Free China Movement (FCM) considers transparent correction an essential part of credible publishing and research.
Our objective is not to pretend that errors never occur. It is to identify material errors, correct them responsibly, and make significant corrections visible to readers.
What We Correct
FCM will consider corrections involving incorrect names, dates, locations, titles, or affiliations; inaccurate quotations or translations; factual statements unsupported by cited evidence; mistaken identification of people, organizations, photographs, or documents; materially misleading descriptions; broken or incorrectly attributed sources; significant omissions that create a false impression; and research conclusions materially affected by newly discovered evidence.
Minor spelling, punctuation, formatting, typographical, or technical corrections that do not alter meaning may ordinarily be fixed without a formal correction notice.
Corrections, Clarifications and Updates
A correction addresses information that was materially wrong when published. A clarification improves wording or context where the original material may have been ambiguous or incomplete without necessarily being factually false. An update adds significant information that became available after publication.
These labels should not be used interchangeably to conceal an error.
How Corrections Are Displayed
When a material factual error is corrected, the relevant page should ordinarily include a correction or revision note explaining what was materially incorrect, what has been changed, and when the correction was made. The prominence of the notice should reflect the significance of the error.
FCM should not silently remove a significant error in a manner that creates the false impression that the incorrect version never existed.
Developing News
Facts can change rapidly during breaking events. Changes resulting solely from later developments may be identified as updates rather than corrections. If the original reporting itself was inaccurate based on information reasonably available at the time, a correction may still be appropriate.
Historical Research
Historical findings sometimes change when new primary evidence becomes available. A revised conclusion is not necessarily evidence that the earlier research was negligent. However, substantial revisions should be documented when they materially alter the historical record presented to readers.
Disagreement Is Not Automatically an Error
FCM will consider good-faith correction requests regardless of whether the requester agrees with FCM’s mission or conclusions. A disagreement over interpretation, policy, or opinion does not by itself establish a factual error. Correction decisions should be based on evidence.
Submitting a Correction
Readers should provide, when possible, the title or URL of the relevant page; the statement believed to be inaccurate; an explanation of the issue; and supporting documents, citations, links, or other evidence. FCM may request additional information when necessary to evaluate the claim.
Review
Significant correction requests should receive human review. Where the dispute involves specialized historical, linguistic, technical, or legal evidence, FCM may consult relevant sources or qualified outside expertise.
No Retaliation for Good-Faith Challenges
Researchers, witnesses, readers, contributors, journalists, and subjects of our reporting should be able to challenge factual claims without being treated as adversaries merely for doing so. Credible contradictory evidence should be examined on its merits.
Accountability
Responsibility for material published under FCM’s name remains with FCM even when research, translation, drafting, or analysis was assisted by artificial-intelligence systems or other technologies. Technology does not eliminate editorial responsibility.
Related policies: Editorial Standards · Research Methodology · AI-Assisted Research & Human Review
Last reviewed: September 2026
Free China 