WWTBAM Bored

Was tipped to this website by the fine skeptics at the James Randi Education Foundation. It's apparently a variation on snopes.com that investigates late-breaking rumors, particularly those that are "trending" on social media and in the more mainstream media, as well. I looked at about a month's worth of rumors and their statuses, and was pleased with the appearance and apparent research done by those who run emergent. For instance, the name of the Canadian shooter and the fact that the sergeant-at-arms of Parliament shot him are listed as "unverified" while the fact that a soldier was shot and killed was listed as verified.

At least one story that I thought was true -- that of a Biblical historian who reported finding an account of Jesus performing a miracle -- has been confirmed as false by this website. Not that I thought proof had been found of a miraculous Jesus, but it wouldn't shock me if someone reported they had found such evidence.

I am bookmarking said site. Some of the usual suspects here might do well to do the same.

mrkelley23 wrote:Some of the usual suspects here might do well to do the same.

I take offense to being called a suspect. I freely admit I'm guilty. Your suspicions are confirmed, they are fact. I hereby wish to be refered to as a known.

It looks like all they do is to aggregate what a bunch of other sites have. They don't seem to update when things a absolutely verified by one publication but the others don't update. e.g.: The "Comcast got me fired" item:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cus ... 02114.html

That's easily verified to be true since there was a federal lawsuit filed.

Bob Juch wrote:It looks like all they do is to aggregate what a bunch of other sites have. They don't seem to update when things a absolutely verified by one publication but the others don't update. e.g.: The "Comcast got me fired" item:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cus ... 02114.html

That's easily verified to be true since there was a federal lawsuit filed.

So all I have to do to verify an unsubstantiated claim is to file a federal lawsuit? Huzzah!

I don't think you and I share the same definition of unsubstantiated.

mrkelley23 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:It looks like all they do is to aggregate what a bunch of other sites have. They don't seem to update when things a absolutely verified by one publication but the others don't update. e.g.: The "Comcast got me fired" item:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cus ... 02114.html

That's easily verified to be true since there was a federal lawsuit filed.

So all I have to do to verify an unsubstantiated claim is to file a federal lawsuit? Huzzah!

I don't think you and I share the same definition of unsubstantiated.

This story was covered heavily here, where Comcast is headquartered. Comcast apologized for contacting the customer's employer after he complained a lot about his bill. But many facts are still in dispute, including whether he was fired because of Comcast.

jarnon wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:It looks like all they do is to aggregate what a bunch of other sites have. They don't seem to update when things a absolutely verified by one publication but the others don't update. e.g.: The "Comcast got me fired" item:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cus ... 02114.html

That's easily verified to be true since there was a federal lawsuit filed.

So all I have to do to verify an unsubstantiated claim is to file a federal lawsuit? Huzzah!

I don't think you and I share the same definition of unsubstantiated.

This story was covered heavily here, where Comcast is headquartered. Comcast apologized for contacting the customer's employer after he complained a lot about his bill. But many facts are still in dispute, including whether he was fired because of Comcast.

Shhhhh. We don't want to upset Bob's version of what substantiated means.....

mrkelley23 wrote:

jarnon wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:
So all I have to do to verify an unsubstantiated claim is to file a federal lawsuit? Huzzah!

I don't think you and I share the same definition of unsubstantiated.

This story was covered heavily here, where Comcast is headquartered. Comcast apologized for contacting the customer's employer after he complained a lot about his bill. But many facts are still in dispute, including whether he was fired because of Comcast.

Shhhhh. We don't want to upset Bob's version of what substantiated means.....

If it's on Twitter, it must be twue....

lb13

mrkelley23 wrote:

jarnon wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:
So all I have to do to verify an unsubstantiated claim is to file a federal lawsuit? Huzzah!

I don't think you and I share the same definition of unsubstantiated.

This story was covered heavily here, where Comcast is headquartered. Comcast apologized for contacting the customer's employer after he complained a lot about his bill. But many facts are still in dispute, including whether he was fired because of Comcast.

Shhhhh. We don't want to upset Bob's version of what substantiated means.....

Possibly not since the site doesn't define their useage.

I notice they have:

Claim: Kevin Vickers, the Sergeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons, shot a gunman on Parliament Hill

as unsubstantiated.

I would imagine that's because eyewitness accounts and the acknowledgement of the Sergeant at Arms are not considered enough substantiation. They're probably waiting for the autopsy and ballistic tests before they finally mark it confirmed.

mrkelley23 wrote:I would imagine that's because eyewitness accounts and the acknowledgement of the Sergeant at Arms are not considered enough substantiation. They're probably waiting for the autopsy and ballistic tests before they finally mark it confirmed.

Do they have that Lee Harvey Oswald shooting JFK is unconfirmed?

Bob Juch wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:I would imagine that's because eyewitness accounts and the acknowledgement of the Sergeant at Arms are not considered enough substantiation. They're probably waiting for the autopsy and ballistic tests before they finally mark it confirmed.

Do they have that Lee Harvey Oswald shooting JFK is unconfirmed?

I don't know. I don't believe they go back that far. But I know how you could find out, if you were so inclined. I would certainly call it confirmed, by the same criteria I mentioned above. Since there is an autopsy, a cause of death, and a ballistics report issued b official government agencies, I would certainly say it was confirmed.

I think I get why you're trying so hard to find fault with this site. I'm not even going to try to claim that it's perfect, or even nearly so. It's an experimental project, after all, by a collegiate group, which probably means mostly undergrads. But it's a helluva lot better at doing what we used to call journalism than just about any other website out there, even those labeled as "news sources."

But, you know, if you don't like it, don't use it. I just pointed it out to people here who might have a interest in whether a rumor has been fact-checked or not yet. I already know that's not a high priority with you.

Okay, they're tracking data on how many sources refer to a story and classifying how those source treat the story, but how are they using that data to confirm a story as true or false?

I looked at one of their non-political stories for an example: Crabzilla.

Claim: A 50-foot crab was photographed in the U.K.

They've got this classified as "Confirmed False", but the raw data seems to say otherwise:

For
6 sources
31,526 shares

Against
6 sources
7,913 shares

Observing
10 sources
27,258 shares

I read the top source in the Against column, Huffpost Weird News, which uses the neutral(?) title 'Crabzilla' or 'Crapzilla' -- You Decide. It quotes one scientist's (Dr. Verity Nye -- a name that sounds like it needs verification, too!) opinion that this is photo trickery, but that doesn't sound like definitive confirmation to me.

Inquiring minds want to know!