Topic: Snopes.com -- How accurate are they?

Message:

Posted by: Bill Palmer (Jun 2, 2008 2:22pm)

If you are "into" urban legends, you have probably visited the snopes.com web site.

Have you ever found an item on their site that you know for a fact is untrue.

I have, and I'll reveal what it is later on in this thread.

Message:

Posted by: magicianinja (Jun 2, 2008 3:37pm)

I haven't. Everything I've seen there has been backed up by evidence.

Message:

Posted by: Bill Palmer (Jun 2, 2008 4:06pm)

The question is how accurate the evidence is. In the particular case I am familiar with, eyewitness testimony is denied by a major television network. Snopes sides with the network.

Message:

Posted by: Dave V (Jun 2, 2008 5:26pm)

Snopes is one of my favorite sites. I don't know the accuracy of their claims, but I'm guessing they're more correct than not. I wonder what would happen if they heard one of their articles is wrong? Would they update it? Or simply ignore it?

Message:

Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 3, 2008 7:19am)

I'm pretty sure that if you had persuasive evidence, they would update the site.

They are folklorists with solid academic credentials. Academics sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes they make mistakes in evaluating the evidence. But I would be surprised if anything at Snopes was somehow not in good faith.

Bill, don't keep us waiting. Out with it!

Message:

Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Jun 3, 2008 10:19pm)

I know they even did an experiment to let people know not to take their word on things. It was the Blackbeard/Sing a Song of Sixpence legend that they totally made up (and did a good job making it sound plausible).

Message:

Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 4, 2008 1:30am)

Well, they also used to have something about Mr. Ed (the talking horse), but I don't think that's what Bill Palmer is talking about.

Message:

Posted by: Mark Ennis (Jun 12, 2008 5:18pm)

Quote:

On 2008-06-02 14:22, Bill Palmer wrote:
If you are "into" urban legends, you have probably visited the snopes.com web site.

Have you ever found an item on their site that you know FOR A FACT is untrue.

I have, and I'll reveal what it is later on in this thread.

There was an item that used to be listed as false until someone finally proved it true. It had to do with a very risque answer on the TV Game Show "The Newlywed Game". Even Bob Eubanks denied it and supposedly offered money to anyone that could produce footage of it.

Message:

Posted by: Scott Cram (Jun 13, 2008 9:36pm)

The Mythbusters are even more sinister!

Message:

Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jun 24, 2008 6:28pm)

Bill, you're still leaving us hanging here; which case are you talking about?

As for eyewitness testimony, well, I withhold judgement without knowing the details. As magicians, we do know that eyewitness testimony is sometimes very inaccurate- but then again, so are news networks. (How many times has the media over-simplified a story to the point where it's useless for real information?)

Message:

Posted by: jfquackenbush (Jun 24, 2008 8:40pm)

I do know that snopes has been critical of news media picking up on old urban legends from time to time, so I think your comment that they "sided with the network" bringing along sinister connotations is a bit unfair.

that said, I wouldn't be surprised if they said something was false that later turned out to be true. I doubt that they'd be all that surprised either.

Message:

Posted by: darrylasher (Jun 29, 2008 2:56pm)

Here's something fun about Snopes. Read this:
http://www.snopes.com/lost/mobile.asp

Note at the bottom of the page, there is a More Info link that takes you here:
http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp

Message:

Posted by: tom_stamm (Jul 25, 2008 12:59am)

I used to love Snopes, but then they started with the pop-under ads and drove me away. With Firefox and the Ad blocker extension I suppose I could start reading it, bit I just never got around to going back.

Message:

Posted by: Jimeh (Jul 30, 2008 2:42am)

So Bill, just how long are going to have to wait?? lol

Message:

Posted by: stoneunhinged (Sep 5, 2008 4:18pm)

At least a month.

We need to give Bill a shout out.

BILL! BIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

Message:

Posted by: Chris Henderson (Oct 5, 2008 12:34pm)

Quote:

On 2008-06-02 14:22, Bill Palmer wrote:
Have you ever found an item on...[the Snopes] site that you know FOR A FACT is untrue.

I have, and I'll reveal what it is later on in this thread.

Reminds me of a funny (and unfortunately true) line from the Simpsons regarding "teases"...

"I'm Kent Brockman, on the eleven o'clock news tonight, a certain kind of soft drink has been found to be lethal, we won't tell you which one until after sports and the weather with funny Sonny Storm."
:)

Message:

Posted by: Drew Manning (Oct 5, 2008 11:54pm)

Quote:

On 2008-06-12 17:18, Mark Ennis wrote:
Quote:

On 2008-06-02 14:22, Bill Palmer wrote:
If you are "into" urban legends, you have probably visited the snopes.com web site.

