Bitcoin.now Corrections & Update Policy
How Bitcoin.now receives, evaluates, records, and publishes material corrections.
What readers should know
What to send
Identify the exact URL and sentence, explain why it is wrong or outdated and include the strongest primary source available. If the issue involves a calculation, include the inputs and expected result. Specific evidence can be evaluated faster than a broad disagreement with the article's position.
What happens next
The editorial team checks the cited evidence, surrounding context and whether the issue changes a reader's understanding or decision. Protocol questions may be escalated to the protocol review role. Market claims are checked against the dated source and quote asset rather than against a later price.
Corrections versus clarifications
A correction fixes a factual error present when the page was published. A clarification improves wording that was technically correct but easy to misread. Both are handled on the existing durable URL so readers and incoming links do not split across replacement pages.
Corrections versus updates
An update reflects a later change in software, markets, policy or available evidence. A new version number, court ruling or changed product term does not make the old sentence dishonest, but it can make the guide incomplete. Material updates change the visible review date.
What does not change the review date
Spelling, punctuation, CSS, navigation and global footer edits do not claim a new substantive review. This rule also keeps sitemap modification dates meaningful instead of telling search engines that every page changed at once.
Independence
Requests from an advertiser, issuer, exchange or article subject receive the same evidence review as requests from readers. Commercial pressure and personal disagreement do not decide the outcome; the wording changes when the evidence or clarity requires it.