Mr. Ed, a Zebra? (1 Viewer)

[MatthewLouwrens]

And that, I think, is the whole point of the section. Quoting from their explanation...

Common sense dictates that a black-and-white quadruped is still going to look like a zebra on a black-and-white TV, and all the authoritative-looking cites to the contrary shouldn't persuade one otherwise. Next time you're tempted to believe something that runs contrary to common sense just because someone knowledgeable touts it, remember Mister Ed. More folks than it bears thinking about turned their backs on their own common sense rather than disbelieve an outlet they'd lazily come to have unshakeable faith in.

In other words, it's about saying that you can't just go around saying "It's on Snopes, therefore it must be true" any more than you can about anything else. Snopes is an excellent website, really well-researched - and a really excellent resource to counter some of those emails people forward - but they are no more infallible than anyone else.

The difference is, rather than just a bland statement to that fact, they spin a rather amusing story that makes you laugh while still making its point. And they even put this stuff in its own section, to clearly seperate the "not true" material from the rest of the site.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Maybe Webster's should start making up words and definitions and inserting them in its dictionary so we don't look at it as a definitive source.

I think the problem many of us are having with this is not that we thought that every word on Snopes was 100% correct, but we didn't know they deliberately published false info. That seriously damages their credibility as a source, especially when their job is supposed to be debunking this type of story, not spreading it. It's like finding out that some anti-drug crusader is selling heroin on the weekends.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Snopes's point is that anybody with six working brain cells should have been able to realize that that ridiculous story couldn't possibly be true. If you believed a word of it the problem is the reader's, not theirs.


Dictionary makers do exactly that, although not for that reason. Like mapmakers they insert minor bits of false information to trap copyright violators who simply reprint whole pages of stuff unaltered.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Linda Thompson]

Besides which, every single one of the "false" pages (including the one referenced in the original post) has a link at the bottom titled "More information about this page" -- and that link leads directly to the page which I referenced in the second post in this thread, which contains the FULL EXPLANATION about that area of the site and its intended purpose.

As Joseph has attempted to point out, the entire point of that section is for it to serve as an object lesson for those who are gullible enough to believe something entirely implausible, instead of letting their own common sense kick in; those who take everything at face value rather than questioning even something so highly questionable; and those who don't even bother looking beyond one source of info, even when that source (usually highly trusted) seems to be totally full of crap in any particular instance.

But, even though I fully understand (and even applaud) the intent behind that section of Snope.com I still feel that it's not worth the confusion and misinformation which are created when things are taken out of context from that section and spread around to those who take it all at face value and don't even bother to follow the explanatory links which are right in front of them or (heaven forbid!!!) make the effort to check another source.

Much to his credit, the original poster in this thread DID question something which didn't make sense to him, DESPITE the fact that it was on snopes.com. And, if he had taken just one more step and followed the "More information about this page" link, his question would have been answered for him.

(And, yes, I do realize that several others were simply expanding upon the joke. )