Editor’s Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

We are reinforcing our editorial standards following this incident.

See full article...

 

[SomewhereAroundBarstow]

But you knew better.

Um... tell us you knew better?

I, uh, did know better. Although I am pretty sure at one job we may have jointly agreed to push a critical, but low-risk, fix straight to prod. That would have been 20ish years ago and things get fuzzy.

It wasn't the one I brought the site down with because we ran that through Dev and Staging to make sure it wasn't going to bring the site down. Then it brought the site down because a guy who had just left the company either wrote bad documentation or completely changed which server a particularly resource-heavy script ran on without updating the documentation. If he hadn't already left he might well have been fired for that.

 

[ZippyPeanut]

I think a lot of people don't understand how much of an outlier The New Yorker's editorial process is. I consider myself lucky that I ever had a job where what I wrote was looked over by a copy editor. A fact checker would have been a total fantasy.

And it's getting worse, even (if not especially) with the academic book publishers, like many university presses. At many publishers, proofreading is entirely gone. And copyediting is becoming a thing of the past. But literacy and attention spans (and therefore serious reading) are on the decline, and printed books (in a post-truth, post-literate world) no longer hold such a strong authoritative status they once held. Consequently, budgetary restraints sometime necessitate eliminating proofreading or copyediting (and let's not even talk about indexing).

But, IMO, all professional, published writing should be copyedited.

 

[lordcheeto]

Not being snarky, answering honestly: an excuse is something that makes an action okay, once you understand the excuse. An explanation gives you the why, but that why isn't sufficient to excuse the bad action taken.

For example, "I was drunk when I wrecked my car" is an explanation, but it's not an excuse.

"I had COVID brain fog when I used ChatGPT as a primary source" is, similarly, an explanation--but not an acceptable excuse. Particularly not from a reporter who we're supposed to be trusting to objectively analyze the technology in the first place. That analysis clearly wasn't objective enough, and here we are.

I do have sympathy for Benj feeling enormous pressure to get that piece out, and do it that day. I've got personal experience of that pressure, and it's very real. That's also the Writers' Guild's job to address, and it's still not sufficient mitigation to excuse pumping ChatGPT slop into an article.

Again, I wish Benj well, I don't think this is or even necessarily should be a career ending mistake. But it's definitely not the kind of mistake you get no serious consequences from. And on Ars' side of the equation, there has to be a realization of what message the readers and subscribers AND authors take from this only getting a slap on the wrist.

There's no getting out of this without sending a message. Another commenter earlier pointedly said they would unsubscribe if Benj doesn't keep his job... Which should just make clear that fence sitting isn't going to work. Ars needs to decide what message it's going to send, and then send that message clearly.

And I sincerely hope that clear, unambiguous message is "this is absolutely not acceptable behavior, best of luck at your next job." I'm perfectly fine with the old "we'd like your resignation letter by $date" dodge.

I say none of this out of a spirit of vindictiveness. I say it because this site and this community is important to me.

It's been important to me for more than half my life now, and this is a watershed moment that will unavoidably shape what Ars is. And I do not want it to be the kind of place where you're wondering just how much slop went into an article, and you have to wonder that, because you've seen management tolerate it even when it's this dead-to-rights obvious.

The trouble arises when that 3rd-person distinction between "does this excuse their actions or explain them" is applied to an empathetic mental model of their 1st-person actions in whether they are "making excuses or accepting responsibility while providing an explanation".*

As for the message to send, my concern is that sort of dodge would be easy but leave foundational issues with the team processes untouched, and I want there to be some introspection from leadership as part of the analysis.

* I don't think I'm explaining this very well, so if what I'm saying doesn't make sense, disregard.

 

[jhesse]

My understanding is that for "forgivable sins" mods will issue temporary bans so the user can cool down a little and think about what they did (think of it as a virtual naughty step). However, there are certain things/behaviours that mods take a very dim view of and that will get you permanently kicked to the kerb. Going back to previous/old articles and making posts questioning the correctness of them after the fact is one of those things. It'll be considered a form of brigading and results in lots of extra work for mods in having to keep track of comments in old threads that are usually all but dead. I'm too lazy to actually look it up, but I'm pretty sure it's part of the "house rules" and if not it's definitely just "etiquette" not to.

