SNOPES....

[connieb]

You made the accusation that they are more likely to assume the worst about accusations form the right and be more accepting of those from the left.

Clearly you have not actually gone to Snopes much. I've used them to verify stuff that was negative about Romney or Bush as well. I never use Snopes alone and always read the info and check the source.

All the fact checking is based on assumptions and interpretations of the person doing the fact checking. They cite a source, but everyone interprets language and the spin on the facts differently. They do so, like politifact with an obvious bias.

but, no I don't use them much. Why would I? Who are they to be considered truthful or honest or arbiters of fact? What is their history, their expertise, their education, their politics?

Like I said, I think their "urban legend" stuff is pretty reliable. But, beyond that why would I take someone else's opinion of the "truth" when their research consists of research I can do myself?

 

[Caroljo]

A real source is evidence that it is true. Lately you right wingers have started to use the term fake news to label anything you don't agree with. But you don't provide anything to show back up your claim that something is fake. The reason there is a Snopes is because right winger's propensity to propagate fake stories. Notice how there is no Snopes like fact checking sites on that are explicitly on the right. They don't exist because they would have to spend most of their time debunking their own BS.

Lol.....tell that to Saladin2. Every post we make he claims FAKE NEWS.
You are really good at spinning stories.....
So Snopes is explicitly left....thanks for admitting it.

 

[Spamature]

my daughters school still won't let her use Wikipedia as a "source" for homework, due to the instability and inaccuracy of online experts with a partisan agenda.

Wikipedia is edited by the public. But you can "usually" but not always trust the articles it uses for citation if the entry is about something that does not carry a lot of controversy.

 

[connieb]

my daughters school still won't let her use Wikipedia as a "source" for homework, due to the instability and inaccuracy of online experts with a partisan agenda.

EXACTLY. I actually find Wiki rather accurate. But, it can still not be cited as any sort of official or authoritative source, because the controls to challenge bias are non-existent. Even though I think that when it comes to stuff like dates and personal background, the stuff is pretty accurate.

 

[Addy]

Wikipedia is edited by the public. But you can "usually" but not always trust the articles it uses for citation if the entry is about something that does not carry a lot of controversy.

That's what I had thought too re: Wikipedia -- can be edited by the public.

 

[Spamature]

Lol.....tell that to Saladin2. Every post we make he claims FAKE NEWS.
You are really good at spinning stories.....
So Snopes is explicitly left....thanks for admitting it.

If I make that claim you will almost always see a source to back up the idea that it is fake. I actually read and look up the validity of the stories you guys post before I can it BS. Also I am not saying Snopes is explicit left. I am saying there are not fact checkers who even attempts to be a source for verification for people on the right explicitly. If there were it would spend all of its time debunking the stories I see posted here by people on the right here. It really is something you guys (and the nation for that matter) really need but don't have.

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

If I make that claim you will almost always see a source to back up the idea that it is fake. I actually read and look up the validity of the stories you guys post before I can it BS. Also I am not saying Snopes is explicit left. I am saying there are not fact checkers who even attempts to be a source for verification for people on the right explicitly. If there were it would spend all of its time debunking the stories I see posted here by people on the right here. It really is something you guys (and the nation for that matter) really need but don't have.

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

 

[Dawg]

Lol.....tell that to Saladin2. Every post we make he claims FAKE NEWS.
You are really good at spinning stories.....
So Snopes is explicitly left....thanks for admitting it.

Spamature used FAKE as much as Saladin2 has................spamature is a spinner and now hiding from me due to not being able to handle the truth.............

Snopes is an embezzler and porn start ☻

 

[Dawg]

Wikipedia is edited by the public. But you can "usually" but not always trust the articles it uses for citation if the entry is about something that does not carry a lot of controversy.

I can edit Wikipedia and you claiming it "usually" trust it.........LMAO

even addy fell for the funny

 

[Dawg]

View attachment 34357

he's an embezzler and the other a porn star..............explains why libs trust them.......if they could get Slick in the basement they'd have an accused rapist..............☻

 

[Spamature]

View attachment 34357

Here one I made just for you

 

[Spamature]

That's what I had thought too re: Wikipedia -- can be edited by the public.

