Why should a heritage website publish corrections?

Show what changed

A heritage article may become a source for a student’s notes, a family-history project or another publication. A correction should therefore explain the changed claim rather than merely leaving different words at the same address. Crossref’s Crossmark guidance provides a publishing model: substantial updates are linked to the work they amend, so a reader can discover a correction or changed status. Applied to a history website, the useful principle is traceability between the earlier claim, the new evidence and the editorial decision. This is a practical comparison, not a claim that this website participates in Crossmark.[1]

Make a specific contribution possible

The Museum of Art & Photography’s phulkari record TXT.00210 explicitly welcomes corrections and alternative suggestions and asks contributors to include the accession number. That reference makes the proposed change addressable: the discussion concerns one record rather than every textile called a phulkari. A useful historical correction likewise identifies the article, passage and supporting source. The museum’s invitation demonstrates a way to receive evidence; it does not mean that every suggestion is accepted or that the record is already wrong.[2]

Distinguish an error from new research

The National Museum of Asian Art dates the provenance research on phulkari S1991.37 to 5 September 2024 and explains that collection information can be revised as research progresses. Retaining that research date helps a reader distinguish the account consulted from a later version. It does not by itself identify an error in an earlier catalogue.[3]

Crossref distinguishes editorially significant changes affecting interpretation or credit from minor spelling and formatting changes. Its guidance also cautions that replacing a record without preserving the update can obscure the scholarly history. A heritage publication can apply that distinction by dating a substantive correction, explaining its consequence and linking the evidence. An updated source link and a revised identification deserve different explanations because they change different parts of the reader’s research trail.[1]