<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Urban Legend: You Can Trust Snopes.com (?)</title>
	<link>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html</link>
	<description>I think there's an opinion on that subject lying around here somewhere....</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Jan Pierce</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-130523</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 14:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-130523</guid>
					<description>What ISN'T biased nowadays?  And have we been conditioned to cry "bias" when the information (albeit accurate) simply doesn't jibe with our perspective?  Are "lies" and "bias" now considered synonymous?   

I've read other complaints about Snopes's bias but were these complaints grounded in facts?  I rely on Snopes to separate the wheat from the chaff, and if it's publishing false information, I want to know about it.  What reports compiled by Snopes have been proved false?  If there have been incidents of false reporting, did Snopes issue a retraction and explain how it happened?    

I must be able to trust a source to tell the truth, in the simplest terms, even if that truth doesn't jibe with what I want to hear.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What ISN&#8217;T biased nowadays?  And have we been conditioned to cry &#8220;bias&#8221; when the information (albeit accurate) simply doesn&#8217;t jibe with our perspective?  Are &#8220;lies&#8221; and &#8220;bias&#8221; now considered synonymous?   </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve read other complaints about Snopes&#8217;s bias but were these complaints grounded in facts?  I rely on Snopes to separate the wheat from the chaff, and if it&#8217;s publishing false information, I want to know about it.  What reports compiled by Snopes have been proved false?  If there have been incidents of false reporting, did Snopes issue a retraction and explain how it happened?    </p>
<p>I must be able to trust a source to tell the truth, in the simplest terms, even if that truth doesn&#8217;t jibe with what I want to hear.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jamie Q.</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-129926</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-129926</guid>
					<description>This blog post is pathetic. First off, Snopes doesn't claim to be the ultimate authority of anything. If you read their FAQ:

Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate? 

A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves. 

As for the items they research, I'm not sure where I read it, as it was many years ago, but I remember reading something about how the Mikkelsons only research emails and other claims that appear with great frequency, or with great interest. For example, certain chain emails that go extremely viral and are submitted by hundreds of people will be researched. Something like Barack Obama's birth certificate may not be questioned by many people, but is of great interest. Now as to the accusation that some make that they lean politically one way or the other, all it takes is a simple perusal of all the articles on their website to determine that that claim is crap. They debunk just as much liberal BS as they do conservative BS. George Bush is killing children, and Barack Obama isn't a Muslim. Hell, they even put up the article about the Marine who was crossing his fingers in the picture with Hillary Clinton (which was true). 

This is just another case of someone picking on those actually telling the truth. John, find something better to do, like actually telling the truth yourself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This blog post is pathetic. First off, Snopes doesn&#8217;t claim to be the ultimate authority of anything. If you read their FAQ:</p>
<p>Q: How do I know the information you&#8217;ve presented is accurate? </p>
<p>A: We don&#8217;t expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we&#8217;ve used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves. </p>
<p>As for the items they research, I&#8217;m not sure where I read it, as it was many years ago, but I remember reading something about how the Mikkelsons only research emails and other claims that appear with great frequency, or with great interest. For example, certain chain emails that go extremely viral and are submitted by hundreds of people will be researched. Something like Barack Obama&#8217;s birth certificate may not be questioned by many people, but is of great interest. Now as to the accusation that some make that they lean politically one way or the other, all it takes is a simple perusal of all the articles on their website to determine that that claim is crap. They debunk just as much liberal BS as they do conservative BS. George Bush is killing children, and Barack Obama isn&#8217;t a Muslim. Hell, they even put up the article about the Marine who was crossing his fingers in the picture with Hillary Clinton (which was true). </p>
<p>This is just another case of someone picking on those actually telling the truth. John, find something better to do, like actually telling the truth yourself.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Charles Briggs</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-129576</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:40:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-129576</guid>
					<description>I, personally, think SNOPES is biased (somewhat) leftward.
But, either way, if they don't have their their own agenda,
why are they so hard to reach?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I, personally, think SNOPES is biased (somewhat) leftward.<br />
But, either way, if they don&#8217;t have their their own agenda,<br />
why are they so hard to reach?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-129396</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-129396</guid>
					<description>I'd just like to point out that everything in the snopes.com entry is true and accurate, even if it sounds biased.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d just like to point out that everything in the snopes.com entry is true and accurate, even if it sounds biased.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jourdan</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-128329</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html#comment-128329</guid>
					<description>I just tried to send a picture and email to snopes.com through their website.  The address that the website put into my outlook was fauxtography@snopes.com

I did not type it in so I know that it is not a typo.

I got the following returned

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

    (reason: 550 no such address here)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just tried to send a picture and email to snopes.com through their website.  The address that the website put into my outlook was <a href="mailto:fauxtography@snopes.com">fauxtography@snopes.com</a></p>
<p>I did not type it in so I know that it is not a typo.</p>
<p>I got the following returned</p>
<p>   &#8212;&#8211; The following addresses had permanent fatal errors &#8212;&#8211;</p>
<p>    (reason: 550 no such address here)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
