Snopes is reputable, and Wikileaks is a Russian front

[WhatTha']

Posted by onawah (here)
Question: Do the Mod team advise newly subscribing forum members as to what sources of information that have been found over the years to be reputable and trustworthy, such as the Corbett Report, Wikileaks and which ones are not such as Snopes.com and Sorcha Faal?

In my universe Snopes is reputable and Wikileaks is a Russian front... it's hard to believe that there are doubters of alternate universes and timeline shifters.

[WhatTha']

Snopes.Com

Bill Gates Admits Vaccinations Are Designed So Governments Can Depopulate the World? = False.

The refusal to vaccinate his children hasn't been posted yet, but I'll bet dollars to donuts it will be = False.

I really don't know why the conservatives of the world are so determined to undermine all that is sacred of real truth. One should seriously 'wonder' why there is a drive to undermine all that is holy. Consider how many 'conspiracies' you can cite that are targeted at known reactionaries...spelled authoritarian/right wing figures.

[ExomatrixTV]

snopes & yournewswire BOTH are known to spread dis info

"facts" of snopes are not always non-bias

and yournewswire mix half-truths with lies & deceptions causing an effect that discredits the whole alternative media

[onawah]

Are you quoting snopes.com there? If so, you need to put it into quotes, so readers can differentiate between what you are quoting and what is your opinion.
Snopes.com is not a good source of information, by the way, and yournewswire.com is also questionable.
Your stance is unclear. What is it that you consider to be "sacred of real truth"? Vaccines?
How would you explain Bill Gates equating vaccinations with keeping the world population down?
Perhaps he doesn't flat out state it, but he comes within a hair's breadth. See:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064

The Gates are also heavily invested in Monsanto. See 9 minutes in here (from a very good source of info):

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NnP87e76kdw

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
Snopes.Com

Bill Gates Admits Vaccinations Are Designed So Governments Can Depopulate the World? = False.

The refusal to vaccinate his children hasn't been posted yet, but I'll bet dollars to donuts it will be = False.

I really don't know why the conservatives of the world are so determined to undermine all that is sacred of real truth. One should seriously 'wonder' why there is a drive to undermine all that is holy. Consider how many 'conspiracies' you can cite that are targeted at known reactionaries...spelled authoritarian/right wing figures.

[WhatTha']

if it isn't already obvious then it might be that some people's twisted opinions are explainable by their lack of ability to read plain simple English

[WhatTha']

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)
snopes & yournewswire BOTH are known to spread dis info

"facts" of snopes are not always non-bias

and yournewswire mix half-truths with lies & deceptions causing an effect that discredits the whole alternative media

no doubt, it is very difficult to extract the very last bit of bias from any published statement. Snopes is well regarded for their attempts to be impartial and when they are not, they are willing to acknowledge it. I would consider that responsible journalism. And, in any case, it is quite easy to spot bias in a publication. A little discernment can go a very long way.

I have no idea about yournewswire because I don't recall ever reviewing any of their material which tells me by raw instinct that they are not reliable.

[onawah]

I think you may have stumbled into the wrong universe (for you), here on Avalon, WhatTha'.

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
jeez, in my universe Snopes is reputable and Wikileaks is a Russian front... it's hard to believe that there are doubters of alternate universes and timeline shifters.

[onawah]

You might want to check out these articles about Snopes from last year:
https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-sn...to-operatives/

Is Snopes a credible and authoritative source of information?
Snopes is now 50% owned by an ad agency (Proper Media) and they make money by generating millions of views on the 3rd-party advertisements on their website. It simply makes sense for them to seek out articles that are viral to “debunk”, so that they can piggy-back on that traffic and generate more advertising revenue.
Snopes was founded by a husband and wife team who are now in the middle of a contentious divorce in which founder David Mikkelsen has been accused of embezzling $98,000 of company money to spend on “himself and prostitutes”.
Snopes now has a hired team of suspect fact checkers who collaborate to debunk falsehoods that are trending on the internet.
These fact checkers reportedly have no editorial oversight and do not follow standard journalistic procedures such as interviewing the authors of articles they are trying to debunk to get all sides of the story.
Snopes doesn’t have a formal screening process for hiring fact checkers and for evaluating applicants for any potential conflicts of interest. Without such standards, it is very easy for them to be infiltrated by those who work with the industry and who have a hidden agenda.
The recent series of events below demonstrates how Snopes has been influenced by Monsanto into manipulating the public opinion about the dangers of their bestselling product, Roundup weedkiller (aka glyphosate)

etc....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aud-lying.html

'Fact checking' website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn't told its readers THOSE facts)
'Fact-checking' website Snopes is asking its users for help in a GoFundMe saying an 'outside vendor' is 'holding it hostage'
But the site which claims to be 'transparent' and to tell people the facts they need to know hasn't told those donating everything that is going on
In fact it is at the center of a bitter legal battle with its CEO being accused of fraud, lies, conspiracy and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses
David Mikkelson set up company which owns Snopes.com in 2003 with then wife Barbara but she sold her 50 per cent stake during bitter divorce
Owners of company which provided it with tech and advertising services bought her stake but have now fallen out with Mikkelson and call him a fraudster
Case could see judge order site closed - despite it being chosen by Facebook to arbitrate on fake news

This is the original mom and pop Snopes team:

How about this from:
http://news4ktla.com/tag/snopes-com/

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
in my universe Snopes is reputable and Wikileaks is a Russian front...

