But, it was debunked by... (Yes?) ... Oh my god. https://xkcd.com/250/
Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name
411–417 of 417 posts
Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My personal experience was finding an article that talked about something I was directly involved in, and it was clearly wrong. Snopes can only go by what other sources have written, since they weren’t there. If you have direct personal experience, it’s certainly likely that your view will differ from the one reported by Snopes, for two reasons: Firstly, your view is by definition limited and personal, and is likel…
> Snopes can only go by what other sources have written Or they could do basic journalism: directly contact sources or seek access to first hand material and do cross-refence. It used to be the standard back in the days to have at least three independent sources before publishing a story.
If they did that, they would have no references to back up their claims. This is why Wikipedia does what it does; they need to be able to reference every claim.
Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
FUCK SNOPES --- They are literally FAKE NEWS and they are actively paid to push narratives. Utter douchebags.
Now that's an extraordinary claim. My story was meant to explain why I think they're fallible, but I also believe they have good intentions and are trying to do an accurate job of it. I don't see any reason to think they're getting paid to lie about stuff.
It was posted that there was only one employee at snopes who was responsible for their answers, and that they were very questionable....
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=snopes+has+only+one+fact+ch...
But then again - in these trying times for Truth - I don't know who to trust.
Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
And come on, “Unconfirmed” clearly means there is no evidence to confirm this. “False” means not true. I don’t expect anyone reading to interpret that differently.
So the existence of fairies and unicorns is merely "unconfirmed"? I would consider that term to mean that there is one reasonably credible report that has not been corroborated.
Do you have any reports claiming to have seen them? Do you trust the source?
Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
But was never convicted, or even prosecuted, for the bombing the original tweet mentioned. And never prosecuted for terrorism.
By your line of thinking Timothy McVeigh is a murderer, but not a terrorist. Terrorism related charges changed in 2001.
Did he cause much terror? Wasn't he arrested soon after he murdered people?
Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name
#416Given how much mudslinging has gone on with Snopes over the years, and how little I know about Buzzfeed News' journalistic integrity, I really wish there was a factchecking page about this on an established factchecking website...
What do you make of the statement published on snopes.com itself? https://www.snopes.com/2021/08/13/snopes-writers-condemn-pla...
Ah, nice. Couldn't see that. Still can't find it linked to on their site, so appreciate the link!
Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do a lot with thought experiments that show logical inconsistencies in ideas without any actual knowledge of the facts. Physics is a fairly clear example. It's hard to make all those equations work without creating paradoxes unless they actually model the real world correctly. If it was all fake but internally consistent, then even a small amount of observation could destroy the whole thing.
> You can do a lot with thought experiments that show logical inconsistencies in ideas without any actual knowledge of the facts Yes, what you're getting at there is "a priori" knowledge in epistemological-speak and I agree that it forms the basis for much of what we consider true. But, even the ability to accurately conduct and assess the results of those experiments relies on some set of facts. Your physics example…
I'm not talking about commonly accepted physics knowledge but people contradicting themselves - essentially saying "A and not A are both true" without realizing it. Well, unless the a priori knowledge you're talking about is logic, but then we're in over my head.