Have you ever found an item on their site that you know FOR A FACT is untrue.

I have, and I'll reveal what it is later on in this thread.

There was an item that used to be listed as false until someone finally proved it true. It had to do with a very risque answer on the TV Game Show "The Newlywed Game". Even Bob Eubanks denied it and supposedly offered money to anyone that could produce footage of it.

I saw a clip from the episode in question and Bob talking about it on a show on VH1 (?) a while back. It was quite amusing nad the response was too risque for even today's TV as it still had to be censored LOL

Message:

Posted by: ed rhodes (Jan 23, 2009 12:03am)

Well, here it is three months later and nothing from Bill.

"Well, there goes Bill" - Dodo

"Poor Bill." - Alice

Message:

Posted by: J Hanes (Jan 26, 2009 7:34pm)

Quote:

On 2008-06-02 16:06, Bill Palmer wrote:
The question is how accurate the evidence is. In the particular case I am familiar with, eyewitness testimony is denied by a major television network. Snopes sides with the network.

please explain further mister palmer

Message:

Posted by: critter (Feb 3, 2009 10:49am)

I have yet to see a website that has 0 errors.
Then again, Wikipedia has a statistical accuracy comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
So... Meh.

Message:

Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Feb 8, 2009 11:04am)

Quote:

On 2009-02-03 10:49, critter wrote:
I have yet to see a website that has 0 errors.
Then again, Wikipedia has a statistical accuracy comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
So... Meh.

Says who?

Message:

Posted by: basic_mystifier (Feb 10, 2009 7:35pm)

Interesting site. Looks like they have good evidence.

Message:

Posted by: ProfWag (Feb 11, 2009 12:03pm)

Quote:

On 2009-02-08 11:04, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:

On 2009-02-03 10:49, critter wrote:
I have yet to see a website that has 0 errors.
Then again, Wikipedia has a statistical accuracy comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
So... Meh.

Says who?

I'm still a little leery about Wikipedia, but here are a couple sources for the accuracy statement comparing it to the Encyclopedia.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Message:

Posted by: critter (Feb 11, 2009 3:19pm)

Thanks. There was an article about it in "The Inlander."
That is a local free newspaper here. It was an article about the internet and whether it makes people more dumber or more smarterer.
Interesting article.

Quote:

On 2009-02-11 12:03, lvwag801 wrote:
Quote:

On 2009-02-08 11:04, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:

On 2009-02-03 10:49, critter wrote:
I have yet to see a website that has 0 errors.
Then again, Wikipedia has a statistical accuracy comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
So... Meh.

Says who?

I'm still a little leery about wikopedia, but here are a couple sources for the accuracy statement comparing it to the Encyclopedia.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Message:

Posted by: Marvello (Aug 10, 2009 8:05pm)

Bill, whats the story you are referring to?

Message:

Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 3, 2009 10:59pm)

A year later and Bill still hasn't spilled the beans!

Message:

Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Sep 4, 2009 9:15am)

Maybe Bill's claim to said info was simply another urban legend.

Message:

Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 4, 2009 10:53pm)

Pity. I would have liked to have heard what it was.

Message:

Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Sep 5, 2009 6:04pm)

Um...he mentioed it in his 3rd post

Message:

Posted by: Robin DeWitt (Sep 5, 2009 9:44pm)

Quote:

On 2009-09-05 18:04, Bill Nuvo wrote:
Um...he mentioed it in his 3rd post

And yet I only count *two* posts by Mr. Palmer. 'Zup?

Message:

Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Sep 6, 2009 9:40am)

It's right there in his third post

Message:

Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 7, 2009 5:57am)

Quote:

On 2009-09-05 18:04, Bill Nuvo wrote:
Um...he mentioed it in his 3rd post

Hmmm, I don't see a "third post." However, Drew Manning has a post which appears to have a quote pertaining to it.

BTW, I remember a television show about game shows where the host of the Dating Game swore blind that this quote had never happened. Then, he says, they showed him the clip. Then they showed the clip on the show (with appropriate censorship). So sometimes "eyewitness testimony" isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Message:

Posted by: Bill Ligon (Sep 7, 2009 11:29am)

Look for the third post. It is right after the one about the kangaroo.

Message:

Posted by: Robin DeWitt (Sep 7, 2009 8:40pm)

Quote:

On 2009-09-07 11:29, Bill Ligon wrote:
Look for the third post. It is right after the one about the kangaroo.

