Is snopes ever wrong? Or is their arrogance just too powerful to rebuke?
Case in point:
http://www.snopes.com/language/phrases/1500.htm
Don’t they need to preface almost all of their commentary with IMHO? Where’s their proof? Or is it - because I said so?
Well, I think they were wrong about the infamous “Newlywed Show” quote*. But IIRC, they just said that it was “highly doubtful”, so technically, they weren’t wrong.
*In response to a question from host Bob Eubanks about the “most unusual place you’ve ever made whoopee,” a female Newlywed Game contestant responded, “That would be up the butt, Bob.” They’ve updated their report, and now list this as True.
I vote for their arrogance. Not only that, but they certainly like to through political or social opinions into the fray. Their article about Sean Penn’s NY time’s one page advertisement made me double think their slant. In fact, just after looking at their page, I noticed that they took down the sex category. WTF, are they funded by the RNC or something now?
I don’t really understand, cc - On that link they provide explanations for all of the facts they cite and sources for most of them. And then they follow it up with a bibliography of ten sources.
Yeah, on some of the points they do reference cites to support their opinions. But I am afraid a lot of people are then duped into thinking ALL of their opinions are therefor irrefutable.
Dirt poor is an American expression, not a British one. Claims that the saying grew out of British class distinctions as measured by style of flooring are just plain silly.
- Cite?
The earliest documented use of the phrase graveyard shift comes from a 1907 Collier’s Magazine. However, graveyard watch was noted in 1895, with that term referring to a shipboard watch beginning at midnight and lasting usually four hours.
- Therefor this saying was definitely not coined in the 16th century?
Mice, rats, and bugs definitely take up residence in thatch roofs — to them it’s a highrise hay mow. Cats and dogs, however, don’t go up there.
- And snopes knows this because?
ETC.
Well, if you type into the search engine “Risque Business”, the good ones—er, I mean the sexual legends are accessible.
People that take snopes at face value are most likely the people that believe everything they hear on the 6 o’clock news.
People that use snopes as a cite are most likely the people that use 60 Minutes as a cite.
Lemmings.
IMHO.
I’d imagine that the redesignation of the “sex” category as “risque business” was to assist would-be visitors whose workplace internet filters would otherwise have blocked them.
At least, that’s been the effect…
Snopes was wrong about the Saudi’s, including some of Osama’s family, being allowed to fly out of the US days after 9/11. Snopes said that it wasn’t true for about 2 years. Recently someone from the Gov. admitted that The Bush people allowed a charter flight to pick these people up and fly out when ALL aviation in the country was grounded with the exception of military flights.
Note this news didn’t make a blip on your mainstream, corprorate run media.
Oops…that’s me. But instead of being annoyed, I’m now wishing I had thought of calling myself “Lemming”.
I’m not trying to say snopes is 100 percent bullshit. But there is a fair amount of bullshit on snopes, I just hope people realize it.
Has anyone ever checked out the “Lost Legends” section of Snopes?
At the bottom of each of those stories is a link leading to “More Information About This Page” There is a long explanation about the supposed truth of these stories, and how you should do research with MANY sites, not just Snopes, when you are presented with a claim. Here’s an excerpt of the piece:
What the Mikkelsons are trying to do with the Snopes site is debunk some of the popular urban legends and internet hoaxes out there. They do not claim infallibility (as evidenced by the recent “Newlywed Game” revelation by Bob Eubanks that the infamous “in the butt, Bob” answer was actually true), their only purpose is to be a place where you can go to research something.
It’s merely a good starting point. And it should be used as such.
That’s an excellent question, ccwaterback. We didn’t get many well-supported, specific examples of Snopes mistakes in that thread, besides the Newlywed Game one that has already been mentioned.
ccwaterback. When you say, in criticism, of snopes,
Hey, champ You’re the one suggesting that snopes is wrong on this and other things. If you thing that the phrase “dirt poor” DIDN"T originate in the US, then YOU come up with a cite and the origin.
cc You then picked on snopes by suggesting that their statement
was incorrect and not proven by a cite.
If you can’t understand that they just cited their source, and you have cited NOTHING to refute it, then you need to do your homework.
And, when you say
You need to start providing evidence as to where they are wrong. A “fair amount” is a pretty strong statement.
They quite often post info that is state-of-the-art at the time. If the US Government chooses to release the true info later, how can you blame them for writing the original article?
As to the “up the butt legend” they wrote what was a state of the art article for many years. If someone had offered the proof that the out-take clip existed, they would have changed their opinion.
“Dirt floor” originated in the US? That’s just silly.
See, I can be pompous too.
If WE the SDMB posters must back up our assertions with cites, why shouldn’t we require our cites to do the same? It just seems to me a lot of people have taken snopes to be the Holy Grail of the internet. If snopes says it’s true, it’s true. :rolleyes:
You obviously missed what I said. I said “dirt poor.”
Can you cite where it first was used? Country? Date? I can. Can you? Put up or shut up.
Then you said
You have provided NOTHING as far as cites for your assertions. Snopes almost always provides cites.
Could you be bothered to provide a cite as to any one of your various assertions?
If snopes says it’s true, then it’s almost always true. Perhaps a 1% error rate.
Barbara spends obviously more time researching her assertions than you have.
Cite?