Are you serious? Please clarify.

[onawah]

I think you might benefit from reading Bill Ryan's post here, WhatTha':
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1215460
In particular:

'Disdain' has no place anywhere here. We totally understand the challenges some really high quality people have when trying to write.
Where we start to draw some kind of line is where it seems someone doesn't even try, not one bit, even when problems are gently brought to their notice. Like posts where spelling errors, or grammar that's tied itself in an inextricable knot, just caused a post to crash and burn and abruptly make zero sense, suddenly incomprehensible.
When that happens, no-one wins: including the person trying to express themselves.

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
if it isn't already obvious then it might be that some people's twisted opinions are explainable by their lack of ability to read plain simple English

[Bluegreen]

[WhatTha']

Posted by onawah (here)
I think you might benefit from reading Bill Ryan's post here, WhatTha':
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1215460
In particular:

'Disdain' has no place anywhere here. We totally understand the challenges some really high quality people have when trying to write.
Where we start to draw some kind of line is where it seems someone doesn't even try, not one bit, even when problems are gently brought to their notice. Like posts where spelling errors, or grammar that's tied itself in an inextricable knot, just caused a post to crash and burn and abruptly make zero sense, suddenly incomprehensible.
When that happens, no-one wins: including the person trying to express themselves.

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
if it isn't already obvious then it might be that some people's twisted opinions are explainable by their lack of ability to read plain simple English

A better question would be do I believe "The Food Babe", lol ... "The Daily Mail", or that other one.

And you might benefit from reading this post:
Don't go out of your way to undermine me either...and we'll be fine. Read: Silly Season Post.

[WhatTha']

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
in my universe Snopes is reputable and Wikileaks is a Russian front...

Are you serious? Please clarify.

yes, very serious...reams of verifiable research has uncovered numerous connections between the Russian propaganda machine and Julian Assange. I'll post an MIT Technology review heading and link to the site's research:

Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks
Two experts lay out the facts surrounding the controversy.
by Jonathan Zittrain and Molly Sauter December 9, 2010

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...out-wikileaks/

This is on Snopes: A very recent report as in 2017. My assumption is that prior to the latest developments there was no doubt about their veracity.

Who's The True Boss Of Snopes? Legal Fight Puts Fact-Check Site At Risk

David Mikkelson, founder of Snopes, sits next to a doctored storm photo in 2004. Snopes debunked that image — and has uncovered many other hoaxes. But the future of one of the nation's first digital fact-checking initiatives is currently in doubt.

You may have read that Bigfoot was found dead on a lake shore in New Mexico this summer. He wasn't. You can learn about that hoax here from the myth-busting and fact-checking site Snopes.

You may have heard NASA predicted the Earth will endure 15 straight days of darkness this fall. It didn't. Snopes has that covered too — debunking the claim when it first appeared in 2015 and again in May when it resurfaced.

What isn't a hoax is that the future of Snopes, one of the nation's first digital fact-checking initiatives, is in doubt.

Ownership of the site is the focus of a sharply contested legal battle between its founder, David Mikkelson, and a small digital outfit called Proper Media, which had an arrangement to manage advertising and some other elements of Snopes' site. (It has similar agreements with such digital publishers as Salon, Raw Story and the Daily Dot.)

Mikkelson tells NPR that he's been cut off from all revenues and has launched online crowdfunding appeals; he says he's raised more than $600,000 in the first days of his efforts.

Snopes does not have a large newsroom. Its creation was sparked by the fascination David and his wife Barbara took in responding to urban legends that whipped around the ether in the early days of widespread email use. The name Snopes was taken from a family in several novels of William Faulkner.

Now operating with a team of just 13 editorial staffers (including video and graphics) Snopes weighs in on matters large and small, covering subjects including politics, pop culture, tech, health. While it's not a household name, Snopes drew 12.4 million unique American users in June according to Quantcast, and another 3.7 million around the world.

Snopes has endured because it has proved reliable. And the site has had a significant influence on how journalism is practiced in the digital era.

"Snopes laid the foundation for online fact-checking," says Bill Adair, the founder of PolitiFact, a Pulitzer-prize winning offshoot of the Tampa Bay Times. "The site's early work debunking urban myths showed there was a substantial digital audience that wanted accurate information."