But the parts of the articles come with citations for the statements in them. These citations are usually from credible sources like major media outlets, writings and interviews from the people actually involved, government or university studies, etc.

 

[Addy]

But the parts of the articles come with citations for the statements in them. These citations are usually from credible sources like major media outlets, writings and interviews from the people actually involved, government or university studies, etc.

When they are correctly sourced... I would think so.

 

[Spamature]

When they are correctly sourced... I would think so.

Normally it links to a news article from a local or reputable source published during the time period. So it less likely to be something that was just made up or is part of a current controversy on the subject.

 

[Addy]

Normally it links to a news article from a local or reputable source published during the time period. So it less likely to be something that was just made up or is part of a current controversy on the subject.

That's about the only way to be sure all of that's written there could be considered truly factually valid.
Otherwise, it would be just opinions/comments by the writers. imo
I use Wikipedia sometimes but not that much.
Biographies of famous people, I have referred to those at Wikipedia.
If someone spots errors or mistakes, can anyone log in and edit/correct them?

 

[Boca]

For what it's worth (not much) I referred to Snopes about 3 times on things I've totally forgotten. I know it's probably not an absolute for everything they put out, but in each case there was not a single piece of evidence given to support what they wrote. They were more opinion pieces with tangential innuendo. Like for example if John Doe wrote something with say names or dates with quotes, Snopes "factchecked" that John Doe also wrote this or that, or he was associated with Jim Whoever, or had 3 DWI's, or "according to our sources" John was accused of this or that. In at least those 3 cases it was kill the messenger.

I would in return like to see from someone a case in which they addressed the facts and "showed evidence" of the facts. It shouldn't be hard, I'm sure it has happened, I've just never seen it.

 

[middleview]

For what it's worth (not much) I referred to Snopes about 3 times on things I've totally forgotten. I know it's probably not an absolute for everything they put out, but in each case there was not a single piece of evidence given to support what they wrote. They were more opinion pieces with tangential innuendo. Like for example if John Doe wrote something with say names or dates with quotes, Snopes "factchecked" that John Doe also wrote this or that, or he was associated with Jim Whoever, or had 3 DWI's, or "according to our sources" John was accused of this or that. In at least those 3 cases it was kill the messenger.

I would in return like to see from someone a case in which they addressed the facts and "showed evidence" of the facts. It shouldn't be hard, I'm sure it has happened, I've just never seen it.

I looked up the allegation that the Clintons had stolen $200k worth of stuff from the White House when they moved. I also looked up the accusation that they (or their staff) trashed the White House. There was significant supporting info....GSA report, Congressional report, Park Service report....and appropriate links to see those reports and not just the C&P on Snopes.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Have you ever tried fact checking the Fact Checkers? Snopes is the most used around the world. Any time someone wants to prove you wrong, most of the time they'll give you a link to Snopes. I never could understand how people are so gullible as to believe what other people say just because they SAY they have the facts. No questions asked! My God...they're PEOPLE.

This article in Forbes tells it like it is. It's pretty long, but if you don't read it, don't bother to respond. This clearly shows everyone how crooked they are. Snopes has always been clearly biased. I'm sure some of what they say are the true facts (if it doesn't have anything to do with politics).

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
Yesterday afternoon a colleague forwarded me an article from the Daily Mail, asking me if it could possibly be true. The article in question is an expose on Snopes.com, the fact checking site used by journalists and citizens across the world and one of the sites that Facebook recently partnered with to fact check news stories on its platform. The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization, drawing heavily from the proceedings of a contentious divorce between the site’s founders and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1cfb0b901e02

what does it matter? you're so thick-headed you refuse to even read reporting that comes from legitimate news sources.....if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

 

[Addy]

Normally it links to a news article from a local or reputable source published during the time period. So it less likely to be something that was just made up or is part of a current controversy on the subject.

Spam, you are referring to Wikipedia, aren't you in you post above?

I have used Snopes, it appears to be a legit source.