http://www.snopes.com/about-snopes/

http://www.snopes.com/ownership-and-revenue/ ‎

Also document of incorporation e-mailed under separate cover

The evidence of the business status of Snopes comes on its “About” page. Unfortunately, the “About” page is not easy to find. The day that I looked at the page, the “About” page was 11 clicks down the page. That makes it almost undiscoverable. While Snopes is pretty well known, the information about its background as a company is not as prominent as it should be. My suggestion would be to place a like to the “About” page prominently on the left-hand navigation of the site.

When you finally do get to the page, it reads more like a marketing page with much of the copy focused on praise of the Web site. It’s not until the end of the marketing information that you get a link to an explainer on the actual business operation of Snopes. The Ownership and Revenue page is actually pretty informative but it’s really difficult to find. Snopes is hardly being transparent in making such information so hard to find.

http://www.snopes.com/category/facts/

The homepage makes it pretty clear that there is regular fact checking and the left-hand navigation also gives links to collections or regular fact-checking, including a “What’s New” collection.

In general, as explained at http://www.snopes.com/topic-selection/, we maintain coherent standards across fact checks by basing our topic selection on whatever items are most popular without regard to whether the issues they address are liberal/conservative, Democratic/Republican, religious/secular, or any other qualifier, and without making our judgments of our own about whether they merit coverage based on their perceived importance, controversiality, obviousness, or superficiality (or lack thereof). We strive to examine, explicate, and rate all relevant aspects of the items we tackle rather than simply assigning a monolithic truth rating that addresses only a single aspect.

Snopes provides a “Topic Selection” link on its “About” page which outlines its process. The Snopes editors make clear that they are unique in that their mission does not solely focus on fact-checking the statements of politicians and media outlets. The editors also briefly outline their process but in slightly general terms. The editors do a much better job or outlining how they maintain their standards in the “Methodology” section linked off the “About” page. But, again, this is pretty important information that seemingly gets lost. It should really be highlighted and easy to find.

See statement at the head of http://www.snopes.com/snopes-staff/

Under the staff page section, the editors make clear that staffers should avoid involvement with political parties and advocacy organizations: “Members of the Snopes.com editorial staff are precluded from donating to, or participating in, political campaigns, political parties, or political advocacy organizations.”

http://www.snopes.com/sources/ ‎

The editors at Snopes take a very simple approach when outlining their fact checks: Providing links to the original sources of information as well as to information that helps to refute or confirm the issues in question. Through the simple act of linking out, readers can go back and determine on their own whether they agree or disagree with the findings of Snopes. There are also cases where Snopes will do its own reporting -- making it a little difficult for the reader to replicate the reporting but in many cases the editors link to original source documents. Snopes makes a point in its “Sources” section in stating that it seeks out non-partisan sources of information and data in its research.

Additionally, Snopes provides a list of sources at the end of each fact-check as well as the name of the fact-checker that researched and wrote the fact-check evaluation.

http://www.snopes.com/ownership-and-revenue/ ‎

Snopes makes clear on its “Ownership and Revenue” page that its funding comes from advertising except for one $75,000 award that the site won in 2016 from the James Randi Educational Foundation. Snopes also goes the extra step in outlining where its revenues are spent. It might be helpful to the reader however if Snopes outlined what type of advertisements were received during the course of the year.

http://www.snopes.com/snopes-staff/

Snopes has a page devoted to staff with photos and their biographies. The bios are pretty extensive and give readers a pretty good sense that professionals are at work on this site. And, while there is a good split on gender with the staff, there is a distinct lack of diversity. As a fact-checking site, Snopes should understand that people of color bring an important perspective and should make every attempt to add diversity to their staff.

http://www.snopes.com/contact/?formType=feedback

The prominent link on each page of the site is a “Get in Contact” link which allows the reader to submit a rumor, give feedback or ask about advertising opportunities. It’s a simple, effective interactive way to engage the audience. 

http://www.snopes.com/methodology/

As I mentioned earlier, it’s difficult to find the methodology page on this site. The process is outlined fairly well and the page lays out that there are multiple levels of editing – which is good to see. However there really are no specifics on how they go through the decision-making processes of which information is supported by the facts and which information is not. A little more clarity about the editorial process would be helpful here.

http://www.snopes.com/how-to-submit-topics-for-inclusion-on-snopescom/

As mentioned earlier, readers have a prominent link on the site where they can submit their own rumors for fact-checking. 

 http://www.snopes.com/corrections-policy/

The Corrections/Update policy is also listed on the “About” page. But, Snopes seems adverse to using the word “correction.” On the two examples given, there were updates – with one being solely an update box and one being a paragraph explaining the “update” – but all the way at the bottom of the page. Snopes needs to be more transparent about what a correction is and the correction/update needs to be at the top of the page, prominently displayed so that the reader can be informed about the accuracy of the fact-claim and so it doesn’t get lost at the end of the story.

I wouldn’t say that this policy is not “honest” but it needs to be more transparent. 

http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/

http://www.snopes.com/scouts-nullify-the-2016-election/

Missing