They only retroactively changed this later. Web Archive didn't archive that page for a whole 3 years unfortunately, but you can see in this article that Snopes initially issued the verdict of "false".
So it was labelled "false" and not "disputed" as claimed by nradov? Then it is hard for me to see how this is an example of the phenomenon that hereforphone discusses.
Snopes exists in large part because idiots can't discern joke/fake from fact. This isn't really Snope's fault. Some people genuinely don't understand satire. We hear about people sharing Onion articles legitimately still.
Poe's law. I don't know if we need to call people who fall for that 'idiots'. Do people who fall for April 1st jokes count as 'idiots'? Furthermore, can you cure from being an idiot? We used to April 1st a bit on elementary school. I guess I managed to define some idiots back then.
Do you think they look less "stupid" for having to point out that there is no evidence for a cannibalistic, baby-eating cabal of pedophilic Democrat sex-traffickers?
Seems like a pretty thin line between satire and reality these days.
It has the rating "Labeled Satire" not "disputed".