Information Press is responsible for the accuracy and clarity of the editorial material published on informationpress.net. We aim to check significant claims before publication, but mistakes can occur; new reliable evidence or changing circumstances may also require articles to be reviewed after publication.
This policy explains the differences between corrections, clarifications, updates, and minor edits; how readers can report potential problems; and how we decide what action is appropriate. The objective is accurate, useful information and a clear record of meaningful changes - not a promise that every error can be prevented.
How We Approach Corrections
Credible evidence of a material factual error should receive an appropriate editorial review. Verified material errors should be corrected as promptly as reasonably possible in light of the complexity of the claim and available source information. A correction decision is based on documented facts, not the preferences or financial interests of an advertiser, source, or organization covered by an article. The central question is whether a reasonable reader received a materially inaccurate impression. That can involve an incorrect fact, a misleading omission, or wording that overstates what a cited document establishes.
Corrections are not a service that can be purchased. We do not change accurate reporting simply because it is unfavorable. We also do not assume that every complaint establishes an error: analysis, opinion, and reasonable judgments can be disputed without containing a demonstrably false factual claim.
How a Reported Issue Is Reviewed
-
Identify the claim
We identify the article, exact passage, image, caption, or link being challenged and the meaning a reader would reasonably take from it. The complaint should specify the suspected error rather than rely only on a general objection.
Useful supporting material identifies both the disputed wording and a better evidentiary basis for assessing it. A general objection without a specific factual issue may call for a different response than a documented error. -
Consult source evidence
We compare the published statement with the original evidence, relevant official records, dates, quotations, and any credible material supplied by the reader. Multiple online repetitions of the same unverified claim are not necessarily independent confirmation.
-
Determine the appropriate action
The outcome may be a factual correction, clarification, substantive update, minor edit, additional sourcing, no change when the existing statement is supported, or removal when continued publication would be materially inaccurate or inappropriate. Decisions require editorial judgment proportionate to the significance of the matter.
-
Document significant changes
When a change materially affects understanding, an explanatory note may identify what was revised and why. We should avoid backdating articles or silently rewriting a central factual conclusion in a way that conceals the correction.
Possible Outcomes: Problem, Review, and Action
A correction addresses material information that was wrong when published: an incorrect name or title, date, location, numerical figure, quotation, attribution, characterization, legal requirement, or other verifiable assertion. Its significance depends on whether the mistake could change a reader's understanding of the article.
When a correction substantially changes the article's meaning, the revised version should avoid concealing that change. An explanatory correction note may describe what was wrong and what has been amended, without unnecessarily repeating harmful or incorrect allegations in a way that amplifies them.
A clarification addresses wording that may technically be accurate but lacks necessary context, is ambiguous, or could lead a reasonable reader to a misleading conclusion. For example, a housing article might accurately describe a state rule but require an added note about local exceptions or its effective date.
Clarifications should make the statement easier to understand without implying that facts were newly established when they were already available. Significant clarifications may merit an explanatory note depending on their impact on meaning.
An update adds newly verified information that became available after publication, including a change in public policy, a revised agency announcement, court action, new economic figures, or developments in an ongoing emergency. An article can be accurate at publication and still need updating as events change.
When a substantive update changes the article's conclusions or practical relevance, we should identify it where appropriate through an update note or displayed update date. The original publication date should not be presented as the time of a later event.
Spelling, grammar, layout, accessibility markup, broken formatting, and small wording changes that do not materially alter meaning may be corrected without a standalone public notice. Replacing a broken source URL with the correct destination may also be a minor change when the underlying claim is unchanged and remains supported.
An edit is not “minor” merely because it affects a small number of words. A single word can materially alter a legal claim, a medical statement, a statistic, or a description of alleged misconduct. Those cases should be evaluated for more explicit disclosure.
A report may also result in no change when the published claim is supported by reliable evidence, or additional review when the facts remain uncertain. These outcomes should not be treated as interchangeable: a correction addresses an error, a clarification addresses a possible misunderstanding, and an update records relevant subsequent developments.
Complex and Sensitive Situations
Sensitive and High-Impact Claims
Errors involving health, personal safety, legal rights, housing, taxes, finance, insurance, and other important decisions may require accelerated or more intensive review. We should identify the correct jurisdiction, the effective date of a requirement, authoritative medical or regulatory sources, and any risk that readers could rely on outdated information. A small difference in wording may matter greatly where a statement concerns eligibility, a deadline, a medical finding, financial exposure, or an identifiable person's reputation. The potential effect on reader understanding is part of assessing significance.
Information Press is an editorial publisher, not a provider of personalized medical, legal, financial, tax, investment, mental health, or safety advice. A correction to general information does not replace individualized guidance from an appropriately qualified professional or public authority.
Headlines, Images, and Data
A misleading headline, inaccurate caption, incorrectly dated photo, mislabeled AI illustration, distorted graph, or erroneous numerical table may require action even when the article body contains accurate information. Visual content should be evaluated according to the factual impression it conveys.
AI may be used only for selected illustrative images, not to create article text, source summaries, quotes, or invented source material. A synthetic image that readers could mistake for authentic evidence may need relabeling, replacement, or removal. Source corrections should be handled wherever the error appears, including associated excerpts or metadata when accessible.
Removal and Withdrawal
Removing a published article is a serious editorial decision and is not an automatic response to criticism. It may be considered where information cannot responsibly be corrected, poses significant privacy or safety concerns, involves unsupported harmful allegations, violates relevant rights, or otherwise cannot remain published consistently with our standards.
Where practical and appropriate, an explanatory notice may help readers understand that substantial content has been withdrawn or replaced. We do not promise a public notice for every technical deletion or operational change. Requests to remove accurate reporting solely because it is unfavorable are not treated as automatic grounds for removal.
Editorial Independence and Further Review
Requests from public officials, advertisers, companies, individuals mentioned in an article, and other interested parties are assessed by the same underlying standard: whether the published information is supported. A request for a correction is not evidence that the requester is right, and refusing to alter well-supported information is not evidence that a concern was ignored. Neither a complaint from a powerful institution nor a large volume of identical messages should override the need to assess the available evidence. The purpose of review is accuracy rather than satisfaction of a particular interest.
If new credible evidence becomes available after a review, it may justify reconsideration. We may correct errors identified internally without waiting for a reader report. No outside party can buy an editorial correction, favorable coverage, or higher review rankings.