Originally Posted by tvbound

I too use a number of legitimate fact-checking sources and the fact that Snopes, unlike a lot of people and wacko conspiracy spreading media sources, is willing to admit when they were wrong - is nothing but a positive. The really ironic & hypocritical part, is in the fact that a lot of the critics of Snopes (and other legitimate fact-checking sources), will totally believe/buy the most outrageous nutcase conspiracies from sources like q-anon, Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, Etc, - in their entirety. If only there were an effective vaccine, against being so gullible and believing lies, without doing further serious research. lol

Snopes got caught by an outsider then cleaned up their act. Not much choice and not admirable. Same as when FOX fired Bill O’Reiley and their past network President. Did you think that was refreshing? FYI I stopped watching Tucker when he went on a vax skepticism rant. I don’t believe any source is above scrutiny.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by MandoMan

That’s nice to see. It is so common in journalism. Read half a dozen news stories about the same event in secondary-level newspapers and the story on which they base their stories and you will usually find several at least that use phrases or sentences without quotation marks or citing sources. This happens in movie reviews, too—if not with exact words, then with opinions.

I did a lot of scholarly writing in my academic career, and I was always scrupulous with sources. But now I use Ancestry a lot, and I often add photos of paintings of people found online without giving credit. If I include an article from Wikipedia or Geni on some ancestor’s page, I usually give credit by pasting in the link, but sometimes I forget.

I knew a novelist, the late John Gardner, who had a photographic memory and could quote an entire page of some book he read once at will. He got into big trouble in his biography of Chaucer for plagiarizing sentences here and there. However, I believe he had read those sources. They entered his mind, and he didn’t realize he was using what someone else wrote.

Then there is Martin Luther King, who, when he was in divinity school, didn’t feel he had time to research and write his own papers for class, so he went to the library archives, found papers written by other students decades before, and turned some in as his own work. I guess that’s how some people get to be a Reverend Doctor.

Have you ever forwarded some meme on Facebook? Do you know who created the meme? Do you know who took the photo behind that meme that had nothing at all to do with the meme? If you shared it, that’s double plagiarism.

It’s important to give attribution where attribution is due.

I almost never forward Memes on FB unless the attribution is embedded. I was a wedding photographer for a few years and take copyright very seriously, it was the basis of my livelihood.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by John41

Snopes got caught by an outsider then cleaned up their act. Not much choice and not admirable. Same as when FOX fired Bill O’Reiley and their past network President. Did you think that was refreshing? FYI I stopped watching Tucker when he went on a vax skepticism rant. I don’t believe any source is above scrutiny.

Yes, actually, anytime anyone admits they or an employee was wrong, I admire that, whether it is Fox, OAN, NewsMax or Scopes.

I can assure you a LOT of people are checking Scopes constantly, hoping and praying to find something they can point to as wrong. It seldom happens.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Be careful using Wikipedia. They publish just about anything that someone wishes to upload to them.

Not exactly. They publish EVERYTHING that ANYONE places on the page. But, then anyone else can fact check it and edit it to correct it. Many people don't like being corrected.

THE Wiki has been analyzed numerous times and found to be one of the most accurate sources published, either in print or online. Mainly because so many people can edit it. It keeps it honest. For a long time sources like encyclopedia Britannica tried to discredit Wiki, since it was costing them business. In the end they gave up, because they were simply proving Wiki is more accurate than they are.

Wiki can and does get updated many times a day, as fact come in and information is corrected. NO print media can do that.

[GrumpyOldMan]

More from Scopes, this if from the Writers:

snopes-writers-condemn-plagiarism/

[Ben Franklin]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It shouldn't be "refreshing." It should be typical, expected, no less than professional behavior. I'm sad that this is refreshing because it means most other places don't offer transparency, and admit when they make a mistake.

To me, Snopes is a reliable fact-checking resource, and always has been.

Note that in this apology, there is no mention that anything plagiarized was untrue. Facts are still facts, no matter where they came from, and whether or not you credited its source correctly or not.

If I say Thomas Edison invented the first electric refrigerator, I would be wrong. The credit for that invention goes to Fred W. Wolf.

However, the fact that the electric refrigerator was invented, can't be disputed. It's still fact, regardless of who invented it.

Facts are sometimes hard to discover, for example, Washington never chopped down a cherry tree, nor did he say, "I cannot tell a lie," and yet, it's taught as a fact that he did.
I also believe they are teaching that Marconi invented the radio, but he stole 17 of Nikola Tesla's patents and in 1947 the US Supreme Court awarded the the invention of the radio to Nikola Tesla.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin

Facts are sometimes hard to discover, for example, Washington never chopped down a cherry tree, nor did he say, "I cannot tell a lie," and yet, it's taught as a fact that he did.
I also believe they are teaching that Marconi invented the radio, but he stole 17 of Nikola Tesla's patents and in 1947 the US Supreme Court awarded the the invention of the radio to Nikola Tesla.

Agree, truth can be elusive.

