I agree to some degree. Neither Snopes or Wiki should be used on their own. I suppose the point I am making is that it is very easy to dismiss stuff on either of those sources, but in both instances, it is the messenger being shot, rather than the message.
It's like an anti-confirmation bias.
I find both of them to be pretty decent starting points, and both of them can have useful source information.
Right, so the problem is, as always, denial of the actual details in one form or another.
I have no problem with snopes or wikipedia as these are just brandnames and ideas. I do have a problem with some of the humans using them as a vehicle.
And that's perfectly reasonable. It seems to me that there isn't a source anywhere that shouldn't be approached without a degree of scepticism.