Internet Accuracy - misleading the led ..
 

I was reading a recently-released (2015) military publication the other day, and came across the abbreviation 'DUKW'. The glossary at the back listed the meaning as "Duplex Universal Karrier Wheeled'. Now every author should admit they don't get it right all the time (I admit that!) but I wondered why the editors could get such a well-known acronym so wrong, so I went looking for it with an internet search. What I found first was this:

"What does DUKW stand for?

DUKW stands for Dual Utility Kargo Waterborne
(also Detroit United Keith Works and 1 more)"

Hmmm, that was no help!!

So I had a look at Wiked-pedia, which actually provided the correct answer, and on the next line solved the mystery of 'Duplex Universal Karrier Wheeled' by stating:

"Decades later, the designation was explained erroneously by writers such as Donald Clarke, who wrote in 1978 that it was an acronym for "Duplex Universal Karrier, Wheeled".[6] [7]"

But I suppose these things, once they are out 'there' in the ether, will persist in one form or another. The fact it was included as the definition in a 2015 military publication is testament to that.

Anyone else got any others like this? (I'm sure someone will quote something from one of my books back at me here!! ... like when I used 'Sqd' for 'Squadron' instead of 'Sqn'!! Oh the eternal shame of using a universal change command in Word and not re-checking!!) :bang:

Mike

Its why historians and scientists go to primary sources for fact checking.

(But we all knew that)

BTW: I won't sleep tonight knowing that there is something incorrect on the internet!

The incorrect explanation was published back in 1978 when the internet as we know it today wasn't here yet. What l am trying to say is that inaccuracy is not so much a problem of "The Internet", but of all publications, either printed or electronically. I hate to see publications from the 60s/70s reproduced with the same errors. With more source material available now that archives are better accessible - through the Internet - we should all make an effort to correct the mistakes of researchers before us.

Talking out of my arsse here - but isn't DUKW a code sequence that was never meant to be an acronym?

(And yes I have to snicker at people who try to devine the meaning of proper names as if they were acronyms. "What does ILTIS mean?" "It is German for polecat." "No, it has to mean something." "It means stinky little weasel." "No, it must be something like Integrated Light Transport Infantry System?" "Sure, keep telling yourself that.")

I don't trust Wikipedia very much. I have an account and barely trust myself most days.

Hi Hanno,

I suppose it is even worse when the mistake is blindly repeated.

Once out there, it's hard to pull back.

As for DUKW, yes, it is a code sequence never meant to mean anything, like 'CCKW' and 'ACKWX' - maybe I should look up Wiked-pedia and see what they make of those!! :D

Mike

Another one...
 

The Bedford Flat 12 in the Churchill that was supposedly developed from two six cylinder truck motors! Something like 2 x 85bhp = 340 bhp!

It has been repeated in so many books and articles.

(Pics of motor at Bovington)

Rob

Hi Rob,
Yes that myth has been repeated a few times. Bedford never made any side valve lorry engines :)

This is straight from a DUKW book I have!
D- 1942
U- Utility(Amphib)
K- Front Wheel Drive
W- Two rear driving axles

C- 1941
C- Conventional
K- Front Wheel Drive
W- Two rear driving axles

Sorry I can't take a photo of this as my camera has died.
Colin.