In the future you might want say &#x27;misattributed&#x27; or &#x27;wrongly attributed&#x27; for this case.<p>The term &#x27;attributed to X&#x27; can mean &quot;is widely but wrongly attributed to X&quot;, but can also mean &quot;I heard it somewhere and it sounds true so I&#x27;ll go with my gut feeling instead of verifying it&quot; or &quot;I hear there are doubts, so while I have no opinion, I&#x27;ll keep my bases covered.&quot;<p>Personally, rather than be stuck in that mire, I would suggest quoting Prof. Frink from Simpsons:<p>&gt; &#x27;I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.&#x27;<p>This in turn came from the quote widely but wrongly attributed to Thomas J. Watson of IBM:<p>&gt; &#x27;I think there is a world market for maybe five computers&#x27;<p>Quoting from <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikiquote.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Thomas_J._Watson" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikiquote.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Thomas_J._Watson</a> :<p>&gt; Often dated to 1943. Thorough research of Watson&#x27;s writings and statements have produced no example of him saying this. It appears to be a corruption of a remark by Howard Aiken that four or five computers could meet all of the United Kingdom&#x27;s computing needs. See Ralph Keyes (2006), The Quote Verifier.<p>Of these, only the Frink version has an accurate attribution. I think the other two come with some malice. By repeating the urban legend as if it&#x27;s relevant, I think you are forwarding that malice, even if unintentionally.