Talk:Snopes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Crowd-funding

Apologize for my first edit with the wrong URL. The correct one is here. MPants at work: Please read the new reference of Bloomberg first, and then provide a reason why the fact supported by such a reliable source should be removed. I totally agree with the recent edit by InedibleHulk. The former article directly cited the fund-raising campaign page, which is WP:NOTADVERTISING. That's why I replaced the reference from the campaign to Bloomberg in order to meet WP:POV. --Mis0s0up (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you changed the source from a primary one to a secondary one, which is a good thing. But your edit summary stated that you were documenting the "shareholders" of Snopes. Hence my edit summary; shareholders and crowdfunders are not even remotely the same thing. In addition, the source did not support the content, which is about the worst sin possible to commit on WP. You also cited WP:NPOV, which makes no sense. There's nothing non-neutral about the content. Right now, you've already started to edit war over the content by reinserting it after it has been reverted. You're supposed to come here and discuss instead of continuing to revert.

So from where I sit, an inexperienced editor made an edit that was not supported by the source, cited a policy that had nothing to do with the issue, but which is frequently abused by disruptive editors with agendas (see the section But we also can't take the side of NYT for one example) on a politically sensitive page while misrepresenting both the source and the content in their edit summary.

I might point out that said inexperienced editor then reverted the exclusion of that material for the second time instead of waiting for a consensus to re-include it. So yeah, you got reverted, and reverted again. That's what happens when things look shady. It's easier to talk out a hasty revert than it is to deal with an editor who's trying to push an agenda, one detail at a time.

Now, if you have a compelling reason why this information should be included, I'm all ears. Seriously; I'm perfectly willing to change my mind about this material. I have no dog in this fight. But you need to try to make the case before continuing to revert, because you've reverted two different editors in an attempt to include this. You're literally halfway to a guaranteed block for edit warring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Before taking MPants at work's questions, let me briefly introduce myself. I recently translated the entire pages of Snopes.com, PolitiFact, and fact checking from English to Japanese because fact-checking organizations are relatively new to most of Japanese readers - probably so as to other non-American readers. During the translation process, I carefully read many of references of the three pages in order to understand the competitive landscape as well as different points of view. Apologize in advance if I made/make my English not so clear due to my poor second language skills. Re: crowd-funding, there are four central questions:

1. Is it true that Snopes raised money through GoFundMe?
2. If true, which reliable source(s) tell so?
3. Is it worth to mention the fund-raising activity on Wikipedia?
4. Finally, does my edit comply with Wikipedia's policy etc?

My answers are:

1. Yes, Snopes met the original half mil goal.
2. The Bloomberg's article, citing originally from AP, looks reliable to me. But adding more than one references would be beneficial to Wikipedia readers. FYI: Bloomberg says "Fact-checking website Snopes.com has quickly met a $500,000 goal set for an online fundraiser amid a legal battle with an outside vendor that Snopes says is holding it hostage. Snopes started the GoFundMe campaign Monday and reached the half-million dollar goal about 24 hours later." I also found another report from Poynter saying "Snopes is requesting readers donate $10 or more, either through GoFundMe.com or other means. According to Snopes' GoFundMe page, 845 people raised more than $20,000 of the $500,000 fundraising goal in just three hours, as of publication." However, I hesitated to cite the Polyster's report in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest. PolitiFact is operated by Tampa Bay Times, which is owned by Polyster.
3. Yes. Sometimes any media organizations are easily influenced by their stakeholders (including shareholders, advertisers, vendors and customers.) Bardav, Inc. operates Snopes, and at this moment the Wikipedia article has almost nothing about Bardav as a corporate entity. Thus, many readers are probably curious how Bardav financially runs. As far as I know, most of other fact-checking organizations are NPOs or under the umbrella of large media corporations. Among them, raising money from subscribers (Snopesters) is a different business model. It (accidentally) happened as a result of the legal dispute between Bardav and Proper Media. Therefore, mentioning the crowd-funding activity under the History section and right after the sentences of the law suit is appropriate.
4. I would like to wait for other Wikipedia editors' feedback on this matter.--Mis0s0up (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As I already explained, the issue is entirely around your third question. The others are not contested (Bloomberg is an RS and as such point #1 is fairly irrelevant). Your fourth question hinges entirely upon the answer to the third right now.

The problem with number three is that your logic contains a pair of non-sequiturs. That means you state premises, then derive conclusions that do not follow from those premises.

Sometimes any media organizations are easily influenced by their stakeholders (including shareholders, advertisers, vendors and customers.) You are presuming that there is some influence over the operations of snopes that contributors to the crowdfunding campaign are capable of exerting. I don't see any evidence of this, yet it must be true for this statement to have any relevance.

Bardav, Inc. operates Snopes, and at this moment the Wikipedia article has almost nothing about Bardav as a corporate entity. Bardav's only operations are the operations of snopes.com. Therefore, we have an entire article about Bardav. We're on it's talk page, right now.

Thus, many readers are probably curious how Bardav financially runs.The crowdfunding campaign was an exception to Bardav's normal revenue models, which are accurately described elsewhere in that section.

