# What's the 'dope on Snopes?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [April 24, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212 "2009-04-24T13:57:02Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/1 "2009-04-24T13:57:02Z")
I got an email from a friend of mine about Snopes and thought I’d check it out here to see if anyone knows the 'dope on this.
> [@](#):
>
> Snopes is the final say ONLY if they agree with your point of view.
> \*For the past few years **[www.snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com) \<[http://www.snopes.com/>](http://www.snopes.com/>)** has
> positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final
> word’ on any comment, claim and email.
>
> But for several years people tried to find out whom exactly was
> behind **[snopes.com](http://snopes.com) \<[http://snopes.com/>](http://snopes.com/>)**. Only recently did Wikipedia
> get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding.
> Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that’s
> right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of
> lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
>
> David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
> started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
> background or experience in investigative research. After a few years
> it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over
> the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind
> it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions
>
> - or skepticisms - is a result of **[snopes.com](http://snopes.com)
> \<[http://snopes.com/>](http://snopes.com/>)** claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain
> questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also,
> there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and
> getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues. \*
>
> -
>
> A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville
> hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash
> across the internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have
> researched this issue before posting their findings on **[snopes.com](http://snopes.com)
> \<[http://snopes.com/>](http://snopes.com/>)**. In their statement they claimed the corporate
> office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in
> fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place.
>
> I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me)
> thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud
> Gregg’s contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone
> numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been
> willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I
> learned from Bud Gregg no one from **[snopes.com](http://snopes.com)
> \<[http://snopes.com/>](http://snopes.com/>)** ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
> Yet, [snopes.com](http://snopes.com) \<[http://snopes.com/>](http://snopes.com/>); issued a statement as the ‘final
> factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to
> the bottom of things - not!
>
> Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and
> extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election,
> liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be
> conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet
> with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in
> their website findings. Gee, what a shock?
>
> So, I say this now to everyone who goes to [www.snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com)
> \<[http://www.snopes.com/>](http://www.snopes.com/>); to get what they think to be the bottom line
> facts…‘proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and
> nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can
> link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google
> a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s
> all the Mikkelson’s do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own
> experience for their ‘not’ fully looking into things.
> \*\*
> [http://en.wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia) ..org/wiki/ [Snopes.com](http://Snopes.com)
> \<[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com>)\*
Anyone know the 'dope on Snopes?
-XT
---
### Author:  [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/2 "2009-04-24T14:01:50Z")
Here’s the Snopes article on Bud Gregg and his sign:
> **[Chicken Votes for Colonel Sanders](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chicken-hawked/)**
>
> Businesses post 'A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders' signs?
---
### Author:  [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/3 "2009-04-24T14:18:15Z")
Article quote:
**Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it**
Couldn’t the same criticism be said about Wiki?
Last time I checked Wiki had “no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers”. Wiki is a free-for-all place that any random yahoo can post to.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/4 "2009-04-24T14:19:25Z")
They’re not especially rigorous about publishing errata. For example, [Photograph shows small plane crashed into a tree next to a sign advertising flight lessons](http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/flightschool.asp). They claim the photograph is genuine… and it is, as far as it goes. But I pointed out to them in an email, giving the second photograph in the article as evidence, that the photograph in question had been manipulated. Specifically, the signs could not have been read from the angle from which the photo was taken. So yes, it did happen. Yes, there’s a sign that is funny juxtaposed with the airplane in a tree. But no, the photo is not ‘real’, since the sign was manipulated.
First, they didn’t notice the manipulation themselves. (And they seem to make much of pointing out manipulation in other photos.) Second, they did not amend the article after the manipulation was pointed out to them. (I’m sure I’m not the only one to tell them.) So I’d say they’re pretty good at finding out things. But they cannot be relied upon as being the ‘last word’.
---
### Author:  [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/5 "2009-04-24T14:21:52Z")
And then there’s [this article](http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_snopescom_run_by_very_democratic_proprietors.html), refuting the exact email you received.
