What are some notable fact-checking achievements of David and Barbara Mikkelson?

1. Origins: from Usenet hobby to pioneering fact‑checker

David and Barbara began the Urban Legends Reference Pages in 1994 after meeting and participating on Usenet’s alt.folklore.urban; that early community role seeded Snopes’ mission of cataloging and debunking urban legends and viral claims, and the site evolved into a primary online resource for sorting truth from rumor ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Scale and influence: wide audience, editorial reach

By the 2010s Snopes was a major traffic destination — attracting millions of unique visitors in a typical month — and expanded from urban legends to broad “junk news,” fauxtography (fake images) debunking, and political claim checks, with editors using trending‑content tools to prioritize investigations ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

3. Notable institutional recognitions and partnerships

Snopes earned public recognition and partnerships that signal mainstream influence: it won two Webby Awards and served as one of Facebook’s fact‑checking partners between December 2016 and February 2019, positioning Snopes among platforms contracted to review viral content ^[2].

4. High‑impact investigations and work product (examples and scope)

Reporting highlights Snopes’ investigative work beyond single viral hoaxes; the site has exposed faux news networks masquerading as local newspapers, and maintains tools such as a “Hot 50” trending list and a fauxtography section for debunking doctored images — showing capacity to pursue systemic misinformation themes as well as episodic claims ^{[3] [6] [7]}.

5. Internal disputes and ownership litigation that affected operations

Beginning in 2016–2017, Bardav Inc. (the Mikkelsons’ company) and Proper Media became entangled in litigation over ownership and revenue; the dispute led to fundraising drives and, according to reporting, constrained Snopes’ ability to expand investigative projects while management and legal battles continued ^{[5] [3] [8]}.

6. Credibility setback: plagiarism findings and consequences

A significant blow to the site’s credibility came after BuzzFeed News documented that David Mikkelson had lifted material from mainstream outlets across dozens of articles; Mikkelson apologized and Snopes publicly acknowledged the issue, prompting internal condemnation from some staff and a period in which Mikkelson was barred from producing editorial content ^{[2] [9] [10]}.

7. Competing perspectives on impact and impartiality

Advocates and many media observers emphasize Snopes’ pioneering role and high volume of verifiable fact checks compared with peers — one analysis said Snopes focused on verifiable facts 98% of the time in a study period and produced large article counts relative to other fact‑checkers — while critics point to the plagiarism episode and ownership fights as evidence that institutional safeguards and governance had weaknesses ^{[11] [10]}.

8. What the available reporting does not say

Available sources do not mention a comprehensive inventory of every single major debunk by the Mikkelsons (for example, a ranked list of their top 10 fact‑checks) nor do they provide full internal audit results about editorial processes after 2021; those details are not found in the current reporting provided here (not found in current reporting).

9. Why this matters: credibility vs. reach in fact‑checking

The Mikkelsons’ story illustrates a core tension in fact‑checking: influence and reach (millions of readers, platform partnerships) can amplify public service work, but governance problems, ownership fights, and editorial lapses can undercut trust. Reporters and researchers interpreting Snopes’ legacy must weigh its early and ongoing role in debunking alongside the documented lapses and legal turmoil ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

If you want, I can assemble a short timeline of the key events (founding, Webby wins and Facebook partnership, 2016–19 ownership dispute, 2021 plagiarism revelations, 2022 ownership resolution) with source citations for each entry.