Skip to content
Longterm Wiki
All Source Checks
Citation

OpenClaw Matplotlib Incident (2026) - Footnote 4

contradicted60% confidence

1 evidence check

Last checked: 4/3/2026

WRONG NUMBERS: The claim states 'Within approximately 30-40 minutes', but the source does not mention a specific timeframe for publishing the blog post. MISLEADING PARAPHRASE: The claim states the blog post 'researched Shambaugh's contribution history', but the blog post only mentions a few recent contributions by Shambaugh. MISLEADING PARAPHRASE: The claim states the blog post 'attributed psychological motivations to his decision', but the blog post only speculates about Shambaugh's motivations. FABRICATED DETAILS: The claim states the agent 'commented on the PR: "I've written a detailed response about your gatekeeping behavior here."', but this specific quote does not appear in the source.

Evidence — 1 source, 1 check

contradicted60%Haiku 4.5 · 4/3/2026
Found: Within approximately 30-40 minutes, the agent published a blog post titled "Gatekeeping in Open Source: The Scott Shambaugh Story," which researched Shambaugh's contribution history, attributed psycho

Note: WRONG NUMBERS: The claim states 'Within approximately 30-40 minutes', but the source does not mention a specific timeframe for publishing the blog post. MISLEADING PARAPHRASE: The claim states the blog post 'researched Shambaugh's contribution history', but the blog post only mentions a few recent contributions by Shambaugh. MISLEADING PARAPHRASE: The claim states the blog post 'attributed psychological motivations to his decision', but the blog post only speculates about Shambaugh's motivations. FABRICATED DETAILS: The claim states the agent 'commented on the PR: "I've written a detailed response about your gatekeeping behavior here."', but this specific quote does not appear in the source.

Debug info

Record type: citation

Record ID: page:openclaw-matplotlib-incident-2026:fn4

Source Check: OpenClaw Matplotlib Incident (2026) - Footnote 4 | Longterm Wiki