First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Is Snopes complete garbage?
Emtro 
1569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 18 days ago
So, I noticed several snopes.com articles that I read shed negative outlooks on conservative issues or accusations. There is an excerpt about the author at the bottom. Note the excerpt below:


Kim LaCapria

Kim LaCapria is a New York-based content manager and longtime snopes.com message board participant. Although she was investigated and found to be "probably false" by snopes.com in early 2002, Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session (without the approval of Congress). Click like and share if you think this is an egregious example of legislative overreach.


It seems like they are advertising that this writer is dishonest on purpose and using it to advertise their site. I suppose it could mean something else but you'll have to explain it to me in detail if that's the case.

Note: While she may be unable to post the unfavorable "true/false" answer, she always makes sure to post a written story that sheds a negative light on anything promoting conservatism.

http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/

Let me know what you think. And I don't mind if you call me paranoid, just make sure you back it up.
17225 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 18 days ago , edited 18 days ago
Next Episode:

Should you cite Wikipedia on your next research paper?
5016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Offline
Posted 18 days ago , edited 18 days ago
I think, at best, you've caught the Snopes author trolling you.
46665 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 18 days ago , edited 18 days ago
It's a troll, but if that makes you uncomfortable just stick to 4chan and reddit. Those are clearly the best sources for news.
36022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 18 days ago , edited 18 days ago

rawratl wrote:

Those are clearly the best sources for news.


You know snopes isn't a news site, right?
46665 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 18 days ago , edited 18 days ago

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


rawratl wrote:

Those are clearly the best sources for news.


You know snopes isn't a news site, right?


http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/will-it-cost-taxpayers-1-million-a-day-for-trumps-family-to-stay-in-new-york/

Wait, holy shit! So its even a lie where it says "news" up at the top? Damn you main stream media liberal assholes, you've tricked me again!
10651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 18 days ago , edited 18 days ago


OT: i would treat snopes as a source leaning left, like CNN for example.
4950 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 18 days ago , edited 18 days ago
Snopes is like Wikipedia. Most of it is legit, and some isn't. But like Wikipedia it has a strong tendency towards citing its sources and linking you to them directly. It's up to you to use that and decide for yourself.
35154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Seireitei, Soul S...
Offline
Posted 18 days ago
Or, it could all be a lie and be made up. A lot of independent authors who write for more than one site make up their own bios for each site, like the little snippets you see about the contributing authors on the bottom of each article here on Crunchyroll. Considering the tone and reputation of the site, it's highly likely.
16863 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 18 days ago
Snopes is decent for online rumors but stay away for anything poltiical. Just a bunch of liberals marking everything Trump as false and Hillary as true even when the evidence they post proves the opposite and they know most people won't bother to actually read it.


FlyinDumpling wrote:

Next Episode:

Should you cite Wikipedia on your next research paper?


http://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/

Study shows Wikipedia Accuracy is 99.5%

Indeed, it seems like a good place to start. They analyzed articles on drugs, drawing every piece of relevant information, as well as references, revision history and readability. Their conclusion is that the accuracy of drug information on Wikipedia was 99.7%±0.2% when compared to the textbook data. However, even though the articles were very accurate, they weren’t fully complete. Scientists rate the completeness of articles at 83.8±1.5%. However, completeness had a huge variation, ranging between 68.0% and 91.0%. This difference shows that Wikipedia is not always the best resource to draw complete information from, but it always provides over two thirds of the whole story. Furthermore, from the drug information missing in Wikipedia, 62.5% was rated as didactically non-relevant in a qualitative re-evaluation study.
16863 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 18 days ago , edited 18 days ago

rawratl wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


rawratl wrote:

Those are clearly the best sources for news.


You know snopes isn't a news site, right?


http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/will-it-cost-taxpayers-1-million-a-day-for-trumps-family-to-stay-in-new-york/

Wait, holy shit! So its even a lie where it says "news" up at the top? Damn you main stream media liberal assholes, you've tricked me again!


On 21 November 2016, CNN Money posted a report with the headline (and claim): "Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day."

When it starts with CNN you should realize off the bat no fact checking was done.
505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F
Offline
Posted 18 days ago , edited 18 days ago
Lala thinks Snopes is just another blog that happens to be popular.
Emtro 
1569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 17 days ago , edited 17 days ago

Rujikin wrote:
http://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/

Study shows Wikipedia Accuracy is 99.5%

Indeed, it seems like a good place to start. They analyzed articles on drugs, drawing every piece of relevant information, as well as references, revision history and readability. Their conclusion is that the accuracy of drug information on Wikipedia was 99.7%±0.2% when compared to the textbook data. However, even though the articles were very accurate, they weren’t fully complete. Scientists rate the completeness of articles at 83.8±1.5%. However, completeness had a huge variation, ranging between 68.0% and 91.0%. This difference shows that Wikipedia is not always the best resource to draw complete information from, but it always provides over two thirds of the whole story. Furthermore, from the drug information missing in Wikipedia, 62.5% was rated as didactically non-relevant in a qualitative re-evaluation study.


While this may seem to be true, in an academic writing you should not cite Wikipedia as it is not a published source. This means that it lacks accountability, causes a great deal of plagiarism, and can be changed by unverified sources (i.e. political manipulation).

As for citing in a forum post, go nuts...
9642 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 17 days ago
"These conclusions and truths favor a candidate or paint them in a bad light, so it must be biased."

Not necessarily true guys.
Gets It.
24767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Raleigh, North Ca...
Online
Posted 17 days ago

Emtro wrote:


While this may seem to be true, in an academic writing you should not cite Wikipedia as it is not a published source. This means that it lacks accountability, causes a great deal of plagiarism, and can be changed by unverified sources (i.e. political manipulation).

As for citing in a forum post, go nuts...


Exactly right. No professor in their right mind would allow for Wikipedia to be used as a source for those exact reasons. Regardless of the accuracy, the issue is that it doesn't go through systematic review (it's peer reviewed but unverified sources can contribute).

Online debates and the likes? Yeah, do as you please. There's a high percentage of people who just ignore what you post online in general - only because they seek their own validation and not to contribute to the conversation at hand.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.