Correction: How Communication Breaks Down Explained
Corrected by Emir Baycan · Full-Stack Developer, Mobile App Builder and Web Platform Founder with expertise in SEO, automation, SaaS, AI visibility, DevOps and scalable digital products
Emir Baycan found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.
- Role
- Correction
- Publisher
- When Notes Fly
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 29 July 2026
The exact change
Article cited specific researchers, journals, years, and statistics (e.g. '34% helpfulness gap', '14 organizations', '68% of employees', '400 conversations', '56% actual accuracy', '35%/47% CRM incident reductions', 'JACR 2008 Feeley study', 'OBHDP 2019 Tenney study') that could not be verified against the real underlying research.
Removed or generalized invented statistics and misattributed methodological details while preserving the real, verifiable core findings; corrected the MacGeorge journal name to Human Communication Research; replaced the fabricated Feeley/JACR citation with the real, verifiable Joint Commission sentinel-event data pattern it was misrepresenting.
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
Multiple citations followed the classic fabrication pattern of real researchers and real topics paired with invented journals, years, sample sizes, or statistics that do not appear in any locatable publication.
How this record is verified
- The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
- It counts only because the publisher, When Notes Fly, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
- It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.