Comment by bayindirh
10 hours ago
Yes. Normally, and Ars is generally up to that standard, the editorial staff (or Editor in Chief) updates the article, adds a note about the correction, and further adds that the original author of the article is not working with Ars anymore.
It stays as a mark, immortalizing the error, but it's a better scar than deleting and acting like it never happened.
I also want to note that, this last incident response is not typical of the Ars I'm used to.
> this last incident response is not typical of the Ars I'm used to.
They never really announced Peter Bright leaving ArsTechnica either though. At least not until much much later.
That was a criminal case, though. The court process may have prevented them from talking about it to keep things fair.
I'm not a US citizen and IANAL, so YMMV.
I don't know what you're basing that on.
It seems entirely normal and standard to retract articles and publish a note elsewhere that it was retracted. In fact, it's common because if an article had one fabrication it might have others which you haven't discovered yet, so you don't want to keep it up.
Whether they want to announce that the journalist was fired is up to their discretion. But it's not necessary or even normal.
I don't know why you're talking about a "mark", a "scar", that "immortalizes". That's weird and frankly a little disturbing. The journalist got fired and the article got taken down and a note was made by the editor. That's accountability working as intended. I don't know why you want more than that.
First, I didn't want him to be fired, frankly. I have a comment telling exactly that when this thing happened.
Second, as a reader following Ars for more than 10 (15?, IDK) years, I never seen them abruptly retract an article like this. Their modus operandi is correct and own the corrections. This is what I always said (this is the third time in a comment train).
We all have scars. From a fall, from a cut, physical, emotional, whatnot. You don't need to feel sad, or get disturbed about it. A scar is a life's way of making you remember something. If it's your own making, it makes you remember what not to do. If it's someone else's making, it's makes you remember an unfortunate event you made out alive.
Owning your mistakes by correcting an article and marking it is greater accountability than saying "this has never happened, nothing to see here, move along". I'll not comment further on firing of the author. I don't have enough information on any side, or I don't know them close enough to say anything further than I wish he didn't get fired.
But retracting an article is more serious than making a correction.
The accountability comes from the editor's note. It's there already. It's owned.
You're acting like this is some attempt to bury a mistake. It doesn't appear to be. It's what happens when you don't even have faith that the rest of the article is correct.
No. That can happen but it’s not the only path. An article can be retracted. That said, it’s usually noted somewhere else.
You're right, but I told about what Ars does 99.999% of the time. This is the only exception I see Ars retracts an article and buries it deep like this.