Correction: Feedback Loops in Communication 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Emir Baycan found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix.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
- Topic
- Concepts
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 28 July 2026
The exact change
The article said the WHO checklist proves communication feedback pathways reduce death, that Cybersyn failed for political rather than technical reasons, that Bandura found self-efficacy is primarily from performance feedback, that Liker documented one-to-two-minute stops with an order-of-magnitude advantage, that Hattie's 250-million-student synthesis established one fixed feedback hierarchy, that Cialdini and Steve Martin ran the same-room towel study, and that Weinberg named a Principle of Indifference.
Scoped the checklist and Cybersyn claims, corrected the Bandura self-efficacy sources, qualified the Liker and Hattie figures, fixed the towel-study attribution, and corrected the Weinberg concept name.
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
The sources are genuine but were mis-attributed or overstated. Corrections fix attributions and scope the claims to what the studies support rather than adding new sources.
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.