What a correction is
The discipline of rewriting.
How a correction flows
A correction starts with reader feedback or a desk re-read. The desk reads the original claim, identifies the source, and writes the corrected claim.
Reader feedback
Reader feedback is the most common source of corrections. A reader who spots an error uses the feedback form. The desk reviews the feedback, verifies the source and writes the correction.
Desk re-read
A desk re-read is a quarterly audit of published articles. The audit reads each article against the latest source. Where the source has changed and the article has not, the desk writes the correction.
The audit trail
The correction is appended to the foot of the affected article. The original article remains visible; the corrected claim is highlighted. The reader can compare the original and the corrected claim at a glance.
The discipline is part of the desk
The audit trail is part of the desk’s editorial discipline. The desk does not silently rewrite published prose, because silent rewriting removes the reader’s ability to verify the change.
How long the audit is kept
The desk keeps the audit indefinitely. Older notes remain accessible at their original URLs. Deleting old notes would be a form of silent rewriting.
Questions about corrections
The questions the desk hears most about corrections and the audit trail.
At the foot of the affected article, with the original claim, the corrected claim, the source and the date.
No. The desk does not silently rewrite published prose. The audit trail is preserved.
Indefinitely. Older notes remain accessible at their original URLs.
The desk's corrections policy
What counts, what does not, and where the line sits.
The desk's corrections policy is narrow on purpose. A correction is a change to a substantive claim that, if uncorrected, would mislead a reasonable reader on a matter that matters to the reader's understanding of the subject. The desk does not correct house style. The desk does not correct prose the desk has since rewritten. The desk does not correct opinions the desk has revised. The desk corrects facts, attributions, and quoted material where the source no longer supports the claim.
The narrowness is the discipline. The desk does not want a reader to wonder whether a "correction" was actually a quiet rebrand of the desk's view. The desk does not want a reader to wonder whether a "correction" was a quiet walk-back of a contested claim. The desk's correction is the desk's correction: a note that a fact was wrong, with the source that supports the correction and the date the correction was published.
Substantive versus editorial
A factual error is substantive and is corrected. A typo, a broken link, a missing word, a heading style: these are editorial and are fixed in place. Where the desk fixes an editorial error in place, the desk does not log a correction; the desk logs the fix in the desk's internal changelog and moves on. The distinction matters because the reader's trust depends on the desk not inflating the correction count to look more careful than it is.
How errors are logged and disclosed
The format, the placement, the duration.
A correction is a dated note appended to the foot of the affected article. The note records the original claim, the corrected claim, the source that supports the correction, and the date the correction was published. The note uses a consistent format so a reader who has read one correction can read another and recognise the shape. The note is plain prose; the note is not styled as a banner, an alert, or a popup.
The original article remains visible. The corrected claim is highlighted in the body of the article so a reader who lands on the article today sees both the corrected claim and the marker that the desk has corrected the article. The reader who lands on the article from a search result, from a social share, or from the desk's navigation sees the same article a returning reader sees; the audit trail is preserved without changing the reader's reading flow.
Where the desk keeps the trail
The desk keeps the audit trail on the article itself, at the foot of the article, in the same document as the corrected prose. The desk does not move corrections to a separate corrections page, an out-of-the-way index, or a footnote that requires a reader to click through. The desk's reasoning is that a correction the reader does not see is not a correction; the reader must be able to read the correction at the same URL as the corrected article.
How long the trail is kept
The desk keeps corrections indefinitely. The desk does not delete old corrections; the desk does not prune the trail; the desk does not move old corrections to an archive. The desk's reasoning is that deleting old corrections would be a form of silent rewriting, the very thing the desk's corrections discipline is meant to prevent.
How a reader reports an error
The channels, what to include, and what happens next.
A reader who spots an error has three channels. The first is the feedback form at the foot of every article. The second is the contact page. The third, where a reader's note would benefit from a longer exchange, is the desk's editorial email. The desk reads all three channels in good faith; the desk does not promise a personal reply to every note, but the desk reads every note.
Where a reader can include the source that supports the correction, the desk can act faster. The desk does not require a source for a note; the desk will read the desk's own sources where the reader has not provided one. Where a reader has access to a primary source the desk has not cited, the desk welcomes the note. Where the source the reader provides is secondary, the desk reads it as a starting point and not as a conclusion.
What the desk does next
The desk reads the note, identifies the affected article, and re-reads the original claim against the desk's own sources. Where the desk agrees with the note, the desk writes the corrected claim, finds the supporting source, and appends the dated correction at the foot of the article. Where the desk disagrees, the desk replies with the desk's reading and the source the desk has relied on. Where the desk needs more time, the desk replies to say so and the desk comes back to the reader.
