Skip to content

Corrections · right of reply · opened 2026-10-01

Tell us which field is wrong

This site publishes records about named people and named offices, and it publishes a list of everything it knows to be wrong with them. If you have found something that is not on that list, this is where it goes — one field at a time, with the document that settles it.

Everything that comes in is logged below with its date, what was claimed, and what happened — including the corrections we refused and the reason we refused them. A correction log that showed only the accepted ones would be an advertisement.

Two different things, kept apart

“This is wrong” and “this is right and I object to it” need different answers, and a single complaint box turns both into the same shrug. Pick the one you mean; they go different ways and both are published.

This field is factually wrong

When it applies: A document says something different from what we published. You can name the document.

What we do: We check it against the document you name. If the document is better than ours, the field changes and the log records both sources — the one we had and the one that replaced it. If we cannot reach your document, or it does not say what the claim says, the field stands and the log records that too, with the reason.

What it will not do: It cannot remove a sourced field because the field is unwelcome. A cited claim changes against a better citation and against nothing else.

The field is accurate, but I object to it

When it applies: What we published is true, and you want it stated that you disagree with publishing it, or with the way it is framed.

What we do: We publish your objection in the log beside our record, in your words, and the record does not change. The log entry says plainly that the record was not disputed on the facts.

What it will not do: It will not take anything down and it will not soften a sourced statement. If you need something removed, say so in the text and name the ground — this route logs an objection, it does not adjudicate one.

What a challenge can move depends on what stands behind the field

Sourced field
Sourced. It changes only against a document at least as good as the one cited beside it, and both citations stay in the log.
A statement about our database
A statement about what our database holds. If our database is wrong, the field is wrong and we can fix it. If our database is right and the world is not, the honest fix is a note, not a silent edit — that is how the two flagged seat values are handled today.
Our reading of a source
Our reading of a cited document, marked as ours wherever it appears. A better reading of the same document changes it, and so does a document that settles the question.

Before you write: 16 things we already know are wrong

This project keeps an inventory of every defect it knows about in its own representatives data — 571 rows measured on 2026-10-01, with 0 writes ever issued to that table from this codebase. 2 of the 16 have a fix written and unapplied. Reporting one of these costs you an evening and tells us nothing new, so here they are first.

That inventory is a floor, not a ceiling. A row that does not appear in it is not a verified row, it is an unexamined one.

  • Wiki markup left in four constituency values ("Nanded]]", "Rowspan=2|Nagaon")4 rowsA visitor can see itFix written, unapplied
  • Sonia Gandhi’s row stores the wrong seat and the wrong state1 rowA visitor can see itNo fix written
  • Raghav Chadha’s row stores the wrong seat and the wrong state1 rowA visitor can see itNo fix written
  • Six seats hold more than one row, and nothing says which is current13 rowsA visitor can see itNo fix written
  • Three further seats duplicated under two spellings each6 rowsA visitor can see itNo fix written
  • Every Rajya Sabha row stores a state name or a Lok Sabha seat in the constituency column, because an upper-house member has no constituency7 rowsA visitor can see itNo fix written
  • Term dates and is_current are NULL on every row, so no row can say anybody is sitting571 rowsA visitor can see itFix written, unapplied
  • 551 Lok Sabha rows for 543 seats, and Wayanad has no row at all551 rowsNot rendered anywhereNo fix written
  • Party is NULL on every row — the placeholder was deleted rather than left to read as fact571 rowsA visitor can see itNo fix written
  • terms_served reads 1 on 536 rows with no source, which is a column default and not a measurement571 rowsNot rendered anywhereNo fix written
  • Age and education on 48 rows with no source; no photographs at all571 rowsNot rendered anywhereNo fix written
  • No verified contact channel for any member571 rowsA visitor can see itNo fix written
  • One as-of date covers four fields of different provenance, and it is the date the row was written571 rowsA visitor can see itNo fix written
  • Social handles on 47 rows with no date of verification571 rowsA visitor can see itNo fix written
  • Three rows name people widely reported as Rajya Sabha members but are filed under Lok Sabha3 rowsA visitor can see itNo fix writtenSuspected, not settled
  • One member appears to be held twice under two spellings of the same name2 rowsA visitor can see itNo fix writtenSuspected, not settled

Each line above is one section of docs/known-data-defects.md in this site’s repository, numbered to match. That document is the full account — what the defect is, how the page handles it today, and what it would take to close. It is not published as a web page, and the numbered list here is the summary rather than a second copy of it.

Submit a correction

One field per submission. If three things on a page are wrong, three submissions get three log entries and three answers; one submission naming three things gets argued about as a whole and resolved as none.

The exact page, so the right record gets fixed. There are 571 record pages and several of them carry similar names.

Grouped by kind of page. If the field is not listed, choose “Something else on the site” and name it below.

Which of the two is it?

What we published, and what it should say instead. If you are the office this page is about and you are objecting rather than correcting, write the objection as you want it published — we publish it in your words, not ours.

Required for a factual correction and not for an objection. A sourced field changes against a better source and against nothing else, so without a link there is nothing for us to weigh. If the document is not online, email it instead — the address is at the foot of this page.

Who is writing?

Without one there is no way to tell you what we did; the log below is then your only answer. An address you give here is stored so the correction can be answered and is never published — the public log has no column that could hold it.

The next page says what actually happened to it — recorded, emailed, or neither. It will not say “thank you” unless one of the first two is true.

The log

The log is empty.

Not “no corrections needed” — empty. It was opened on 2026-10-01 and nobody has submitted anything through it yet. There is no table above this sentence because an empty table with column headings implies a history, and there is no history. The 16 defects listed further up were found by us, and they move into this log as they are closed.

What a log entry carries: the date it arrived, the page and the field, what was claimed, what changed or why it stands, and the date it was resolved. Where a sourced field changed, both citations stay — the one we had and the one that replaced it. No submitter’s name or address appears in any of it.

Who reads this, and how long we have

Grievance Officer, interns.city

admin@interns.city

A shortfall, stated: Rule 3(2)(a) asks for the Grievance Officer’s name as well as the address. Only the office and the address are published here. One person runs this site and answers this address; the name is not withheld for any reason worth defending, and this sentence stands until it is published.

The same address is published at /terms. One person runs this site and reads it.

Acknowledged within 24 hours, resolved within 15 days

Those are not numbers we picked. They are the windows the Intermediary Guidelines set for a grievance, quoted below with the rule they come from. A turnaround a site invents for itself can be revised the week it becomes inconvenient; this one cannot.

Two numbers on this site disagree, and here is which one wins

/terms says a request is acknowledged within 48 hours, resolved within 30 days. The rule allows acknowledged within 24 hours, resolved within 15 days. Where the two differ, the shorter window is the one that binds and the one stated here. The terms page has not been rewritten yet; it is not a file this change touches.