Is Snopes.com infallible?

World Net Daily ^ | 3/9/2009 | Drew Zahn

[AJMCQ]

Millions of Americans, including national leaders, who rely on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction, may be surprised to learn that behind the Wizard's curtain, is just a husband and wife doing research on their own.

In fact, Snopes, routinely cited by many as the final word on both frivolous and important stories, is not the well-staffed think tank of researchers, journalists and computer hacks one might expect – but rather, the work of David and Barbara Mikkelson, living in a Los Angeles suburb.

[AJMCQ]

George Soros' capitalist hating puppet is a usurper.

[valkyry1]

Is Snopes.com infallible?

Hell No 

[muir_redwoods]

Anyone who reads Snopes more than 4 or 5 times recognizes the obvious leftist bias.

[abigail2]

snopes is liberal......you see them lying all the time.

[Jemian]

Check out this page affirming that Mr. Ed was really played by a zebra.

What was your question again?

[Raycpa]

is just a husband and wife doing research on their own.

Unlike Dan Rather's team of researchers.

[Netizen]

Shouldn’t rely on it as a single source, but, it is a good place to start.

[AppyPappy]

I suspect a lot of people are bitter because they have been busted by Snopes so many times when posting emails to FR.

[Lazamataz]

Claim:   Snopes is accurate.

Status:   False.

Origins:   Many people cite Snopes.com as an authority as regards the proving or disproving of urban legends. While Snopes may have been accurate once, or remains accurate on trivial matters, there has been a decided left-leaning political bias within the last two- to three years, that renders the entire website suspect.

[JohnnyP]

The lib talker that used to call himself Mr. KFI, then Mr. KABC, used to have “the folks from snopes” on all the time, during the Clinton years.

[moneyrunner]

Thanks for the link. I decide to check it out. I clicked on the Snopes.com website and found that their references for their article on compact fluorescent light bulbs were the US government and various newspapers. They are, in effect, a clipping service. As such, they reflect the built-in biases of the MSM.

The commentary accompanying their fact checking displays their personal biases.

For example, this sentence regarding the hazards of compact fluorescents contains commentary that’s irrelevant to the issue of safe disposal. Instead it’s an editorial comment:

They also work to save the environment be lessening greenhouse gases.

This assertion assumes that so-called greenhouse gases (obviously referring to carbon dioxide) are a threat to the environment. Which is an obvious indication that the husband-wife team who write Snopes believe the global warming hoax.

[beef]

I at least give them credit on this:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.asp

even though they did have to get their in digs in on Reagan.

[secret garden]

Good one Lazz.

[Netizen]

I suspect you are right. :)

I don't like chain mails any more than I like spam. Oh wait, that's redundant. Chain mails ARE spam! ;)

[dangus]

I was about to regard the author an idiot: “Silly fool, everyone knows Snopes is just fun.” Please tell me Senator Kyl did not actually treat Snopes as if it were as conclusive as a federal investigation. Please tell me that’s just WND doing it’s normal twisting, and not a fair characterization of Senator Kyl. Even after the last eight years, I don’t want to imagine that OUR party could actually have such a brain-dead, drooling idiot to the Senate.

[dangus]

That’s an April fool’s joke, right?

[dangus]

Yes, it IS an “April Fool’s joke”, except it isn’t April. (Sorry, I was just reading the Quayle-ism page.)

[ltc8k6]

http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp

You missed the link at the bottom of the Snopes Mr Ed page telling you that the page is a spoof page, and explaining why you should be careful about accepting a single source for info.

[VRWCtaz]

I view Snopes in the same light as Wikipedia - they are both a good place to START research for fact checking.

[mysterio]

No online source is infallible, but snopes has been pretty good at debunking a lot of the kooky email crap that makes the rounds. Not surprising that WND is swinging at them.