Snopes - How Reliable is It?

[malephoenix]

I've been wondering recently if there's any way to "Snope" the reliability of Snopes. There's some great stuff there, provided all of it's accurate, but is it? Either way, it's some great reading. What do the posters here think of the site? Please add to this thread, whether you have one strong opinion of it or the other, or even if following the link below is your first visit.

www.Snopes.com

[Aaron Kashtan]

I don't read Snopes regularly anymore, but when I did read it, I noticed that it seemed to be developing a right-wing orientation. They used to be very good at exposing the political or psychological basis behind certain rumors, but lately they've seemed more reluctant to do this; they don't condemn right-wing hatemongering as strongly as they used to.

That's just my opinion, though, and I could be wrong.

[phoenixrising]

I've been wondering recently if there's any way to "Snope" the reliability of Snopes. There's some great stuff there, provided all of it's accurate, but is it?
www.Snopes.com

Not very. Though some of it is accurate - it requires actual research and investigation to find out what's bogus and what isn't.

As a journalist, I see it at the same level I see blogs - which is a bunch of information, most of which is highly unreliable.

[Jack Zodiac]

I always liked Snopes because they pointed you in the right direction to figure things out on your own.

[malephoenix]

Not very. Though some of it is accurate - it requires actual research and investigation to find out what's bogus and what isn't.

As a journalist, I see it at the same level I see blogs - which is a bunch of information, most of which is highly unreliable.

I was hoping someone would come along and prove this. I sure didn't expect it so soon, though. Thanks. (And great name, btw.) What instances has the site been wrong about?

[Brian Cronin]

Snopes is awesome.

Are they always correct?

No, but they clearly lay out what they're basing their responses on, including citations of sources and contacting the people (or the representatives of the people) involved in the legend, which, of course, doesn't always work (as some info isn't available), but they address this when folks point out errors.

It's a great site.

And Barbara and David P. Mikkelson tell us on their own site:

Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate?

A: 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.

That works for me.

-Brian

[StoneGold]

Pretty much the same answer as how reliable is wikipedia?

[phoenixrising]

I was hoping someone would come along and prove this. I sure didn't expect it so soon, though. Thanks. (And great name, btw.) What instances has the site been wrong about?

I don't know any right off the top of my head, as I don't really read it regularly - but I know every newsroom in this nation is barred from using it as anything but a purely informational source to spur further investigation.

And why would we trust it to always be true? There's no accountability and no system for finding/reporting/correcting information by an organizational body. It's like trusting a blogger - a smart blogger with some great links, but a blogger nontheless.

It's a good read, but the gospel truth, it ain't.

[Brian Cronin]

Pretty much the same answer as how reliable is wikipedia?

That's an excellent comparison.

Both are super informative sites which sometimes make mistakes, but each have very high accuracy rates (I would presume Snopes would be higher than wikipedia, unless the sheer volume of wikipedia posts mitigate the percentage of errors).

-Brian

[kmeyers]

I just checked Snopes, and they said it's cool.

[howyadoin]

I just checked Snopes, and they said it's cool.

Did you look it up on snopeapedia.com?

[Forefinger]

Wikipedia has a listing for just about anything that I can think of to type. Snopes had nothing for the first two things that I typed, so I'll stick with Wikipedia as my starting point for most of my research.

[Wesley Dodds]

Never had problems with Snopes.

Once or twice I've seen dodgy stuff on factcheck.org but not on Snopes yet.

[malephoenix]

Pretty much the same answer as how reliable is wikipedia?

That's a false comparison. One is run by a small, specific group, the other is available for anyone to change on a whim. (As evidenced by the articles that have been locked due to tampering. Example: the Wii page.)

Wikipedia has a listing for just about anything that I can think of to type. Snopes had nothing for the first two things that I typed, so I'll stick with Wikipedia as my starting point for most of my research.

Have you used Snopes before? It's not an "anything" site like Wikipedia. It's focused on myths, urban legends, internet forwards, that sort of thing. (There would be no Wii on Snopes at all.)

[BoosterBronze]

Several years ago as a gag, a friend of mine editied my name in as a family member in the wikipedia artcle on economist Thomas Sowell. I'd never heard of wikipedia, and he showed me the article lisitng my full name as one of Sowell's relative (same last name, but he's black and I'm white... making him my Uncle Tom... which was kinda humorous). It was a laugh, and I imagine several hours later some wikieditor fixed it.

Here's the thing. Answers.com swiped the whole text for that wikipedia article while my name was still in it, and on their site it still says "He was a great inspiration to his nephew Morgan Z. Sowell" (my name)

Internets a funny place for lies to grow.