:::::::Using the bottom bight as a pulley in the Truckers hitch greatly stabilizes the bottom part of the Sheepshank, but the weakness of the Sheepshank is just as bad at one end as the other. The Trucker's hitch version is just as vulnerable to fail at the top as a Sheepshank is to fail at either end. Keeping a short distance between the loops might help, but it's very unlikely to eliminate the risk completely or even reduce it to an acceptable level. It might make sense to ignore a small risk except that there are other knots that work just as well. Using the Sheepshank version of the Trucker's Hitch isn't a dumb thing to do. Many intelligent people used it without knowing that it can just collapse under heavy load. Some people such as yourself (I assume you don't consider yourself dumb) might not even believe when told, that it could collapse, unless it was demonstrated. When Wikipedia knows that some information might be used dangerously by people of normal intelligence, putting innocent third parties at risk, and there is no good reason to display the dangerous idea other than it is a mildly interesting variation of something that can be done just as well another way, then it IS the job, or at least decent thing to do, for Wikipedia's editors to leave out that info. There are many more dangerous things that cause accidents, but that doesn't mean this one should be perpetuated. Having a load line go slack is something that could easily happen by accident to almost any intelligent person, even if they took care to prevent it. Unexpected things happen. I've had it happen to me. And judging by the tie in jobs I've seen others do, I'm a lot better at this than average. It's interesting, but if you are interested in the theory of knots, you will surely become acquainted with the Sheepshank, and Wikipedia has an article about it. But we should keep it safe in the Trucker's Hitch article. We have a quote from the most famous knot book of all time that the Sheepshank is unsafe unless bound, and probably the most popular knot website in the world says that it should never be used, and reports a demonstration proving its vulnerability, and for what it's worth, there is also me saying it shouldn't be taught for this purpose. And since there are other knots that work just as well, the only reason left to include it seems to be that it is mildly interesting, though there is an article on the Sheepshank to fulfill such interest.