Not really an issue if reading article comments through front page here, but many forums will (depending on your settings) float threads with the newest comments to the top.
Thread necromancy is quite annoying if it is an "I agree" or "where get?"-type post and downright aggravating when there are pages full of this. You better have damn good post content to resurrect old threads, and this wasn't that.

 

[Snarky Robot]

I say none of this out of a spirit of vindictiveness. I say it because this site and this community is important to me.

It's been important to me for more than half my life now, and this is a watershed moment that will unavoidably shape what Ars is. And I do not want it to be the kind of place where you're wondering just how much slop went into an article, and you have to wonder that, because you've seen management tolerate it even when it's this dead-to-rights obvious.

I legitimately miss feeling that way about Ars. It’s why I’m back, temporarily, to discuss this. It’s so, so vital to get this right. Because there were two things that made me spend years on here: the journalism and the commentariat. I don’t think the latter survives without the former. Even if this is a community that can keep a thread about Google being criticized for YEARS by posting ponies and FDK, I don’t think it stays if the journalism ceases to be sufficiently trustworthy.

It was legitimately infuriating to hear about. Especially since I didn’t see the original story on Ars. By the time I learned about the article, it was deleted and there was no acknowledgement it had happened. I felt affronted! I’m not really a part of this community anymore, I don’t owe any allegiance to Ars and I was mad on behalf of the memory of how this place felt.

I tend to think you’re right about what needs to happen. Not vindictively, not angrily, but out of a need to make sure that there’s accountability and trust going forwards. And to protect the community of people who come here to discuss tech news written by people who care about integrity as much as they do. This community has, when it’s at its best, an immune system, one that keeps the comments as clean and functioning as possible. That doesn’t work if the staff isn’t pulling in the same direction, I don’t think.

 

[Jolyon]

It wouldn't make me sad to see Condé Nast appoint an ombudsman. If there's not money for that kind of thing for Ars, then maybe overseeing all of its brands. Mistakes are going to happen, and I understand the economic reality that dictates that we're not likely to see this kind of thing caught by a copy editor. So it'd be nice to see Condé Nast put their money where their mouth is when it comes to journalistic ethics, and not just have some flowery prose on a business principles website about "responsible, independent and accurate journalism" (https://businessprinciples.condenast.com). I'll keep on trusting Ars to be where I want to read. And I'll hope Ars's parent steps up and puts visible effort into protecting its brand, and laying out its approach to "real" writing in the age of AI-generated slop.

 

[marsilies]

Benj's literal job at Ars has been to familiarize himself with the blossoming AI trend and to investigate the technologies, companies, and products flooding the Web and meatspace alike.
Him having and attempting to use a new citation tool is 100% something that's explicable as part of his job covering the AI beat. I expect he was early to find the citation-maker and was going to investigate it for a write-up, the same way he reviews new versions of those image gens. Hell we have Lee Hutchinson writing an article about his experience vibe-coding. Actually using the tools is what's necessary to separate out original content from churnalism mills that merely rehash press releases or round up Tweets and call it reporting. How many times have Arsians complained that some gadget roundup didn't include Ars writers testing the widget in question? We have to be consistent in expecting hands-on experience with the products and services Ars covers or they're no better than those innumerable slop sites that just aggregate Amazon reviews and call it a "guide."

Things started going wrong, in his explanation, when the tool failed to run.

This started to go wrong when use used an AI tool to work on an actual article he was intending to publish.

I can understand experimenting with or testing a new AI tool. However, that experimenting and/or testing needs to be done on proper test material. He could've tested it with a hypothetical article subject, or better yet, using a past article subject, to see how good it is in comparison with his previous manual work, without the output having any potential to appear as part of an actual article, at least on its own. As with the vibe-coding article, the AI needs to be restricted to a test case within the article, not "tested" by "helping" with an actual article he's writing to be published.

 

[ChronoReverse]

I understand the calls to not be bloodthirsty but that's not really what's going on here in the first place and frankly bad faith to keep calling out people for that. Rather it's What are the grounds for dismissal? And specifically, for a journalist.


I was part of the original discussion thread so I experienced the full play-by-play of what happened from the perspective of a reader. At this point I'm still in the wait-and-see state but I can potentially accept either outcome if the explanation is sufficient and consistent.

