6 ms·

I would have agreed with this article until the forbes story broke. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-ch

I would have agreed with this article until the forbes story broke. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#33d2e4cc1e02 http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dail... It makes snopes look worse run than a college newspaper. I also agree with the forbes article in that we need much much tranparency and openess from our fact checkers.

anigbrowl 10y ago
Oh please, this is a typical bullshit story from a site with famously loose editorial oversight itself. It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.” This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement. In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “its secret.” It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond. What's so astonishing about it? A divorce settlement in which the parties agree not to talk about each other in public isn't scandalous, and it's not like these people are on the public payroll; rather, they provide a service, have built a good brand from the overall high reliability of that service (notwithstanding a lack of total perfection), and the market has been largely satisfied with the quality of the offering. Divorces happen and they're sometimes bitter and contentious. So what? I don't really care how Snopes is run as long as it consistently provides a high quality of information, while being aware of variations in the quality of their output from time to time. I have certainly found it a more reliable source of information, on average, than the Daily Mail or indeed Forbes over a period going back to its founding.
- Natsu 10y ago
  It's not the fact that there is a divorce settlement, but the contents thereof which are at issue. If this were entirely false (as I would have expected from the Daily Mail), they could've said as much. But there are quite a few things, like the allegations of criminal activity (e.g. embezzlement) going on at Snopes that reasonable people might have questions about with respect to their fact-checking operations.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    The fact that unfavorable information is out there doesn't obviate a contractual agreement not to discuss it in public per the settlement. Doing something that could cost you (as here) is the very foundation of contract. I neither know nor much care how their operation runs, and it's not my purpose to defend it. To be honest I've never especially liked the people who run it; their deconstructions of internet rumors are often snarky and shallow, and undermine their factual value with distracting tone issues - but that's how they choose to run their business. I'm just pointing to the fact of the site's general reliability as a fact-checking service over a long period.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      Right, I know they may be unable to discuss it even when it's public. I was saying if it were entirely made up (i.e. there is no such settlement to begin with), they could say as much.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  Kalev Leetaru's c.v.: http://kalevleetaru.com/vita.pdf http://kalevleetaru.com/vita.pdf David Mikkelson's c.v.: ? (disclaimer: I know Kalev slightly)
Natsu 10y ago
There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table. The Guardian won't even repeat, let alone attempt to refute, anything published in the Daily Mail. Just let that sink in for a moment: the Guardian is unable to dispute the Daily Mail on a factual level on this one. Instead they talk about everything and anything else rather than discuss the actual subject matter in the reports. "Nothing to see here, move along!" But even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. And this would hardly be the first real news broken by a tabloid. We live in interesting times. I just hope they're not the "interesting times" from that fictitious Chinese curse.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table. The usual saying is, "When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the law; when neither is on your side, pound the table."
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Yeah, that's the one. Thank you.
  - ternaryoperator 10y ago
    The quote appears to be from Carl Sandburg[1] The variant I've heard is: "When the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; if both the facts and the law are against you, get a new client." [1] http://able2know.org/topic/98689-1 http://able2know.org/topic/98689-1
- DanBC 10y ago
  We don't need the Grauniad to refute stuff in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail will print a full page front page, and then retract it in a tiny correction six months later on page 12. From New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-libe... > In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. The complaints will serve as a charge sheet against the Mail and its editor. > This year, [2014] the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false. Here's another example: A columnist accused a muslim family of being extremists. That was libel. She tweeted her apology at 2am. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-twitter-apology-muslim-family-extremism-links-mail-online-column-a7484436.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-twitt... I think the apology for incorrect claims should take as much space as the original claim. If you print a 92point headline on the front page that's libellous you should print the apology in 92 point on the front page. EDIT: And about libel in England. You need to be able to prove what you say is true. In the context of "false news" that doesn't seem to burdensome for newspapers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
camtarn 10y ago
It feels like Snopes outgrew its roots in urban-legend debunking, and decided to scale up to more real-time fact-checking - either because they saw a commercial opportunity, or just because they felt that they had a duty to do so. I was really surprised earlier this year when I realized they'd employed a staff - for so many years, Snopes was just Barbara and David Mikkelson. It's a pity if they did scale up for altruistic reasons, but in the process ended up out of their depth - fact-checking news stories in a highly controversial and partisan environment seems like an entirely different kettle of fish than unravelling easily-debunked urban legends.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  I don't think they are naive or altruistic at all; that same partisan environment offers huge amounts of wealth if you consign with one faction or another. I'm sure being an Official Facebook Fact Checker is a job that pays quite well.
justinlaster 10y ago
You're going to give a Forbes article more credence than Snopes? I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted." You have it exactly backwards. I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. The Mikkelsons were self-appointed "authorities" from the beginning, with zero actual expertise or credentials in most of the areas they opine upon. Edit: I should add that I view any organization that feels the need to use "truth", "fact", or similar in its name with an extremely jaundiced eye. It's reminiscent of Pravda and "Honest John's Used Cars". Organizations with actual earned credibility don't use names like that, as a rule.
  - justinlaster 10y ago
    > I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. Their impressive library of detailed articles in where they factually report on myths and conspiracy theories?
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      "Factual reporting" according to whom?
      - justinlaster 10y ago
        According to the epistemological principle of not being proved wrong while containing a reasonable amount of evidence to indicate that their report is in all probability true. Why are you asking such a vague, open-ended question?
        Turing_Machine 10y ago

