Feedback
If something on this site looks wrong, out of date, or unfair to a candidate, we want to hear it. That is not a courtesy — as we explain on the About page, most of this site is assembled by an AI assistant working from public records, directed by a person, with no independent reviewer. Readers noticing things is the only external check that exists.
Especially worth telling us
- A factual error — a wrong date, figure, ward, file number, or name spelling.
- A misattributed position. If we have put words or a vote against the wrong person, or summarised a position in a way that changes its meaning, that is the most serious thing we can get wrong. Tell us and we will correct it in place.
- A missing development. If something happened on a Core Issue and we haven't logged it, we probably didn't find it — the sources we can and cannot read explain a lot of how that happens.
- A candidate we've missed, or one shown in the wrong race. Nominations closed on August 21, 2026, so the roster is final — if someone is missing, that is our error rather than the calendar's. You don't have to take our word for who's running — the City publishes the official list at mississaugavotes.ca — Who's running, broken out by ward, and it is the authority. If it disagrees with us, it's right and we're wrong.
- An empty record that shouldn't be. If a candidate has said something on the record and we show nothing for them, that is our gap, not theirs.
- Something you can read and we can't. A candidate's Facebook post, an article in the local paper, a document behind a "prove you're human" page. These are invisible to us and ordinary for you — see below.
Lend us your browser
We can read the public record. You can read the web. That difference is the whole of this.
Council minutes, planning notices, the mayoral registers, the official candidate list — those we fetch and re-fetch, and they are where most of this site comes from. But a candidate answering a question on their Facebook page, an article in Metroland, a tribunal document behind a bot challenge: those are closed to us and open to you. Not hidden — just unreachable by the only method we have.
So if you come across something that bears on one of the questions or issues here, use the Feedback link on the page it belongs to. Under every question there is a "Heard an answer to this?" link that opens an email already saying which question it is. Paste the address, what was said, and the date shown on the page.
What happens to what you send
A person reads it and opens your link. If what it says can be corroborated in a record we can reach ourselves, it goes up with its own sources like anything else. If it can only ever rest on a page we cannot open, it goes up marked as exactly that, with a confidence rating to match — or it does not go up.
That is not us doubting you. This site makes claims about named people during an election, and its one defence is that every claim can be traced by a stranger who doesn't trust us. A claim resting on an email we can't verify would break that for every other claim on the site, including the careful ones. So a tip is treated as a lead — it tells us where to look — which is usually the hard part anyway.
What happens to it
Feedback is read by a person, checked against the source, and — if it holds up — the content is corrected and the correction is recorded rather than quietly edited. Where the underlying problem is a repeatable one rather than a one-off, we change the scanning procedure so it cannot happen the same way twice.