Corrections

We will get things wrong. What matters is what happens next. This page sets out exactly how corrections work here, so you can hold us to it.

Our commitment

When we confirm an error, we fix it promptly and we show that we fixed it. Corrections are made on the article itself, where anyone who reads it later will see them. We do not quietly edit a mistake out of existence and leave the page looking as though it was always right.

The three levels

• Correction — a factual error: a wrong figure, name, date, or claim. The article is fixed and carries a dated note saying what was wrong and what it now says.
• Clarification — the facts were right but the wording allowed a reasonable reader to draw a wrong conclusion. The passage is rewritten and a dated note explains what changed.
• Update — nothing was wrong, but the situation moved. The article gains new information with the date it was added. Updates are not corrections and are not labelled as though they were.

Typographical fixes that do not change meaning — a misspelling, a broken link, a formatting error — are repaired without a note.

What we will not do

We will not remove an accurate article because its subject dislikes it. We will not backdate a correction to make a mistake look shorter-lived than it was. We will not treat a request from an advertiser differently from a request from a reader.

Reporting an error

Send the article link, the specific passage, and where possible a source that shows what the correct information is. Reports that identify the exact sentence get resolved fastest. Use the contact page and say that you are reporting a correction.

We aim to acknowledge correction reports within two working days. Confirming an error can take longer when the underlying facts are disputed — if that happens, we will tell you it is under review rather than leave the report unanswered.

If you disagree with the outcome

If we conclude that an article is accurate and you still disagree, say so and tell us why. A second look costs us little and we would rather have the argument than leave a genuine error standing because the first review was too quick.

Review of standing articles

An explanation that was accurate two years ago can become misleading without a single word changing. We intend to show a per-article review date for exactly that reason, and will not display one until it reflects a real review rather than the last time a file was touched.

The log

No corrections have been issued yet. This site has not been
open to readers long enough to have accumulated any. That is a statement of
fact, not a claim of infallibility — when we do issue one, it will appear
here with its date, the article it applies to, and what changed.

An empty log is only meaningful if it is honest. If you believe something on
this site is wrong and we have not logged it, that is itself worth reporting:
contact the desk.