---
### Author:  [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/6 "2009-04-24T14:25:45Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#):
>
> Here’s the Snopes article on Bud Gregg and his sign:
>
> [Chicken Votes for Colonel Sanders | Snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/chicken.asp)
Read the very bottom of the Snopes article – the e-mail you quote has been very impressively debunked by another, unaffiliated site. Go read THAT if you hav eany doubts.
So to sum up: Snopes wins this one, flat-out.
---
### Author:  [@JeffB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JeffB)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/7 "2009-04-24T14:28:46Z")
> [@](#):
>
> But for several years people tried to find out whom exactly was
> behind **[snopes.com](http://snopes.com) \<[http://snopes.com/>](http://snopes.com/>)**. Only recently did Wikipedia
> get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding.
> Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that’s
> right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of
> lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
>
> David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
> started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
> background or experience in investigative research.
It’s always been clear that the Mikkelsons run the site.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/8 "2009-04-24T14:32:24Z")
yes - they’ve always signed their articles, and there was no secret about it. the e-mail uses the typical conspiracy “secrets that we’ve finally found out” approach to make their target look duplicitous.
---
### Author:  [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/9 "2009-04-24T14:32:48Z")
I never thought it was a surprise that the Mikkelsons run the site! I’ve known that for years. These people make it seem like it is a surprise.
---
### Author:  [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/10 "2009-04-24T14:36:22Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> So, I say this now to everyone who goes to [www.snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com) …
> ‘proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
Yeah, so what? snopes agrees!
> [@Snopes](#):
>
> ([http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp](http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp))
>
> No single truth purveyor, no matter how reliable, should be considered an infallible font of accurate information. Folks make mistakes. Or they get duped. Or they have a bad day at the fact-checking bureau. Or some days they’re just being silly. To not allow for any of this is to risk stepping into a pothole the size of Lake Superior.
> …
> The answer is startlingly simple: Look for more information. That internal taffy-pull should be interpreted as a sign that more legwork is needed before a position — pro or con — can be adopted. Rather than arbitrarily throwing belief in either direction (“My teacher wouldn’t lie” versus “My teacher must be wrong about this”), make the effort to find out which is right, this time by consulting a variety of sources.
---
### Author:  [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/11 "2009-04-24T14:36:53Z")
I’d regard Snopes like I’d regard the Straight Dope columns: usually pretty reliable and unbiased. And I don’t think you need a “big office of investigators and researchers” or “team of lawyers” to conduct this kind of research.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/12 "2009-04-24T14:37:59Z")
The dope on Snopes is that they publish reasonably well thought out articles and cite their research. What more can you ask from anyone?
It’s no surprise that it’s a husband and wife team. I’ve known that for years.
-Kris
---
### Author:  [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/13 "2009-04-24T14:39:14Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative.
And conservatives have an agenda to discredit anything that appears to be liberal. What’s your point?
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/14 "2009-04-24T14:41:40Z")
The e-mail doesn’t make sense anyway. Why would liberals want to make it seem like State Farm “pressured” Bud Gregg into taking down his sign? It would make a martyr out of him.
The irony runs thick and fast here. Throwing out Wikipedia as if it were some sort of infallible trove of scholarship…
This is the best part:
> [@](#):
>
> So, I say this now to everyone who goes to [www.snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com)
> \<[http://www.snopes.com/>](http://www.snopes.com/>); to get what they think to be the bottom line
> facts…‘proceed with caution.’ **Take what it says at face value** and
> nothing more.
I’m not entirely sure the author of the e-mail understands what “face value” means.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/15 "2009-04-24T14:41:45Z")
The Mikkelsons have never tried to hide their identity. Wikipedia didn’t “get to the bottom of it,” they’ve always signed their articles.
I see that **EJsGirl’s** link pretty much eviscerates the whole chain mail, so there we go. The fact that it’s a (not very literate) chain mail should have told you that anyway. This line is funny, though:
> [@](#):
>
> As we all now know from this presidential election,
> liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be
> conservative.
It’s funny because it’s ironic. The purpose of the email is to try to discourage people from checking Snopes to vet right wing, “Obama is teh Muslim” chain mail screeds.