It (accidentally) happened as a result of the legal dispute between Bardav and Proper Media. Therefore, mentioning the crowd-funding activity under the History section and right after the sentences of the law suit is appropriate. Aside from taking issue with your characterization of the campaign as "accidental", this does not follow. Simply because it happened does not make it due. Simply because it happened as a direct result of a notable event does not make it due.

I have reverted your addition again. I did not do so yesterday because I don't want to edit war. However, now that you've given your reasoning, I find it entirely unconvincing. As such, I don't believe this information belongs in the article. We may continue to discuss this on this page, if you like. If additional editors engage and support your position, or if you can present a better argument for the inclusion, then of course, at that point it can be re-inserted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problem at all here. There's nothing controversial about telling the reader that the GoFundMe campaign raised $500k in a day. I have no idea why this matter is worth so much discussion from MPants. It's a bare fact, neutral and relevant. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why this matter is worth so much discussion from MPants.

1. Including the dollar amount looks like trivia to me. It doesn't add anything worthwhile to the article.
2. The rationale for inclusion raises a number of red flags.

That being said, I'm not married to exclusion. If the consensus is to include, then so be it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Launch year

The current version has two different launch years: 1995 in the infobox; and 1996 under the History section. Both of them are with no references mentioned in the article, and probably WRONG. According to Snopes' official website and to Washington Post, the launch year is 1994. But the Webby Award page tells it's 1995. I can't find where 1996 comes from... Could anyone reconfirm that the launch year is 1994? --Mis0s0up (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your webby awards link is the snopes about page.

I think if the primary source says 1994 and WaPo confirms 1994, then that's the date we should go with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am still looking for the editor who mentioned 1996. There is a possibility that 1994 would be the launch year of Snopes' beta version while 1996 would be the first year on the current WWW system - Comparing the two years (i.e. pre-/pro-Windows 95) is worth mentioning. More importantly, I am wondering whether David Mikkelson might intentionally change the launch year from 1995 or 1996 to 1994 in order to express his autonomy and to kick Barbara out from Snopes' history. David, for example, deleted Barbara's name as a co-founder from Snopes' "About Us" page. After the divorce, David has kept saying Snopes was founded by David. But Snopes' operating company Bardav, Inc. (= Barbara + David) suggests Snopes was co-founded by David and Barbara. Therefore, Snopes' official "About Us" page is not so reliable for a reference. FYI: David and Barbara got married in 1996, according to WIRED. If David changed the launch year from 1996 to 1994, he might have wanted to imply Snopes was launched before Barbara moved from Canada to the US.

MPants at work, please do NOT edit without references. --Mis0s0up (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

MPants at work, please do NOT edit without references. What the fuck are you talking about? Your little conspiracy theory about David changing the date is pure WP:OR and has no business in the article. We have an RS that gives a year; the snopes about page confirms that year. That's the end of the story. If you want to second guess the RSes, you can go do that on conservapedia or some other wannabe wiki. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please review your own edit work here. Thank you. --Mis0s0up (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Because if you're not trolling me right now, you have no business editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy section - Funding

I changed the following:

Critics of the site have falsely asserted that it is funded by businessman and philanthropist George Soros, or linked sites, but all of Snopes’s revenue is from advertising on the site.

to a more fact-based (NPOV):

Critics of the site have asserted that it is funded by businessman and philanthropist George Soros, or linked sites, but according to David Mikkelson all of Snopes’s revenue is from advertising on the site.

My edit was reverted without any explanation. I do not want to get into an edit war. My reason for this is that Wikipedia should not pass judgments on the falsehood of the accusations and state facts. Personally I find the idea of George Soros funding it baseless; however, it is important that we upload NPOV. Please discuss. —14.140.50.82 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Explanation was given, "Make language NPOV. Let's state facts and no judgments." The source cited says:

All of Snopes’s revenue — Mr. Mikkelson says he doesn’t know what it is — come from ads. Facebook is not paying for its services. Nor is the billionaire George Soros funding the site, although that is sometimes asserted in anti-Snopes stories.

WP:NPOV does not mean that we create artificial balance (see WP:GEVAL), especially when doing so would require saying stuff that is not supported by the source at all (see WP:V and WP:NOR). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Check the sources used in the section:

All of Snopes’s revenue — Mr. Mikkelson says he doesn’t know what it is — come from ads. Facebook is not paying for its services. Nor is the billionaire George Soros funding the site, although that is sometimes asserted in anti-Snopes stories. - New York Times (emphasis added)

The claim that Soros funds the site has been debunked elsewhere, as well. It's just that it's such a silly claim that no-one felt the need to add additional sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to get an uninvolved opinion in here: on the face of it, the edit by '82 looks good, and I still believe it was made in good faith. After all, it deletes the "falsely asserted" (which is ordinarily a red flag for NPOV/OR) and seemingly clarifies that the Snopes revenue is the subject of Mikkelson's claim. It certainly sounds more WP:NPOV, and I had briefly considered restoring it when it was reverted. But, as MPants points out, that's not at all consistent with what the source says. The source itself says Soros is not funding the site. It's not NPOV for the Wikipedia article to accurately represent what the source says. The idea that Soros is funding the site is typical conspiracy-nut stuff. and is barely more believable than that Santa Claus is funding it; we're not required to — and should avoid falling prey to — the "false balance" of presenting other points of view, even if absurd, that we see all to often. And adding the qualified "according to David Mikkelson" is simply incorrect. That's not what the cited source says.

