How to Document a Correction to a Robotics News Source

A correction to a robotics announcement can be more useful than a fresh headline, provided readers can understand what changed. A company might update a product page, an event organiser might revise a schedule, or an author might correct a figure. A careful news desk records the original claim and the correction without treating every page edit as a new product launch.

Keep the publication and observation times apart

Record the date shown by the source, the time the newsroom observed the change, and the date of the event or data described. These values answer different questions. A page inspected today may discuss an event from an earlier year; a correction published today may modify a report that first appeared months ago. If the source does not show a revision date, do not invent one.

For a related distinction, the site’s guide to publication dates and event dates explains why those dates should not be merged. The present checklist focuses on how an editor can document and communicate a later correction.

Identify the claim that actually changed

Compare the relevant wording, number, attribution or link in the available versions. Record the source title, publisher, URL and the exact part that appears different. If only the updated page is available and the prior wording cannot be verified, describe the limitation instead of asserting a precise before-and-after change.

A clearly labelled hypothetical example illustrates the distinction: an organiser changes a demonstration date on its event page. An editor may report the revised date after checking the organiser’s notice, but should not infer that a robot’s commercial release has also moved. An event schedule and product availability are separate claims.

Document the chain of evidence

The W3C PROV Primer introduces ways to describe entities, activities and people or organisations associated with the production of information. A newsroom can borrow that basic idea by recording who published a source, who checked it and what change was made to the article. The primer is a general model for provenance; it does not prescribe a robotics newsroom’s correction policy.

Keep a link to the original source when it remains available, and link to the correction notice when there is a separate one. If the evidence came from a private email, note the sender and verification process internally, and obtain permission before publishing information that is not public. Preserve source material in accordance with the publisher’s terms and the newsroom’s access rules.

Describe datasets and downloadable files carefully

A source page may offer a downloadable dataset, a chart or a press release as separate items. The W3C Data Catalog Vocabulary, version 3 describes datasets and distributions as related but distinct concepts. That distinction can help a reporter label whether a correction concerns the page text, a downloadable file, or the data represented in the file. It does not establish which version is correct.

Record the file name, the version or date stated by its provider, and when it was retrieved. If an organisation replaces a file at the same URL, avoid claiming that all previous copies have changed. Where the reason for an update is not provided, write that it has not been confirmed.

Make the correction visible to readers

When an error in an article has been confirmed, revise the affected sentence and add a concise note explaining what was corrected and when. The note should identify the subject of the correction without exposing personal information unnecessarily. If a change is material, readers should be able to distinguish it from a routine typo fix.

Do not silently replace a speculative statement with a different speculative statement. If the original source remains ambiguous, retain the uncertainty or remove the unsupported claim. A correction note is a record of editorial action; it is not proof that an associated robot meets a performance, safety or regulatory requirement.

Check links and unresolved questions before republishing

Open the source links in a normal browsing session, check that the linked page supports the specific statement, and verify that the article still refers to the right organisation and date. Note access restrictions where a source requires registration. If the provider has withdrawn the original item, describe what can still be verified and avoid sending readers to an unconfirmed mirror.

A final review should also identify who is responsible for monitoring a correction after publication. If the source later issues a further notice, the editor can recheck the article and decide whether another dated update is needed. Leave the earlier correction note readable so that the sequence remains understandable.

The site’s industry information section contains further background. This workflow is an editorial method, not evidence that a particular event, product or correction has occurred. Specific news reports require their own current, first-hand sources.