---
### Author:  [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/16 "2009-04-24T14:44:57Z")
> [@Sailboat](#):
>
> Read the very bottom of the Snopes article – the e-mail you quote has been very impressively debunked by another, unaffiliated site. Go read THAT if you hav eany doubts.
>
> So to sum up: Snopes wins this one, flat-out.
And that’s been verified by [FactCheck.org](http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_snopescom_run_by_very_democratic_proprietors.html). Just about everything in the anti-Snopes email is wrong, including the fact that “the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party)”… [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org) reports that
[ul]
[li]“Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn’t allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S.”[/li][li]"when [David Mikkelson] registered in 2000 he did so as a Republican. "[/li][/ul]
The email the OP received is so bad it’s almost funny.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/17 "2009-04-24T14:47:20Z")
I sent the Mikkelsons an email about eight years ago to ask if I could intern for them because I was so impressed with what they did. They said I’d have to sleep on the couch because they were just a couple running the site from their home. This was never a secret, and if it’s on Wikipedia, it was common knowledge to begin with.
Snopes isn’t perfect, but nothing else is either. They’ve become a target for the right wing in the last few years by virtue of debunking some of the more ridiculous rumors that were circulated about Kerry and Obama in the last few elections. Perhaps more insidiously, in the last election some liars started adding “this has already been checked by Snopes and they said it’s true!” to their emails.
---
### Author:  [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/18 "2009-04-24T14:48:55Z")
Whenever you receive a chain e-mail, you should remember the [words of a wise man](http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp)
> [@](#):
>
> If any or all of the stories in this section caused your internal clue phone to ring, we hope you didn’t let the answering machine take the call. That niggling little voice of common sense whispering to you in the background was right; there was something wrong with what you read
>
> You’ve just had an encounter with False Authority Syndrome.
For example
> [@](#):
>
> But for several years people tried to find out whom exactly was
> behind **[snopes.com](http://snopes.com) \<[http://snopes.com/>](http://snopes.com/>)**. Only recently did Wikipedia
> get to the bottom of it -
Snopes is a such a super secret organization, that it never gives press interviews. Oh, wait
[http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/rumor-detectives-true-story-or-online-hoax/article122216.html](http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/rumor-detectives-true-story-or-online-hoax/article122216.html)
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092600853.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092600853.html)
[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/02/sm.05.html](http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/02/sm.05.html)
---
### Author:  [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/19 "2009-04-24T14:49:18Z")
Theyre generally okay and certainly dont hide their identities. I think the email you got is clearly trying to discredit them. Oh, the irony of a chain email trying to discredit those who discredit chain emails.
That said, they seem to have a political bias, [as revealed by this incident with Micheal Moore.](http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=279288) To their credit they eventually apologized to him, but I feel they did not handle it well and may have a bias against Moore or liberal politics.
\>\>"when [David Mikkelson] registered in 2000 he did so as a Republican. "
Not too surprising.
---
### Author:  [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)
#### Post date: [April 24, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/20 "2009-04-24T14:50:46Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#):
>
> They’re not especially rigorous about publishing errata. For example, [Photograph shows small plane crashed into a tree next to a sign advertising flight lessons](http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/flightschool.asp). They claim the photograph is genuine… and it is, as far as it goes. But I pointed out to them in an email, giving the second photograph in the article as evidence, that the photograph in question had been manipulated. Specifically, the signs could not have been read from the angle from which the photo was taken. So yes, it did happen. Yes, there’s a sign that is funny juxtaposed with the airplane in a tree. But no, the photo is not ‘real’, since the sign was manipulated.
>
> First, they didn’t notice the manipulation themselves. (And they seem to make much of pointing out manipulation in other photos.) Second, they did not amend the article after the manipulation was pointed out to them. (I’m sure I’m not the only one to tell them.) So I’d say they’re pretty good at finding out things. But they cannot be relied upon as being the ‘last word’.
It’s not clear to me that either photo was manipulated. The sign seems to be in the same place in both photos. Compare by extending the line formed by the fence row.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212.md?page=2)