Last updated: September 2026
Mojini V3 is an independent information website. We publish guides and explainers to help readers understand Mojini-related services, application processes, land-survey terminology, status information, and other related topics.
We are not a government website and do not represent the Government of Karnataka or any government department.
Because information about government services can change, we follow a verification process before publishing important claims.
Our goal is simple:
Give readers information that is useful, traceable, current, and honest about what we know and what we do not know.
1. What We Mean by “Verified”
A fact is considered verified when we have checked it against a reliable source and found enough evidence to support the specific statement we are making.
Verification does not mean that information can never change.
Government portals, application procedures, fees, deadlines, eligibility rules, technical systems, and contact information may change over time. When that happens, an older page can become inaccurate even if it was correct when originally published.
For this reason, we treat verification as an ongoing process rather than a one-time activity.
2. Our Source Hierarchy
We do not treat every website as equally authoritative.
For information about government services, we generally use the following order of preference.
1. Official government sources
These are our primary sources for information about:
- Government services
- Application procedures
- Official forms
- Eligibility requirements
- Fees
- Deadlines
- Government notifications
- Portal functionality
- Official contact information
- Application status systems
- Land and survey services
Whenever possible, we check the relevant government website, department notification, circular, official document, or government-issued publication.
2. Official government documents
We may use:
- Government orders
- Circulars
- Notifications
- PDF documents
- Department manuals
- Official application instructions
- Published rules and guidelines
The date of the document matters. An older document may no longer represent the current process.
3. Primary sources
Where appropriate, we use the original source of the information rather than a website that merely repeats it.
For example, if a website claims that a particular procedure changed, we try to locate the original notification or official source before presenting the change as established fact.
4. Reputable secondary sources
News organisations, established publications, professional resources, and other reliable secondary sources may be used when they provide useful context.
However, we do not automatically treat a secondary article as proof of an official government rule.
5. Other websites
Other informational websites can help us discover topics, terminology, or potential changes.
They are not automatically treated as authoritative sources.
If a claim cannot be confirmed through a reliable source, we avoid presenting it as a confirmed fact.
3. We Check the Original Source
Whenever practical, we try to trace important claims back to their original source.
For example:
Weak verification
Website A says that Mojini applications require X.
Stronger verification
Website A reports that X is required, and the relevant government documentation or official portal also supports the requirement.
The second approach gives readers a clearer basis for understanding the information.
This is particularly important for:
- Fees
- Deadlines
- Eligibility
- Application requirements
- Login procedures
- Government schemes
- Official contact information
- Legal or regulatory information
4. We Check Dates
Government information is often time-sensitive.
Before publishing or updating a time-sensitive claim, we look for:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Effective date
- Application period
- Financial year
- Academic year
- Notification date
- Whether a newer notification has replaced it
We avoid presenting an old deadline or outdated procedure as if it were current.
When a date is important, we try to state it clearly.
For example:
“According to the notification dated [date]…”
is more useful than simply saying:
“The government recently announced…”
5. We Separate Official Information From Our Explanation
We may explain an official process in simpler language.
That explanation is our editorial presentation of the information.
It should not be confused with the official wording of a government department.
Where appropriate, we distinguish between:
Official information
Information published by the relevant government authority.
Our explanation
A plain-language explanation intended to make the official information easier to understand.
Editorial guidance
Practical information based on the available evidence and our understanding of the process.
This distinction helps readers understand what comes directly from an authority and what has been explained by us.
6. We Do Not Pretend to Be an Official Source
Mojini V3 is an independent website.
We do not claim to be:
- A government department
- A government employee
- An official Mojini support centre
- An authorised government representative
- The owner or operator of a government portal
We also do not use government branding or language to make the website appear officially operated when it is not.
When a task must be completed on an official government website, we aim to direct readers to the appropriate official source.
7. We Verify Important Links
Links are part of the information we provide.
Before linking to an important official service, we try to confirm that:
- The destination is relevant
- The domain is appropriate
- The link works
- The destination actually provides the described service
Government websites can change URLs or reorganise their portals.
Therefore, a link that was correct previously may need to be updated later.
If we discover a broken or outdated link, we aim to correct it.
8. We Do Not Treat Search Results as Evidence
Search engines are useful for discovering information.
They are not themselves the authority behind a claim.
A search result, AI-generated answer, snippet, social-media post, or forum discussion may help us locate a potential source, but we do not treat the search result itself as proof.
When an important claim needs verification, we try to open and evaluate the underlying source.
9. We Treat AI as a Tool, Not as a Source
Technology may assist with research, drafting, editing, organisation, or identifying information that needs further checking.
However:
AI-generated text is not considered evidence by itself.
We do not treat an AI answer as an authoritative source for government rules, procedures, dates, fees, eligibility requirements, or other factual claims.
Important information must be checked against appropriate sources.
AI-generated material is also reviewed for:
- Unsupported claims
- Incorrect dates
- Invented details
- Misleading wording
- Missing context
- Outdated information
This is particularly important for government-service content because a confident-looking answer can still be wrong.
10. We Avoid Copying Information Without Adding Value
We do not want Mojini V3 to become a collection of copied government pages or rewritten versions of other websites.
When we use information from another source, our objective is to provide additional value through:
- Clear explanations
- Step-by-step guidance
- Context
- Navigation help
- Practical examples
- Important warnings
- Source attribution
- Updated information
- Better organisation
This also helps us avoid publishing pages that merely repeat information already available elsewhere.
Google’s current Search guidance specifically warns against scaled content and scraping that provide little original value.
