The thing about Snopes and Wikipedia or others is that they aren't authorities in their own right. They present sources on topics that people can evaluate on their own. Snopes doesn't say "this chain email is wrong" (and, really, that's not a high bar to clear in most cases), they say "here's what we found about the claim made in the chain email." You can either look at their evidence and say "oh, that totally undermines this claim" or you can say "I'm not persuaded." And on that metric I don't thing they come up short often.

 

It's the same way with Wikipedia. There are plenty of criticisms to be made of Wikipedia.* But, the Roth incident with Wikipedia is something that sounds ridiculous until you consider what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't meant to be an authority, that's why everything that gets posted there is footnoted. People can check the sources for themselves (as well as the edit histories as to how those sources got there). If they published Roth's edit it is akin to saying "trust us, we are certain this is the authentic Philip Roth," there is no outside source to vouch for the credibility of his edit. Then it just becomes a PR vehicle for anyone mentioned. So, they say everything has to be cited, even if you yourself are an expert.

 

Imagine if their articles on all of these topics simply said that the author was an expert and that's why it's trustworthy. They'd either be paying so much money for these people to write their articles it wouldn't be free or they'd be so corrupt no one would bother. For instance, how many people would read an encyclopedia entry on economics authored by Paul Krugman? Sure, he's a bona fide expert, but numerous people object to his philosophy and interpretations. It makes more sense to organize as many sources as possible on a particular topic and let people weed through it on their own.

 

There's no doubt people, especially powerful people, try to manipulate information online to aid their causes, but it's always incumbent on the "consumer" of the information to test their evidence against one's own logic. That's what I didn't quite buy about this talk. She notes that astroturfing purposely creates noise and disinformation, but she seemed to say "don't trust anybody, especially the consensus" when far savvier advice is to evaluate the support and evidence for claims made. More often than not, the people labeled as "kooks" or "nuts" are done so because they have no evidence. That's not a reason for skepticism of the consensus.

 

*One of the criticisms is that because editors have to footnote things and there's no authority to make judgement calls and that many articles, especially on controversial topics, read in a contradictory, back-and-forth manner with citations to outlier sources. For the most part, Wikipedia is not remotely considered a "reliable" source, but it has a tremendous value in disseminating basic information to people quickly and freely. Imagine if you wanted to find out what something like "postmodern art" meant, and instead of pulling it up immediately you'd have to go consult art experts on your own or read several esoteric books on the topic or pay for a service that would tell you. That would undoubtedly be richer information, but you'd almost certainly not do it and then continue to remain in the dark about it. I don't know how many times I've been able to look up something random I had no idea about or read through a topic and found new sources or other avenues to read up on something - all that I wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

Edited August 24, 201511 yr by Habib

Snopes is a joke of source for conversational. But even the White Houses uses Snopes as a source on certain things of controversy. Go figure.

 

One of the things I like about Snopes is they back up and reference their research. Most times I don't see that in original claims.

The ironic thing? She throws out a lot of stats/data and doesn't offer any "proof" so to speak to back up her claims. Isn't this the exact same thing she is accusing others of doing? For instance, she says as many as 90% of the Wiki articles dealing with medical info is wrong and/or goes against established medical beliefs, and then kind of leaves us to just believe her. Not saying she's wrong, but just found it a little ironic.

The thing about Snopes and Wikipedia or others is that they aren't authorities in their own right. They present sources on topics that people can evaluate on their own. Snopes doesn't say "this chain email is wrong" (and, really, that's not a high bar to clear in most cases), they say "here's what we found about the claim made in the chain email." You can either look at their evidence and say "oh, that totally undermines this claim" or you can say "I'm not persuaded." And on that metric I don't thing they come up short often.

 

It's the same way with Wikipedia. There are plenty of criticisms to be made of Wikipedia.* But, the Roth incident with Wikipedia is something that sounds ridiculous until you consider what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't meant to be an authority, that's why everything that gets posted there is footnoted. People can check the sources for themselves (as well as the edit histories as to how those sources got there). If they published Roth's edit it is akin to saying "trust us, we are certain this is the authentic Philip Roth," there is no outside source to vouch for the credibility of his edit. Then it just becomes a PR vehicle for anyone mentioned. So, they say everything has to be cited, even if you yourself are an expert.

 

Imagine if their articles on all of these topics simply said that the author was an expert and that's why it's trustworthy. They'd either be paying so much money for these people to write their articles it wouldn't be free or they'd be so corrupt no one would bother. For instance, how many people would read an encyclopedia entry on economics authored by Paul Krugman? Sure, he's a bona fide expert, but numerous people object to his philosophy and interpretations. It makes more sense to organize as many sources as possible on a particular topic and let people weed through it on their own.

 

There's no doubt people, especially powerful people, try to manipulate information online to aid their causes, but it's always incumbent on the "consumer" of the information to test their evidence against one's own logic. That's what I didn't quite buy about this talk. She notes that astroturfing purposely creates noise and disinformation, but she seemed to say "don't trust anybody, especially the consensus" when far savvier advice is to evaluate the support and evidence for claims made. More often than not, the people labeled as "kooks" or "nuts" are done so because they have no evidence. That's not a reason for skepticism of the consensus.

 

*One of the criticisms is that because editors have to footnote things and there's no authority to make judgement calls and that many articles, especially on controversial topics, read in a contradictory, back-and-forth manner with citations to outlier sources. For the most part, Wikipedia is not remotely considered a "reliable" source, but it has a tremendous value in disseminating basic information to people quickly and freely. Imagine if you wanted to find out what something like "postmodern art" meant, and instead of pulling it up immediately you'd have to go consult art experts on your own or read several esoteric books on the topic or pay for a service that would tell you. That would undoubtedly be richer information, but you'd almost certainly not do it and then continue to remain in the dark about it. I don't know how many times I've been able to look up something random I had no idea about or read through a topic and found new sources or other avenues to read up on something - all that I wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

 

Great post Habib!