What makes a useful report
Identify the exact URL and statement, explain the issue and provide the strongest source available. For legal updates, prefer Gazette, ministry, regulator or court documents. For a brand description, use the relevant brand-controlled page but do not treat its commercial claims as independent proof.
Do not include passwords, financial credentials, recovery phrases or identity documents. This process covers content published by BCGAME.WIKI, not a dispute with BC.GAME.
Review stages
- Log the report privately and confirm the affected text.
- Check the cited source, date and source hierarchy.
- Compare the claim with the current record and legal-risk boundary.
- Correct, qualify, withdraw or retain the text with a reason.
- Record a material public change without naming the reporter.
A source can be genuine yet still fail to support the exact claim. The reviewer checks scope, date, attribution and conflicts rather than counting links.
Material and minor changes
A material correction changes a fact, date, legal summary, identity statement or safety instruction. It receives a dated public note with the affected URL and action. A minor correction fixes spelling, grammar or presentation without changing the factual meaning.
Urgent official-source developments require legal review. A legal conclusion is not changed automatically or without an explanatory record.
Public correction ledger
| Date | Affected URL | Issue | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 July 2026 | Site-wide | Initial source record | Source limits and outstanding legal review disclosed; no earlier public correction |
Submit a correction through the publisher contact form. Review and response times are not assured.
Return to the BCGAME.WIKI information hub.
How a correction decision is documented
The publisher records the submitted claim, cited source, check date and resulting action. If two authoritative sources conflict, the public text is not updated until the conflict is understood. A correction may narrow a sentence, add attribution, replace an outdated date or remove an unsupported claim entirely.
Legal-source changes receive additional scrutiny because a new notification or court order can affect several pages at once. The public ledger records the result without exposing the reporter’s name, email address or other personal data.
If a reporter disagrees with the decision
A reporter may provide a stronger primary source or explain why the reviewed source was misread. The Editorial Desk should reopen the claim when new evidence could change the result. Repetition without new evidence does not require a different outcome, but the publisher records the reason for the decision.
Where the disagreement concerns legal interpretation, publication remains paused for qualified counsel rather than being resolved through a vote or commercial source count.