11. How We Handle Conflicting Information
Sometimes two sources provide different information.
When this happens, we do not simply choose the statement that is easiest to publish.
We look at:
- Which source is authoritative?
- Which source is newer?
- Is one source an original notification?
- Does the official portal currently show the same information?
- Could the difference apply to different periods, departments, or user categories?
- Is the information actually contradictory, or are the sources describing different situations?
If the conflict cannot be resolved confidently, we say so.
For example:
“Information currently available from different sources is inconsistent. Readers should confirm the requirement with the relevant official department before submitting an application.”
Being transparent about uncertainty is better than presenting an uncertain claim as fact.
12. How We Handle Changes to Government Websites
Government portals can change without much notice.
A page may:
- Move to another URL
- Change its interface
- Add new fields
- Remove an old service
- Change a login process
- Introduce a new application system
- Temporarily become unavailable
When we become aware of a significant change, we review the relevant article or guide.
We may update:
- Screenshots
- Steps
- Links
- Instructions
- Dates
- Service names
- Warnings
- Explanations
13. Our Update Process
When an article is substantially reviewed, we may update its “Last updated” date.
An updated date should represent a meaningful review or change.
We do not change dates simply to make an old article appear new.
A page may be reviewed because:
- A government procedure changed
- An official website changed
- A deadline changed
- A link stopped working
- A source was updated
- A factual error was discovered
- Readers reported a problem
- Additional reliable information became available
14. Corrections Policy
We take factual errors seriously.
If we discover that an article contains incorrect information, we may:
- Correct the statement
- Add missing context
- Update the source
- Replace an outdated link
- Add a correction note when appropriate
- Update the page date when the change is substantial
For significant errors, transparency is more important than quietly changing the page.
If a correction materially changes the meaning of an article, we may explain what was changed.
15. How Readers Can Report an Error
Readers are encouraged to report:
- Incorrect information
- Outdated instructions
- Broken official links
- Incorrect dates
- Incorrect fees
- Misleading wording
- Missing important context
- Changes to government services
When reporting an error, please include:
Page URL
What appears to be incorrect
What you believe is correct
A link or document supporting the correction, if available
This helps us investigate the issue efficiently.
16. What Happens After an Error Is Reported
A reader report does not automatically mean that the reported information is correct.
We review the claim and, where possible, compare it against reliable sources.
The review may involve checking:
- Official websites
- Government notifications
- Official PDFs
- Department instructions
- Current application pages
- Relevant dates
If the evidence supports the correction, we update the article.
If the evidence is unclear, we may add context rather than replacing one uncertain claim with another.
17. Sensitive Information
We apply extra caution to information that could cause financial, legal, privacy, or application-related problems if it is wrong.
Examples include:
- Payment instructions
- Fees
- Government application deadlines
- Eligibility requirements
- Legal requirements
- Identity documents
- Aadhaar-related instructions
- Bank details
- Personal information
- Login credentials
- OTPs
Readers should always verify sensitive instructions with the relevant official authority before taking action.
We will never ask readers to send passwords or OTPs to us.
18. Screenshots and Images
Screenshots can become outdated quickly.
When we use screenshots to explain a website:
- They are intended as visual guidance.
- The current official website may look different.
- Buttons or menu locations may change.
- Screenshots should not be treated as proof that a particular interface is still current.
When a screenshot becomes materially outdated, we aim to replace or remove it.
19. Editorial Independence
Our objective is to help readers understand information.
We do not change factual information simply because a particular version is more convenient, popular, or likely to attract clicks.
We may simplify complicated government terminology, but simplification should not change the underlying meaning.
We also avoid presenting speculation as fact.
20. What We Cannot Guarantee
- Even a careful verification process has limitations.
- Government websites can change after an article has been reviewed.
- Official websites can experience technical problems.
- Information can be published or withdrawn without notice.
- A source can itself contain an error.
- A procedure may differ depending on the applicant, department, location, application type, or time period.
Therefore:
Mojini V3 should be used as an informational resource, not as a substitute for the relevant official authority.
For decisions involving applications, payments, legal requirements, property records, or personal information, readers should confirm the current information through the appropriate official source.
21. Our Verification Checklist
Before publishing an important factual claim, we aim to ask:
Source
- Where did this information come from?
- Is there a primary source?
Authority
- Is the source authoritative for this particular claim?
Date
- Is the information current?
- Has a newer notification replaced it?
Context
- Does the information apply to every user?
- Are there exceptions or different categories?
Accuracy
- Does the source actually support the statement we are making?
Attribution
- Can readers identify where the information came from?
Transparency
- Have we clearly separated official information from our explanation?
Practical safety
- Could a reader lose money, miss a deadline, expose personal information, or make a wrong application decision if this is incorrect?
Review
- Does this page need another review because the information is time-sensitive?
If the answer to an important question is unclear, we investigate further or clearly state the uncertainty.
22. Our Standard for Trust
We believe trustworthy information is not information that sounds certain.
It is information where readers can understand:
What is being claimed.
Where it came from.
When it was checked.
How it was interpreted.
What may have changed.
Where to verify it themselves.
That is the standard we aim to follow across Mojini V3.
In Short
Our fact-checking process follows five principles:
Use primary sources where possible.
Check dates and context.
Explain rather than copy.
Correct errors openly.
Be clear when something is uncertain.
Mojini V3 is an independent information resource. For official records, applications, payments, logins, and government decisions, always use the relevant official government service.
Policy updates
This policy may be updated as our editorial and verification process develops.