Dark stories lose their value when the record beneath them is unreliable. This policy explains how the archive receives, assesses and publishes corrections and updates.
How to request a correction
Use the contact page and select “Correction or source”. Identify the page, quote the statement in question and explain what appears to be inaccurate. Include a direct link to a primary document, official record or reputable report whenever possible.
A correction request is judged by the quality of the evidence, not by the requester’s status, confidence or tone. Anonymous evidence may be considered, but the archive may be unable to act when a claim cannot be authenticated.
Material errors
A material error changes a central fact, unfairly affects a person, misstates the available evidence or could lead a reasonable reader to a substantially wrong conclusion. Confirmed material errors should be corrected promptly. The page should include an editorial note explaining what changed and the date of the correction.
Examples include an incorrect identity, date, location, quotation, legal status, source attribution or statement about what an official record establishes.
Minor edits and maintenance
Spelling, punctuation, formatting, accessibility improvements and broken-link repairs may be made without a formal correction note when they do not alter meaning. A sentence may also be clarified silently when the change removes ambiguity without changing the underlying claim.
Substantial rewrites, new evidence and changed conclusions should not be disguised as routine maintenance.
Developing stories and historical records
Some cases evolve. A missing person may be found, a court may issue a decision, a source may release a new document or a long-standing claim may be disproved. In those situations, the article should be updated with the new information, preserve enough context to explain the earlier state of the record and show the date of the material update.
Disputed interpretations
Not every disagreement is a factual error. Two credible sources may interpret the same evidence differently. A witness may remember an event in a way that cannot be independently confirmed. The archive may retain a disputed interpretation when it is clearly attributed, fairly described and supported by relevant evidence.
Where the disagreement itself matters, the article should present the principal credible positions rather than erase the uncertainty.
Privacy and rights requests
Requests involving personal data, identification, consent, images or unpublished submissions receive separate review under the Privacy Policy. The archive may remove or anonymise information even when it is factually accurate if continued publication would create disproportionate harm or violate a legal obligation.
Reader submissions and author changes
A submitter may ask to correct a transcription error, clarify a detail or remove private identifying information. Once a story has been substantially edited and published, changes are assessed against the integrity of the published record and the consent originally provided.
Appeals and final review
If a request is declined, the requester may provide new evidence or explain which part of the decision did not address the issue. Repeated submissions without new information may be closed. The archive’s Editorial Standards govern the final review.
For transparency, this policy follows the same broad principle found in established editorial codes: significant inaccuracies should be corrected clearly and with appropriate prominence. The IPSO Editors’ Code is included as further reading, not as a claim of membership or jurisdiction.
Standard correction note
Correction — [date]: An earlier version stated [original wording]. The confirmed record shows [correct information]. The article and source section have been updated. [State whether the conclusion changed.]
Material corrections remain attached to the article so readers can understand what changed and why.