This article responds to arguments by Skidmore and Thompson (this issue of "Educational Researcher") that a graph published more than 10 years ago was erroneously reproduced and "gratuitously damaged" perceptions of the quality of education research. After describing the purpose of the original graph, the author counters assertions that the graph changed perceptions or that this was anything more than a case of unintentional editorial sloppiness. (Contains 2 tables and 1 note.)