Corrections

On the article itself.Every published article has a “Suggest an edit” control, and every paragraph can be flagged individually. This is the fastest route, because it tells us exactly which sentence you mean.

By email. Write to [email protected] or use the contact page. Include the article URL and what is wrong. If you are the person or organisation the article is about, say so, and we will prioritise it.

You do not need an account to report an error, and you do not need to explain why it matters.

Correction reports go to the newsroom, not to an automated responder. Nothing in this system sends an AI reply to your message, and responsibility for what we do about it sits with the people named on the masthead.

If the claim is wrong, we fix the article and the change is recorded in its revision history, which is attached to the article rather than kept in a private log.

If the source was wrong, we say so in the article rather than silently dropping the claim, because a reader who saw the original deserves to know which of the two was mistaken.

If we cannot verify either way, we tell you that, and we do not quietly leave the disputed claim standing as though nothing happened.

We do not unpublish to make a problem go away. An article that was wrong and was corrected is more useful to a reader than an article that vanished.

We do not treat a correction as a favour. Getting it right is the job, so you are not asking us for anything by reporting one.

Most of our coverage is drawn from a public meeting, a public record or an organisation’s own announcement, and every article names and links the source it was written from. If our summary and the source disagree, the source wins and we are wrong. That is the fastest correction to make and the easiest for you to prove, so please point at it.

How AI is used in drafting, and what that means for accuracy, is set out on the AI policy page.