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."

Comments

A matter of trust

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a matter of trust I'm wary about, when it comes to sites like snopes.com. How easy would it be for them to be 'infiltrated' somehow by a hack attempt or by bribery and the like, and pass off something that is a hoax or scam as being 'real'. or perhaps pass off something that's a real and present danger as being just another net hoax?.

I know about half the mindless net followers will believe everything they read in email. Most of those who follow up to check if something is valid or not turn to snopes. That's a big responsibility.

Re:A matter of trust

[wiggys]

For starters Snopes show you what references they've used when hunting down the facts (makes it possible to check that Snopes are at least reporting the facts correctly, even if you don't like their conclusions).

I guess at the end of the day you make up your own mind. Snopes don't force their opinions down your throat, they simply present their findings and leave it up to you.

Re:A matter of trust

[skryche]

No, dude, you're on to something. My cousin was saying just the same thing, and she's David Mikkelson's babysitter's boyfriend's best friend.

Re:A matter of trust

[indros13]

Snopes.com is an example of what distinguishes free speech from journalism. There are hundreds of radio shows, newspapers, and even TV programs that will pass off anything that someone else has said as news or information (even major news networks are caught in the act occasionally). Snopes makes sure they actually have it right.

Interestingly enough, the Star Tribune in Minneapolis recently addressed the issue of corrections and accuracy. Ironically, newspapers that report more corrections are perceived as less trustworthy, even though they are often more accurate for the effort! Another story on this issue found here.

Re:A matter of trust

[Thing 1]

I know about half the mindless net followers will believe everything they read in email.

Those are my relatives, you insensitive clod!

uhhh

[gfody]

holy animated gifs and midi soundtracks.. snopes.com looks like my mom's first website

Even though their website is somewhat outdated...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still useful. They've been debunking articles hours after they've started, especially handy in the recent "Metallica sues Canuck band for the use of E and F chords".

You want to learn how to troll? GO HERE

LINUX for the DESKTOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

DEFINATELY an URBAN LEGEND.

What about the Liberal Media?

[Limburgher]

I'm still trying to find that channel. I'd love to see it.

Really.

Re:What about the Liberal Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

California is a desert land roughly the size of Iraq. It is also an object lesson in the dangers of trying to impose democracy in a culture that is not ready for it. California "is degenerating into a banana republic," writes former Enron adviser Paul Krugman in his New York Times column. Leon Panetta, himself a Californian, writes in the Los Angeles Times that California is undergoing a "breakdown in [the] trust that is essential to governing in a democracy." Newsday quotes Bob Mulholland, another California political activist, as warning of "a coup attempt by the Taliban element." Others say a move is under way to "hijack" California's government.

What isn't widely known is that the U.S. has a large military presence in California. And our troops are coming under attack from angry locals. "Two off-duty Marines were stabbed, one critically, when they and two companions were attacked by more than a dozen alleged gang members early Thursday," KSND-TV reports from San Diego, a city in California's south.

How many young American men and women will have to make the ultimate sacrifice before we realize it isn't worth it? Is the Bush administration too proud to ask the U.N. for help in pacifying California? Plainly California has turned into a quagmire, and the sooner we bring our troops back home, the better.

most important statement

[AbdullahHaydar]

from the interview:

MG: "What about the role of the Internet in hoaxes?"

DM: "I think in general, nothing's changed but the technology. There's a lot on the Internet that you can't trust. But frankly, there's a lot on your bookshelf and the library shelves that you can't trust either. There are books on UFOs and alien encounters that require some examination. There's never been a medium that you could inherently trust. You still have to look at who's telling you this and why are they telling you this. Is there anything else they should be telling you? That concept hasn't changed. The Internet has made it easier to debunk hoaxes while at the same time making it easier to perpetrate them. Nothing's really changed but the technology."

The only other thing he could have mentioned is that people trust TV news and newspapers way too much also. 'nuff said.

hmm

[wiggys]

"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."

Or so they would have us believe... what if Snopes is a secret CIA plot to spread deliberate disinformation (the same CIA which is run by Masonic Lizards who would love nothing better than to enslare the world's population using advanced psychic mind-control tactics)

Re:hmm

[PakProtector]

Oh, stop spreading such disinformation.

Anyone who's in the know knows that the Masonic Lizards are just a front for the secret organization of International Bartenders.
Bartenders are the most powerful people in the world! Just think about it. I've told many deep, dark secrets to bartenders! They must know absolutely everything!

Even now, they sit in their secret base, plotting the overthrow of the world's governments, using those same governments' leaders as their willing dupes!


Of course... I could be crazy.



Where's the +1 Paranoid mod?

Re:hmm

[NickFitz]

I used to be a bartender.

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean.

That's right, I heard the same thing.

Do you want ice in that?

Nostradamus prediction.

[questamor]

Or the false nostradamus prediction, debunked on snopes.com:

In the City of God there will be a great thunder,
Two brothers torn apart by Chaos,
while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb,
The third big war will begin when the big city is burning.
*NOSTRADAMUS 1654

Written by a student to show how vague prophecies can be misinterpreted easily. Popped up after Sept11... now applies only a couple of years later to Uday and Qusay Hussein.