In sum, the IP edit cannot remain. It's just wrong. TJRC (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are talking about the same source, but we shouldn't use the word "falsely" unless the source itself has used that term, or something really close to it, like "untrue." Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The source says "Nor is the billionaire George Soros funding the site, although that is sometimes asserted in anti-Snopes stories," i.e., that the assertion is false. If you don't like the word "falsely", make some suggestions for wordsmithing here, and get some consensus, but don't baldly delete it. You're going WP:NPOV by repeating the assertion from the source while leaving out the source's statement in the same sentence that the assertion is not correct. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the word "falsely" is taking a point of view and should be eliminated. We don't know who is telling the truth if anybody, therefore we should quote/reference the article as closely as possible. Saying "falsely" means that Wikipedia is siding with the material cited when it should be remaining neutral. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

With whom do you think you "agreeing" with about removing "falsely? Anmccaff (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Not with you but with BeenAroundAWhile. It doesn't matter if NYT or Breitbart claim a darn thing or if it's even accurate. A claim, is a claim, is a claim. Ultimately, we don't know the truth and can only write what people claim. That's why it's important to be impartial and neutral. Mikkelson and his detractors can claim anything they want, but we can only report on those claims, not to the validity of either because that would be original research. Where the rubber meets the road, no one knows for sure who paid Mikkelson and who did not, except Mikkelson, and we have his claim down as a rebuttal to his detractors. And that's all that needs to be said on it. Taking a stance is not what Wikipedia does. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No. An unsourced claim is not as good as a sourced one, an anonymous one is (generally) not as good as one someone stands behind, a stand-alone claim is generally not as strong as one with similar asertions. Right now, the article has no source which claims Snopes is fact-pimping for Soros, only one which states such claims have been made, but are false. There is no sourced counterclaim for the article. If you want to bring such claims in except in passing, you have to find a source that makes them or reports them favorably. Anmccaff (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

He's got a point. Now I'very beenlying here all night, unable to sleep, but I think I can give you a good starting point, and you guys can reword this how you see fit, "Rumours began to surface on social media in (insert time frame) claiming Snopes received funding from George Soros. However, no evidence has been presented supporting these claims." And then the NYT quote. Just a thought.68.53.153.55 (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

mediabiasfactcheck.com

This site is extensively referenced, used and endorsed by RSes. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. You can read about their methodology and commitment to accuracy here, and see their contributors here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(Pinging @Anmccaff:. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC))

Those are valid, and accurate points, for addressing perceptions of bias. They aren't for addressing Snopes's mission; either Snopes's own words, or, say, Brundvand's, are better there. That portion of the mbfc cite was simply a stovepipe, and one that I'd bet is partly based on Wiki, and is certainly cited to Snopes.com itself.

More importantly, the original editor tried to slip this in as a minor edit, in a way that smells of coatracking; that requires a little oversight. Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

PS:Some further insight on minor edits. Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PPS:This?l Huffpost blogshite..."but I repeat myself..." Anmccaff (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Given their inexperience, they might well think that adding a cite to existing statements is a minor edit. I see nothing in their history that suggests a POV pusher or a slick vandal. Besides, we don't (or at least shouldn't) revert good edits just because they came from a bad editor, and that's assuming this guy is bad, despite there being no evidence of that.

And it's not unusual to cite a secondary source to describe an article subject. It's not really necessary, but it's certainly not harmful at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that broken huffpo link is suppose to mean. I don't see it used in their contribs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, did it get damaged in handling? Lemme try it again. That am blogshite...and worse yet, twitter clickbait. Makes the others it's with look like a google-dredge. Anmccaff (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're saying by posting that link. Did this editor use it as a reference or something? I don't see where they did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ummm...they didn't use it; you did. Right in the second sentence of this section. Anmccaff (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that was in the list of sources I offered. I thought I closed the tab of all the questionable hits before I started copying and pasting links, but apparently I missed one. Fine, that's not an RS, but if you think that makes the Columbia Journalism Review, Politifact, Newsweek or the Chicago Tribune any less reliable, then I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You wanna have a conversation with yourself here, knock yerself out; what with cell phones with tiny bluetooth mikes, it doesn't even look that odd anymore. I think I've already raised the reason why I think this is a mediocre cite for the purposes it is being used for in the article; showing that it might be a very good one for other uses doesn't change that. Anmccaff (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing against that; it wasn't me who reverted you. I was trying to get you to explain more clearly what you meant by posting that link to HuffPo, something which I had to ask you twice about before you gave me a cogent answer. When you finally did explain your meaning, I responded directly to that. Characterizing that as having a "conversation with myself" is just really, really bizarre. I was conversing with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how mediabiasfactcheck.com is reliable; here [6] they put Alternet in the same category as CNN which is crazy. According to the site, there is one guy [7] who "makes all final editing and publishing decisions." On their methodology page [8] there is a clear grammar mistake - can you spot it? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

First, I disagree with some of their findings too, but see my first comment above. It's not really up to us to discuss our feelings about its reliability when it's cited and trusted by so many other sources we consider reliable.

