- Are urban myths on topic
- Should we allow an urban-myth tag?
Snopes has demonstrated consistently and repeatedly that many urban legends - strange stories that you hear about informally - are provably false, using little more than standard skeptical techniques of basic library research.
From what I am seeing of the questions so far in the beta, many questions are about odd theories that the someone heard about informally, and are being addressed with these exact same research techniques.
Perhaps requests for Mythbuster-style experiments are unlikely to succeed, but I think urban-legends fall pretty squarely into the realm of shadowy topics that could do with the illumination of a skeptic's torch.
So, I say "Yes, urban myths are on topic."
I personally don't think urban-myths belong here since it does not involve real reasoning. It's not something that can be debated properly, hence the name "myth". I don't think we should allow questions that would probably end up in answers like: "But my neighbour saw bigfoot himself! So it must be real!" or "No, it's just a myth." I think questions should allow for answers that can be debated with proper arguments.
People with questions like these should probably try and email Mythbusters.
Most questions deal with myths - urban or not. I don't know 'bigfoot' - is this a kind of Yeti? If such a beast exists, it needs parents, a horde, there has to be a group which is big enough for genetic variation.
If you would call these questions applied skepticism, why not?