Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 417 posts

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

#91

Post by dragonwriter »

1over137 wrote: post #74
eplanit wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a sadly similar story. They're downright extreme nowadays.

An example being SPLC labeling ex-muslims as hateful "islamophobes".

> An example being SPLC labeling ex-muslims as hateful "islamophobes".

Why is that an example? Plenty of ex-whatever-religion (or even ex-particular-denomination) people turn right into the most extreme and hateful bigots against the group they departed.

It’s a frequently commented on phenomenon among religious people, often not focussing on betrayal by departing members (where the bias of attachment to their own identity group might make them prone to overperceive) but on the trend among converts to their own religion.

It would be weird if a group tracking hateful religious bigots systematically excluded former members of the targeted religious group from the label.

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

#92

Post by lazide »

DFHippie wrote: post #52
jjcon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about AP and Reuters?

I was only addressing press releases. I don't know about wire services. It's my understanding that publishing them as your own, or implicitly your own because of a lack of attribution, is just plagiarism.

If they pay the requisite fee it is licensed to them to do that, that is the wire services business model. It isn’t plagiarism if you pay for it and it’s done with the writers permission apparently.

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

#93

Post by strangeattractr »

majormajor wrote: post #70
h_anna_h wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about these? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-vaccine-passport/

What do you think the errors are? The first one says "definition of 'convicted terrorist' is fuzzy, here are the specific convictions, which are different from what was claimed, which were dropped charges" which seems accurate for a "mixed" review - if the words you use are literally incorrect, how can you expect to have them reviewed as "true" even if you think it's a technicality. If they have a "mostly true" then…

Yes I just looked, they do have 'mostly true' and they didn't use it. Honestly, if that first one doesn't make you roll your eyes I don't know what to say.

Would a reasonable person consider a person who was a member of a terrorist group that bombed the senate and was subsequently convicted of being in possession of large amounts of explosives and firearms a domestic terrorist? I think it's an emphatic yes.

It's like arguing that a man caught by police attempting to have sex with a 16 year old girl from the internet shouldn't be considered a sexual predator because he didn't succeed and there is no single universally-agreed definition for the age of consent.

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

dfee wrote: post #36
rglover wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're a sham fact checking website and they don't want a paper trail.

How is this not a better established position? I see Snopes as pure, unadulterated bias. Honestly, I see all those fact checking websites the same way. Which is fine, though humorously this pairs nicely with another thread on HN this morning about HS critical thinking courses around journalism, quite well.

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by stimpson_j_cat »

dfee wrote: post #36
rglover wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're a sham fact checking website and they don't want a paper trail.

How is this not a better established position? I see Snopes as pure, unadulterated bias. Honestly, I see all those fact checking websites the same way. Which is fine, though humorously this pairs nicely with another thread on HN this morning about HS critical thinking courses around journalism, quite well.

> I see Snopes as pure, unadulterated bias

Oh, they said Trump told the truth when he said "Murders this year have spiked 27% in Philadelphia."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/24/donald-tru...

Why didn't anyone remind them of their bias before this got published?

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

#96

Post by damagednoob »

Veen wrote: post #80
revolvingocelot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the SPLC, their addition was a mistake, and the retraction seems honest and reasonable. [0] Now, me, I like my organizations to never admit-- uh, I mean make mistakes. [0] https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video

They settled a defamation lawsuit. The settlement terms included an apology and payment of $3 million.

If it was an honest mistake, how did it get to the point of having to settle for $3 million?

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

#97

Post by JCVI-syn10 »

dfee wrote: post #36
rglover wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're a sham fact checking website and they don't want a paper trail.

How is this not a better established position? I see Snopes as pure, unadulterated bias. Honestly, I see all those fact checking websites the same way. Which is fine, though humorously this pairs nicely with another thread on HN this morning about HS critical thinking courses around journalism, quite well.

They debunked the video that purported to show Trump insulting his supporters. They said the video was fake.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-video-insulting-supp...

According to you, they are wrong, though. Ignore evidence to the contrary.

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

#99

Post by [deleted] »

Veen wrote: post #80
revolvingocelot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the SPLC, their addition was a mistake, and the retraction seems honest and reasonable. [0] Now, me, I like my organizations to never admit-- uh, I mean make mistakes. [0] https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video

They settled a defamation lawsuit. The settlement terms included an apology and payment of $3 million.

[deleted]

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

#100

Post by vfclists »

HN is becoming less and less a place where issues are rarely discussed.

The most irrelevant comments always rise to the top and more and more people join in and waffle about nothing.

The interesting point in the article is this one:

"Snopes VP of Editorial and Managing Editor Doreen Marchionni suspended Mikkelson from editorial duties pending “a comprehensive internal investigation.” He remains an officer and a 50% shareholder of the company."

How can the whatever whatever suspend her boss from editorial duties pending a comprehensive internal investigation? Did she clear that with her boss first?

What Covid has proved is that the whole media has become a pack of shills, which is false because they have always been pack of shills, only they were more subtle about it?

Post reply on HN