Second, They put every outlet they characterize as having a left leaning bias in that category, if you'd clicked on the entries for those two, you'd see that Alternet is placed way over in the "Extreme left" part, while CNN is right under the "Left" part.

Third, having an editor-in-chief is generally considered a good thing when discussing the reliability of the source. I don't know why you think it's a bad thing in this case.

Finally, a grammar mistake doesn't say anything about their reliability. I've actually found more than one on that page, just as I've found grammar mistakes on a lot of pages on RS websites, in RS publications, in non-RS sites and publications and god knows how many in my own writings. English is a complex language. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• There is no reason whatsoever to consider this self-published website a reliable source. It appears to be random guy's project; it is neither scholarly nor journalistic in nature. The links where this site has been referenced are unpersuasive. The brief CJR reference says it is one of several "amateur" websites run by an "armchair media analyst." The second cite is an op-ed. The brief reference on PolitiFact just calls it a "volunteer-led effort" (i.e., like Wikipedia, which is also not an acceptable source). The Huffington Post link is to a blog post (not a staff-written article) written by a "contributor" who is a children's author. This sort of stuff does not provide a firm basis for reliability. Neutrality^talk 06:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Neutrality, I have to agree. At first it seemed like a good endeavor with some nice features which I often used and recommended, but as time goes by it appears to be more like a crowdsourced one man show. Some of the ratings have shifted radically to make fringe sites seem much more mainstream than they are, while dissing mainstream ones. I no longer even check its ratings. If it were to be professionalized and made more dependable, that would be great, but until then we shouldn't use it. --

Whether to include the cite in the lead

I for one, am fairly ambivalent about whether we should include the cite in the lead. The only thing I'm not ambivalent about is whether it's an RS: for my arguments to that effect you can see the top comment of the main thread, here. But please, let's discuss it instead of slow edit warring over it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"Well-regarded"

Hello, I added the term "well-regarded" to the lead. I found the same story by Melissa Allison of McClatchy in several newspapers, of which I have cited two. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 20:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Discuss "puff"

I was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snopes.com&curid=471791&diff=842605813&oldid=842494589. I removed excess wording which seemed "over the top" to me. I would like to see if the source actually has wording similar to that which I removed. The reverting editor explained in the Edit summary that the wording is "amply sourceable." If that is true, could we please have a Reliable source? WP:BRD.Thank you so much. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue is "widely known" which has been discussed here before, with consensus to keep it in. See Talk:Snopes.com/Archive_3#Recent_revert_of_"widely"., Talk:Snopes.com/Archive_1#Widely_known, and also some of Talk:Snopes.com/Archive_2#"American" where the "widely known" bit was accepted per the source. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Puffery" is exaggeration. It is in no way an exaggeration to say that the oldest, best known and most popular fact checking site is "widely known". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, oldest still standing. Urbanlegends.com/Cathouse went back well before it, as did the Straight Dope's web presence. There was also some online searchability of some of the Foaftale news, but you had to dig for it. Snopes is kinda the model T of folklorology: there were older ones, and better ones, but none with as wide a market spectrum over time. Qwirkle (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There really has been no consensus either for or against, because the debate still goes on. Can we simply have a Reliable source using the exact words of the disputed sentence? Thanks again. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There really has been no consensus either for or against, because the debate still goes on.Bullshit. That's not how consensus works. Consensus is not unanimity and the fact that there are a small group of editors who take a dim view of snopes doesn't make factual statements like "widely known" untrue. Nor does it change the fact that "widely known" is not puffery or even weaselly.

Also, urbanlegends.com was a repository of collected legends (that just happened to contain some debunkings, many of which were done by the Mikkelsons) and cathouse.org was a general interest site that had a section about urban legends. Also, I'm pretty sure both of those were started after 1994. I never even heard of cathouse.org until '97 and I've been on the internet since Mosaic was released. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Cathouse is older than Mosaic; it goes (went?) back to ‘91. (Do a Usenet search on the creator, 1991, cathouse, and Mosaic if you doubt it.) Qwirkle (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"Bullshit" is (1) not a nice word, and (2) hardly the stuff of polite conversation. But of course these days many people don't understand this not-so-fine point of usage. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this. If the word "bullshit" bothers you that much, you really should not be on the internet. There are far worse words floating around. like "Fuck" and "Cunt" and even.... (Dare I say it?) ... "InfoWars". But of course, these days, there are plenty of people looking for something to get offended at.

