Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[2k]

I wasn't aware they claimed to be a "news source".  What they are is a fact checking operation that attempts to research all those urban legends, myths, rumors, and various other BS that is so freely slung around these days.  Are they perfect?  Not likely.  Are they better than just blindly believing all those emails and blogs that proclaim all sorts of BS to try to influence people?  You betcha.  Obviously they didn't agree somewhere along the line with one of your pet ideas, such is life. 

How about factcheck.org, do they meet your criteria for a good site, or did they also step on one or more of your deeply held beliefs?  If not, what do you use to fact check the stuff you see and read?  Psychics, Ouija boards, signs from supreme beings, or what?

Jerry 

The Gods are restless tonight..............

[Midnight Rider]

"Welcome to snopes.com, the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation. Use the search box above to locate your item of interest, or click one of the icons below to browse the site by category."

Those of you who go to the snoops website for your news, I hope you are not voters.

Sorry, but I still don't get your point here.  Snopes is not a news source.  It is a reference source to help fact check information one might get fed from various sources that might have an "agenda" in mind.  That is particularly true with e-mails that get circulated as fact, when generally they are fiction, or only half truths, at best.  I can't recall a single time when I have used them for fact checking a story I "heard" through one type of media or another, and found them to be in error...and I cross check from other sources just to be sure.  The regurgitation of misinformation on various social media sites is astounding, to say the least.  Of course, some people will call a source that does not agree with what they have "heard" or "read" as unreliable.  That concept is called Cognitive Dissonance.  Here are three key strategies to deal with dissonance, none of which make the facts untrue:

Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.
Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.
Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.

[Midnight Rider]

I wasn't aware they claimed to be a "news source".  What they are is a fact checking operation that attempts to research all those urban legends, myths, rumors, and various other BS that is so freely slung around these days.  Are they perfect?  Not likely.  Are they better than just blindly believing all those emails and blogs that proclaim all sorts of BS to try to influence people?  You betcha.  Obviously they didn't agree somewhere along the line with one of your pet ideas, such is life. 

How about factcheck.org, do they meet your criteria for a good site, or did they also step on one or more of your deeply held beliefs?  If not, what do you use to fact check the stuff you see and read?  Psychics, Ouija boards, signs from supreme beings, or what?Jerry 

 

[cvobiker]

I dont think Snopes ever gets it wrong..  If they are ever on the fence, they'll say it, 'they dont know or cant find the facts'..   They are not a news source, but rather a fact finding source.  Wikipedia will set it straight   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

[bmcgc]

I rarely find snoops to be accurate.

Look uo S.H.I.T. on snoops.  They claim the etmyology dates to the 18th century days of sail.  When the word actually dates to pre-Roman times.

Totally inaccurate, yet they claim it is fact.

We live in an age of reality TV.  What sells?  The 3-C's:  Conflict, contriversity, criticism.  Snoops fits into that catagory nicely.

[iski]

Not likely to convince any Snopes " true beievers" that some of Snopes or that a lot of Snopes is basically bs.  Is some of it accurate?  Sure.  Is some of it inaccurate?  Well documented.  

The trouble is that so called "fact checkers" are humans.  Their "facts" are subject to their interpretation, their inherent bias, and their agenda.  If you think that bias, prejudices, and agendas are not possible because, after all, these fine Web IP Addresses that accept advertising for magical weight loss programs and such to insure their clicks generate a revenue stream are unbiased Fact Checkers - then you will not believe what is written here by me.  Even though by just reading this post while you walk at a brisk pace for 1.3 miles will burn up to 100 calories!

If you choose to believe something that is "written on the internet so it must be true" because it is written by a "fact checker", that in itself is no surprise.  If you think a husband/wife team (whose husband at one time spread "urban legends" on the internet and then later "debunked" them) are your Truth Compass, or some dude or dudette that works for a newspaper knows so much more than you ever will so therefore you must defer to their "facty wisdom" - knock yourself out.  

Do I ever read Snopes?  Sure, the same way I read the Onion, for similar reasons. Other Fact Checkers?  Sure, but I do not believe it is 100% accurate, just because it is written on the internet, by somebody telling me that it is, because it is.  

[Midnight Rider]

I rarely find snoops to be accurate.
Look uo S.H.I.T. on snoops.  They claim the etmyology dates to the 18th century days of sail.  When the word actually dates to pre-Roman times.
Totally inaccurate, yet they claim it is fact.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.  Perhaps checking the actual snopes site before posting something that says they got it wrong would be a good idea.  And their source is the English Oxford Dictionary, which, IMO is a pretty reliable source.