anigbrowl 10y ago

Oh please, this is a typical bullshit story from a site with famously loose editorial oversight itself. It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.” This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement. In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “its secret.” It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond. What's so astonishing about it? A divorce settlement in which the parties agree not to talk about each other in public isn't scandalous, and it's not like these people are on the public payroll; rather, they provide a service, have built a good brand from the overall high reliability of that service (notwithstanding a lack of total perfection), and the market has been largely satisfied with the quality of the offering. Divorces happen and they're sometimes bitter and contentious. So what? I don't really care how Snopes is run as long as it consistently provides a high quality of information, while being aware of variations in the quality of their output from time to time. I have certainly found it a more reliable source of information, on average, than the Daily Mail or indeed Forbes over a period going back to its founding.

Natsu 10y ago
It's not the fact that there is a divorce settlement, but the contents thereof which are at issue. If this were entirely false (as I would have expected from the Daily Mail), they could've said as much. But there are quite a few things, like the allegations of criminal activity (e.g. embezzlement) going on at Snopes that reasonable people might have questions about with respect to their fact-checking operations.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  The fact that unfavorable information is out there doesn't obviate a contractual agreement not to discuss it in public per the settlement. Doing something that could cost you (as here) is the very foundation of contract. I neither know nor much care how their operation runs, and it's not my purpose to defend it. To be honest I've never especially liked the people who run it; their deconstructions of internet rumors are often snarky and shallow, and undermine their factual value with distracting tone issues - but that's how they choose to run their business. I'm just pointing to the fact of the site's general reliability as a fact-checking service over a long period.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Right, I know they may be unable to discuss it even when it's public. I was saying if it were entirely made up (i.e. there is no such settlement to begin with), they could say as much.
Turing_Machine 10y ago
Kalev Leetaru's c.v.: http://kalevleetaru.com/vita.pdf http://kalevleetaru.com/vita.pdf David Mikkelson's c.v.: ? (disclaimer: I know Kalev slightly)

Natsu 10y ago

There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table. The Guardian won't even repeat, let alone attempt to refute, anything published in the Daily Mail. Just let that sink in for a moment: the Guardian is unable to dispute the Daily Mail on a factual level on this one. Instead they talk about everything and anything else rather than discuss the actual subject matter in the reports. "Nothing to see here, move along!" But even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. And this would hardly be the first real news broken by a tabloid. We live in interesting times. I just hope they're not the "interesting times" from that fictitious Chinese curse.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table. The usual saying is, "When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the law; when neither is on your side, pound the table."
- Natsu 10y ago
  Yeah, that's the one. Thank you.
- ternaryoperator 10y ago
  The quote appears to be from Carl Sandburg[1] The variant I've heard is: "When the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; if both the facts and the law are against you, get a new client." [1] http://able2know.org/topic/98689-1 http://able2know.org/topic/98689-1
DanBC 10y ago
We don't need the Grauniad to refute stuff in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail will print a full page front page, and then retract it in a tiny correction six months later on page 12. From New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-libe... > In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. The complaints will serve as a charge sheet against the Mail and its editor. > This year, [2014] the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false. Here's another example: A columnist accused a muslim family of being extremists. That was libel. She tweeted her apology at 2am. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-twitter-apology-muslim-family-extremism-links-mail-online-column-a7484436.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-twitt... I think the apology for incorrect claims should take as much space as the original claim. If you print a 92point headline on the front page that's libellous you should print the apology in 92 point on the front page. EDIT: And about libel in England. You need to be able to prove what you say is true. In the context of "false news" that doesn't seem to burdensome for newspapers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

camtarn 10y ago

It feels like Snopes outgrew its roots in urban-legend debunking, and decided to scale up to more real-time fact-checking - either because they saw a commercial opportunity, or just because they felt that they had a duty to do so. I was really surprised earlier this year when I realized they'd employed a staff - for so many years, Snopes was just Barbara and David Mikkelson. It's a pity if they did scale up for altruistic reasons, but in the process ended up out of their depth - fact-checking news stories in a highly controversial and partisan environment seems like an entirely different kettle of fish than unravelling easily-debunked urban legends.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
I don't think they are naive or altruistic at all; that same partisan environment offers huge amounts of wealth if you consign with one faction or another. I'm sure being an Official Facebook Fact Checker is a job that pays quite well.

justinlaster 10y ago

You're going to give a Forbes article more credence than Snopes? I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
"I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted." You have it exactly backwards. I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. The Mikkelsons were self-appointed "authorities" from the beginning, with zero actual expertise or credentials in most of the areas they opine upon. Edit: I should add that I view any organization that feels the need to use "truth", "fact", or similar in its name with an extremely jaundiced eye. It's reminiscent of Pravda and "Honest John's Used Cars". Organizations with actual earned credibility don't use names like that, as a rule.
- justinlaster 10y ago
  > I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. Their impressive library of detailed articles in where they factually report on myths and conspiracy theories?
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    "Factual reporting" according to whom?
    - justinlaster 10y ago
      According to the epistemological principle of not being proved wrong while containing a reasonable amount of evidence to indicate that their report is in all probability true. Why are you asking such a vague, open-ended question?
      - Turing_Machine 10y ago