Purpose of the Correction System
A historical atlas must remain open to better evidence.
Historical records, local names, coordinates, buildings, administrative boundaries, translations and online sources can change or be misunderstood. The correction system allows visitors, researchers, custodians, families and local communities to identify a possible error and provide information that may improve a record.
A correction request is not treated as an accusation against a community or previous editor. It is treated as a research contribution that must be checked with the same neutrality and evidence standards used for the original record.
What Can Be Corrected
Corrections may concern identity, content, language, location, references or media.
Name and identity
Wrong person, title, spelling, alternative name, tribe, lineage or relationship.
Historical content
Date, event, biography, burial wording, attribution, destruction, reconstruction or local tradition.
GPS and location
Wrong pin, entrance, building, locality, city, province, map link or confidence level.
Language and script
Urdu, English or Arabic translation, script, grammar, transliteration or missing equivalent meaning.
References
Missing book, incorrect author or page, broken website, stronger academic source or copied claim.
Images and captions
Wrong shrine image, incorrect caption, copyright concern, photographer credit or outdated condition.
What Makes a Useful Submission
Specific evidence can be reviewed more quickly than a general objection.
- Identify the shrine page or permanent shrine code whenever possible.
- Quote or describe the exact statement, name, coordinate, image or classification that may be wrong.
- Explain the proposed correction in clear and respectful language.
- Provide a book title, author, volume or page, academic link, official notice, map link, photograph, signboard, field observation or other relevant evidence.
- State whether the information is personally observed, locally inherited, copied from another source or academically published.
- Provide contact information if the reviewer may need clarification; anonymous submissions may still be considered when evidence is sufficient.
“The map pin points to the cemetery gate, while the shrine building is 180 metres east. Attached are a current photograph, an OpenStreetMap link and the sign visible at the entrance.”
Review Process
No public field is changed immediately after submission.
Submission received
The correction is stored for review and may generate an administrative notification.
Record and evidence compared
The current page, references, GPS history, related records and submitted evidence are examined together.
Independent verification sought
Where necessary, the reviewer checks additional books, maps, institutional sources, photographs or field information.
Editorial decision made
The correction may be accepted, accepted in part, held for more evidence, treated as a distinct tradition, or declined with a reason.
Record updated or returned to review
A material change may update the public record, lower or raise confidence, or move it temporarily to Under Review.
How Competing Claims Are Evaluated
The project does not decide by popularity alone.
A correction is evaluated by relevance, authorship, date, independence, proximity, transparency and consistency. Ten pages repeating one unsourced statement do not outweigh one traceable specialist source simply because the repeated statement is more popular.
Local testimony can be essential for identifying a building, pronunciation, access route or recent event. It is recorded differently from a historical claim about burial, ancestry or an event centuries earlier. Both may be useful, but they do not carry the same evidentiary role.
- Early sources are examined in context rather than quoted selectively.
- Modern academic or institutional research is checked for method and references.
- Map labels are treated as location evidence, not automatic historical proof.
- Photographs confirm visible facts, not every tradition attached to the building.
- Respectful disagreement is preserved when the evidence does not justify one final conclusion.
Possible Review Outcomes
Not every submission results in the same action.
| Outcome | Meaning | Possible action |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | The evidence clearly improves or corrects the record. | Update the relevant fields, references, confidence level or public wording. |
| Partially accepted | Part of the submission is supported, while another part remains uncertain. | Apply the supported correction and preserve a cautious note for the rest. |
| Needs more evidence | The claim is plausible but not yet strong enough for publication. | Keep the submission pending or record it for future research. |
| Alternative tradition | The submission represents a meaningful local or historical position that does not replace the existing account. | Document both positions with clear attribution. |
| Declined | The evidence is irrelevant, unverifiable, copied without source, abusive, promotional or contradicted by stronger evidence. | Make no public change; retain an internal review record where appropriate. |
Urgent and Sensitive Corrections
Some errors require faster handling or restricted visibility.
A serious public risk may justify temporarily hiding a field, image or complete record while the evidence is checked. Temporary removal is a safety measure and does not predetermine the final historical decision.
- A coordinate that may send visitors to a dangerous, private or clearly wrong location.
- Private personal information published without a legitimate research reason.
- An image used without permission or showing the wrong shrine or person.
- Content that is abusive, sectarian, defamatory or likely to create immediate harm.
- A severe identity error that confuses two different people or physical sites.
Contributor Privacy and Attribution
Useful evidence can be credited without exposing unnecessary personal data.
- Names and contact details are used for review and clarification and are not displayed publicly by default.
- A contributor may request public credit for an approved photograph or original field observation.
- Private phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses and identity documents are not published as part of a shrine record.
- Uploaded files may retain an internal record of the submission source, review status and decision.
- Abusive, automated or repeated spam submissions may be limited, rejected or blocked.
Version History and Transparency
Important corrections should not become invisible editorial changes.
Minor spelling or formatting corrections may be applied without a long public note. Significant changes to identity, genealogy, burial wording, category, GPS, verification level or publication status should remain traceable through an administrative history, revision note or future version record.
The project may correct a published page without preserving every obsolete error publicly, but it should retain enough internal evidence to explain why a major decision changed.
The objective is not to defend the first version of a record. The objective is to preserve a transparent path toward the best-supported version currently available.