I'm kinda new to all this, and I am trying to read around and get better informed. It strikes this rookie that no source should be considered unimpeachable, as everyone has an agenda and is at the mercy of human fallibility. I find Snopes a fairly useful starting point, especially if it sources what it is claiming.
What seems to be happening is that a lot of people will dismiss anything that Snopes says, in the same manner that they would do with Wikipedia. It seems lazy and convenient to me.
I know from direct experience of having made edits to Wikipedia pages that it is often controlled by 'editors' who do not act based on demonstrable evidence or fact but based on their own private agendas. The same is true for those involved in Snopes from what the evidence shows us.
There are people who reject wikipedia and snopes in a blanket way, which on the surface might seem biased or lazy, but look at it like this: Both these sources have been shown to be corrupt and biased in important ways, therefore, why use them as a resource at all? Are they really the best sources for information? That is unlikely, but even if they do have useful data on them, we are still obliged to do our own research or we are just being spoon fed their own chosen narrative rather than learning, in our own way, the relevant information.
It is just as valid to say that it is lazy and convenient to use Wikipedia or Snopes, rather than doing actual research.
I agree to some degree. Neither Snopes or Wiki should be used on their own. I suppose the point I am making is that it is very easy to dismiss stuff on either of those sources, but in both instances, it is the messenger being shot, rather than the message.
It's like an anti-confirmation bias.
I find both of them to be pretty decent starting points, and both of them can have useful source information.
Right, so the problem is, as always, denial of the actual details in one form or another.
I have no problem with snopes or wikipedia as these are just brandnames and ideas. I do have a problem with some of the humans using them as a vehicle.
And that's perfectly reasonable. It seems to me that there isn't a source anywhere that shouldn't be approached without a degree of scepticism.