Skip to content
arghiv

> Rhetoric > Image and Non-Textual Argument > arghXiv:2605.10402

Provenance of Diagrams Circulated in Sightline Disputes

A. Hollis

Abstract: We traced 231 images posted as argument in sightline disputes to their earliest retrievable appearance. 26 per cent resolve to a source that states a figure, and of those, nine carry a figure differing from the one the image was posted to support. The remainder resolve to earlier postings of the same image, in chains of median length 4 and maximum length 19, terminating in no source at all. A diagram cannot be quoted back with a correction attached to it, and no correction was observed to travel with one. Where a participant was asked for the provenance of an image, the commonest reply, at 54 per cent, was a second image. An image offered in place of a source is what arghXiv:2512.11487 calls a quod vide; 84 of the 231 were posted in direct response to a request for one.

Comments:
11 pages, 2 tables. The images themselves are not reproduced. Response types: /help/response-types.
Subjects:
Image and Non-Textual Argument (rhet.IMG) (primary class); Sourcing (epist.SRC); Social Discourse (disc.SOC); Verification and Provenance (epist.VER)
TDC classes:
6.07; 8.05
Cited by:
arghXiv:2606.14318
Cite as:
arghXiv:2605.10402v1 (BibTeX)
Submission history:
From: A. Hollis [view email]
[v1] Wed, 20 May 2026