Corrections Policy
Free Source Library treats publication as part of an ongoing editorial process rather than the final stage of a page’s life. Articles may later need correction, clarification, updating, restructuring, or refinement. This is not seen as a weakness of the platform, but as part of responsible publishing.
This Corrections Policy explains how the site approaches errors, factual concerns, outdated information, unclear wording, structural improvements, and reader-submitted correction requests. Our goal is not to pretend that published content can never require change. Our goal is to handle necessary changes in a serious, proportionate, and transparent way.
1. Why corrections matter
A trustworthy editorial platform should be willing to improve what it publishes when improvement is justified. Errors can occur. Information can become outdated. Language can later appear unclear or incomplete. Context may need to be expanded. In some cases, a page may need only a small adjustment; in other cases, more substantial revision may be appropriate.
Free Source Library considers corrective review part of normal editorial maintenance. The existence of corrections does not weaken credibility. Ignoring correctable problems does.
2. What may lead to a correction
A correction, revision, or update may be considered where there is a reasonable basis to believe that content includes one or more of the following:
- a factual error or materially inaccurate statement;
- outdated information that should be refreshed or clarified;
- unclear, misleading, or imprecise wording;
- a structural issue that seriously affects reader understanding;
- a naming, date, number, attribution, or reference error;
- a legitimate concern raised by a reader, rights holder, or informed third party;
- editorial review identifying that a page can and should be improved.
3. Types of editorial changes
Minor edits
Small adjustments such as spelling fixes, punctuation corrections, formatting clean-up, or other minor wording improvements that do not materially affect meaning may be made without special notice. These are treated as routine editorial maintenance.
Substantive corrections
Where a change materially affects meaning, factual understanding, interpretation, context, or reader reliance, the issue may be treated as a more significant correction. In such cases, the page may be revised more carefully and, where appropriate, the relevant passage may be clarified rather than merely edited superficially.
Updates and clarifications
Sometimes a page is not “wrong” in a narrow sense, but it becomes incomplete, outdated, too compressed, or open to misunderstanding. In those situations, updates, expansions, clarifications, or improved contextual framing may be made.
Restriction or removal
In more serious situations involving major error, structural unreliability, rights-related concerns, or content that should no longer remain published in its current form, the site may restrict, remove, or substantially rework content.
4. Not every change is the same
Free Source Library does not treat every editorial adjustment as equally significant. Correcting a minor typo is not the same as revising a materially misleading statement. Updating a heading for clarity is not the same as correcting an important factual issue.
For that reason, editorial judgment is applied to determine what kind of change is needed and how substantial that change should be. We aim to respond proportionately rather than mechanically.
5. Reader-submitted corrections
Readers and concerned parties may contact the site if they believe a page contains an error, outdated claim, misleading wording, or another issue that deserves review. We welcome serious, specific, and good-faith correction requests.
To help us assess a correction request properly, it is useful to include:
- the URL of the page in question;
- the title of the article or relevant section;
- the exact statement or passage being challenged;
- a clear explanation of why it may be incorrect or misleading;
- supporting references, evidence, or better-grounded information where available.
6. How correction requests are reviewed
Correction requests are reviewed based on seriousness, clarity, relevance, specificity, and apparent legitimacy. Not every message results in a correction, and not every disagreement is treated as evidence of an error.
Editorial review may consider the nature of the topic, the wording used, the available supporting material, the strength of the concern, the likely impact on readers, and the broader context of the page.
7. No automatic acceptance of every request
Submitting a correction request does not automatically mean that the requested change will be made. Some requests may be well-founded and lead to revision. Others may reflect disagreement, interpretation differences, incomplete claims, or unsupported assertions that do not justify editorial change.
The site reserves the right to determine, in good faith, whether a change is necessary, what kind of change is appropriate, and whether the existing wording remains acceptable.
8. Corrections versus disagreements
Not every objection is a correction. Some topics allow room for interpretation, emphasis, framing, or editorial style. A reader may dislike wording without the wording being materially false. A person may disagree with the structure of a page without identifying a genuine inaccuracy.
Free Source Library distinguishes between factual correction, editorial improvement, and subjective disagreement. This distinction matters for responsible review.
9. Post-publication improvement is normal
We do not treat post-publication revision as exceptional. A page may be improved because the explanation can be made clearer, because wording can be more precise, because a structure can be more readable, or because new context has become important.
This means that some changes may occur not because a page was entirely wrong, but because it can be made more useful, more accurate in tone, or easier for readers to understand.
10. Rights-related and sensitive corrections
Where a request involves rights-related concerns, privacy issues, attribution problems, or potentially harmful misidentification, the review may require a more cautious and case-specific approach. Depending on the issue, the site may seek additional information, assess the seriousness of the concern, and decide whether revision, limitation, removal, or no action is appropriate.
11. Removal is not always the first solution
Correction and removal are not the same thing. In many cases, the most responsible outcome is not deletion, but clearer wording, improved context, narrower framing, or factual adjustment. In other cases, however, removal or restriction may be the more appropriate response.
The site does not assume that every problem requires the same remedy.
12. Timing and response expectations
We aim to review legitimate correction requests reasonably and responsibly, but we do not guarantee a fixed response time or a personal reply in every case. Some issues can be assessed quickly. Others may require more careful editorial or contextual review.
Where necessary, requests may be considered alongside related policy pages, including the site’s Editorial Policy, Methodology / Sources and Verification, Report Content page, Disclaimer, and Terms and Conditions.
13. Corrections as part of trust
Free Source Library does not believe trust comes from pretending that published pages never change. Trust is better supported when a site is willing to revise responsibly, improve when needed, and remain open to justified correction.
This policy exists because we consider accountability part of publication itself. Readers should know that the site has a framework for handling errors, updates, and improvement, rather than leaving those questions undefined.
14. Contact
If you would like to submit a correction request or ask a question about this Corrections Policy, you may contact:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/freesourcelibrary/