I would that it is not. I think we ought to view it as we view Wikipedia: a good starting point. First of all, there is no certitude that the answer is indeed correct. Secondly, by using the answer only as a starting point, there is a high likelihood we will improve it even if only slightly so.
I'll take the highest rate answer to Does wearing headphones for long periods increase dangerous bacteria in your ear? as an example of what I mean.
The original answer was a copypasta of a The Straight Dope article by Cecil Adams (I know, it's not Snopes but bear with me). I viewed it as unacceptable, even if informative, I I edited it drastically. I looked up the sources cited by Adams, cited them and hyperlinked to them and summarize Adams' article. You end up, I would argue though I certainly am biased, with a more authoritative and succinct text than the original The Straight Dope article by Cecil Adams.
I think that is the better approach to high quality texts by other skeptics, Snopes or otherwise.
We should not treat those articles as gospel, because they are not. Hell, we don't treat peer-review articles as gospel and Snopes is nowhere near that point. While they are usually of high quality and likely correct, there is no reason for us to not double check the validity of the information.