WBN Corrections Policy

• Every piece of published content carries a clear original publication timestamp.
• Every factual correction, clarification, substantive correction, or update carries a timestamp showing when the change was made — distinct from the original publication date.
• Where multiple corrections or updates have been made to a single piece of content, each is timestamped separately so that readers can follow the editorial history in sequence.
• Timestamps are displayed in a consistent format across all WBN platforms and are not altered retroactively.

WBN does not delete published content in order to suppress an error or avoid accountability for a correction. Where content is corrected, the original error is described in the correction notice so that readers who encountered the original version understand what has changed and why. Where content is retracted, a retraction notice remains in place so that the record of original publication and subsequent withdrawal is preserved.

The archival record of WBN's published content — including its correction history — is treated as a matter of editorial integrity. It is not modified for reputational convenience.

An update applies when the original content was accurate at the time of publication but the situation has since changed. A correction applies when the original content contained an error. These are different editorial situations and are handled differently. We do not apply the update label to what is properly a correction — doing so would misrepresent the nature of the change to our readers.

• Updates are clearly labelled as updates at the top of the affected content, with a timestamp indicating when the update was made.
• The update note explains what new information has emerged and how it changes or adds to the original account.
• Where a developing story undergoes substantial change — such that the original framing is significantly altered by new facts — we consider whether the story warrants a new standalone piece rather than a series of updates to the original.
• Developing stories that are still unfolding are clearly labelled as such on first publication, so readers know they are reading an account that may be revised as more information becomes available.

• The central factual claims of a published story are found to be false and cannot be substantiated by any reliable evidence.
• The sourcing for a story is found to be fabricated, fraudulent, or fundamentally compromised in a way that undermines the entire account.
• A story was published in material breach of WBN's editorial standards in a way that cannot be adequately addressed through correction.
• New information establishes that a published story caused or is likely to cause serious and demonstrable harm that outweighs any legitimate public interest in its continued publication.

Retractions are approved by WBN's most senior editorial leadership. No retraction is published without a thorough editorial review of the basis for the original story, the nature of the failure identified, and the appropriate scope of the retraction. A retraction notice replaces the original content and states clearly what was published, why it is being retracted, and when the retraction was made. Where a retraction has the potential to affect individuals or organisations significantly, we notify them directly before or at the time of publication of the retraction notice.

WBN does not retract accurate journalism in response to legal threats, commercial pressure, or the preferences of powerful individuals or organisations. A retraction is an acknowledgment of editorial failure — not a tool for suppressing inconvenient truths. Requests for retraction of content WBN stands behind are treated as complaints and reviewed under our editorial complaints process rather than the retraction process.

Readers who believe they have identified an error in WBN's published content may submit a correction request by email to editorial@wbnn.news. To help us review the request efficiently, it is useful — though not required — to include the following:

• The URL or title of the content in question
• The specific claim believed to be inaccurate
• What you believe the accurate information to be
• Any evidence or sources that support the correction

All good-faith correction requests receive an acknowledgment within one business day. Following our review and verification process described in Section 4, the submitter is informed of the outcome — whether a correction has been published, whether a clarification or update has been made, or whether our editorial team has determined that the original content is accurate as published and why.

We do not dismiss correction requests because the submitter is unknown to us, because the error appears minor, or because acknowledging it is editorially inconvenient. We assess every request on its merits and respond honestly about our conclusions.

Every piece of AI-assisted content published by WBN has been reviewed and approved by a human editor before publication. That human editor is editorially responsible for the content — including its accuracy. When an error in AI-assisted content is identified, it is the human editor who approved the content who is accountable for the correction process, in the same way as any other editorial error.

Where a correction involves content that was generated or substantially drafted by an AI system, that fact is disclosed in the correction notice. This is consistent with WBN's broader commitment to transparency about the role of AI in our editorial output. The disclosure of AI involvement in an error is not an attempt to deflect editorial responsibility — it is an act of transparency that helps our audiences understand our processes and how they are being continuously improved.

When an AI system produces an error that reaches publication — despite human review — WBN treats that as a systemic issue requiring examination, not just an individual editorial failure. The nature of the AI error, the circumstances under which it passed human review, and the steps needed to prevent recurrence are reviewed by our editorial and AI governance teams. This review feeds directly into the continuous improvement process described in Section 12.

The editor responsible for approving a piece of content for publication is accountable for its accuracy. Where an error occurs, that editor is responsible for leading the review and correction process, regardless of whether the error originated with a journalist, a contributor, or an AI system. Senior editorial leadership is accountable for errors in coverage that passed through multiple levels of review.

WBN's corrections are written to serve accuracy — not to protect the reputation of the editorial team, minimise the significance of the error, or redirect responsibility. Correction notices do not use language designed to make errors appear smaller than they are, to attribute errors to external factors rather than editorial failure where that is not the case, or to obscure what was wrong from readers who encountered the original content.

Where an error in WBN's published content has caused material harm to an individual, organisation, or community — whether through factual inaccuracy, misrepresentation, or inadequate context — we contact those affected directly when we publish the correction. We do not rely solely on the passive correction appearing on our platforms when direct notification is warranted.

WBN's editorial leadership reviews the internal corrections record on a regular basis — at minimum quarterly, and more frequently when volumes warrant it. This review examines the nature and frequency of errors by type, topic, format, and production workflow. Where patterns are identified — types of content that generate disproportionate corrections, stages in the production process where errors consistently emerge, AI workflows that require additional human review safeguards — those patterns are addressed through targeted improvements to editorial processes and training.

The purpose of the internal corrections review is improvement, not punishment. WBN's editorial culture encourages journalists and editors to flag potential errors early and without fear — the worst outcome is always an uncorrected error in print, never an editor who raised a concern. We create the conditions in which potential errors surface quickly and are addressed honestly, because that is what serves our readers best.

Insights from the corrections review inform WBN's ongoing editorial training programme. Where a category of error recurs, we develop specific guidance and training to address it — whether that involves verification procedures, AI workflow safeguards, sourcing standards, or editorial judgment in specific subject areas. These Standards and the processes that support them are updated when the corrections record indicates that an update is warranted.

WBN publishes an annual editorial accountability report that includes a summary of correction volumes, categories, and themes for the year. This report reflects our commitment to transparency with our audiences about the quality of our journalism and the steps we are taking to improve it. It is published through the WBN Trust Centre.

This Corrections Policy is reviewed annually and updated whenever our editorial practices, technology, or the standards environment warrants a revision. The "Last Updated" date at the top of this document reflects the most recent change. Previous versions of this Policy are available on request. Material updates will be communicated to editorial staff and contributors before they take effect.