And it would need to very sufficient and completely consistent. I don't think some people realize the gravity of what has happened for a journalist as well as for this site because it required the misquoted person to come in to state it that this was caught.


In some ways there may be some good coming out of this happening because it has shed light on the fact this happened at all and that this processes didn't catch it.

 

[Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov]

People here need to calm the eff down and stop calling for someone to be fired. It was a lapse in judgement once and not malicious. Stop calling for heads to roll. I expect if people here calling for this were in the same situation they wouldn't be so fast to call for someone to lose their job.

What's your solution? Ars isn't a small business operation. It's a site that millions of people rely on for news. It's a newspaper organization. It has special protections by law, specifically against disclosing sources. These protections and the site's reach require it to hold itself to a higher standard.

No one here is calling for Benjy's blood... they are desperate to save journalism. Every time something like this happens, it drives yet another nail in the coffin for journalism. I believe that he made an unintended error. But I don't see how Ars can move on without making an example out of him.
If you do, I'm all ears.

 

[Sarty]

While you are absolutely entitled to your opinions I find it particularly bold for non-subscribers like yourselves to disparage paying readers' opinions on this. You have no skin in this game.

You say "non-subscribers". I say "former subscribers". For a reason.

 

[marsilies]

The rules state the AI authored content is not allowed. He thought he was using AI to help in research, not in authorship. From all that we know, Benj did not submit an article knowing that it had been written in part or in whole by AI, nor did he submit an article knowing that it contained false statements.

He knowingly submitted an article that contained the output of an AI. He claims he copied from the wrong window, from ChatGPT instead of the Claude tool, but even if the Claude tool is supposed to produce "verbatim" quotes, it was on him to double check those supposed "quotes."

This is the problem with using AI "tools" at any point of the article writing process. You can't trust it, and you can't trust yourself to make sure you've kept the AI outputs cleanly separated.

 

[SomewhereAroundBarstow]

Perhaps the lurker has been debating whether this bloodthirsty community is one he wants to pay to join?

I'm kind of feeling the other way personally. I lurked for a long time in part because it was clear if I commented I'd occasionally get my ass handed to me on a plate, and since de-lurking that has definitely happened.

Sometimes I deserved it, sometimes I thought the hander was avoiding examining their own assumptions and biases. But either way I've been feeling that like John Cleese I probably should be paying for the argument and honestly what I'm getting out of the comments on this story just makes me feel even more that way.

The last few years brought way too much change to my life and I've been running on a very lean budget but I'm starting to have income again and it might be time to pony up for Ars. Maybe less because of the quality of the writing than because of the quality of discussion that comes out of the writing. If "subscriptor" finally appears under my name it is in no way to be taken as an endorsement of the way this brouhaha has been handled, or the lapses that allowed it to happen in the first place.

 

[Thad Boyd]

People here need to calm the eff down and stop calling for someone to be fired. It was a lapse in judgement once and not malicious. Stop calling for heads to roll. I expect if people here calling for this were in the same situation they wouldn't be so fast to call for someone to lose their job.

Yeah, what does Jim Salter know about what it's like to be a writer for Ars Technica, anyway?

 

[Thad Boyd]

I legitimately miss feeling that way about Ars. It’s why I’m back, temporarily, to discuss this.

sup

 

[GlockenspielHero]

May I suggest a qualifier? An excuse is something that makes something seem okay, but may or may not represent reasonable justification for the choice made.

Back in the military we used to talk about "reasons, not excuses". Bad thing $X happened and it's your fault- you can't use other problem $Y as an excuse.

But it's critical to understand the reason $Y caused the bad thing, because it's quite possibly systematic and even if it's still your fault steps need to be taken to prevent other people from doing the same wrong action.

I'd like the after action writeup to spend a lot more time on the reason this happened than beating up on Benj- he made a bad mistake and I'll leave it up to his bosses if it's a job ending one. But why did this happen? Was it an unreasonable deadline or having him write when too sick to do so? That's on Ars Technica- they need to take that step back, look at the process and ask what they might have done to promote the environment that this happened.

 

[eightycc]

There are now 21 (and counting) pages of comments in this thread, and I've read them all. There is certainly a fair bit of pitchfork waving going on, and I'm guilty of waving one or two myself. Examining my own motivations, I can see that they're not entirely pure. So let me explain.

