The computing term bug originated from a moth found in the Harvard Mark II computer

the verdict

REFUTED

the evidence says no

Recorded sources

0 sources for · 3 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

While the famous 1947 moth incident in the Harvard Mark II computer popularized the story of a physical bug, the computing term 'bug' had already been used in engineering and electrical contexts since the 1870s.

How claims like this are judged

Judged against fact-checker rulings and reference works: claims of this kind are settled by the fact-checking record, not journal abstracts.

Evidence against · 3

Wikipedia: Software bug

Recorded source metadata

Wikipedia: Software bug. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug

Reference article covering this claim directly

Source citation format

See more details

More against · 2

americanhistory.si.edu: Log Book With Computer Bug

Recorded source metadata

americanhistory.si.edu: Log Book With Computer Bug. americanhistory.si.edu. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_334663

Notes engineering use for over a century and labels the moth as the 'first actual case of bug being found'.

Source citation format

si.edu: (untitled)

Recorded source metadata

si.edu: (untitled). si.edu. https://www.si.edu/object/log-book-computer-bug%3Anmah_334663

States engineers called flaws bugs for over a century, while confirming the 1947 moth incident logbook entry.

Source citation format

The paper trail · every fact has a biography

first checked31 Jul 2026

judged → REFUTED · 031 Jul 2026

More receipts

Is it true that Phonological evolution involves regular processes of phoneme elision, vowel nasalization, and tonogenesis?Is it true that Hemangiomas are treatable with medication?Is it true that Research identifies forms of intelligence that diverge from standard IQ measures?

Random receipt →The Trust Wiki →

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.

Check your own claim

Challenge the receipt

I have a source that contradicts this verdict I have a source that supports it No source: request a receipt review Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt