Policy
Corrections
WineHQ publishes a great many specific claims. Some of them will be wrong. This is what happens when one is.
What counts as a correction
A factual error: a regulation stated incorrectly, a grape attributed to the wrong place, a parentage that DNA analysis has since revised, a production method described as universal when it is a choice, a date that the historical record does not support.
Disagreeing with a taste description is not a correction, and neither is disagreeing with a pairing. Those are editorial judgements, and the method that produced them is published so that the disagreement can be a specific one. If a pairing looks wrong, the principles that produced it are named on the page — and if one of those principles is wrong, that is a correction, and a more useful one.
What happens to one
The claim is checked against a source appropriate to its type. A regulatory claim is checked against the instrument, not against another website. A claim about grape identity is checked against the Vitis International Variety Catalogue. A claim about a mechanism is checked against research.
If the source disagrees with the page, the page changes. If the source cannot be reached, that is recorded as a gap rather than resolved by picking whichever version reads better — and unresolved gaps are listed publicly on the coverage page.
Where a correction changes something a reader might have acted on, the record keeps what was previously said and why it was wrong. Silently editing a page and moving on would leave no trace that the site had been mistaken, which is the opposite of what an evidence policy is for. The grape identity ledger works this way already: failed lookups are kept in full alongside successful ones.
How to send one
Email privacy@hekno.co.uk. Naming the page and the specific claim helps; naming a source that contradicts it helps a great deal more.
The most useful correction names the page, quotes the sentence, and cites something that contradicts it. The least useful asserts that the site is wrong without saying about what.
What WineHQ will not do
It will not remove an accurate claim because a producer or a regional body objects to it. It will not add a claim it cannot source because a reader is confident about it. It will not resolve a disputed fact by choosing the version that makes a better page — where authorities disagree, the page says that they disagree.