Where to send sensitive notes
A note about a personal matter involving the desk's editors should go to the desk's editorial email. The desk reads such notes in private. The desk does not publish the names of readers who have written to the desk; the desk does not publish the content of private notes. Where a correction is published as a result of a private note, the correction notes the source, not the reader.
Review cadence
Quarterly re-reads, scheduled reviews, and trigger reviews.
The desk runs three kinds of review. The first is a quarterly re-read of every article on the site. The quarterly re-read checks each article against the latest version of the desk's primary sources. Where the source has moved and the article has not, the desk writes the correction. The quarterly re-read is scheduled and predictable; the reader can expect that an article they read three months ago has been re-read against the same source the desk cited at the time.
The second is a scheduled review of subjects where the desk knows the position changes often. State-level legal positions, operator terms, platform features, and tournament formats are scheduled-review subjects. The desk reads the relevant primary sources on a known cadence and updates the relevant articles. Where the change is large, the desk republishes the article; where the change is small, the desk appends a correction.
Trigger reviews
The third kind of review is a trigger review. A trigger is a news event, a primary-source change, a reader note, or a desk editor's re-read that surfaces a possible error. The desk responds to triggers outside the quarterly cadence. The desk does not promise a turnaround time; the desk's promise is to take the trigger seriously, to read the relevant source, and to write the correction where the desk agrees with the trigger.
What the desk does not do
The desk does not publish a public changelog. The desk does not promise to log every editorial fix. The desk logs corrections, the way the desk has set out in this page; the desk does not log every prose tweak, every heading rewrite, every alt-text change. The desk's discipline is on substantive claims, not on prose drift; the desk's correction count is the desk's substantive count, not the desk's editing count.
Sourcing standards
What the desk relies on, and what the desk treats as a starting point.
The desk's first source is a primary source. A primary source, for the desk's purposes, is the operator's own page, the state government's page, the court's published order, the statute's published text, or the regulator's notification. The desk reads the primary source at the time of writing and notes the date of access at the foot of the article. The desk does not rely on a secondary source where a primary source is available.
Where the desk relies on a secondary source, the desk notes the secondary source and the desk reads the secondary source as a starting point. A secondary source is useful for context, for orientation, for an opening read of an unfamiliar subject. A secondary source is not a substitute for a primary source where the primary source is available; the desk will go back to the primary source before publishing.
Quotations and attributed prose
Where the desk quotes a third party, the desk quotes verbatim and the desk attributes the quotation to the third party. The desk does not paraphrase a third party's position as if it were the desk's own. The desk does not move a quotation out of its context in a way that distorts the third party's meaning. Where the desk has made a mistake on a quotation, the desk publishes a correction.
What the desk does not cite
The desk does not cite SEO content farms. The desk does not cite affiliate-listicle pages that exist to push the operator's signup. The desk does not cite press releases as if they were independent coverage. The desk does not cite a source the desk has not read. The desk's reasoning is that a citation the desk has not read is a citation the desk cannot stand behind; the desk would rather have fewer citations than have citations the desk cannot defend.
What the desk does not correct
Limits on the desk's corrections discipline, set out plainly.
The desk does not correct a change of opinion. Where the desk has held a view and now holds a different view, the desk rewrites the article in place and notes the rewrite at the foot of the article. The desk does not call the rewrite a "correction." A correction is for a fact that was wrong, not for a view that has shifted. The two are different and the desk keeps them separate.
The desk does not correct the desk's sources where the source has moved and the source is a third party's source. A primary source that has been edited, retracted or superseded is the source's own concern. Where the desk's article cites the source and the source has moved, the desk re-reads the source and updates the article; the desk does not publish a correction to the desk's prose on the strength of a third party's edit.
The desk's reasoning
The desk's corrections discipline is meant to be useful to the reader. A corrections page that logs every editorial decision the desk has made is not useful; the reader cannot read the page and find what they came for. The desk's corrections discipline is meant to be specific; the desk logs substantive factual errors, the desk logs mis-attributions, and the desk logs misquotations. The desk does not log opinion revisions, source movements, or editorial fixes.
Questions about reporting and review
The questions the desk hears most about how readers can flag an issue.
The feedback form at the foot of every article, the contact page, or the desk's editorial email. The desk reads all three. A source citation helps but is not required.
The desk does not promise a turnaround. The desk's promise is to read the note, re-read the affected article against the relevant sources, and write the correction where the desk agrees.
No. The desk publishes corrections for substantive factual errors. The desk does not log every prose tweak, alt-text change, or heading rewrite. The corrections discipline is meant to be useful, not exhaustive.
Where the correction has been written by a named editor, the editor's name appears in the desk's internal record. The published correction notes the source and the date; the desk does not name the reader who reported the issue.