TheWeal corrects errors on the record. We do not silently edit published articles. This page explains how the corrections process works, what counts as a correction, and how to flag a mistake you have spotted.
Our corrections philosophy
Mistakes happen in any newsroom that publishes daily. What separates a good newsroom from a bad one is what happens after. TheWeal’s standard is simple: when we get something wrong, we say so visibly on the article that contains the error, we say what was wrong and what is correct, and we say when the correction was made and by whom.
We do not retroactively change published text without a visible note. We do not delete articles to “fix” errors. We do not bury corrections in a separate page no one reads. Every correction appears on the article it corrects — at the foot, clearly labelled, with a date stamp.
Types of changes we make
Not every edit to a published article is a “correction”. We distinguish between four categories:
- Corrections. A factual error — wrong number, wrong date, wrong name, wrong attribution. Corrections always carry a visible note on the article, an explanation of what was wrong, and the corrected fact.
- Clarifications. The original text was not strictly wrong but was misleading or ambiguous. Clarifications carry a visible note.
- Updates. The story has been updated to include new information that did not exist at publication time. Updates are clearly date-stamped and may carry a “Last updated” note.
- Editorial polish. Typos, grammatical errors, minor stylistic edits that do not change meaning. These are made silently — the standard for any published prose.
The first three categories appear in the corrections log below. Editorial polish does not.
The corrections process
When a reader or third party flags a potential error:
- The complaint is received at [email protected] and logged.
- The editor on duty (not the reporter named in the byline) reviews the complaint against the article and the original sources within 48 business hours.
- If the complaint is substantiated, a correction is published on the article and an entry is added to the corrections log. We respond to the complainant in writing.
- If the complaint is not substantiated, we respond explaining why. We document the complaint either way so we can identify patterns over time.
When an internal review surfaces a potential error (a reporter or editor catches it after publication), the same process applies: the editor on duty makes the call, not the reporter.
What a correction looks like
A correction note on a TheWeal article reads, in full:
Correction · [Date]: An earlier version of this article stated that [incorrect fact]. The correct figure is [correct fact]. The article has been updated. We apologise for the error.
The note is appended to the article body, above the disclaimer. The original incorrect text is replaced inline. The article URL and headline do not change.
How to report an error
If you believe we have published something incorrect, email [email protected] with:
- The article URL
- The specific claim you believe is incorrect
- Your source for the correct information
- Your name and (optional) affiliation — we treat all correction submissions confidentially unless you indicate otherwise
Anonymous corrections are accepted and reviewed, but we cannot respond in writing if there is no return address.
Corrections log
This log is updated within 48 business hours of any correction being published. Each entry includes the article, the date, the nature of the error, and the corrective action taken.
No corrections recorded since TheWeal’s launch in January 2026. This page will be updated when the first correction is published.
Editor responsibilities
The editor on duty is responsible for triaging all complaints, making the call on whether a correction is required, drafting the correction note, applying the inline edit, and updating the log. The editor-in-chief reviews each correction within one business day of publication.
If you have a concern about how a correction was handled — or believe a correction should have been made and was not — escalate to the editor-in-chief at [email protected].
Pattern monitoring
If we receive multiple complaints about the same reporter, the same beat, or the same type of error, we conduct a structured review of recent output and may publish a broader corrective note. We have not had to do this since launch but we maintain the procedure.