I asked our Readers’ Panel whether publishing corrections hurts or helps our credibility. Only 1% said it hurt, and 88% said that correcting mistakes helped. (10% said they didn’t know.)

That should make the grudging journalists a bit more eager to set the record straight in print.

I also asked if publishing corrections in our anchored spot on page A2 was acceptable. 53% said it was. 25% said all corrections should be published on the front page. 20% said they should run on the page the error was made. The other 10% said they didn’t know or gave another answer.

These responses fit with the data gathered in a survey conducted by the American Society of News Editors in the 1990s. (The link to the data is dead now, unfortunately.) Here’s what I wrote about the ASNE survey in my book:

The 1999 ASNE survey found that 78 percent of people who saw a correction for an error “felt better” about their newspaper. Said one respondent, “Stress accuracy. If there’s a mistake, admit it. People are more likely to believe you. Don’t hide it in small print. Let them know you want them to know your mistakes.”

Remember: Corrections are a good thing. Just ask your readers.

The committee that oversees the Editors' Code of Practice to which the British press subscribes voluntarily has changed the rules governing the publication of corrections.

From next year the prominence of corrections stemming from a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, which oversees press self-regulation in the UK, will have to be agreed with the press watchdog prior to publication.

The Editors' Code Committee has changed Clause 1ii of the code, which covers accuracy, to now say: “A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.

“In cases involving the commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.”

Ian Beales, Code Committee secretary, said: "This amendment is designed to help kill the myth that newspapers and magazines routinely bury corrections.

“Research conducted by the PCC has shown this to be untrue – nearly 85 per cent of PCC-negotiated corrections and apologies appear no further back than the original transgression, or in a designated corrections column.

"It is also the case that most editors already consult with the PCC informally on the position of corrections.

“This change formalises that position in the hope that it will remove one, at least, of the misconceptions about the PCC and the self-regulatory system."

It will be interesting to see how the PCC will link placement to the nature of the error. Will front page errors require front page corrections? I also wonder why the change is necessary if, as Beals said, printed corrections are already receiving fair placement.

The new policy takes effect January 1.

…As of today, Torontoist is implementing a new standard format for all corrections to posts. Any significant corrections or clarifications will be made as quickly as possible, and a note acknowledging them will be written by the editor-in-chief or an assistant editor and will appear as follows at the bottom of a post:

CORRECTION: MAY 29, 2008In the box will be a full explanation of the error made (citing the article’s original words as appropriate), and a full explanation of the correction.

When that error is appended and the correction made, an editor or assistant editor will also post a comment as soon as possible, linking to the correction, so that the comment thread stays up to date (and in context) with the post. Additionally, the tag “corrections” will be added to the post—and a link to that tag will be added, for now, in our top menu. (You can also subscribe to the tag, as you can with any other tag, using RSS.)

For now, we are still getting a feel for how this system will be used. (A—gasp—misplaced apostrophe: less likely to receive a formal correction; a typo—depends; misspelled names: probably; egregious errors: uh, yes.) There may be some growing pains. No matter what, though, the help of our readers will be invaluable in spotting mistakes and fixing them, and we’d love it if you could help report a mistake either by posting a comment or e-mailing an editor privately. (Depending on the severity of the error, private e-mailing allows for more back-and-forth.)

With the new system, we are trying to be transparent; to admit to, highlight, explain, and ultimately own up to our mistakes when we make them and take steps to prevent them from happening again. Our goal is that that process, in addition to making our errors and their corrections more prominent, will also make them more and more rare—and we’ll all be better for it.

Here’s a recent post that includes a correction. The post has a correction box at the bottom, and you can read the editor’s correction comment here. Corrected posts are filed under this tag.