I've been harboring a simmering dislike of anything with a Benj Edwards' byline for several months now. AI, or I should say the people and businesses behind AI, have been doing material damage to one of things I enjoy most in my life, programming. My value as a dedicated and skilled programmer, earned through many long years of diligent study and work, is being debased by a pack of money-mad snake oil salesmen. When I've come to Ars lately, I've found Benj's byline and idiot grin attached to yet another uncritical piece about the latest soul sucking AI product. It's made me mad, it's made me feel ill, but I've kept it to myself.

Now this controversy comes along with Benj in the middle of it, and I'm thinking, "Serves you right." And, I'm ashamed to say, has given me a reason to pile on with glee.

Benj deserves his day in court, so to speak. Whatever the outcome, I hope he learns from this incident.

I also hope that if Ars does decide to keep him on, that he is never allowed to write about AI again.

 

[Ozy]

What's your solution? Ars isn't a small business operation. It's a site that millions of people rely on for news. It's a newspaper organization. It has special protections by law, specifically against disclosing sources. These protections and the site's reach require it to hold itself to a higher standard.

No one here is calling for Benjy's blood... they are desperate to save journalism. Every time something like this happens, it drives yet another nail in the coffin for journalism. I believe that he made an unintended error. But I don't see how Ars can move on without making an example out of him.
If you do, I'm all ears.

What's worse, someone making and admitting a mistake, one you yourself call 'unintended', or someone else with an admitted lack of objectivitity continuing to cover a topic with kid gloves to preserve 'access'?

Where does the example truly need to be made?

 

[Cloudgazer]

One of the problems is: if it remains up, how do you prevent world+dog from continuing to reference it, and AI's to keep reading it forever - conveniently skipping the "Redacted" part in the top?

I would have liked an "archived" version of the article, but in a very fast-paced world I absolutely understand and encourage the removal of the article. I honestly think robots and deep links would keep it alive "forever" if not removed from the main Ars article database.

If kept for honesty and historical purposes it should be moved to the forums, or stored as screenshots, or some other thing that removes it as an available "article".

I don't think there's any point trying to protect AI from incorrect data, they will generate incorrect results even from correct data.

 

[Sarty]

I understand the calls to not be bloodthirsty but that's not really what's going on here in the first place and frankly bad faith to keep calling out people for that. Rather it's What are the grounds for dismissal? And specifically, for a journalist.

For those commentators who are denouncing what they see as torches and pitchforks, it's important to understand that the he-must-be-fired brigade do not necessarily see this as a question of punishment. Rather, it is: is Benj Edwards fit for purpose? Is he able to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of an Ars Technica journalist on February 17, 2026 and beyond?

These duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, drawing in traffic (paid and unpaid) through trustworthiness and professionalism. We've seen many readers express their concern about ending their subscriptions. Would you really bother to ever click on a Benj Edwards article again? Duties and responsibilities apparently included joint writing projects with other Ars journalists. If you worked for Ars, would you ever share a byline with Mr. Edwards?

The answers to these questions, to my mind, are an unfortunate but utterly deserved "hell no".

 

[trevor_darley]

I say none of this out of a spirit of vindictiveness. I say it because this site and this community is important to me.

It's been important to me for more than half my life now, and this is a watershed moment that will unavoidably shape what Ars is. And I do not want it to be the kind of place where you're wondering just how much slop went into an article, and you have to wonder that, because you've seen management tolerate it even when it's this dead-to-rights obvious.

Huh, I just realized Ars has been important to me for almost exactly half my life (12/24 years). I always told myself I'd subscribe when I achieved solid financial footing, but if Ars upholds its standards and eliminates the possibility of AI creeping into articles again, I'll make room in my budget to support Ars' mission* right away. On the other hand, if Ars decides to become a slop peddler by tolerating AI-generated content from its writers, I'll buy a smaller** subscription as a parting thank-you while I search for a replacement.

*with a Pro++ subscription to help make up for my backlog of free reading over the years
**most likely a years' Pro+ because I'm still very grateful for Ars even if it crashes and burns at this crucial point

 

[butcherg]

There are now 21 (and counting) pages of comments in this thread, and I've read them all. There is certainly a fair bit of pitchfork waving going on, and I'm guilty of waving one or two myself. Examining my own motivations, I can see that they're not entirely pure. So let me explain.

