Debunking Rumors With Snopes
In a world full of disinformation and scams, it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. Fortunately, there are several fact-checking sites which can help us feel more confident in our ability to detect falsehood. One of the most important fact-checking sites is Snopes.com.
For approximately 25 years, Snopes.com has debunked urban legends, scams and other forms of disinformation circulated on the Internet. Originally a small operation maintained by two people, the site has grown to include a large staff of editorial assistants. Thoroughly committed to the practice of journalism, the site is very open about the methodology it uses to guarantee the integrity of its work.
First, a new entry is assigned to a member of the editorial staff who researches the topic, providing support for all claims. After the entry is revised by a copy editor, two additional content editors review the substance of the article to make sure that it is “even-handed and non-partisan.”
The Snopes editors understand that the credibility of their entire project hinges on the quality of the sources that they cite, and all references are clearly identified in a section at the bottom of each page. The editors seek out non-partisan sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals and statistics from government agencies. As they explain:
“Our research into various topics generally begins with (whenever possible) attempting to contact the source of the claim for elaboration and supporting information. We also attempt to contact individuals and organizations who would be knowledgeable about, or have relevant expertise in, the subject at hand, as well as searching out printed information (news articles, scientific and medical journal articles, books, interview transcripts, statistical sources) with bearing on the topic.” 1
Ultimately, the site classifies each news story as true, mostly true, mixture, mostly false, false, unproven, outdated, miscaptioned, correct attribution, misattributed, scam or legend. For a complete breakdown of each of these ratings, see Figure 1 at the bottom of this page.
For many critically-minded consumers, consulting Snopes has become an essential way of verifying the truth of outlandish claims. However, the site encourages readers to always dig beneath the surface and skim the sources at the end of each article.
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.
It’s just as much a mistake to look to a usually-reliable source to do all of the thinking, judging, and weighing as it was to unquestioningly believe every unsigned e-mail that came along. Far too many have transferred the same breathlessly unbounded faith they used to accord various bits of e-tripe to those who make it their life’s work to get to the bottom of crazy stories. It’s sad to say, but the behavior of abdicating responsibility remains the same even though who is being believed has changed. It’s still an abdication. 2
In recent years, the Snopes staff has been the subject of intensely personal attacks. Some of these attacks have focused on the founders’ marital problems (they divorced in 2015),3 some have focused on internal office politics,4 and others have promoted the false accusation that the site is funded by the billionaire George Soros. As one journalist observed, “If you believe the internet, the founder of Snopes, David Mikkelson, has a longer rap sheet than Al Capone. He was supposedly arrested for committing fraud and corruption and running a pit bull ring.”5
For those who have a vested interest in propagating fake news and disinformation, personal attacks on the Snopes writers are a useful way of undermining the site’s effectiveness. But pervasive name-calling does not make the site any less credible.
The writers at Snopes are journalists; they provide evidence for their claims. If you encounter someone who insists on believing disinformation that has been debunked by Snopes, you can continue to make your argument by taking the fact-checking site out of the question. Track down the sources cited at the bottom of the Snopes page, and use this evidence as a way of directly refuting the falsehood.
| Rating | Explanation |
|---|---|
| True | Primary elements of a claim are demonstrably true. |
| Mostly True | Primary elements of a claim are demonstrably true, but some of the ancillary details surrounding the claim may be inaccurate. |
| Mixture | The claim has significant elements of both truth and falsity to it such that it could not fairly be described by any other rating. |
| Mostly False | The primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false, but some of the ancillary details surrounding the claim may be accurate. |
| False | The primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false. |
| Unproven | Insufficient evidence exists to establish the given claim as true, but the claim cannot be definitively proved false. |
| Outdated | This rating applies to items for which subsequent events have rendered their original truth rating irrelevant (e.g., a condition that was the subject of protest has been rectified, or the passage of a controversial law has since been repealed). |
| Miscaptioned | This rating is used with photographs and videos that are “real” (i.e., not the product, partially or wholly, of digital manipulation) but are nonetheless misleading because they are accompanied by explanatory material that falsely describes their origin, context, and/or meaning. |
| Correct Attribution | This rating indicates that quoted material (speech or text) has been correctly attributed to the person who spoke or wrote it. |
| Misattributed | This rating indicates that quoted material (speech or text) has been incorrectly attributed to the person who spoke or wrote it. |
| Scam | This rating applies to items for which subsequent events have rendered their original truth rating irrelevant (e.g., a condition that was the subject of protest has been rectified, or the passage of a controversial law has since been repealed). |
References
1 Snopes Editorial Staff (2018) “Transparency: Methodology,” Snopes.
2 David Mikkelson (2017, May 15) “False authority,” Snopes.
3 Alexis Madrigal (2017, July 24) “Snopes Faces an Ugly Legal Battle: The internet’s favorite fact-checkers are caught in a messy dispute,” The Atlantic.
4 Daniel Funke (2018, July 31) “Snopes fired its managing editor and she doesn’t know why,” Poynter.
5 David Streitfeld (2016, December 25) “For Fact-Checking Website Snopes, a Bigger Role Brings More Attacks,” New York Times
6 All explanations in this column are direct quotes from: Snopes Editorial Staff (2018) “Our ratings,” Snopes.