Slashdot Mirror
snopes.com's David Mikkelson Interviewed
pipingguy writes "Online Journalism Review interviews David Mikkelson of the Urban Legends Reference Pages. While the Internet has taken its share of knocks for helping scammers perpetrate e-mail and Web hoaxes (the Bambi hunt reportedly was staged to sell videos on the proprietor's Web site), not enough credit is given to the folks who are using the Internet to debunk them. Snopes.com is the work of the husband-and-wife team of David and Barbara Mikkelson, who have taken their passion for urban myths to the Web since 1995."
Site is a labor of love for husband-and-wife team who stayed skeptical about media reports that hunters could pay up to $10,000 for chance to shoot paintballs at naked women.
There are a lot of reporters who live by the maxim: If it sounds like it's too good to be true, it probably is. Meaning, it's not true. In the case of the "Hunting for Bambi" whopper, Las Vegas CBS affiliate KLAS was ready to shoot video first, ask questions later. Despite the fact that the station's LuAnne Sorrell did a four-part report on the scheme -- supposedly giving men the chance to hunt naked women with paintball guns for up to $10,000 -- it failed to do the heavy lifting needed to unmask the hoax. Instead, urban legends site Snopes.com led the way within days with a detailed explanation of why it was a hoax.
In fact, KLAS ended up crediting Snopes, though the station still sticks by claims that two hunts took place, with a paintball actually hitting someone. And that's after Las Vegas Mayor Oscar B. Goodman went public to debunk the alleged hunt. "It all was staged," Goodman told the press. "They were actors and actresses, and there wasn't even the real shooting of paintballs." KLAS' latest report yesterday noted that Goodman is now calling the scam a front for an unlicensed escort service.
While the Internet has taken its share of knocks for helping scammers perpetrate e-mail and Web hoaxes (the Bambi hunt reportedly was staged to sell videos on the proprietor's Web site), not enough credit is given to the folks who are using the Internet to debunk them. Snopes.com is the work of the husband-and-wife team of David and Barbara Mikkelson, who have taken their passion for urban myths to the Web since 1995. The site is an encyclopedia of past hoaxes and myths, from classic e-mails purportedly from Bill Gates offering money for forwarding e-mail to friends, to recent reports of terrorists buying up UPS uniforms.
The Mikkelsons, who live in the Southern California suburb of Thousand Oaks, support themselves via David's full-time programming job, and use ad money from the site to pay for bandwidth and related costs. They received an inundation of traffic right after 9/11 due to a plethora of terror-related hoaxes and misinformation. They've appeared on CNN and various TV shows, but remain relatively low key and out of the spotlight, despite pop culture interest in their subject matter (there have been two "Urban Legends" movies and a TV show; none affiliated with them).
I spoke to David Mikkelson recently by phone, after elbowing my way through his e-mail pile to get his attention. The pair depend on e-mail to find out about new hoaxes from their legions of followers.
Mark Glaser: Tell me about the genesis of your site.
David Mikkelson: Originally, Barbara and I participated in various online discussion groups before the development of the Web. It wasn't convenient to post individual answers to newsgroups every time someone asked about an urban legend, which suggested a Web site repository of such articles, which prompted the creation of Snopes.com. I just started adding more and more sections to our Web site, then Barbara started pitching in and writing things as well. We quickly became the place where people mailed anything that was questionable. If they needed verification, they'd ask us.
MG: To what degree is the internet featured in your archives.
DM: A surprising degree. For instance, the tech sight slashdot (slashdot.org) is rife with urban legends. The two most obvious ones being that Rob "cmdr pedophile" Malda is straight -which almost no one believes, and that it is a 'community site'...again, no-one who has witnessed the removal of 'questionable' posts and the rampant mod-bombing by the OSDN janitors (ed: slashdot terminology for the editors) can take that particular claim seriously.
MG: Do you have any kids?
DM: No kids. Just cats and rats. I have my hands full taking care of three cats. I don't know how anyone manages with children, too.
M
We Think Not!
Snopes.com clearly displays obscenmer amounts of liberal bias. For example, the debunking of the "myth" that the Great Flood caused geologic superposition is rubbish!! Every right thinking american should be outraged by this liberal bias and write letters to their ISP demanding that this site be taken down! I've already set up a campaign page for destroying that evil liberal-biased site! Those damn biased reporters should stop whining and accept the obvious fact that Republicans stand for all that is Good and Right and liberals are just whining mental patients!
Repeal the DMCA!
They're a pair of right-wing jackasses. Republicans are habitual liars, don't believe anything you read on snopes.
The only bad thing about that site is that Barbara uses it as a political tool every time that elections are near. If I have to read one more article on snopes about how hillary clinton has never lied, I am going to vomit.
Clever. "MG: To what degree is the internet featured in your archives. DM: A surprising degree. For instance, the tech sight slashdot (slashdot.org) is rife with urban legends. The two most obvious ones being that Rob "cmdr pedophile" Malda is straight -which almost no one believes, and that it is a 'community site'...again, no-one who has witnessed the removal of 'questionable' posts and the rampant mod-bombing by the OSDN janitors (ed: slashdot terminology for the editors) can take that particular claim seriously." -- is not featured in the article. Nice addition though. Not obvious at all or anything.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
But again, trying to argue about the scientific method with someone from SurvivalScience.org is probably futile, as I'm sure you're convinced that your brand of science is much more valid than anything that is done by the folks associated with the JREF.
Wow, that was an amazing assumption. I haven't looked into their actual science. I've merely perused the "Debunking the Debunkers" section.
It is a logical fallacy to attach the truth of an argument to its source. The criticisms of "skeptical" arguments are valid, despite that they come from "belivers".
I can't claim today that he doesn't follow the scientific method in testing claimaints to his million dollar prize, because it's been a while since I read the specifics of his tests. However, as he assumes that all "paranormal" events are false and looks for evidence to change his mind is contradictory to the scientific method.
It doesn't bother me if you still trust Randi after reading some of the criticisms (that isn't the best one I've seen, simply one I stumbled across recently), but I felt that people would be interested some of the criticisms of his work. No harm in seeing both sides of the story.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.