Journal drinkypoo's Journal: Snopes is no longer a website 14
FACT CHECK: Snopes is no longer a website (Tb). When you go there without javascript you don't see any images. When I activate all the reputable javascript sources, I still don't see all of the images. I am no longer going to cite Snopes for debunking as a result. Are there any good fact-checking websites, as opposed to Javascript SNAFUs?
All fact checking websites are biased (Score:1)
There's a problem with the whole notion of fact checking: They're ALL biased beyond belief. I don't find *any* of them to be credible.
Re: (Score:1)
Politifact, Snopes, Church Militant, all claim to be fact checking sites, but are all so politically biased they can't tell subjective opinion from objective fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Politifact, Snopes, Church Militant, all claim to be fact checking sites, but are all so politically biased they can't tell subjective opinion from objective fact.
Can you give an example? I'm finding that as long as they link to source documentation where their conclusions can be verified that they are doing okay. Another news outlet isn't source documentation.
Re: (Score:1)
That's the thing, they don't. There's no source documentation links on snopes, politifact never does either, and Church Militant or Lifesite are downright frustrating in how their links just link back to other stories written by themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing, they don't. There's no source documentation links on snopes, politifact never does either, and Church Militant or Lifesite are downright frustrating in how their links just link back to other stories written by themselves.
I am unfamiliar with Church Militant and Lifesite, let's address the other two.
Snopes
At the end of each Snopes article is an infromation box, including name fo the fact checker, date published, date last updated, and a black button marked Sources. Clicking that will list all of the original sources.
To pick a non-political one, there was an article about Pins and Needles in Halloween candy.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Clicking the sources button brings up:
The Associated Press. âoeMan Charged with Putting Needles in Halloween Candy.â
Minneapolis Star Tribune. 2 November 2000.
Gardner, Bill. âoeMan Arrested After Kids Get Tainted Candy.â
Pioneer Press. 1 November 2000.
Santino, Jack. Halloween and Other Festivals of Death and Life.
Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1994 ISBN 0-87049-813-4.
All of their articles list this. Many of the ot
Re: (Score:1)
But their so-called "original sources" are also just biased opinions. NEVER any facts.
Re: (Score:2)
But their so-called "original sources" are also just biased opinions. NEVER any facts.
I'm unsure how you can consider official numbers from CDC and FDA as opinions about collecting data about outbreaks or the such.
Can you provide examples, perhaps from the two I've detailed out? I've put a good amount of time and effort into showing this, and the earlier request for an example went unanswered. At this point I need some concrete examples to dive into. Generic "it's all just opinions" seem to tar sources from all sources as just opinion and that's not the case.
Saying there were no pins or r
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the detailed follow-thru on that.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not familiar with "Church Militant", but after looking at their website, I'm kind of surprised that you listed them with the other two, but ... OK.
But the other two, I'm familiar with. You've made a pretty strong claim, strong enough that I'd expect you to have some specific articles/fact-checks that they really botched in mind. Care to share them?
Re: (Score:1)
I list them with the other two due to the Vortex webcast, which claims to be factchecking the Roman Catholic Church. With no links to actual facts, just like politifact and snopes.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... you're not going to provide me with any examples of Politifact or Snopes articles that are good examples of your claims?
Because the ones I look at pretty much all have plenty of links to what I'd call "actual facts" -- or at least primary sources from subject matter experts, news articles, etc.
Doesn't seem that bad (Score:2)
If I turn off javascript and load Snopes, some of the images disappear ... but others do not. Mostly it appears that it's thumbnails that aren't working. Looking at the html, it strikes me as odd that they'd use javascript for that, but whatever.
The search function seems to not work with javascript disabled, but personally, I rarely use their search function anyways -- I'd use google or whatever instead. And once I have a specific page to read, the ones I've checked seem to be displaying fine without jav