And yes, there are weight loss ads on Snopes.  There's also ads for AT&T services.  Does any source like Factcheck, Snopes, etc. get it right ALL the time...no.  Do they make an honest attempt at being objective?  IMO, yes.  A case could be made that anything written or spoken by human beings is subject to bias, prejudice, and a personal "agenda".  That line of thought might be attributed to whether the individual making that case has their own "agenda", so automatically discounts/discredits any source that does not agree with their perception of their reality.  See: Cognitive Dissonance

[iski]

Not likely to convince any Snopes " true believers" that some of Snopes or that a lot of Snopes is basically bs.  Is some of it accurate?  Sure.  Is some of it inaccurate?  Well documented.  

Do I ever read Snopes?  Sure, the same way I read the Onion, for similar reasons.

I crack myself up.   





Maybe should start a thread here called "Fact Checking" since everything in it no doubt would be as true as snopes.

[Eagle Eye]

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.  Perhaps checking the actual snopes site before posting something that says they got it wrong would be a good idea.  And their source is the English Oxford Dictionary, which, IMO is a pretty reliable source.

And yes, there are weight loss ads on Snopes.  There's also ads for AT&T services.  Does any source like Factcheck, Snopes, etc. get it right ALL the time...no.  Do they make an honest attempt at being objective?  IMO, yes.  A case could be made that anything written or spoken by human beings is subject to bias, prejudice, and a personal "agenda".  That line of thought might be attributed to whether the individual making that case has their own "agenda", so automatically discounts/discredits any source that does not agree with their perception of their reality.  See: Cognitive Dissonance

X2!   

I use Snopes as one source, along with a few others, including the tried and true encyclopedia. 

[kiwihog]

I rarely find snoops to be accurate.

Look uo S.H.I.T. on snoops.  They claim the etmyology dates to the 18th century days of sail.  When the word actually dates to pre-Roman times.

Totally inaccurate, yet they claim it is fact.

We live in an age of reality TV.  What sells?  The 3-C's:  Conflict, contriversity, criticism.  Snoops fits into that catagory nicely.

how about spell check ?? reliable ??

[1abastarsmda]

Sorry, but I still don't get your point here.  Snopes is not a news source.  It is a reference source to help fact check information one might get fed from various sources that might have an "agenda" in mind.  That is particularly true with e-mails that get circulated as fact, when generally they are fiction, or only half truths, at best.  I can't recall a single time when I have used them for fact checking a story I "heard" through one type of media or another, and found them to be in error...and I cross check from other sources just to be sure.  The regurgitation of misinformation on various social media sites is astounding, to say the least.  Of course, some people will call a source that does not agree with what they have "heard" or "read" as unreliable.  That concept is called Cognitive Dissonance.  Here are three key strategies to deal with dissonance, none of which make the facts untrue:

Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.
Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.
Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.

I hate to have to call you out on this, especially on a motorcycle forum, but that's not really what cognitive dissonance is.  Cognitive dissonance is when you have conflicting thoughts within.  The best example I can think of is buyer's remorse.  When you buy your new CVO, it's that conflict afterward wondering if you should have actually spent all of that money on a motorcycle.  Calling a source unreliable, just because you don't agree with what you have heard or read isn't really an internal conflict.  I think that sounds just a little more like being hardheaded.  But, of course, this is probably much deeper than we need to go with this topic on this forum.  Your ways of dealing with the dissonance are certainly valid.

[Midnight Rider]

I hate to have to call you out on this, especially on a motorcycle forum, but that's not really what cognitive dissonance is.  Cognitive dissonance is when you have conflicting thoughts within.  The best example I can think of is buyer's remorse.  When you buy your new CVO, it's that conflict afterward wondering if you should have actually spent all of that money on a motorcycle.  Calling a source unreliable, just because you don't agree with what you have heard or read isn't really an internal conflict.  I think that sounds just a little more like being hardheaded.  But, of course, this is probably much deeper than we need to go with this topic on this forum.  Your ways of dealing with the dissonance are certainly valid.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that...you are absolutely correct that dissonance is internal conflict.  I thought that was implied in my statement, but I should have been more clear.

Here is a more formal definition:  Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The concept was introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger (1919–89) in the late 1950s. He and later researchers showed that, when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists. Cognitive dissonance is nonetheless considered an explanation for attitude change.

[miker]

Pie versus donut.....A fruit filled donut without a hole is pie...or a danish depending on what you read and hear on snopes or the innynet news sources. 
I typically refer to rolling out chicken back bones to decide important truths...or appearnace of truth, not for lotto numbers.  Where is my diazapam? Ooo lookithat! My brain is itchy...

[MIKEYTEE]

If you put a hole in the center of a pie does it then become a donut?
Mike
 

[spydglide]

If you put a hole in the center of a pie does it then become a donut?
Mike
 

It's a 'holy donut'.  What's all this got to do with the berryjuice & applePIE  of MV?  har.   spyder