Plagiarism

[Jolly]

Amen.

[Catseye3]

@george-k said in Plagiarism:

Snopes conducted an internal review and confirmed that under a pseudonym, the Snopes byline, and his own name, Mikkelson wrote and published 54 articles with plagiarized material.

So the whole product of Snopes is suspect because a review conducted by Snopes itself confirmed these 54 articles?

I have no ax to grind here, if Snopes is a cheat, so be it. But I'm not seeing an if-then connection here.

[Larry]

@catseye3 said in Plagiarism:

@george-k said in Plagiarism:

Snopes conducted an internal review and confirmed that under a pseudonym, the Snopes byline, and his own name, Mikkelson wrote and published 54 articles with plagiarized material.

So the whole product of Snopes is suspect because a review conducted by Snopes itself confirmed these 54 articles?

I have no ax to grind here, if Snopes is a cheat, so be it. But I'm not seeing an if-then connection here.

[Copper]

@catseye3 said in Plagiarism:

@george-k said in Plagiarism:

Snopes conducted an internal review and confirmed that under a pseudonym, the Snopes byline, and his own name, Mikkelson wrote and published 54 articles with plagiarized material.

So the whole product of Snopes is suspect because a review conducted by Snopes itself confirmed these 54 articles?

I have no ax to grind here, if Snopes is a cheat, so be it. But I'm not seeing an if-then connection here.

Yes, it is suspect

But not just for that

Because they hate everything associated with Mr Trump and his friends

[Catseye3]

@copper said in Plagiarism:

Yes, it is suspect

I agree that such a finding casts doubt on the website's integrity. Doubt, not certainty! But if the article writer's intent was to draw the conclusion that since the guy is suspected of plaguarism, that alone blackens the whole output, then no, he didn't achieve that IMO. The plaguarism was uncovered in one person, an exec of Snopes evicted him pending investigation, and we'll see what we shall see. Maybe the site will go down, maybe it'll be found that he's the one rotten apple.

Based solely on this article, you cannot conclude anything else.

But you said it, Copper. Conservatives are leaping to the attack not because the guy is suspected of plaguarism, but because it provides an excuse to bash Snopes for hating Trump. Plaguarism has nothing to do with it beyond a handy excuse.

[Horace]

Snopes was arbitrating in favor of left-leaning 'facts' long before Trump was president.

[Catseye3]

@horace Fine, whatever. But don't throw up your hands in horror because the guy turns out to be a plaguarist. Be honest. You want Snopes outta here because you don't like its politics. Screw whether he plaguarized.

[Horace]

@catseye3 said in Plagiarism:

@horace Fine, whatever. But don't throw up your hands in horror because the guy turns out to be a plaguarist. Be honest. You want Snopes outta here because you don't like its politics. Screw whether he plaguarized.

I don't like that is has politics. And blatant politics at that. Not when it has always sold itself as an objective fact checking source. It started way back when as a few people debunking urban legends on Usenet. It turned into a pop culture site that got way more recognition, praise, and revenue when it came down reliably on the progressive side of every politically-charged fact checking exercise.

[Catseye3]

@horace said in Plagiarism:

I don't like that is has politics. And blatant politics at that. Not when it has always sold itself as an objective fact checking source.

Okay, I'll grant you that. If conservatives are hooking in his plaguarism as support for his bias while he's claiming to be objective, then so be it. It still feels kinda raunchy as a tactic, though.

[Horace]

@catseye3 said in Plagiarism:

@horace said in Plagiarism:

I don't like that is has politics. And blatant politics at that. Not when it has always sold itself as an objective fact checking source.

Okay, I'll grant you that. If conservatives are hooking in his plaguarism as support for his bias while he's claiming to be objective, then so be it. It still feels kinda raunchy as a tactic, though.

The snopes guy has been well understood to be a slimy slimeball for a long time now. This new revelation is no revelation.

[Doctor Phibes]

It's always quite funny when somebody challenges a Town Hall diatribe with Snopes, and the person quoting Town Hall says 'Yeah, but Snopes has been shown to be like totally biased, libtard!', as though this somehow justifies their own foray into cockwomblehood.

[Horace]

@doctor-phibes said in Plagiarism:

It's always quite funny when somebody challenges a Town Hall diatribe with Snopes, and the person quoting Town Hall says 'Yeah, but Snopes has been shown to be like totally biased, libtard!', as though this somehow justifies their own foray into cockwomblehood.

That would miss the distinction between purveyors of opinion, and self-described purveyors of objective fact.