Misconduct in Public Office:Corrections policy - Revision history

Mark: Fix accidental preformatted-text rendering from leading whitespace

2026-09-25T23:16:04Z

Fix accidental preformatted-text rendering from leading whitespace

Mark: Import corrections policy

2026-09-25T17:24:50Z

Import corrections policy

New page

''Last revised 25 May 2026. This policy sets out how corrections are handled
on misconductinpublicoffice.org. Corrections are part of how the campaign
demonstrates its editorial integrity. They are taken seriously, made
promptly, and recorded permanently.''

== Summary ==

* If we have got something wrong, we will correct it.
* Corrections are made openly, with a note on the page showing what was
changed, when, and why.
* The original wording remains accessible through the page history.
* Material errors are corrected within 48 hours of acceptance; smaller
matters within 7 days.
* A public log of all corrections is maintained at [[Project:Corrections log]].
* Anyone may request a correction by writing to the editor.

== Why this matters ==

The campaign relies on the credibility of what it publishes. A site that quietly
edits its own record without acknowledgement is harder to trust than one that
shows its workings. A site that refuses to correct errors when shown is
indefensible. The discipline of acknowledging error is the same discipline that
makes the rest of the editorial work defensible.

This policy is also the operational counterpart to the [[Project:Complaints
and takedown policy|complaints and takedown policy]]. A complaint of factual
inaccuracy upheld under that policy results in a correction made under this
one. The two policies work together.

== Categories of correction ==

We distinguish four categories. The category determines how the correction
appears on the page and how it is logged.

=== 1. Correction ===

A '''correction''' is made where a factual assertion has been shown to be
inaccurate, or where an attribution has been wrongly made. Corrections deal
with matters of fact, not matters of opinion or interpretation.

Examples:

* A date is wrong.
* A name is misspelled.
* A statutory provision is misquoted or its number transposed.
* A document is attributed to the wrong author or court.
* A figure (an amount, a number of cases, a count of pages) is wrong.

The correction appears on the page at the point of the error, with the original
wording struck through if helpful for context. A note at the top of the page
identifies that a correction has been made, the date it was made, and the
substance of what was changed.

=== 2. Clarification ===

A '''clarification''' is made where the original wording was open to a meaning
we did not intend, where context was insufficient, or where a partial truth
read as more than it should have done. Clarifications do not assert prior
error; they add or rebalance.

Examples:

* The original wording could be read as imputing personal misconduct where a
reference to institutional conduct was intended.
* A summary of a court judgment was accurate but omitted a qualifying
paragraph the reader needed to know.
* A statistic was correctly cited but without the comparator that gave it
context.

The clarification appears as a note inline or at the foot of the section,
identifying what has been added or rebalanced. The original wording remains.

=== 3. Retraction ===

A '''retraction''' is made where a substantive claim cannot be sustained on
reflection, after representations, or in the light of further evidence. A
retraction is a stronger step than a correction: it withdraws an assertion
rather than fixing it.

Where a substantive claim is retracted, the assertion is removed from the
running text. A retraction notice replaces it, identifying what was previously
said and that it has been withdrawn. The original wording is recoverable
through page history but does not appear in the current published version.

Where a whole page is retracted, the page is replaced with a retraction notice
that identifies the page that previously existed, the date of retraction, and
the reasons for retraction. The page history remains available.

=== 4. Annotation ===

An '''annotation''' is made where the content remains accurate but events
since publication require the reader's attention. Annotations are typically
made when proceedings have moved on, when a person has changed role or
status, or when a related matter has been concluded elsewhere.

Examples:

* Proceedings referenced as pending have now been decided.
* The named office-holder has left the role.
* The body referenced has been reorganised or renamed.

Annotations appear as dated notes at the top of the page or in the relevant
section. They do not amend the original content.

== Where corrections appear ==

Every correction (of any of the four categories) appears in two places:

# '''On the page itself''', as set out for each category above. The page
carries a banner or note flagging that a correction has been made, with the
date and a brief description.
# '''In the corrections log''' at [[Project:Corrections log]], which is a
running record of every correction made on the site, organised by date and
by page.

The corrections log is searchable, linkable, and itself permanent. It is one
of the documents we expect any serious reader of the site to be able to
inspect.

