I have felt that Snopes.com has a liberal bias but then you use Wikipedia as a source to back-up your argument. Wikipedia information isn't any more reliable than snopes. To paraphrase the last sentence of your post: "Seems like Wikipedia isn't all its cracked up to be."
madcapmagishion wrote:
Snopes.com? Is it legit? Is it "good enough" to be used as a general debunker for opinions and statements some people do not agree with?
"This may come as a surprise to many of you that use snopes.com to seek the truth.
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim, email or "urban legend".
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind 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 or 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. They have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years their website gained popularity, many people believing it to be unbiased and neutral. 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 skepticism - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issues 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."
Seems like Snopes.com isn't all its cracked up to be.
Snopes.com? Is it legit? Is it "good enough&q... (
show quote)