Every newsroom makes mistakes. The Digital Weekly’s policy is built on a simple premise: when we get something wrong, we acknowledge it promptly, fix it transparently, and tell readers what changed and why. We do not hide our errors; we publish them so readers can hold us accountable.
Definitions
We distinguish four categories of post-publication change:
Correction
A change to a factual error. The original published text contained something materially wrong. Examples: incorrect name, wrong number, misattributed quote, mischaracterization of a position. Corrections always carry a public note at the bottom of the article explaining what changed.
Update
Additional information published after the original. The original was accurate at publication; new facts have emerged. Examples: a company has issued a statement, a court has ruled, additional sources have been identified. Updates are timestamped within the article and added rather than replacing original text.
Clarification
The published text was technically accurate but could be misread. We re-word for precision and add a note explaining the clarification. Examples: an ambiguous adjective, a statistic that could be interpreted multiple ways, an attribution that could imply more than intended.
Retraction
A determination that an article is fundamentally flawed and cannot be salvaged through correction. The article body is replaced with a retraction notice. Retracted articles remain online (we do not silently delete) so the record is preserved.
What we correct
We correct factual errors regardless of size, including:
- Misspelled names, mistaken titles, mistaken affiliations
- Wrong dates, times, locations, sequences of events
- Wrong numbers, dollar amounts, percentages, statistics
- Misattributed quotes (wrong person, wrong context)
- Errors in cited sources, broken links to source documents
- Material mischaracterisations of events, positions, decisions, or data
- Wrong descriptions of organisations, products, technologies, or processes
We do not “correct” subjective judgments. We do not change an article’s editorial conclusions retroactively to flatter a subject who’s complained — though we do welcome and consider new information that might cause us to publish a follow-up.
How corrections appear
When we correct a story, we make four changes:
- Update the live text — the erroneous claim is replaced with the corrected claim.
- Append a Correction note at the bottom of the article: “Correction, [date]: An earlier version of this article [stated X / misidentified Y]. It has been corrected to [reflect Z].“
- Bump the article’s
dateModifiedtimestamp — visible to readers and to search engines. - For material corrections: post a brief note in our public corrections archive (forthcoming) and, when appropriate, in the next Weekly Brief.
For minor copy-editing fixes (typos, broken links, formatting) that don’t change meaning, we update silently and log the change internally.
Timeline
We aim to resolve credible correction requests on the following schedule:
| Stage | Target time |
|---|---|
| Acknowledge receipt of request | Within 1 business day |
| Investigation and verification | 1–3 business days |
| Publish correction (if warranted) | Within 2 business days of verification |
| Respond to correction requester | Within 2 business days of decision |
Breaking news errors are corrected as quickly as we can verify the correct information — often within minutes of the original publication.
How to report a correction
If you spot an error in any article on The Digital Weekly, the fastest path is email:
corrections@thedigitalweekly.com
Subject: Correction request — [Article URL]
Body: Specific claim you believe is wrong, supporting documentation, your contact info.
You may also use the “Spot an error?” link visible in the byline area of every article (forthcoming feature).
We respond to credible correction requests within two business days. “Credible” means accompanied by enough information for us to verify your claim against our sources — at minimum, the specific text you believe is wrong and what you believe the correct version should be.
What we need from you
The faster we can verify, the faster we can correct. The strongest correction requests include:
- The exact URL of the article
- The specific sentence or claim you believe is wrong (copy-paste if possible)
- What you believe is correct
- Supporting documentation (a court record, an official document, a statement)
- Your relationship to the matter, if relevant (e.g., “I’m the subject of the article”)
We do not require correction requesters to identify themselves publicly. We do require enough identification (an email address and a name) to confirm the request comes from a real person.
Retractions
Retractions are rare and reserved for cases where:
- The core premise of the article was wrong
- The reporting relied on sources who fabricated information
- Plagiarism is discovered
- The article cannot be corrected without rewriting it entirely
A retracted article is replaced with a retraction notice explaining what was wrong and when the retraction occurred. The URL is preserved so external links continue to resolve. Search engines see the retraction notice and adjust ranking accordingly.
We do not silently unpublish articles. If a story merits retraction, the retraction itself is part of the public record.
Privacy and right-to-be-forgotten requests
Distinct from corrections: occasionally a person named in an article asks for their name to be removed (right-to-be-forgotten / GDPR Article 17 / California Consumer Privacy Act). These are evaluated case-by-case against the public interest in maintaining the record.
We generally accommodate requests when:
- The subject was peripheral to the story (not a public figure, not the focus)
- The article is several years old and the subject’s connection is no longer of public interest
- Continued publication poses documented risk of harm
- The subject was a minor at the time of the events described
We generally decline requests when:
- The subject is a public figure (politician, executive, public-facing professional)
- The article is the public record of a matter of ongoing public interest
- The article reports criminal allegations that resulted in conviction
- The request would create a misleading record by removing context
To submit a privacy or right-to-be-forgotten request, email privacy@thedigitalweekly.com. We respond within 30 days as required by GDPR.
Wayback Machine and external archives
The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and other archival services may have indexed earlier versions of corrected articles. We do not control these external archives and cannot have them update or remove cached copies. Readers should rely on the canonical URL on thedigitalweekly.com for the current, corrected version of any story.
Social media corrections
When we publish a correction to a story that was promoted on social media, we:
- Reply to the original promotional post with a note linking to the correction
- For materially incorrect headlines or summaries originally promoted, delete the original post and replace with a new one carrying the corrected version
Newsletter corrections
If a story or summary in The Weekly Brief contained an error, we send a correction in the next issue, in a clearly-marked “Correction from last week” block at the top of the newsletter.
Public corrections archive
We maintain a public log of material corrections issued in the trailing 12 months. The archive is searchable and includes the original claim, the corrected claim, and the date of correction. This is forthcoming as part of our editorial transparency commitment.
Repeat errors
When the same reporter or section makes a pattern of errors, we conduct an internal review. Repeated material errors can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. The aim is not punitive — it is to maintain reader trust and improve our process.
Contact
Corrections: corrections@thedigitalweekly.com
Privacy / RTBF: privacy@thedigitalweekly.com
General editorial: editors@thedigitalweekly.com