== Timescales ==

We aim to act on corrections promptly:

* '''Material errors of fact''' (a substantive misstatement that affects a
reader's understanding of the subject-matter): corrected within '''48 hours'''
of acceptance.
* '''Less material errors''' (typographical errors, transposed references,
formatting issues): corrected within '''7 days''' of acceptance.
* '''Retractions''' of substantive content: made within '''48 hours''' of the
decision to retract; the decision itself may take longer where the matter
requires deliberation.
* '''Annotations''' for evolving matters: made promptly when the editor becomes
aware of the change of circumstances.

Where a correction is urgent because of the risk of continued harm to a
subject, we will act as quickly as reasonably possible, including outside
normal working hours where necessary.

== How to request a correction ==

If you believe content on the site contains an error of fact, please tell us.

The fastest route is by email to <code>editor@misconductinpublicoffice.org</code>.
Please include:

# A link to the page or pages where the error appears.
# A quotation or specific identification of the wording you say is wrong.
# What you say the correct position is.
# Where possible, a source for the correct position. This can be a primary
document, a contemporaneous record, a published reference, or your own
first-hand knowledge — whichever is appropriate.

You do not need to use a specific form of words. A clear, plain-English message
is enough.

Where the correction concerns a person identified on the site, the request can
also be made under the [[Project:Complaints and takedown policy|complaints and
takedown policy]]; the corrections procedure runs in parallel. Where the
correction concerns a document, an interpretation, or a procedural matter,
this route is direct.

We will:

* Acknowledge your request within '''7 days'''.
* Investigate.
* Respond within '''28 days''' with our position, which may be to accept the
correction, to accept it in part, or to reject it with reasons.
* If we accept the correction, make it within the relevant timescale above.

== Editorial determination ==

Whether a correction is required is an editorial decision, made by the editor.
We do not act on assertions of error that are themselves unsupported. The
discipline of correction depends on a parallel discipline of resisting demands
for correction that are unfounded.

In particular:

* A different interpretation of an event is not an error and does not give
rise to a correction. It may, however, give rise to a right-of-reply
submission under the [[Project:Right-of-reply policy|right-of-reply policy]],
which is reproduced verbatim on the page.
* A demand to remove unfavourable but accurate content is not a request for
correction and will be dealt with under the complaints procedure.
* Where the requester provides a source we cannot verify, or where the source
contradicts other primary documents we hold, we will explain that in our
response and not act on the request unless and until further evidence is
provided.

Where we are uncertain, we err on the side of correction. The cost of a
correction made unnecessarily is small; the cost of an error left in place is
substantial.

== Preserving the record ==

Every revision of every page on this site is preserved in the page history.
A correction does not remove the original wording from the historical record;
it changes the current published version while keeping the prior version
accessible by version number and date.

This applies even to retractions. Retracted material remains in the page
history; the current page identifies that it has been retracted. The aim is
that any reader who wants to see what was previously said, when, and what was
changed, can do so.

We will not delete a page from the page history except where required to by
law, or where the page contains material so problematic (for example, personal
data we should never have published in the first place) that the harm of
continued accessibility outweighs the principle of preservation. Where we
delete from page history, the corrections log records that fact and the reasons,
without reproducing the deleted material.

== Corrections that affect other pages ==

Where a corrected fact appears elsewhere on the site, we propagate the
correction. This usually requires manual editing of every page where the
incorrect fact was repeated. We aim to identify all such occurrences in our
investigation of the correction and to address them in the same correction
exercise.

Where we identify additional occurrences after the original correction is
made, we treat them as further corrections logged separately. The log records
the connection between them.

== Annual review ==

Each calendar year, the editor reviews the corrections log against the
editorial output for the year. The review identifies:

* Categories of error that have recurred and require systemic attention.
* Pages that have required multiple corrections, which may indicate a
structural issue rather than discrete errors.
* The aggregate volume of corrections, which is published in periodic
transparency reporting at [[Project:Transparency]].

The review is not itself published, but the findings inform the
[[Project:Editorial policy|editorial policy]] and the way subsequent pages are
written.

== Relationship to other policies ==

* The [[Project:Complaints and takedown policy|complaints and takedown policy]]
provides the formal route for complaints, including complaints of factual
inaccuracy. Where such a complaint is upheld, the correction is made under
this policy.
* The [[Project:Right-of-reply policy|right-of-reply policy]] provides for
publication of responses by named persons. Where the response identifies a
factual error, the correction is made under this policy and the response is
published in addition.
* The [[Project:Editorial policy|editorial policy]] sets the standards by
reference to which an assertion is judged to have been in error.
* The [[Project:Privacy policy|privacy policy]] governs requests for
rectification under UK GDPR; such requests are handled in coordination with
this policy where they concern published content.

