accordingto.ca

Facts & Accuracy Policy

Effective April 2025  ·  Applies to all contributors and editorial staff

accordingto.ca publishes opinion. Opinion does not require objectivity — but it does require honesty. Every factual claim that appears in our pages must be true, verifiable, and traceable. This policy sets out how we handle facts, sourcing, errors, and transparency with our readers.

Our baseline standard

What we require of every piece before publication

All factual claims — statistics, dates, attributions, characterizations of what someone said or did — must be accurate and supportable at the time of publication. Opinion writers are entitled to interpret facts and argue from them; they are not entitled to misstate them.

Contributors are responsible for verifying their own facts before submission. The editor reviews factual claims during editing and may flag items for verification or correction. Publication is not a guarantee that every fact has been independently confirmed by the editor — that responsibility remains with the author.

Statistics and data

Numbers require sources

• Any statistic cited in a piece must have an identifiable original source — not a secondary report that cites a secondary report.
• Contributors must be able to produce the source for any cited figure upon request by the editor.
• Where a statistic is contested or methodologically disputed, that context should be noted in the piece. Presenting one side of a contested data debate as settled fact is an accuracy failure.
• Data that has been selectively quoted or stripped of context to imply something the original source does not support will be removed or corrected.

Named individuals

We say what people did and said — not what we imagine they think

accordingto.ca does not defame. Factual claims about named individuals — including public figures — must be accurate. Attributing a position, quote, action, or motivation to a named person requires a verifiable basis. We distinguish clearly between documented fact ("X voted against the bill") and the author's inference or interpretation ("X doesn't care about working people").

• Direct quotes attributed to a named individual must reflect what that person actually said, in a context that does not distort the meaning.
• Paraphrased positions must be fair characterizations of the person's stated or documented views.
• Claims that a named person acted dishonestly, illegally, or in bad faith must be grounded in documented evidence — not inference, reputation, or rumour.

When in doubt about a claim involving a named individual, flag it to the editor before submission, not after.

Sources and attribution

accordingto.ca is an opinion publication — our sourcing rules reflect that

Because we publish opinion and analysis rather than original reporting, the sourcing standard is different from a newsroom. Contributors are not conducting interviews or breaking stories. They are making arguments. Those arguments must rest on a factual record that readers can, in principle, check.

• All factual claims should be attributable to a public, verifiable source — a published study, an official record, a news report, a public statement.
• Opinion pieces at accordingto.ca do not cite unnamed or confidential sources. If a claim cannot be attributed to a verifiable public source, it does not belong in the piece.
• Information drawn from social media — posts, threads, screenshots — must be verified as authentic and accurately represented. The original post should be linkable.
• Social media posts are volatile sources. Contributors should note when a post they have cited has been deleted or modified, and editors may request that the claim be reattributed or removed.

AI-assisted research

Transparency about how a piece was made

We do not prohibit the use of AI tools in the research or writing process. We do require transparency when AI assistance materially shaped a piece.

When disclosure is required

If an AI tool was used to generate, synthesize, or substantially organize the factual claims or argument structure of a piece — not merely to proofread or search — a brief disclosure note will be appended to the article.

AI-generated factual claims carry particular risk. Language models can produce plausible-sounding but false statistics, misattributed quotes, and fabricated sources. Contributors who use AI in research bear full responsibility for independently verifying any AI-generated factual claim before it enters a submission. We will not publish a correction that reads "the AI got it wrong."

Corrections

We correct errors clearly and proportionately

Errors will happen. What matters is how we respond to them. Our corrections standard is tiered by severity.

MinorTypographic errors, wrong dates, small numerical errors with no material effect on the argument.Corrected in the article text with an editor's note appended: "Corrected [date]: [brief description]."SignificantFactual errors that affect the argument, misattributed quotes, misrepresented data, or errors about a named individual.Corrected in the article text with a visible correction notice. Shared on social where the original was promoted.MaterialErrors so fundamental they undermine the piece's central premise, or that expose a named individual to reputational harm.Editor's discretion: may include prominent correction notice, partial retraction, or in rare cases removal of the piece. Author will be notified and may respond.

We do not delete errors silently. A correction notice is the minimum response to any factual error that a reader or subject has brought to our attention in good faith.

Bringing errors to our attention

Readers, subjects, and contributors who believe a factual error has appeared in our pages should contact the editor directly. We take all good-faith accuracy complaints seriously and will respond.

Corrections and accuracy inquiries: editor@accordingto.ca