Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

[kookbreaker]

Sounds like I want impartial and trust worthy sources

I honestly do not think you do. Otherwise you would not seek to utterly demonize a group that, despite multiple problems, has a history of effectively fact-checking many claims.

whereas you want to create false narratives and mock those that think different than yourself and stereotype large groups of people.

Yet we see an alarming percentage of the right-wingers on this group piling into this thread to get their licks in.

 

[crescent]

They claim to check facts. How much of the fact-checking they claim to have done was actually plagiarized from the work of others? Work that may or may not be up to the standards we've come to take for granted from snopes.com? Standards which may not actually be as high as we've always assumed?

They check facts, but they also carry a lot of news and informative articles including Associated Press content. I get the impression that much of the articles in question are of that nature.

At any rate, on the true "fact checking" articles they've always listed their sources. I long ago stopped referring people to Snopes because fact-challenged people tend to just dismiss Snopes out of hand. I've had better success using the sources they list for each article, referring people to those instead.

 

[gerdbonk]

I long ago stopped referring people to Snopes because fact-challenged people tend to just dismiss Snopes out of hand. I've had better success using the sources they list for each article, referring people to those instead.

This is the major benefit that Snopes provides. Listing sources that readers can check on their own.

Mikkelson's crime is despicable and he should be removed from Snopes completely and permanently. In fact, if he remains associated with Snopes, I doubt the site will last much longer, considering their financial straits and urgent fundraising. No one is going to donate if he stays.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I honestly do not think you do. Otherwise you would not seek to utterly demonize a group that, despite multiple problems, has a history of effectively fact-checking many claims.

Im calling a spade a spade. That is not demonizing. That is presenting the facts It is common knowledge that snopes has a left of center bias. Perhaps that is why they are failing as an organization?

As somebody already mentioned, fact checking individuals does little to persuade them to change their opinion or perspective. To really impact people’s beliefs it is best to start when they are young.
Dropping a fact check is useful for grandstanding and inflating ones ego.

Yet we see an alarming percentage of the right-wingers on this group piling into this thread to get their licks in.

You do not deny my allegations and instead resort to justifying your prejudice.

 

[ServiceSoon]

They check facts, but they also carry a lot of news and informative articles including Associated Press content. I get the impression that much of the articles in question are of that nature.

At any rate, on the true "fact checking" articles they've always listed their sources. I long ago stopped referring people to Snopes because fact-challenged people tend to just dismiss Snopes out of hand. I've had better success using the sources they list for each article, referring people to those instead.

Does various reputable fact checkers provide consistent guidance on disputed realities?

tl;dr No, they do not. According to this fact checking fact checker, the industry gets two and sometimes three Pinocchio’s because of omissions, exaggerations or contradictions.

 

[gerdbonk]

Does various reputable fact checkers provide consistent guidance on disputed realities?

tl;dr No, they do not. According to this fact checking fact checker, the industry gets two and sometimes three Pinocchio’s because of omissions, exaggerations or contradictions.

Snopes is not mentioned in this report from 2015. "The industry" covered consists of PolitiFact, The Fact Checker and FactCheck.org.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you omit that fact in your post?

 

[Ziggurat]

Snopes is not mentioned in this report from 2015. "The industry" covered consists of PolitiFact, The Fact Checker and FactCheck.org.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you omit that fact in your post?

Why would Snopes be any different?

I'll give you a clue. What do you think people who donate money to these outlets actually want out of these outlets? Do you think their goal is actual impartiality? And do you think these outlets strive to please their donors first, or their readers first?

 

[Darat]

it strikes me as theft rather than lying. although it's absolutely a dishonest act.

-edit-

Yeah I guess there's an aspect of lying, but also an aspect of theft. Seems like not worth the time to try and categorize it under strictly one or the other.

You’d think there was a reason we had a separate word for it!

 

[Butter!]

What I don't understand about the people who question Snopes credibility is, they link and explain all their sources. So you can go through the same sources, and if you don't agree with whatever final conclusion they reached ( true, false, etc.), then no problem. You still have a bunch of info, and you can look up more about it as you please.

It's not like Snopes just gives its oracle answer and then that is it. Every user has access to how they reached their conclusion and is free to draw a different conclusion. The hate seems misplaced.

I will say, though, that I have not personally enjoyed Snopes for many years now. I think the quality of the articles began to tank when Barbara left. Some of them are even written a little snarkily now, which I really dislike. I want fact-checking to be more dry. David seems a bit weird. But as a compendium of sources and a list of disputed claims, Snopes is great. I do understand why politics had put some people off the site, but I still think it is good how they walk readers through the conclusions they offer.

 

[Butter!]

Indeed. I bought out Dr Fauci and all those shares of MurderTech Inc are now mine. (My finance butler advised me to diversify my holdings so now I invest in both murder and killing. The two fields are separate, although people who don't know anything about finance frequently conflate them.)

Never stop posting.

Also, holy crap, a wild Travis appeared!

 

[JoeMorgue]

I can already see this from the usual suspects here, the only point many people are going to take away from this is "A well-known fact-checker is bad, ergo I now get to be more wrong about stuff and use that as an excuse" He will be the "Justin Smollett" of fact-checkers every time anyone is shown to be wrong about anything I am certain.

Called it.

 

[wareyin]

Why would Snopes be any different?

I'll give you a clue. What do you think people who donate money to these outlets actually want out of these outlets? Do you think their goal is actual impartiality? And do you think these outlets strive to please their donors first, or their readers first?

Would you trust the information more if it was paid for by one or two wealthy businesspeople or companies rather than many small individual donors?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Elton John plagiarized REO Speedwagon before it was cool.

It has never, ever been cool to plagiarise REO Speedwagon...

 

[Susheel]

They claim to check facts. How much of the fact-checking they claim to have done was actually plagiarized from the work of others? Work that may or may not be up to the standards we've come to take for granted from snopes.com? Standards which may not actually be as high as we've always assumed?

Why is that important? Is the "fact check" being submitted as a paper, is a copyright attached to the use of the fact check? Do the facts change because of the fact that plagiarism is involved. The butt hurt about this seems to be more about trying to shut down a reliable source of verification so that dissemination of ******** can be achieved with more impunity.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Called it.

Your Honor, I am able to accurately predict the argument that the defense will offer. First, they will claim that they have an alibi. Second, they will claim that they are a citizen of good standing and never inflicted harm on anybody. Third....

What do you believe being able to accurately preempt the defenses argument implies?
1) The defenses argument is invalid.
2) Temporary boost to your ego.
3) Demonstrating your unique position. Which is that you know the arguments of both 'sides' and have chosen the 'winner.'
4) Other?

 

[Venom]

I think Snopes does a pretty good job. My go-to "skeptics" site before it was cool. I don't think plagiarism takes away from their credibility.

 

[Jimmy9]

ZY

 

[Pixel42]

I'm more concerned about whether the information is accurate than whether I could also have read it elsewhere. I'd personally feel quite flattered if something I'd written was quoted by snopes, and would only be slightly miffed if they failed to credit me.

 

[Lothian]

Plagiarism is lying by definition. Any time you publish someone else's work under your own name without attribution, you are lying.

i personally have always defined "plagiarize" as

plagiarize verb

pla·​gia·​rize | \ ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə- \
plagiarized; plagiarizing

Definition of plagiarize

transitive verb

: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive verb

: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

 

[Darat]

Has anyone else fact checked this claim, I know Snopes says they have but you can't trust Snopes....