Didn't I see you at the last Snipe hunt?

Message:

Posted by: Bill Ligon (Sep 7, 2009 9:07pm)

Ha! Yeah, I was the one left holding the bag!

Bill

Message:

Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 8, 2009 12:22am)

Yes, but can you do the call?

Posted: Sep 11, 2009 12:20am
--------------------------------
...Aw man! I wanted to find Fraiser doing the call from the episode of "Cheers." Apparently, nobody's ever saved that!

Message:

Posted by: youngmagjar (Sep 27, 2009 7:42pm)

My understanding is that Bill was kidnapped by a CIA appointed alien from Xerplftt that didn't want Bill to say anything derogatory about SNOPES. Bill did escape by giving the alien a packet of POPROCKS and then a PEPSI to wash it down. Sadly, for The Alien, his insides exploded. Bill was last seen on the grassy knoll telling Elvis that Michael Jackson was still alive (or maybe it was his ghost) and had been picked up while hitchhiking by Timothy McVey & Amelia Earhardt. Of course this still has to be substantiated by SCOPES before Bill will finally break his silence on this subject. Stay tuned.

Message:

Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Sep 28, 2009 4:47pm)

Quote:

On 2009-09-07 11:29, Bill Ligon wrote:
Look for the third post. It is right after the one about the kangaroo.

See!

Message:

Posted by: Bill Palmer (Oct 12, 2009 3:32pm)

I apologize. I let this one slip my mind.

http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/kissballs.asp

It took place on the Carson show.

The one with Bob Eubanks was another one that was claimed not to have happened.

Bill Nuvo was correct about the answer being in my third post.

Regarding Wikipedia -- They have been plagued with people who have no credentials or authority at all submitting articles, so much so that about 2 years ago, they deleted all of the articles submitted by one fellow who claimed to have better academic credentials than he actually had.

Also, I can tell you of one instance in which I am certain that Wikipedia has deliberately lied. This concerns the lack of a link to the cups and balls museum. They state that there is no link to the cups and balls museum because I objected to the magic exposures on Wikipedia. Although I do, and did, object to these exposures, the chief reason that I did not want a link from Wikipedia is that the server my museum was on at the time had some rather severe bandwidth limits. During one week of linkage to Wikipedia, my bandwidth limit was almost exceeded.

The truth is that after a very long battle with them, during which they maintained a link to the cups and balls museum, claiming it was a "public resource," * I finally discovered that their rules preclude linking to a password protected web site. After I password protected the site, my problem went away.

* Their claim that it is a public resource is completely contrary to fact. All of the photos and texts are copyrighted. I pay for the server space, the camera, the flash memory cards, the cups, the balls, the wands and everything else. I consulted an attorney about this, and he stated that I not only had a good case, he would handle it pro bono. But he added, "Your time is worth something. If you want to spend a lot of time going back and forth with them, you might want to find another solution." Password protection did the trick.

Message:

Posted by: Nicholas J. Johnson (Oct 29, 2009 3:48pm)

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm

there have been some complaints about the snipes team being big fat liberals.

I've noticed a slight lean to the left but nothing too outrageous.

Message:

Posted by: Ruldar (Oct 30, 2009 11:59pm)

I've used them for a couple of years and have found their references and justification well founded.

Message:

Posted by: Dark Knight (Nov 18, 2009 11:52pm)

If everyone would fact-check with Snopes before they forwarded e-mail, the e-mail Internet traffic would be reduced significantly.

DK

Message:

Posted by: magicFreak2 (Dec 4, 2009 10:04am)

Quote:

On 2008-06-02 16:06, Bill Palmer wrote:
The question is how accurate the evidence is. In the particular case I am familiar with, eyewitness testimony is denied by a major television network. Snopes sides with the network.

I think its kind of reading wikipedia.

Message:

Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 8, 2010 10:10am)

[quote]I apologize. I let this one slip my mind.

http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/kissballs.asp

It took place on the Carson show.[/quote]

So what part of the Snopes story do you know for a fact isn't true?

Message:

Posted by: danhughes (Jul 28, 2012 6:28pm)

Quote:

On 2009-10-29 15:48, Nicholas J. Johnson wrote:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm

there have been some complaints about the snipes team being big fat liberals.

I've noticed a slight lean to the left but nothing too outrageous.

Conservatives call them liberal because they tell the truth about conservatives. But they tell the truth about liberals, too. Lots of dirt on Bill Clinton, etc.

Snopes doesn't just answer questions - they cite sources and list references. Looks good to me.