[RomainGuy]

You are absolutely right, this diagram is misleading and I've been meaning to replace it with one of my own since forever but it has fallen deep at the bottom of long list of things to do (including many, many things I would like to describe in that document, like our approach to transmission/absorption/refraction, our post-processing pipeline, etc.).

[mncharity]

Oh, no worries. Lists of doables are infinite, and life is very not. It's merely something I reflexively note out of long habit.

Fwiw, one remediation which appeals to me, when using flawed content, is adding a "bogus" tag. As in "Figure N Mumble (source WP) Somewhat flawed." Or sometimes "Bogus <attribute or issue>". So the reader maybe gets a heads-up that there's a known issue - a "first, do no harm" thing. Modulo esthetic constraints, and I've no idea if it actually helps. And it might be phrased more accessibly. I dont know of any associated education research.

Big picture, societal-level impacts of commonly flawed content seem unlikely to improve without being addressed systemically, and so don't seem a priority focus when pursuing local excellence. For example, students are told the Sun is yellow in Kindergarten, and repeatedly thereafter, with only a few later getting an "oops, nope, our bad" in astronomy grad school discussion of common misconceptions in astronomy education content... and careful avoidance of yellow Suns in say one weather app seems unlikely to move that needle much.

Thanks for your nifty work.