I've been harboring a simmering dislike of anything with a Benj Edwards' byline for several months now. AI, or I should say the people and businesses behind AI, have been doing material damage to one of things I enjoy most in my life, programming. My value as a dedicated and skilled programmer, earned through many long years of diligent study and work, is being debased by a pack of money-mad snake oil salesmen. When I've come to Ars lately, I've found Benj's byline and idiot grin attached to yet another uncritical piece about the latest soul sucking AI product. It's made me mad, it's made me feel ill, but I've kept it to myself.

Now this controversy comes along with Benj in the middle of it, and I'm thinking, "Serves you right." And, I'm ashamed to say, has given me a reason to pile on with glee.

Benj deserves his day in court, so to speak. Whatever the outcome, I hope he learns from this incident.

I also hope that if Ars does decide to keep him on, that he is never allowed to write about AI again.

Oh, he's precisely who I'd like to hear from about this AI experience. Someone who has been burned by over-reliance, someone who puts his actual name on the line.

 

[Thad Boyd]

There are now 21 (and counting) pages of comments in this thread, and I've read them all. There is certainly a fair bit of pitchfork waving going on, and I'm guilty of waving one or two myself. Examining my own motivations, I can see that they're not entirely pure. So let me explain.

I've been harboring a simmering dislike of anything with a Benj Edwards' byline for several months now. AI, or I should say the people and businesses behind AI, have been doing material damage to one of things I enjoy most in my life, programming. My value as a dedicated and skilled programmer, earned through many long years of diligent study and work, is being debased by a pack of money-mad snake oil salesmen. When I've come to Ars lately, I've found Benj's byline and idiot grin attached to yet another uncritical piece about the latest soul sucking AI product. It's made me mad, it's made me feel ill, but I've kept it to myself.

Now this controversy comes along with Benj in the middle of it, and I'm thinking, "Serves you right." And, I'm ashamed to say, has given me a reason to pile on with glee.

Benj deserves his day in court, so to speak. Whatever the outcome, I hope he learns from this incident.

I also hope that if Ars does decide to keep him on, that he is never allowed to write about AI again.

And see, I share your opinion of AI but I like Benj. Not for his AI coverage but for his retro gaming journalism.

But I think Jim Salter has posted a series of well-thought-out posts (before being bounced from the thread, lol) making the case for why this should be a fireable offense and, with nothing personal at all against Benj, I think Jim is right. I think this can be an opportunity for Benj to discuss what went wrong and learn from his mistake, but I think he should do it somewhere else.

But, y'know, it's not like I get a vote or anything. That's just, like, my opinion, man.

 

[Thad Boyd]

What's worse, someone making and admitting a mistake, one you yourself call 'unintended', or someone else with an admitted lack of objectivitity continuing to cover a topic with kid gloves to preserve 'access'?

Where does the example truly need to be made?

I think that's a fair point, but both things can be a problem.

 

[shadedmagus]

For those commentators who are denouncing what they see as torches and pitchforks, it's important to understand that the he-must-be-fired brigade do not necessarily see this as a question of punishment. Rather, it is: is Benj Edwards fit for purpose? Is he able to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of an Ars Technica journalist on February 17, 2026 and beyond?

These duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, drawing in traffic (paid and unpaid) through trustworthiness and professionalism. We've seen many readers express their concern about ending their subscriptions. Would you really bother to ever click on a Benj Edwards article again? Duties and responsibilities apparently included joint writing projects with other Ars journalists. If you worked for Ars, would you ever share a byline with Mr. Edwards?

The answers to these questions, to my mind, are an unfortunate but utterly deserved "hell no".

Well, Benj wouldn't be the first author I just don't click on at Ars anymore. But at least he isn't one "with an admitted lack of objectivity continuing to cover a topic with kid gloves to preserve 'access,'" as @Ozy said earlier. That one I just skip right by, every time.

 

[graylshaped]

I'm kind of feeling the other way personally. I lurked for a long time in part because it was clear if I commented I'd occasionally get my ass handed to me on a plate, and since de-lurking that has definitely happened.

Sometimes I deserved it, sometimes I thought the hander was avoiding examining their own assumptions and biases. But either way I've been feeling that like John Cleese I probably should be paying for the argument and honestly what I'm getting out of the comments on this story just makes me feel even more that way.

