Corrections Policy

Draft · last updated July 2026

LexFeed aggregates headlines, short snippets, and event listings and links to the publishers who report the underlying stories. That shapes how corrections work here, so this draft policy explains where to send them.

Corrections to the reporting itself

LexFeed does not write the news it links to. If you believe a fact in the actual article is wrong, the correction should go to the original publisher, who controls that content. Follow the source link on the item to reach the outlet that reported it.

Corrections to LexFeed's own presentation

We do take responsibility for how LexFeed itself presents information, and we will fix our own errors. These include:

Wrong attribution or a broken or mismatched source link.
Mis-categorization of an item's content type.
Incorrect clustering or merging of unrelated stories.
Outdated or inaccurate event details, such as time or location.
Content mislabeled as the wrong type, such as opinion shown as reported news, or unverified posts shown as confirmed.

Automated summaries

Automated summaries are clearly labeled and can be flagged for editorial review. If a summary is inaccurate or misleading, tell us and an editor can correct or disable it. Summaries are meant to be factual, neutral, and attributed, and are never a substitute for the original reporting.

How to request a correction

Email [operator corrections contact] with a link to the item on LexFeed, a short description of what is wrong, and, if you have it, the correct information or a source. Screenshots help.

What to expect

LexFeed is run by a solo developer, so responses are handled as promptly as possible. We aim to acknowledge correction requests and fix clear errors quickly once we have confirmed them.