for many years, I've puzzled over the fact that Manchester code is defined one way in the Wikipedia, and another in the IEEE 802 standard, which probably represents the most numerous uses of Manchester encoding, by, say, a factor of 100. I've pointed this out a number of times, but the thing persists. Dozens of other references use it, refer to it as gospel, and promulgate it into infinity, despite the very obvious contradictions. If you search the www, you'll find that the majority of sites agreeon this clearly incorrect definition, but nothing has been done about it.

Shouting a falsehood louder doesn't make it so, though lots of people seem to believe that (not necessarily those on this forum, but you get what I mean). It's not easy resolving such fundamental issues, so some people figure it's best just to ignore them. In this case, and in others, it's like leaving out a key word, ... such as NOT.

RE