Just thought that curious :)

Re:Nostradamus prediction.

[BobTheLawyer]

you're just a sceptic: this is clear proof of life after death.

Hunting for Bambi. Hoax? Reality? Does it Matter?

[useosx]

A good article at CommonDreams.org about how the fact that it turned out to be a hoax seemed to make it 'acceptable' according to mainstream news sources.

Right-wing misogynists need not apply....

Interview

[dicepackage]

Its not a real interview its a hoax.

My problem with Snopes.com

[Just Some Guy]

I read one of their articles debunking the myth that Marilyn Monroe had six toes. The only issue I had with it was one of their "counterproofs":

There is no record of Marilyn's having had an operation at that point in her life, and no contemporary references to anyone's noticing her walking with a bandaged foot or a limp for a period of time. (One doesn't simply get up and start trotting around after having a toe removed -- the missing digit affects one's balance, and it takes some time to adjust to the change and "relearn" how to walk.)

The problem is that according to my wife, a podiatric (foot) surgeon, the recovery period following a phalangectomy (ampution of a toe (or finger)) is almost nil. The big toe, let alone a vestigial "pinky toe", is not crucial for balance or stability. You can verify this yourself; lift up your big toe and walk around. Bet you can still do it, can't you? Sure you can, especially if you're wearing a shoe with a sole that is even moderately stiff, which would replace some of the big toe's stabilizing influence.

I reported this via the Snopes.com comment form. After a couple of days, I received a reply that basically said "everyone knows you can't walk right if you have a toe cut off", and my wife's qualified medical opinion was pretty much ignored. Now, I really don't think that Marilyn Monroe had six toes. However, I stand by my assertion that at least one of the reasons they give opposing such an idea just doesn't work.

Why do I think that's important? Because I don't know anything at all about a lot of the subjects that they speak authoritatively about. Since I know of at least one topic where they discarded the opinion of a subject matter expert, I have no reason to believe that they haven't done so elsewhere.

An old saying, paraphrased, is that "the news is accurate, except for the parts you personally know about", and I now kind of feel the same way about Snopes.com. I agree with a lot of their findings, but I have to take it all with a grain of salt.

Re:My problem with Snopes.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. I've seen half a dozen casses where Snopes makes an assumtion that someone with real expertise about the given subject could tell you is just plain wrong.

I've also seen a few too many cases where they take the most far fetched claims of a story and after disproving those claims state that the whole thing is false. Even most true stories get mangled somewhat after only a few retellings.

That said, they are doing a good job at a herculean task. They just need to talk to the experts in the given field more often.

It's a joke, laugh

[NanoGator]

Claim: Linux can replace Windows as a desktop OS

Status: False

Example: Somebody installed Linux where they work and found they could answer email and visit Slashdot, thus claiming that the OS can replace the ever popular Windows.

Origins: Slashdot is the home of a number of self-righteous Linux zealots who...

Ya know, I really wanted to continue writing this but I'm not sure how to dodge a Troll moderation!

Strangest TRUTH

[403Forbidden]

What is THE strangest story that you thought couldn't POSSIBLY be true, but upon further research, was?

BTW excellent site, been reading it for years :)

James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[bstadil]

James Randy is another person that has dedicated his life to debunking paranormal claims, notably religious charletans.

Look at his lecture Series, If he comes to your city it is well worth attending the lecture.

Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[TomHandy]

I'm sorry, but this is a complete distortion of what James Randi and the JREF do. Anyone who really cares about this can read Randi's work for themselves at the JREF Website

Clearly though the folks at Survival Science have a bone to pick with people like him and other debunkers.

But either way, what you have said is not in line with what James Randi does. He doesn't take the vantage point that anything paranormal must be false. He simply says that it should be something that should hold up to scientific testing.

Saying he ditches the scientific method is ridiculous, and he has documented the exact tests they have worked with claimants to develop, and these are almost always scientifically sound.

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.

-Tom

Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[dvdeug]

Sure, there's little to no evidence of divinity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Agnostics are the only ones who can claim that their beliefs are based off the scientific method, since they admit there's not enough evidence to make a conclusion, either way.

Sure, there's no little to no evidence of invisible pink unicorns, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The scientific method includes this little thing called Occam's razor; if there's little to no evidence for something, and it would be simpler if you left it out, leave it out.

Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[TomHandy]

Again, James Randi does not assume that all paranormal events are false. Where do you get this from? The most he ever does is go by experience, and so if he sees someone claiming to be able to do something that has been previously shown to be impossible, he will make an assumption that it is probably false.

But he doesn't say it is necessarily false, which is why he does what he does. He affords anyone the opportunity to work with him to design a test both sides can agree on (you mentioned reading the specifics of his tests, but this makes no sense.... he doesn't have one set test, since each claim is different..... the JREF works with claimants to develop a test, set of rules, etc. that BOTH parties agree to, and then set out to enact it).