Quirkle; I may be wrong about the dates on those. I still don't think cathouse would really qualify as a fact checking website, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 21:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, back then, neither did Snopes. The main aspect back then was urban legends and folklore, and the voracity (sic) of a story was only one component, and often a minor one. The emphasis on big-T Truth or Falsehood came along much later, and that on politics later still. Alt.folklore.urban, from which Snopes sprung, had a literal ban on politics, this BOP being one of the rare exceptions to the BOA, or ban on acronyms. This wasn’t to say political ULs weren’t discussed, they were, but only as ULs. The underlying politics were not mentioned by the regulars except in passing. Qwirkle (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Snopes.com's shift in focus is not something we should just ignore for the sake of disagreeing with an RS. Yes: they did not have a focus on debunking when they were first founded, but the time frame for them being predominantly a repository of urban legends (3-4 years at most; they had the prominent grading system in place by 1996 or '97) vs the time frame of them being predominantly debunkers of urban legends (20 years or so) speaks for itself. And I did not say anything about their political debunkings. "Fact-checking" is not exclusive to politics, being an established if relatively unknown part of newspaper journalism for some time. But the fact checkers as we know them today (politifact and fackcheck.org, for example) are an almost exclusively 21st century phenomenon, and only grew to it's current level of public recognition during the 2016 presidential election. But professional, public debunkers of urban legends, ghost stories, conspiracy theories and the like started in the early to mid 90's, with the publication of the first issue of Skeptic magazine and the founding of sites like snopes.com and (to a much lesser degree) urbanlegends.com. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, no. This simply isn’t true. Panatti, Poundstone, “Cecil Adams”, Tris Coffin, Brunvand...when I start adding in the ones like Joe Allen who did this locally, or the people who were eclectic columnists, but also took and answered questionS - Hell, Mencken did this - or the “ask the Fill-in-the-blank” column for big newspapers and periodicals like Mary Meier did for the Globe, there were more then than now, believe you. This is not a new thing at all. This isn’t even mentioning the folklore publications that also covered current stories, like Foaftale News.

(Man, MM there should not be red.)

What was new was quick answers, not writing off to someone and waiting a week or three for it to show up in print.

Wasn’t something that started in 1990, though. Qwirkle (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that's crap. Not one of those people was a professional debunker or fact checker. They were culumnists or journalists who sometimes did fact-checking or debunking. Was there some history of debunking and fact-checking before those fields took off? Of course! Many columnists even included the "fact check" as a regular type of column (though no major publications had a dedicated fact-checking department that put out content for the public directly). That's what showed a demand for those fields, and where the people who created them had their backgrounds. But that's like claiming that bootlegger racing is the same thing as NASCAR racing, just because the latter has its roots in the former.

Dude, this isn't a nerd-dick measuring contest. You don't have to prove me wrong to show the site that you know a thing or two. Just chill and stop trying to "win" because I assure you: you're the only one who cares anymore. I'm done with this bullshit. Go ahead and get the last word. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In the mid ‘90s, the Mikelsons weren’t professional debunkers, either...while Ed Zotti’s operation had been for over two decades. (The Chicago Reader backed the wrong horse in the free-range website vs walled ISP content, with its first major online presence buried in AOL.) In the 90’s, the Snopes still had and needed their day jobs.

(...and yes, Mary Meier, and all of her ilk, were professional fact-checkers and debunkers who had direct contact with the public. What they didn’t have, of course, is a searchable online database of their...um, “data,” and of course, they were local. They didn’t have an internet footprints at first, there being no internet. But they evolved, too, and their electronic presence is clearly older, even if some of it was on TWX.)

Snopes isn’t “one of the oldest fact-checking websites.” It’s one of the older websites that now does fact checking. Since the article ...which is what we are supposed to be discussing here, rather than whether the water is merely cold, or cold and deep...uses praise for the site gained from its early focus on urban legends to make claims about its later performance with more controversial issues, this is an important distinction. Qwirkle (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

“I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit.” ― Mel Brooks O3000 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, there seems to be a source cited, so I am sure that anybody who has access to this book will be glad to verify the citation. Thanks again, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, never mind. I found it. Thanks to all. https://books.google.com/books?id=pCP569gGM0AC&pg=PA285&dq=snopes+mikkelson&lr=&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=snopes%20mikkelson&f=false BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Trivality of mentioning where the website is based

Qwirkle has repeatedly reverted my addition of Mikkelson's "home base" for the website in Tacoma, Washington, which was recently mentioned in a profile by The Seattle Times (a major regional newspaper). The location of a website's main office (more or less) or its founder's hometown is not in violation of policies like WP:NOT, and are clearly encouraged by the Websites project and is present in most of its featured or good articles (e.g. Twitter, Slashdot, Polygon (website). There's no reason for it to be repeatedly removed without a proper explanation. SounderBruce 20:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That is quite innacurate, and you can either retract that, or we can take it up at ANI. Your first edit was factually inaccurate, and neither in agreement with all the other sources in the article, nor the source you added. Snopes was not founded in Tacoma. Your second attempte was better, but still inaccurate. The old Mrs. Mikkelson was one of the brains of the outfit, the new one is not. Qwirkle (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I should also mention that the website's main office in San Diego is highly relevant in the context of its 2017–18 court case, which was fought out in San Diego Superior Court. SounderBruce 20:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

...and yet that wasn’t what you added was it? Nor, for that matter, is it so true anymore; that appears to be an artifact of Mikkelson’s unfortunate choice of Ms. Binkowski for management. Qwirkle (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree that it's hardly trivia. I've restored the text. Aiken D 22:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