While many newspapers and television stations were scrutinizing the veracity of campaign ads, many claims made more broadly often passed without challenge.

Snopes has since been joined by many other players; Factcheck.org, affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, was established in 2003, and PolitiFact started in the early part of the 2008 presidential cycle. Major news organizations including NPR, the New York Times and the Washington Post now routinely fact-check statements made by major public figures.

Among its more recent posts, Snopes has unraveled claims that Pope Francis endorsed President Trump's campaign, that the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was staged, and that the star of a Nickelodeon sitcom for kids was arrested for prostitution. All were false.

Facebook has turned to Snopes as one of the five U.S.-based fact-checking it relies upon to help stave off the spread of hoax accounts, often called "fake news." (Trump has adopted and co-opted the term to encompass mainstream news reports he doesn't like or that are critical of his administration.) In a project still in the testing phase, Facebook users can flag posts shared on the social media site as questionable; if enough users do so it is sent to the fact-checking outfits, which can share related posts that evaluate the veracity of its claims. If something has been debunked, a badge saying so is attached to the post to caution Facebook users.

But Mikkelson says Snopes' very existence is in question.

After he and his former wife, Barbara Mikkelson, divorced, she sold her 50 percent stake in Snopes and its parent company to five officers of Proper Media — as individuals. Proper Media is contending that it corporately owns half of Snopes and wants a judge to acknowledge that. The company alleges David Mikkelson unfairly enticed a former Proper Media official to work for him, and in so doing secured that official's 6.7 percent voting stake, once more giving him effective voting control over Snopes. And it alleges Mikkelson inflicted "substantial economic loss" on Proper Media.

Mikkelson tells NPR he severed that contract for cause, and was entitled to do so. Moreover, he argues that Proper Media as a corporation has no claim over Snopes' parent company, only the five individuals.

"The person in question, I did not lure or hire him away or entice him to leave Proper Media," Mikkelson tells NPR. "They fired him immediately after I told them to their faces how valuable he was."

Will Snopes stick around in its current form? Rate that "unproven."

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
In my universe Snopes is reputable and Wikileaks is a Russian front...

You also posted here, 10 days ago, to the effect that in your universe, Mike Adams publishes and/or promotes fake news.

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
This article was the 1st one that popped up on Adams:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/google-delists-mike-adams-natural-news-website-was-it-because-of-fake-news

Maybe we could add that to this thread title — but my guess is that after a week or two, the title might get rather long.

[norman]

Posted by WhatTha' (here)


. . . . . . . Consider how many 'conspiracies' you can cite that are targeted at known reactionaries...spelled authoritarian/right wing figures.

I'm struggling with your marriage of these two terms.

Do you mean personally, or generally political?

[KiwiElf]

WhatTha' Unsubscribed. Thank you Mods!

[ExomatrixTV]

Just as Snopes is run by actual prostitutes, Scientific American is now run by industry shills and fraudsters

https://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-1...raudsters.html

Regardless of whether the Daily Mail article is correct in its claims about Snopes, at the least what does emerge from my exchanges with Snopes’ founder is the image of the ultimate black box presenting a gleaming veneer of ultimate arbitration of truth, yet with absolutely no insight into its inner workings. While technology pundits decry the black boxes of the algorithms that increasingly power companies like Facebook, they have forgotten that even the human-powered sites offer us little visibility into how they function.

At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” on Facebook, we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...fact-checkers/

'Fact checking' website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn't told its readers THOSE facts)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aud-lying.html

Do You Trust Snopes? You Won’t After Reading This:

https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-sn...to-operatives/

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by WhatTha' (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
in my universe Snopes is reputable and Wikileaks is a Russian front...

Are you serious? Please clarify.

yes, very serious...reams of verifiable research has uncovered numerous connections between the Russian propaganda machine and Julian Assange. I'll post an MIT Technology review heading and link to the site's research:

Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks
Two experts lay out the facts surrounding the controversy.
by Jonathan Zittrain and Molly Sauter December 9, 2010

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...out-wikileaks/

That MIT Technology Review article does not mention Russia, Putin, Moscow, or any related entity, nor does it speak of "propaganda" or any "front", so far as I could tell.

For your sake, I hope you're consciously playing a stupid game with your postings here, rather than actually so confused as to earnestly believe your postings.

(Ah - now I notice that WhatTha' has already departed the scene.)

[Cipher]

It's a pity, he made a lot of sense.

[onawah]

Nothing sensible about this:

Posted by WhatTha' (here)
Among its more recent posts, Snopes has unraveled claims that... that the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was staged...

Posted by Cipher (here)
It's a pity, he made a lot of sense.

Anyone who believes that hasn't done a lick of homework.