Corrections & Accountability
Historical documentation must remain open to correction. This account explains how errors, new evidence and requests for clarification should be considered, and what the project can document publicly today.
The principles below guide responsible changes to the record. A formal correction intake, review authority and site-wide public revision log have not yet been established. This page does not represent those proposed mechanisms as operating services.
A record must remain correctable
The project should acknowledge an inaccuracy, weigh better evidence and make a consequential change intelligible to readers. A source trail and the relevant historical context matter even when wording changes. Uncertainty should remain visible when the evidence does not settle a question.
A report of an error is a reason to examine the record, not proof that the requested change is correct. Some disputes remain unresolved, and not every request leads to a correction. Privacy or safety may also limit what can be explained publicly.
What may need review
Concerns can involve the facts, the evidence supporting them or the decision to publish material at all.
- Factual detail
- A name, date, place, sequence of events or other historical statement.
- Source and attribution
- A broken link, incorrect credit, misleading citation or missing context.
- Legal status
- An inaccurate description of an investigation, arrest, charge, order or judgment.
- Media and language
- A mistaken caption, identification, transcript or translation.
- Privacy and rights
- Sensitive information, disputed permission, reproduction or creator credit.
- Other editorial concern
- A material omission or presentation that could mislead a reader.
A correction is different from an update
- Correction
A statement already published was inaccurate when published.
For example: A documented event date was printed incorrectly and is amended.
- Update
Newly verified information changes what can now be said.
For example: A case reaches a later procedural stage; the earlier dated report was not necessarily wrong.
- Clarification
Published wording was technically accurate but could mislead without more context.
For example: A source describes an allegation; the page makes its attributed status clearer.
- Retraction
A claim or publication is withdrawn because support or another editorial basis is insufficient.
For example: An assertion cannot be adequately substantiated after review.
- Restriction or removal
Public access is limited because of privacy, safety, rights or another applicable concern.
For example: A sensitive file is withheld without republishing its contents in a notice.
Legal information can change through a new investigation, amended charge, order, judgment, appeal or acquittal. Each stage needs its own date and source. An allegation is not an established fact; an arrest is not guilt; a charge is not a conviction. A later status does not erase the status recorded at an earlier date, and a new development is not automatically a correction.
How a concern should be examined
Public reports must be separated from editorial changes. The following questions describe a responsible review, not a claim that a formal intake queue or approval system already exists. Published changes currently depend on manual editorial work.
Locate the published statement
Identify the page, passage, date and any linked Source, Claim, event or court record.
Examine the evidence
Compare the concern with the original source, its date, context and other relevant records.
Decide what the evidence supports
Consider a correction, update, clarification, restriction or no change; keep disputed points attributed.
Explain a material public change
Where appropriate, identify what changed, why and when, without exposing restricted material.
Fairness and reply
A person disputing a statement about themselves may provide a response and supporting evidence. A challenge deserves consideration, but it does not by itself invalidate an accurately attributed public record. A relevant denial or later legal finding should be placed in context, with its date and source.
Rights, safety and withdrawal
A disputed photograph, recording, document, credit or permission calls for a review of origin, rights and context. Private identifiers, witness details or unsafe material may need redaction, restricted access or removal. A retracted assertion and a withheld private file are different decisions; a public explanation must not repeat what was restricted.
What a useful report would include
A useful report would identify the page or record URL, the passage or item in question, what appears wrong and why. A proposed correction and links to supporting sources could help. Names and contact details should remain optional unless follow-up is necessary. Private witness details and unpublished sensitive evidence should never be sent through a public channel.
The project now lists a public email address on its contact page, but ordinary email is not a secure source-submission channel. There is no working corrections form or adopted private review workflow. This page cannot acknowledge receipt of a report, and no response timetable has been adopted.
Any future report should remain private during review. Reporter names, contact details and submitted text should not become a public correction notice without an appropriate basis and human review. The project has not yet adopted a retention period or a privacy policy for correction submissions.
Public corrections record
No public correction notices are currently available.
This does not establish that the site has never needed changes. Some earlier source and case material has been reconciled during research, but that work is not an approved, dated public correction register. The site does not yet have a general revision log or notice publication workflow, so no entries are presented here as reviewed public notices.
A future public notice should identify the affected page and published record, explain the inaccurate wording and the change, give the correction publication date and cite supporting sources where appropriate. Original event dates, earlier publication dates and later case-status dates should remain distinct. Restricted details and reporters’ identities should not appear in a public notice.