How moderation works

You can suggest a correction to a published record, propose a candidate or office that is missing, flag something that looks wrong, or send general feedback about the service.

A submission is most useful when it names the specific record and cites a source we can check: an official notice, a party statement, a published list or a report. Corrections without a source can rarely be acted on, because we cannot publish a claim we cannot evidence.

Every submission arrives as a draft for review. No public page changes at the moment you press send, and no automated process promotes a submission into published content.

A reviewer decides whether the evidence supports the change. A submission can be accepted, held for more evidence, or declined. Records about real people are only ever published by a person with the permission to do it.

Reviewers check the source itself: who published it, when, and whether it actually supports the specific claim being made. A report describing a rumour is not treated as the same thing as an official list.

Reviewers also check identity, because names repeat. Before a claim is attached to a person we check the full name, spellings and initials, the party, the seat, the office and the election, so two different people with similar names are not merged into one record.

Where the evidence is ambiguous, conflicting or contested, the record is held for human editorial judgement rather than resolved by guesswork.

Published records keep their history. When something changes, the previous version, the reviewer decision and the time it happened are retained rather than overwritten.

This matters most when a person's situation changes: if someone withdraws, is substituted, or moves from aspirant to nominee, the earlier state stays on the record with its own dates instead of disappearing.

Anyone can submit a correction against any published record, including a candidate or their representatives. Corrections go through the same review as any other submission.

Where a claim is disputed and the available sources genuinely conflict, we do not pick a side. The record shows that the matter is contested and, where the dispute is serious enough that publishing would assert something unsupported, the record is withheld from public listings while it is reviewed.

Public comments and reactions are shown separately from verified candidate information, and they never alter it. A comment is not evidence, and volume of opinion is not a source.

This separation is deliberate. If public reaction could move what the service reports as fact, the record would become a popularity measure, and an organised campaign could change what the platform says about a person without producing a single document. Editorial assessments respond to sources, not to sentiment.