The details of the JREF Challenge can be read here (and I would suggest reading it carefully because many of the JREF's critics misconstrue a lot about how it works, or complain that the tests aren't fair, etc. even though the challenge clearly states that the tests are designed together by both parties, and nothing happens until the claimant themselves is happy with the conditions): JREF Challenge

But again, Randi never starts out assuming that all paranormal events are false. He simply starts out saying they should be able to pass a test that can show they can do what they claim to do.

One of the most popular types of claims he gets, for example, are dowsers. So, they work to develop a test of their abilities, by setting up a double or triple blind test of their dowsing abilities. And they both agree on what would be a reasonable success rate (i.e. something that would be better than just what someone would get by chance). Randi and the JREF don't automatically assume these are false, but the nice thing about designing double and triple blind tests is that Randi's personal opinions are irrelevant.

Whether Randi personally believes a claimant can do what they say has nothing to do with whether they can pass a test they agree to. If Randi's personal beliefs did affect it, it would be pointless.

And again, Randi doesn't automatically assume that all dowsers, for example, who come to him are not what they say they are. The most he will do is say "I've seen hundreds of dowsers come and try to prove what they can do, and they can't do it" and he will go on that to have a pretty clear idea that a dowser might not be able to do what they say they can do.

But again, that has nothing to do with it, and if someone with a legitimate ability to demonstrate dowsing or any other paranormal abilities would have every opportunity to do it.

But again, I can't stress this strongly enough. Randi's own trustworthiness isn't and can't be related to the tests themselves. If a claimant doesn't want Randi involved in any way, he can make that part of the terms of the test. Randi isn't the one who makes the decisions, and if someone ever could pass a scientific test they all agreed on, that would be it.

Anyway, you're right, it's good to see all sides of an argument, and people can be free to make up their own minds from looking at sites like survivalscience.org and the various other groups and individuals that criticize James Randi, and then they can also look at the arguments of his supporters.

-Tom

Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[WNight]

Athiests are on the sturdiest ground. They say there's no verifiable evidence for the existance of god. Without such evidence, they take the reasonable action of not believing in a god.

You think it's unreasonable to dismiss a view like this, but really it's the only thing to do. What if I tell you that the world doesn't actually exist anywhere you're not looking or sensing? Do you take my word for it? What if I offer poorly documented third-party claims, and first-person claims from people who "just know" it's true, but are unwilling to try to prove it?

The only reasonable action to take is to act as if a claim like this isn't true unless you can get proof. This is how athiests view the claim of the existance of god.

Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims

[BobTheLawyer]

You are either wrong or under a misapprehension as to the nature of science.

if by "exists" you mean "has effects on the physical world" then you're wrong: if something has effects then you can test it. If by "exists" you mean something else, then you're making a metaphysical claim which science isn't competent to test. Randi doesn't look at purely metaphysical claims (and nor could he).

if by an effect being "random" you mean "only happens sometimes, but more often than you'd expect if there was no effect" then this is a physical claim which is statistically testable (i.e. try to guess the flip of a coin 100 times - you don't need to get it right all the time for me to admit you're psychic).

If by "random" you mean "happens no more often that it would if there were no effect" then again you're making a metaphysical claim which is untestable.

Re:Television show.

[Burpmaster]

I remember reading that Snopes: The TV Show was in development but I never heard anything about it again. I was looking forward to that.

That was just an urban legend.

Re:Snopes rocks

[Animats]

"police radar causes missile to be launched at it"

The closest I know to this was a radar system that used to sit on top of the Ford Aeroneutronic building in Newport Beach, CA in the 1980s. This was the development test unit for the DIVAD gun system (a disappointing weapon), and it had a powered gun mount, but no gun. Instead of a gun, the test system had a telescope and a TV camera, and would produce good pictures of aircraft flying into LAX.

The DIVAD was supposed to engage low-flying helicopters, so the system could look down to the horizon. where it could see a freeway. It was usually set to ignore ground traffic below 100mph, but occasionally at night, some speeder would exceed the threshold and be identified as a possible target.

I heard that once the system picked up a speeding car and identified it as hostile. Apparently the car had a "radar jammer" to fool police radar. To a military radar, that helps mark the target better; it's like waving a flashlight around.

But that test system couldn't do anything more than videotape cars; it had no weapons whatsoever.

you know what amuses me...

[Montag2k]

I don't know how many times I have referred my friends to snopes.com after hearing them recite to me an urban legend. Their response to me is "you believe this crap? You can't believe everything you read on the internet!"

Bizarre coincidence

[Sydney Weidman]

I stumbled upon snopes.com for the first time while trying to determint whether the Peter Lynds story above was a hoax. I was searching for info about his publicist Brooke Jones, an Independent Communications Consultant. The google search leads to numerous links about urban legends. One site in particular http://www.truthminers.com/truth/jones.htm has a further link to snopes. Cool, eh? 6 degrees of internet separation.