I saw some research the other day that showed how people that have accepted one conspiracy lie are then much more likely to believe another, no matter how nonsensical. It is a sad spiral that many exploit.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by John41

Snopes got caught by an outsider then cleaned up their act. Not much choice and not admirable. Same as when FOX fired Bill O’Reiley and their past network President. Did you think that was refreshing? FYI I stopped watching Tucker when he went on a vax skepticism rant. I don’t believe any source is above scrutiny.

I believe that O’Reiley left, it was because of a multitude (5 0r 6) accusations of sexual misconduct and not anything to do with news.

Carlson was a perfect substitute as he is the subject of a number of lawsuits (past and present), but they are for spreading misinformation and to my knowledge, not sexual misconduct.

In my humble and stupid opinion, the only way to insure that you know the true facts is checking multiple sources and never allow yourself to become captive of any one network, or better yet, simply forget the networks and read, not online

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Bucco

I believe that O’Reiley left, it was because of a multitude (5 0r 6) accusations of sexual misconduct and not anything to do with news.

Carlson was a perfect substitute as he is the subject of a number of lawsuits (past and present), but they are for spreading misinformation and to my knowledge, not sexual misconduct.

In my humble and stupid opinion, the only way to insure that you know the true facts is checking multiple sources and never allow yourself to become captive of any one network, or better yet, simply forget the networks and read, not online

Thank you, I didn't see any point in pointing that out and just starting another argument, but I am glad you did.

I think I can count on 1 finger the number of times I recall FOX or OAN putting out a retraction.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Guilt by association?

"But lying by trusted snopes is refreshing because they admitted it after they got caught."

THEY did not lie, THEY did not get caught, THEY did not plagiarize. They caught the plagiarizer and THEY took action against him. Yet, it appears you are proposing that Snopes lied, I would very much like to see any evidence you have to support that.

Two people can look as the same sunrise and have two different OPINIONS. In you’re case you’re’ claiming the sun didn’t rise. When if fact it did.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Thank you, I didn't see any point in pointing that out and just starting another argument, but I am glad you did.

I think I can count on 1 finger the number of times I recall FOX or OAN putting out a retraction.

Most times when I am in trouble with the mods, it is simply because I pointed out a lie….and I use the word lie, because as with this, only if you live in a cave can you not know this.

It is my belief that these kind of posts and passing off of misinformation and conspiracies plays havoc with this forum, and its credibility.

The lawsuits being processed against those you mention are now in the Billions of dollars, all based on misinformation.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by Bucco

Most times when I am in trouble with the mods, it is simply because I pointed out a lie….and I use the word lie, because as with this, only if you live in a cave can you not know this.

It is my belief that these kind of posts and passing off of misinformation and conspiracies plays havoc with this forum, and its credibility.

The lawsuits being processed against those you mention are now in the Billions of dollars, all based on misinformation.

I am so hoping that the lawsuits against those who have been peddling outrageous and totally unsupported lies (libel AND slander) against a respected company, thus causing huge monetary loss, gets to court and those who thought they could say anything they wanted, while hiding behind the 1A - are ultimately made to pay for their actions. That is when we will know, that justice is still available to all of us.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Tow people can look as the same sunrise and have two different OPINIONS. In you’re case you’re’ claiming the sun didn’t rise. When if fact it did.

And in your case, you often see facts as opinions. Everyone can have their own opinion, but facts are facts.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by tvbound

I am so hoping that the lawsuits against those who have been peddling outrageous and totally unsupported lies (libel AND slander) against a respected company, thus causing huge monetary loss, gets to court and those who thought they could say anything they wanted, while hiding behind the 1A - are ultimately made to pay for their actions. That is when we will know, that justice is still available to all of us.

We can hope. It won't change anyones minds, but it will make the corporations think twice, since they are in it for the money.

[Heyitsrick]

So, here's the guy who is the co-founder and still CEO of Snopes having to admit he plagiarized tons of articles over quite a few years...but "it's refreshing", according to some here. Unreal.

This is deflection central, of course, because the thread soon turned to those outlets who - according to some - aren't as "refreshing" as this "employee" who holds 50% of the company's stock, as he's been characterized.

Why, those right-wingers and their companies/organizations would never act in such a refreshing way! No siree bub!

Good grief. The guy got caught. End of story. He really had no choice but to admit to it. Well, at least he had a good excuse, right?

"Mikkelson did not immediately return an Associated Press email seeking comment Saturday. He told BuzzFeed his behavior was due to a lack of formal journalism experience".

Prominent fact-checker Snopes apologizes for plagiarism - ABC News

In other words, he just wasn't aware that gratuitously taking the work of others and slapping his pseudonym to it was unethical. If he only knew about formal journalism...

This man is guilty of egregious professional behavior. There's no "refreshing" aspect of him having to admit the obvious. The thing is, everyone here knows it. What would really be "refreshing" would be if those here trying to assuage these acts would actually admit it.

See, what would be refreshing would be people here saying something like "this man has damaged the Snopes brand. He should step down!" Instead, it's "hey, just because he stole the work of others doesn't mean the work isn't true!" Really? That's the take on this? Oy.