...and yet the previous location were sourceable for the 23-odd years, and not noteable? And the intervening location -Port Orchard neither. Heh. Qwirkle (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Only you have suggested that. Aiken D 06:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No, every person who editted the article up to now tacitly suggested that. Until someone tried to add some mistaken home-town rah-rah, no one thought this was a salient fact, apparently. Qwirkle (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, I've edited this article many times and did not tacitly suggest anything. I've restored the text, again - it's common to mention the location of websites. Aiken D 06:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Bilge. You read the sources, saw something mentioned often, sometimes prominently, and left it out? Yeah, that suggests that you thought it was too trivial to mention before...or that you read the sources in the sort of way that could make someone clain the site was founded in Tacoma. Your pick. Qwirkle (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Snopes.com → Snopes – Per WP:COMMONNAME. feminist (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support. startTerminal {haha wow talk page | waste_of_space#4023 on discord} 04:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support move. There's no obvious reason to include ".com" in the name. ONR (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose move. It’s a Usanian website, of course it’s a dot com. And it’s obviously not Faulkner, what with the dot com. So, we loose a built-in disambiguation, and gain...what, exactly? Qwirkle (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• We don't lose anything, since the redirect and hatnote are already in place. What's gained is consistency with the naming policy, as noted by the request. Dekimasuよ! 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Why am I thinking of Emerson here? As it stands, the article title is both the site’s official name, and an indicator it is neither directly about the site’s founder, nor abour American lit. Why turn it into someting less accurate and more ambiguous? We certainly do lise something; a good deal of reader’s time. Qwirkle (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hopefully you are not under the misapprehension that all consistency is foolish; feel free to think my mind is little. A reader searching for “Snopes” is currently redirected automatically to this article, the first line of which reads “‘Snopes’ redirects here. For the novels by William Faulkner, see Snopes trilogy.” This seems quite clear and unlikely to waste much time of readers searching for Faulkner. The proposed move would result in a first line reading “This article is about the website. For the novels by William Faulkner, see Snopes trilogy.” Just as clear and unlikely to waste the time of a reader.

The proposed title allows the common name to serve as the title of the article that receives 35 times the number of readers as the article on the novels. (Emerson’s idea of truth would not work well with Wikipedia’s policies on consensus or NPOV, either. In your shoes I might have gone with Hemingway: “you can't get away from yourself by moving from one place to another”). For now, support. Dekimasuよ! 01:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Superfluous. O3000 (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Meets reader expectations to find the article at a common and simplified name. SounderBruce 02:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The common and simple reader typing in “Snopes” is now met with a choice of “Snopes.com”, “Snopes trilogy”, and “Snopes family”: how is removing one piece of data helping him? Qwirkle (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The website title from Google uses "Snopes.com" as does other sources [9][10] (probably not reliable)[11]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support The common name. .com is unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 06:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Calidum 10:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit warring over George Soros discussion

In recent hours, there has been edit warring involving two IP addresses making unexplained edits (i.e., no edit summary) to the part of the article that says "Critics of the site have falsely asserted that it is funded by businessman and philanthropist George Soros". The IP edits have repeatedly removed the word "falsely" and made other changes such as changing "falsely asserted" to "claimed", and adding "David P. Mikkelson has denied the claim" in the next sentence. There has been at least one WP:3RR violation by the IP edits, since one of those IPs made 5 rapid reverts (the other IP made 3 rapid reverts). The WP:edit warring should stop. It would be helpful if someone who supports these changes could explain their concerns. In the absence of a consensus, I suggest that the original wording should be retained. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I request semi-protection. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Since both IP addresses start with "2a02:2149:871c:1c00", I suspect they are the same editor. They have not responded to comments on their User Talk pages. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

At this point, the two IPs have made 9 unexplained reverts and not responded to any Talk page comments. However, I suggest that Objective3000 back off for now and let someone else decide what happens next, since the tit-for-tat has really gotten out of hand (and since this seems like more of a content dispute than outright vandalism). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I've stopped reverting and requested page protection. A PP admin is not active at the moment. I'm not taking it to any other board. And yes, IPs are in the same dynamic pool in the same country. O3000 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think we have two days PP. A 3RR warning should be placed on the user's TP, not that it will help. I shouldn't be the one to do so. Or, we can hope they get bored; which often happens. O3000 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The text below is from The Babylon Bee - should we write a short bit into the article?

Despite its status as a satirical website, The Babylon Bee has been fact checked by Snopes dozens of times. Some of these facts checks have been controversial. For example, in March of 2018, The Babylon Bee published an article alleging that CNN was using an industrial-sized washing machine to "spin" the news. Snopes fact-checked the article, rating it "false." Facebook then cited this fact check in a warning message to The Babylon Bee, which threatened to limit their content distribution and monetization. Adam Ford tweeted a screenshot of the warning message to his followers, drawing public attention to the matter. Facebook quickly apologized: "There’s a difference between false news and satire. This was a mistake and should not have been rated false in our system. It’s since been corrected and won’t count against the domain in any way."

