DUKW...Duck .... Duh...

[Mike Cecil]

Tony,

Excellent response!! Cannot agree more ..... though I will admit to the occasional literary bungle and factual inaccuracy in my own publications, so, as an author standing squarely within a glass house, I shall try to refrain from throwing stones at institutions with directed accuracy (esp one I worked for, and still retain some regular correspondence with).

I was drawn to some dubious entries on an un-named institution's website late last year concerning certain Australian-operated AFVs, and subsequently privately relayed to the relevant authorities some suggestions for improvement, for which they expressed gratitude. The nub of the problem, however, was that the crap had been posted on their website in the first place. Correcting is one thing: a willingness to put such wildly in-accurate entries before the public in the first place is, in my opinion, the crime.

Mike C

[motto]

I'm glad that you fellows sorted it all out while I was away or I would have put forward a completely erroneous answer.
I always thought DUKW stood for, Doubly Useful Kind of Wagon.
Wouldn't be surprised at anything that came out of Cancerra though.

David

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

The nub of the problem, however, was that the crap had been posted on their website in the first place. Correcting is one thing: a willingness to put such wildly in-accurate entries before the public in the first place is, in my opinion, the crime.

Yes I think you've nailed it Mike, it's a question of due diligence, not inaccuracy per se. No one expects complete infallibility, even in the most meticulously researched work, but we have every right to object to mindless republication, because it's guaranteed to PROMOTE inaccuracies. It's called plagiarism, and it's the process by which untruths are perpetuated, and even myths created, like the mythical Detroit United Kaiser Works. In this case harmless enough, but myths and untruths are by no means harmless in the world.

The other factor in plagiarism is the organization concerned - we've come to expect it in our daily rags, but when it's committed under a banner of authority such as AWM it's all the more lamentable, irrespective of how trivial the information may be considered. Not only does it lend great weight to untruths, but when discovered it damages credibility in all their published material. Personally I don't think it's good enough, especially in a glossary of terms, which impacts on ALL Australian military documentation, not just AWM material. Whoever compiled it had a duty to confirm information found on the net, which would have been simple in the case of DUKW, or otherwise leave it out until they had. Unlike books there's no excuse with websites, they can be readily and immediately updated. That's "updated", not "corrected" after the damage has already been done, through years of public consumption and repetition. Which gets back to your point Mike: "a willingness to put such wildly in-accurate entries before the public in the first place is, in my opinion, the crime." To which I would add the word "unconfirmed". For which crime come February there can be no excuse - good luck with the book!