What qualifies for correction
Factual errors, materially misleading omissions, incorrect attribution, broken evidence, inaccurate captions or diagrams, and statements made obsolete by a source change are reviewed for correction.
Minor copy edits that do not change meaning may be made without a correction note. Disagreement with a supported analysis is not automatically an error, but counterevidence is considered on its merits.
Review process
- Identify the exact passage and the claimed problem.
- Recheck the original evidence and seek a more authoritative or current source when necessary.
- Determine whether the issue changes a fact, conclusion, scope, safety implication, or only presentation.
- Correct the article promptly in proportion to the error and recheck affected metadata, diagrams, and internal links.
- Add a visible note when the change is material to a reader's understanding.
Correction notes and dates
A material correction note states what changed and, when useful, why. The original publication date is preserved. The updated date changes only after a substantive edit, and the last-checked date changes only after the relevant sources have actually been reviewed.
The publication does not silently rewrite a material mistake, remove a supported correction note merely because it is inconvenient, or refresh dates to simulate new reporting.
How issues are identified
Corrections are identified through source changes, scheduled maintenance, internal review, and reliable public records. Each review identifies the exact page and passage, checks the strongest available evidence, and determines whether the issue changes a fact, conclusion, scope, safety implication, or only presentation.
Scope of a correction
Correcting an error does not guarantee that every source or conclusion will agree with a reader. The goal is an accurate, proportionate record that distinguishes verified facts from claims and analysis.