In July of 2019, Snopes rated another article from The Babylon Bee "false," but this time suggested the article was deliberately deceptive rather than genuinely satirical. Adam Ford responded on Twitter, highlighting what he deemed to be problematic wording in the fact check. The Babylon Bee also released a statement, calling the fact check a "smear" that was "both dishonest and disconcerting." The statement concluded by saying a law firm had been retained to represent The Babylon Bee because "Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us." After receiving some backlash and a formal demand letter from The Babylon Bee's attorney, Snopes made revisions to the wording of the fact check and added an explanatory editor's note. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

References

@Doug Weller: - the text is reasonably well phrased, however the Daily Wire isn't a particularly reliable source. RSN judged it to be somewhere between unreliable and partisan, needing significant caution in usage. I realise it's written a lot on the topic, so is firmly tempting, but do we have alternate sourcing that could be used in place of any of the DW's usage? If there isn't currently anything in the article, then I do believe there should be something on this added. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There's the New York Times.[12] - I'm trying to work through almost 24 hours of a huge watchlist right now. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've taken out the more partisan article (and its material is covered elsewhere) and reused the NYT source. That mitigates the bigger of the concerns. Luck with the watchlist! Nosebagbear (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Snopes tends to have blurbs about satire if they gain enough traction (or using another term, too many people eating the onion). I'm not sure it needs to be a specific mention about BB, but maybe about satire in general? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple of paragraphs on satire and a few lines on BB - it has enough sourcing that I think it would be DUE to include at least some content on it Nosebagbear (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Evolution of the Snopes website

The current article discusses Snopes as though it were a long-term “fact checker”, and one of the oldest such existing. This is factually wrong. Snopes’s focus only began moving in this direction with 9/11, and it only became dominant with, roughly, the Obama campaign. This, of course, roughly tracks the growth of wide scale politicized BS online, with readers questions shifting from folktales to those about suspicious “news” items. The article really doesn’t reflect this in several ways. Brunvand pointed out that a mom-and-pop website was good enough that he felt no need to make a one-man website of his own, but the site has evolved a good deal since then. The article emphasizes that the founders were rather apolitical, but only one of the founders is left, and I don’t think that Brooke Binkowski is a Rockefeller Republican like Dave...and I strongly suspect that is the reason she was let go, although as likely to avoid the appearance of partisanship than its existence on the site. The article doesn’t really reflect this, either.

Saying that Snopes is widely known isn’t puffery, but making positive statements about its current form based on what it looked like two decades ago might be. Qwirkle (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your own original research is not an acceptable source for article contents. The following sources all categorize snopes as one of the oldest fact-checking sites: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

...but the NYT says otherwise, right in the article on the top of the page. No one is questioning that Snopes is the oldest surviving big urban legend site, but the Frogboys aren’t showing up because Snopes is pointing out that Red Bull contains no bovine spooge. The fact-checking that has caused controversy is political, and the NYT writes as though that only began with the Trump campaign. Not just the controversy, but the emphasis. Now if you think that I am using “fact checker” narrowly, yeah, I am. I am using it as opposed to “folklorist,” even though the two can obviously overlap. If you make a venn diagram of “folklorists” and “fact-checker,” Barb and Dave lived for years in just the one circle. They studied folklore. Stuff passed by word of mouth, or mimeograph, or xerox, and then by email, If it wasn’t a foaftale of some sort, it wasn’t in their sights.

Now, the stuff on the CNN site is purely folkloric. Yupp, snopes has been doing that back to ‘94, which is to say three years after the AFU archive. Not oldest there, even.

The Times-Union piece explicitly notes the shift from folklore to politics, notes that they were uncontroversially held to be pretty accurate before they started addressing controversial matters.

The Poynter piece is...unfortunate. It’s a muddled mess, and it doesn’t talk much about the site’s evolution, except as it concerns the lawsuit. Whatever Poynter’s standing as a whole may be, that article needs a boulder-sized grain of salt.

The Fox piece explicitly notes the Snopes site’s changes of focus, with the earliest version a UL “encyclopedia” much like TAFKAC, not a fact-checking site in any sense at all, but that evolved with readers sending new stories, or at least those new to them. Mikkelson explicitly notes that the emphasis on the political side only came with 9/11.

The Sun-Star Philippines? Now, that has the smell of a tendentious search, but it’s not a bad article.

So, if you want to argue that the idea that Snopes is the oldest is sourceable but untrue, knock yourself out. Qwirkle (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

1. None of the NYT sources used say that.
2. Your own WP:OR doesn't change what the source say, no matter how much you disagree with them. You are the only one insisting that "fact-checking" is an exclusively political phenomenon. To be fair, you're not explicitly repeating that, but your argument requires it to be true to be consistent, so... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, when someone makes a distinction between two things that overlap in a conversation, then from there on past it helps to stick with that distinction. Mighta saved some grief above in the section above. I thought it was obvious in context, but, obviously not.

Snopes began life as folklore website, not a general interest fact-checking website like, say, the Straight Dope, or a political fact-checker like PolitiFact or FactCheck and so forth. It was a year or two before it had much more than material borrowed from Usenet, some of which, of course, was Dave and Barb’s own work. Like the AFU FAQ, it assessesd the possibility that a rumor or legend was reality based; that wasn’t an innovation, but it was easier to search and easier on the eyes. Over time, readers began asking about stuff they had read,or heard elsewhere, and the site began to focus on that (and began gathering income). It went a while before it started to have much in common at all with, say, PolitiFact.

