Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reference Investigation/Snopes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Advertiser influence

I'd like to suggest that "* They use advertising as a source of revenue, therefore there is a small possibility they may have to change facts around to satisfy advertisers" be stricken unless we can show that this is not just 'possible' and is instead 'likely'. Otherwise, we should also add "The nature of 'truth' and 'facts' are flexible, as described by any number of philosophical treatises on existance and consciousness." - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's really the goal of the list: to show what is possible. Once something is debunked, it can get striked from the list. I suggest we ask Snopes about their advertisers and what standards they've set. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've sent the following request to snopes:

Hello,

Snopes is respected on Wikipedia, and we're documenting its reliability as part of an effort to identify known good sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Reference_Investigation/Snopes

The only issue listed at the moment is that snopes advertisers may influence the content. We don't think that it's really a big risk, but we want to document the response. Your thoughts?

Thanks!
Ben Hallert

- CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Chairboy! —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 01:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Their response:

We don't have any contact whatsoever with the businesses and groups whose advertisements appear on our site. Advertisers contract with on-line ad agencies, and the agencies distribute the ads across their networks of member sites. We deal only with the agencies, not the underlying advertisers -- advertisers don't target their ads to our site specifically, and most of them likely aren't even aware their ads are running on our site. - David

- CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's good to hear, however I have another question. Does the third-party advertising agency set any sort of rules/requirements regarding profanity, "offensive content, taboo subjects, etc. on their web pages? I know that Google AdSense has rules against putting their ads on websites that contain pornographic content (among other things), and there's a chance that Snopes's ad agency has similar rules. In that case, those policies might affect how Snopes can deal with risqué topics, thus affecting the accuracy of their content. What I'm wondering is if content changes due to advertiser policy has ever been a case. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have sent them an e-mail pertaining that. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Their response states that they have very general rules; none of which regard content. In the event that an advertising issue rose because of an article, they'd just remove advertising from that page. So I suppose we can strike out that advertising can have an effect? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a really likely risk at this point. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for conclusion?

After declaring that the only serious argument against Snopes isn't really much of an argument, there's only the fact that there's no formal process of peer review. I wouldn't really expect this of Snopes, and it's not like it's needed anyway. Anyways, I've proposed a final decision: "Despite an abundance of advertising, which may jeopardize the accuracy on other websites, Snopes has explained to the WikiProject that advertisers have no interest in 'fixing' the websites for their interests. In addition, the policy stated by the advertising agency Snopes has enlisted has very broad rules, and in the event that an article from Snopes doesn't satisfy their policy, they will simply remove advertising from that page. In addition, Snopes manages to cite sources for their pages, and doesn't always have a "black and white" conclusion. While it is not 100% perfect, Snopes is ideal for Wikipedia coverage regarding folklore. We advise, however, to use Snopes along with other references to be extra safe." How does that sound? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Super duper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Aight. Let's wait a few days so we can wait for more people to bring up points (just in case). —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)