How to correct inaccurate information on Wikipedia

What does Wikipedia accept as a valid correction?

Wikipedia accepts a correction when a reliable, published source supports the new wording better than the existing source supports the old. Its verifiability policy defines the standard as readers being able to check that a claim corresponds to a reliable source. Truth that cannot be checked in print does not meet it.

This surprises many subjects. A chief executive who knows her own start date, or a company that knows its own headcount, still has to point to somewhere that fact has been published. Editors cannot take an email or a talk page comment as proof, because nobody else could check it.

Wikipedia does allow limited use of what a subject publishes about itself. Under the verifiability policy, a company's annual report or a person's own website can support information about that person or company, provided the material is not unduly self-serving, makes no claims about third parties or unrelated events, is not in doubt, and the article is not based mainly on such sources.

Can you edit the article yourself to fix a mistake?

Only for a narrow set of uncontroversial fixes. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline says people with a close connection to a subject are strongly discouraged from editing its article directly. The subject, its employees, its agencies and anyone paid on its behalf all count as connected.

The guideline lists edits a connected person may still make, among them:

• fixing spelling, grammar or markup errors;
• repairing broken links;
• removing spam and unambiguous vandalism;
• removing unambiguous violations of the biographies of living persons policy;
• adding independent reliable sources when another editor has asked for them.

The test is strict. The guideline says that if another editor objects for any reason, the edit is not uncontroversial. Changing a revenue figure, rewording a description of a lawsuit or removing a sourced criticism will almost always draw an objection, so those belong in a request.

Disclosure comes first in every case. Wikipedia's advice to article subjects opens by telling them to disclose their conflict of interest before doing anything else, and the conflict of interest guideline requires paid editors to disclose who is paying them and on whose behalf they edit.

How do you ask for a correction through Wikipedia's own process?

You post an edit request on the article's talk page, using the {{Edit COI}} template, and an uninvolved volunteer decides whether to make the change. Wikipedia's page for article subjects describes exactly this route: open the talk page, start a new section, put the template at the top, and set out the change you want. The Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard walks through the same steps.

A correction request should contain three things: the exact sentence as it now reads, the exact sentence you propose, and the source that supports it. A one-line reason helps. A long account of why the article is unfair does not.

The mechanics, including the templates, the wording that reviewers respond to and the waiting times, are covered in our guide to Wikipedia edit requests. The point to hold on to here is that a correction is judged on its source. A well-sourced request for one factual change is the strongest thing a subject can put in front of an editor.

Which sources will editors accept for a correction?

Editors look for independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is how Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources describes them. Major newspapers, established trade publications, books from serious publishers and official statistics usually qualify. The guideline adds that a source can be reliable for one claim and unreliable for another, so the fit between source and sentence matters.

Some material that subjects often offer does not carry the weight they expect:

• Press releases and articles based on them. The reliable sources guideline treats news stories that reprint a press release with little change as no better than the release itself.
• Court records and other public documents. The biographies of living persons policy says not to use trial transcripts, court records or other public documents to support assertions about a living person.
• Your own website for anything beyond basic facts. It cannot support claims about competitors, awards you describe in glowing terms, or events not directly about you.
• Interviews and profiles you supplied. These can support what you said, but reviewers weigh them as your own account.

For a disputed fact, one strong independent source usually does more than several weak ones.

How are corrections to biographies of living people handled?

Faster and more strictly than anywhere else on Wikipedia. The biographies of living persons policy says contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. It applies whether the material is negative, positive or neutral.

Three further rules matter to a subject:

1. The burden sits with whoever restores it. The policy says the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material, so a removed claim needs a proper source to come back.
2. The three-revert rule does not apply to these removals. The policy also cautions that what counts as a violation can itself be disputed, and asks editors in that position to raise it on the noticeboard rather than keep reverting.
3. Privacy has a presumption. Names of family members who are not public figures must be removed if they are not properly sourced, and a full date of birth belongs in an article only if reliable sources have widely published it.

The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is where uninvolved editors review problems in biographical content. Its instructions ask you to try the article's talk page first, and to link to the edit showing the problem rather than paste defamatory text into your report. Threads older than seven days are archived automatically, so a report should be complete when posted.

When should you contact the Volunteer Response Team?

When the problem is serious, legal or private, and raising it on a public page would make it worse. The Volunteer Response Team is a group of experienced volunteers, bound by a confidentiality agreement, who answer most email sent to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The biographies of living persons policy directs subjects with legal or other serious concerns to email the team at info-en-q@wikimedia.org, with a link to the article and details of the problem.

It helps to know what the team is not. Its own page says its agents are not above English Wikipedia's policies and have no special editorial control, and that most requests about ordinary editorial matters are referred back to the normal on-wiki processes. It also says volunteers may give more active help with defamation and privacy. An email asking the team to remove accurate, sourced criticism will usually be pointed back to the talk page.

If editors and administrators do not resolve a concern about a living person, the policy notes that the Wikimedia Foundation can be contacted directly through its contact page. That is a later step, not a first one.

What can you do if the press got it wrong?

Start with the publication, because Wikipedia reflects its sources. If a reliable outlet printed a wrong fact and Wikipedia repeated it, editors will generally keep the claim until there is a better source. Wikipedia's advice to article subjects is blunt on the related point: accurate, uncomplimentary material backed by reliable sources stays.

The reliable sources guideline acknowledges that even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors, and treats the publication of corrections as a sign of a responsible outlet. That gives a subject a practical sequence:

1. Ask the outlet to correct the article through its own corrections or complaints process.
2. If it publishes a correction or amends the story, request the change on Wikipedia, citing the corrected version.
3. If it will not correct, look for other reliable sources that report the fact accurately. The neutral point of view policy says that where reputable sources conflict, editors should describe both views rather than pick one in Wikipedia's own voice.
4. If the article reports an allegation you have denied, and the denial was published, the biographies of living persons policy says the denial should be reported too.

Early reports carry a particular risk. The reliable sources guideline warns that breaking-news coverage often contains serious inaccuracies and that claims sourced to initial reports should be replaced as better sources appear. For example, a company misdescribed in the first day's coverage of a dispute can often point to later, fuller reporting that sets the record straight.

How do you update information that has gone out of date?

By finding where the new fact has been published and requesting the change with that source. Outdated information is usually the easiest problem to fix, because there is rarely a dispute about whether a former role ended or a company moved.

A common pattern: a founder steps back from the chief executive role, the company announces it on its website and a trade title reports it a week later. The trade report is the better citation. The company announcement can support the basic fact on its own if nothing independent exists, under the limits on sources about oneself.

Some updates are harder. Financial results, rankings and claims of market position draw scrutiny as possible promotion, and editors may decline them even when they are sourced. Keeping each request to one fact, written in the same plain register as the rest of the article, gives it the best chance.

When is a correction worth handing to a specialist?

If the fix is one wrong fact and a good source exists, you can make the request yourself and a volunteer will probably handle it in time. Paying someone for that adds little.

The case for help grows with the stakes. Talk page requests are permanent and public, and editors reviewing a later request read the earlier ones. A subject who opens with a demand, argues with a reviewer, or edits the article after a decline turns a correction into a conduct question, and the biographies noticeboard and conflict of interest noticeboard both keep their archives. Choosing which problems are corrections, which are matters of balance, and which belong in a private email is where experience changes the result.

We work only through these channels and do not promise outcomes. Our page health check sets out what in your article can be corrected, on what source, and by which route.