Email [email protected] with the canonical page URL, the exact wording you believe is wrong, why it is wrong, and the strongest supporting evidence available.
What happens after a report?
- The editor identifies the disputed claim, its cited source, and the page version in question.
- The claim is checked against the original source and any stronger or newer primary evidence.
- People or organizations directly involved may be contacted when their evidence is necessary to resolve a material dispute.
- The editor decides whether to correct, clarify, update, add context, or leave the wording unchanged.
A disagreement with an editorial conclusion does not automatically establish a factual error. The review asks whether the underlying facts are accurate, the evidence supports the wording, qualifications are visible, and the conclusion is represented as analysis rather than sourced fact.
How are changes displayed?
Typographical, formatting, and link-maintenance changes may be made without a correction note when they do not change meaning. A material correction updates the modification or review date and adds a concise page-history entry explaining what changed. A substantial clarification may also receive a note when the earlier wording could have caused a materially different interpretation.
What does the policy cover?
The process covers editorial pages, original frameworks, datasets, structured data, captions, and metadata. Live job listings can expire or change at their source; the original employer page remains authoritative. Removal requests, privacy questions, and general messages should use the contact route.
What evidence is most useful?
Exact government publications, datasets, enacted text, standards, official product documentation, and on-record evidence are more useful than unsupported assertions or search-result snippets. The research methodology describes the evidence hierarchy used in the review.
Page history
- Initial corrections policy published.