When that happened, when it stopped focusing on sewergators and choking Dobermans, and went political is disputed among the sources you brought in. The NYT seems to think it was our current Comanitee-in-Chief’s campaign, others (not in the sources you’ve gathered above) put it to Obama’s campaign, David Mikkelson himself to 9/11. Either way, though, praise for a site’s or person’s accuracy based on one subject doesn’t always translate to another, and the fact that Brunvand gave them a nod a couple decades ago is only relevant to what they covered then. Qwirkle (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Seperately, yes, I think the readers, or at least a good portion of them, do see “fact-checking” almost entirely in terms of political disinformation and misinformation, not mere error. If they didn’t, a google for “fact-checking” would bring up more simple references, and less debunkers. Do you disagree? Qwirkle (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not bothering to read your comments because I'm not seeing any sources in them. Unless and until you can provide sources to support your suggested changes, there's nothing to discuss here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

With one exception, it is discussing the sources you brought in above. I’ll leave the implications of that as an exercise for the reader. Qwirkle (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Would work better if you found some sources to support your content, but I'm happy enough with that move. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m thinking something along the lines of “Widening use of the Internet not only spread traditional ULs, but rumors and misinformation with political implication. This became a larger part of Snopes work. Different observers tied the growth to events like 9/11 (cite to DM interview) and presidential campaigns (lots of other potential cites there.) Coverage of traditional folklore remained strong, however, and Snopes was listed second only to AFU (described as “dormant”), in Brundvand’s 2012 “Encyclopedia of &cet.”, and the only website mentioned in his 2014 ←”Colossal (?) Book &cet.”

Something like that. It’s a week before I get my paws on something with a real keyboard, so I’m not in a hurry. Qwirkle (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You need a source that says "snopes is not one of the oldest fact checking websites", or at a minimum, says "these are the oldest fact checking websites:" and then lists sites without including snopes.com. Find one source that makes a compelling case for that (the argument you've presented here is anything but compelling. Have you realized yet that your argument relies upon at least two mutually exclusive premises yet?) and I will discuss whether that source is a better one than the ones we have already. Find multiple sources saying that, and we can skip the discussion and skip straight to changing the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, given the present direction of the site, it's weird that it nowhere mentions the debunking of 'fake news', which is a focus of this BBC interview article with the founder. Onanoff (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Trolls and bad editing

In January, 2019, some troll (no home or talk page) changed the lede from "is one of the first online fact-checking websites" to "claims to be one of the first online fact-checking websites", and marked this significant change as a "minor change" -- this was obvious vandalism, but did not get caught at the time. 11 months later, I spotted this baseless change and reverted it back to the former consensus-based text. But there's always got to be someone who can't leave well enough alone and can't be bothered to look at or understand the historical context, and such a person reverted my correction for no good reason and with no discussion here, then managed to realize that "claims to be" is nonsense and reverted himself, but couldn't leave well enough alone and ended up changing it to "is a fact-checking website"--a degradation of information for no good reason. (See the comment near the top of this page giving 5 different links identifying Snopes as one of the oldest online fact-checking sites.) I don't spend my life editing WP and I refuse to get into edit wars with this sort of incompetence, so I'm simply bringing this to the attention of others so it is understood how the article got to be the way it is. I won't comment further. -- Jibal (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this person was editing in good faith. WP:AGF. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I saw this change and let it go because although it probably is the oldest I could find no source that verifies this. O3000 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Quoting from higher up on this very Talk page: "The following sources all categorize snopes as one of the oldest fact-checking sites: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]." --Shadow (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

"In 2012, FactCheck.org reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases." --This should be removed. Factcheck.org is biased and unreliable. The article is written by a guy who spends all his time trying to discredit republican politicians. Not to mention, "...free from bias in all cases" Is this what you consider credible? Delete the line. It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. 174.23.179.172 (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done. I fixed the date given; it should have been 2009. As for the rest, umm, no. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Just because you hate that the site calls you and people you like out on your conspiracy theories, does not make the website illegitimate. Wikipedia is not a forum. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Factcheck.org is biased and unreliable." -- No, it isn't. "The article is written by a guy who spends all his time trying to discredit republican politicians." -- False. Aside from it not being all his time, this is an assertion of motive that cannot be substantiated. It's not the fact-checker's fault if Republican politicians tell a vast number of lies. If reporting their lies discredits them, then that's hardly an inappropriate outcome. "Is this what you consider credible?" -- Yes. "It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia." -- Of course it should; it's an objective statement about what FactCheck.org said about Snopes. -- Jibal (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Factcheck.org is not a reliable source, this shouldn't even be controversial to say now. They have clearly been dishonest and misleading in enough of their reporting to be discounted as credible.67.79.70.148 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Factcheck.org is a highly respected, award winning site. It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. O3000 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not controversial, because it is blatantly wrong. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Funding addition

What the records do reveal, as any nasty marital dissolution will, are struggles over money and control. For at least some months in 2016, the records show, Snopes was pulling in more than $200,000 a month in advertising sales.

https://www.wired.com/story/snopes-and-the-search-for-facts-in-a-post-fact-world/

Am digging around for stuff not listed on the wiki site, whether there is veracity to the fraud allegations namely.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-tacoma-based-snopes-debunker-fake-news.html 09:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.48.246 (talk)