Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What major falsehoods did David and Barbara Mikkelson debunk through Snopes in the 1990s and 2000s?
Executive summary
David and Barbara Mikkelson founded Snopes in the mid‑1990s and spent the late 1990s and 2000s documenting and debunking a wide variety of viral urban legends, doctored images and politically charged falsehoods — from pop‑culture chain letters and “Wendy’s chili” tales to wartime and election‑related rumor campaigns [1] [2]. Coverage of specific headline debunks in the 1990s/2000s in available sources highlights examples such as the Wendy’s chili finger, the “4,000 Israelis who didn’t go to work on 9/11,” a doctored storm photo, and chain letters about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, showing Snopes’ role as an early internet fact‑checking authority [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. How Snopes started and what it aimed to debunk
David Mikkelson began publishing urban‑legend investigations in the early 1990s on Usenet (alt.folklore.urban), and with Barbara turned that work into the Urban Legends Reference Pages — later Snopes — explicitly to research and either confirm or debunk circulating myths, hoaxes and chain letters rather than simply issue verdicts without evidence [6] [7] [1].
2. Classic 1990s urban legends Snopes cataloged and busted
In the site’s early years Snopes handled the era’s staple urban legends and chain‑letter fare: tales about contaminated fast food (the infamous finger in Wendy’s chili), deathbed warnings about pop figures and absurd product scares (e.g., Pop Rocks myths), and viral email hoaxes like the Bill Gates “beta test” chain letter — all typical targets of Snopes’ debunking in the 1990s [1] [4].
3. High‑profile 2000s falsehoods tied to politics and events
As the internet’s circulation of rumor shifted, Snopes moved into debunking politically charged falsehoods and event‑related fabrications: during the post‑9/11 period they tackled claims such as that “4,000 Israelis who worked in the World Trade Center stayed home” and other conspiracy claims about the attacks; later, around the 2008–2009 election cycle Snopes took on rumors about Barack Obama (including Antichrist accusations and a fake Kenyan birth certificate) and other viral political fabrications [2].
4. Doctored images and “fauxtography” as a recurring beat
Snopes spent the 2000s exposing manipulated photos — for example, Snopes publicly identified a doctored storm photo in 2004 — and later formalized a “fauxtography” category to treat viral images as a class of misinformation deserving forensic treatment [3] [5].
5. The scale and public impact of their debunking work
By the late 2000s Snopes had become a widely cited reference for newsrooms and the public; by March 2009 the site drew millions of visitors per month and was regularly referenced by mainstream outlets as an authority for sorting myths and rumors [6]. That scale let the Mikkelsons surface and correct reappearing hoaxes — for instance, recurring pieces about “dangerous cosmic rays” or Steve Jobs’ supposed deathbed warnings — which Snopes continued to mark as repeated debunks [5].
6. Examples where reporting highlights specific debunks
Journalistic profiles single out concrete cases: Wired notes Snopes debunked the maggots‑in‑brain sushi myth, a South Carolina restaurant “refusing service” story during Iraq war tensions, and Obama‑related conspiracy items in 2008–2009 [2]. NPR also points to the doctored storm photo and to Snopes’ longstanding exposure of hoaxes and pranks [3] [1].
7. Limitations of the available reporting and what’s not documented here
Available sources list representative examples and categories of debunks but do not provide a comprehensive chronology or a complete list of “major falsehoods” the Mikkelsons debunked in every year of the 1990s and 2000s. If you want an itemized catalog (by year and headline), that granular list is not found in the current reporting supplied here (not found in current reporting).
8. Competing perspectives and potential agendas
Profiles and third‑party assessments generally treat Snopes as a pioneering fact‑checking resource, but critics later alleged bias or questioned editorial decisions; Snopes’ founders have disputed claims of partisan intent and say the site applies its standards evenly [6] [8]. Coverage also notes Snopes’ own awareness that viral myths recur and the site sometimes assembles fabricated legends to demonstrate internet gullibility [6].
If you’d like, I can compile a year‑by‑year list of notable Snopes debunks referenced in these sources and identify primary Snopes pages (where cited) for each case — or search Snopes’ own archives for headline entries from the 1990s and 2000s.