We welcome well-supported corrections. Technical accuracy is more important than preserving an earlier version of an article.
What to report
Useful correction reports identify the page URL, the statement in question, why it may be inaccurate and, where possible, a primary or authoritative source. Reports about superseded standards, changed public guidance, mathematical errors, broken links and misleading ambiguity are especially valuable.
How we review
A correction should be checked against the strongest available source. Where the issue is technical interpretation rather than a simple factual error, the wording may be clarified instead of replaced. If the evidence is inconclusive, the article should acknowledge uncertainty rather than present one view as settled.
Material corrections
When a correction materially changes a recommendation, safety implication, standard reference or numerical conclusion, the page should be updated with a new substantive review date. A short correction note may be added where readers would benefit from knowing what changed. Typographical fixes do not require a correction notice.
Outdated links and references
External sources can move or be superseded. A broken link should be replaced with the current primary source where available. An older standard may remain relevant to legacy installations, so it should not automatically be deleted; the article should explain the version context where that distinction matters.
Submitting a correction
Use the Contact page and choose a correction-related subject. The static package does not transmit forms until a backend is connected, so the live operator must configure a reliable contact route before public launch.