== Bad-faith correction requests ==

A correction request is not bad-faith merely because the editor disagrees
with it. We expect to receive many requests we do not act on, including some
that we think are wrong. Disagreement is not bad faith.

A correction request is bad-faith only where the requester knows or ought to
know that the basis on which they are seeking correction is itself
misleading. We do not log routine disagreements as bad-faith.

Where a request is genuinely bad-faith — for example, a request to "correct"
accurate reporting of public proceedings by replacing it with an untrue
account — we may, in addition to declining the request, publish the
correspondence under the bad-faith provision of the [[Project:Complaints and
takedown policy|complaints and takedown policy]]. This is rare and is not done
lightly.

== Contact ==

To request a correction: <code>editor@misconductinpublicoffice.org</code>.

The corrections log is at [[Project:Corrections log]].

== Changes to this policy ==

Material changes to this policy will be flagged at the top of the page and a
record of revisions is maintained in the page history.

[[Category:Policies]]
[[Category:Editorial standards]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 25 September 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	* If we have got something wrong, we will correct it.		* If we have got something wrong, we will correct it.
	* Corrections are made openly, with a note on the page showing what was		* Corrections are made openly, with a note on the page showing what was
	changed, when, and why.		changed, when, and why.
	* The original wording remains accessible through the page history.		* The original wording remains accessible through the page history.
	* Material errors are corrected within 48 hours of acceptance; smaller		* Material errors are corrected within 48 hours of acceptance; smaller
	matters within 7 days.		matters within 7 days.
	* A public log of all corrections is maintained at [[Project:Corrections log]].		* A public log of all corrections is maintained at [[Project:Corrections log]].
	* Anyone may request a correction by writing to the editor.		* Anyone may request a correction by writing to the editor.
Line 62:		Line 62:

	* The original wording could be read as imputing personal misconduct where a		* The original wording could be read as imputing personal misconduct where a
	reference to institutional conduct was intended.		reference to institutional conduct was intended.
	* A summary of a court judgment was accurate but omitted a qualifying		* A summary of a court judgment was accurate but omitted a qualifying
	paragraph the reader needed to know.		paragraph the reader needed to know.
	* A statistic was correctly cited but without the comparator that gave it		* A statistic was correctly cited but without the comparator that gave it
	context.		context.

	The clarification appears as a note inline or at the foot of the section,		The clarification appears as a note inline or at the foot of the section,
Line 108:		Line 108:

	# '''On the page itself''', as set out for each category above. The page		# '''On the page itself''', as set out for each category above. The page
	carries a banner or note flagging that a correction has been made, with the		carries a banner or note flagging that a correction has been made, with the
	date and a brief description.		date and a brief description.
	# '''In the corrections log''' at [[Project:Corrections log]], which is a		# '''In the corrections log''' at [[Project:Corrections log]], which is a
	running record of every correction made on the site, organised by date and		running record of every correction made on the site, organised by date and
	by page.		by page.

	The corrections log is searchable, linkable, and itself permanent. It is one		The corrections log is searchable, linkable, and itself permanent. It is one
Line 123:		Line 123:

	* '''Material errors of fact''' (a substantive misstatement that affects a		* '''Material errors of fact''' (a substantive misstatement that affects a
	reader's understanding of the subject-matter): corrected within '''48 hours'''		reader's understanding of the subject-matter): corrected within '''48 hours'''
	of acceptance.		of acceptance.
	* '''Less material errors''' (typographical errors, transposed references,		* '''Less material errors''' (typographical errors, transposed references,
	formatting issues): corrected within '''7 days''' of acceptance.		formatting issues): corrected within '''7 days''' of acceptance.
	* '''Retractions''' of substantive content: made within '''48 hours''' of the		* '''Retractions''' of substantive content: made within '''48 hours''' of the
	decision to retract; the decision itself may take longer where the matter		decision to retract; the decision itself may take longer where the matter
	requires deliberation.		requires deliberation.
	* '''Annotations''' for evolving matters: made promptly when the editor becomes		* '''Annotations''' for evolving matters: made promptly when the editor becomes
	aware of the change of circumstances.		aware of the change of circumstances.

