmpéŝţRimuru Slime.png 20:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

They didn't update their content, true, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are they even aware of the new video? Would the evidence of the new video change the verdict that it was not "fake news"?
I do not deny that they make mistakes, but correcting their articles only strengthens their reputation. Besides, The Daily Caller's claim in their original article was still false. Surely you could find a better source to back up your points. It just seems like their issue with Snopes is that they are angry about being caught lying so often. CowHouse (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)