	Where a correction is urgent because of the risk of continued harm to a		Where a correction is urgent because of the risk of continued harm to a
Line 148:		Line 148:
	# What you say the correct position is.		# What you say the correct position is.
	# Where possible, a source for the correct position. This can be a primary		# Where possible, a source for the correct position. This can be a primary
	document, a contemporaneous record, a published reference, or your own		document, a contemporaneous record, a published reference, or your own
	first-hand knowledge — whichever is appropriate.		first-hand knowledge — whichever is appropriate.

	You do not need to use a specific form of words. A clear, plain-English message		You do not need to use a specific form of words. A clear, plain-English message
Line 165:		Line 165:
	* Investigate.		* Investigate.
	* Respond within '''28 days''' with our position, which may be to accept the		* Respond within '''28 days''' with our position, which may be to accept the
	correction, to accept it in part, or to reject it with reasons.		correction, to accept it in part, or to reject it with reasons.
	* If we accept the correction, make it within the relevant timescale above.		* If we accept the correction, make it within the relevant timescale above.

Line 178:		Line 178:

	* A different interpretation of an event is not an error and does not give		* A different interpretation of an event is not an error and does not give
	rise to a correction. It may, however, give rise to a right-of-reply		rise to a correction. It may, however, give rise to a right-of-reply
	submission under the [[Project:Right-of-reply policy\|right-of-reply policy]],		submission under the [[Project:Right-of-reply policy\|right-of-reply policy]],
	which is reproduced verbatim on the page.		which is reproduced verbatim on the page.
	* A demand to remove unfavourable but accurate content is not a request for		* A demand to remove unfavourable but accurate content is not a request for
	correction and will be dealt with under the complaints procedure.		correction and will be dealt with under the complaints procedure.
	* Where the requester provides a source we cannot verify, or where the source		* Where the requester provides a source we cannot verify, or where the source
	contradicts other primary documents we hold, we will explain that in our		contradicts other primary documents we hold, we will explain that in our
	response and not act on the request unless and until further evidence is		response and not act on the request unless and until further evidence is
	provided.		provided.

	Where we are uncertain, we err on the side of correction. The cost of a		Where we are uncertain, we err on the side of correction. The cost of a
Line 230:		Line 230:
	* Categories of error that have recurred and require systemic attention.		* Categories of error that have recurred and require systemic attention.
	* Pages that have required multiple corrections, which may indicate a		* Pages that have required multiple corrections, which may indicate a
	structural issue rather than discrete errors.		structural issue rather than discrete errors.
	* The aggregate volume of corrections, which is published in periodic		* The aggregate volume of corrections, which is published in periodic
	transparency reporting at [[Project:Transparency]].		transparency reporting at [[Project:Transparency]].

	The review is not itself published, but the findings inform the		The review is not itself published, but the findings inform the
Line 241:		Line 241:

	* The [[Project:Complaints and takedown policy\|complaints and takedown policy]]		* The [[Project:Complaints and takedown policy\|complaints and takedown policy]]
	provides the formal route for complaints, including complaints of factual		provides the formal route for complaints, including complaints of factual
	inaccuracy. Where such a complaint is upheld, the correction is made under		inaccuracy. Where such a complaint is upheld, the correction is made under
	this policy.		this policy.
	* The [[Project:Right-of-reply policy\|right-of-reply policy]] provides for		* The [[Project:Right-of-reply policy\|right-of-reply policy]] provides for
	publication of responses by named persons. Where the response identifies a		publication of responses by named persons. Where the response identifies a
	factual error, the correction is made under this policy and the response is		factual error, the correction is made under this policy and the response is
	published in addition.		published in addition.
	* The [[Project:Editorial policy\|editorial policy]] sets the standards by		* The [[Project:Editorial policy\|editorial policy]] sets the standards by
	reference to which an assertion is judged to have been in error.		reference to which an assertion is judged to have been in error.
	* The [[Project:Privacy policy\|privacy policy]] governs requests for		* The [[Project:Privacy policy\|privacy policy]] governs requests for
	rectification under UK GDPR; such requests are handled in coordination with		rectification under UK GDPR; such requests are handled in coordination with
	this policy where they concern published content.		this policy where they concern published content.

	== Bad-faith correction requests ==		== Bad-faith correction requests ==