The last few years brought way too much change to my life and I've been running on a very lean budget but I'm starting to have income again and it might be time to pony up for Ars. Maybe less because of the quality of the writing than because of the quality of discussion that comes out of the writing. If "subscriptor" finally appears under my name it is in no way to be taken as an endorsement of the way this brouhaha has been handled, or the lapses that allowed it to happen in the first place.

I draw energy from debate, and consider disagreement an opportunity to gain information; I also consider polemics for the sake of polemics a waste of time, and usually people who use words like "polemic" are pompous ideologues projecting their own tendentious intransigence onto others.

It's a trait I have, and I don't always control it well. But I do try

 

[Sphex]

While you are absolutely entitled to your opinions I find it particularly bold for non-subscribers like yourselves to disparage paying readers' opinions on this. You have no skin in this game.

So, only paying customers have a right to slop-free articles, or to an opinion on Ars's journalistic standards? Glorious Ars Subscribers vs. Filthy Non-Subscriber Heathens, is that it?

 

[HoorayForEverything]

I've seen a fair number of comments on here and even more so on BlueSky about Ars imposing deadlines and making Benj work when ill. I don't think this is the case at all.

Firstly, over many many years on Ars, we have relitigated the pace of news here many many times, and the consensus has always been that subscribers actually appreciate Ars taking a little longer to produce the right article and we are happy to wait. And there are frequent examples where a complex story like this one would not be covered until days later.

So I absolutely do not believe Ars pressured Benj into anything on a time basis. And that is why I went postal on here when Berger posted churnalism straight up with the intention of "adding detail later." It's just not what Ars does.

Secondly, there was a second author, which is pretty unusual even on major stories, so that's another factor which takes load off Benj.

It's not actually why I left though; I left because the comments were a creeping disaster and nothing much was happening with that issue. Moderation has been MUCH better lately so I was thinking of coming back, but I do need to be convinced this kind of thing is not going to happen again and Ars is going to return to taking time to report the right news at the right pace.

 

[Snark218]

Yeah, what does Jim Salter know about what it's like to be a writer for Ars Technica, anyway?

Was gonna say….

 

[graylshaped]

Back in the military we used to talk about "reasons, not excuses". Bad thing $X happened and it's your fault- you can't use other problem $Y as an excuse.

But it's critical to understand the reason $Y caused the bad thing, because it's quite possibly systematic and even if it's still your fault steps need to be taken to prevent other people from doing the same wrong action.

I'd like the after action writeup to spend a lot more time on the reason this happened than beating up on Benj- he made a bad mistake and I'll leave it up to his bosses if it's a job ending one. But why did this happen? Was it an unreasonable deadline or having him write when too sick to do so? That's on Ars Technica- they need to take that step back, look at the process and ask what they might have done to promote the environment that this happened.

Back in the not-military, I had a senior exec who was extremely hands-on, and he would routinely send me a text if he stumbled on something that needed fixing. I would usually follow up with a "here's what happened" note, and after the third time that happened my phone rang immediately, and he told me "I know you're just giving me the background, but I have to tell you it can come across like an excuse."

I said "I hear you."

The next day--I swear he went looking for something--he sent me a text on a minor issue and I replied "Got it--I'll take care of it."

He called again immediately and said "That's the response I'm looking for. Thanks." He honestly didn't care about what led to the failure. He just wanted it fixed. Any diagnostics and recurrence prevention were assumed to be something I would do. without having to pester him with picayune stuff.

Ars doesn't owe us an after-action on their internal workings. Ars has an opportunity to share with us what they have learned as part of damage recovery. A VERY important part.

 

[DerHabbo]

I've seen a fair number of comments on here and even more so on BlueSky about Ars imposing deadlines and making Benj work when ill. I don't think this is the case at all.

Firstly, over many many years on Ars, we have relitigated the pace of news here many many times, and the consensus has always been that subscribers actually appreciate Ars taking a little longer to produce the right article and we are happy to wait. And there are frequent examples where a complex story like this one would not be covered until days later.

So I absolutely do not believe Ars pressured Benj into anything on a time basis. And that is why I went postal on here when Berger posted churnalism straight up with the intention of "adding detail later." It's just not what Ars does.

Secondly, there was a second author, which is pretty unusual even on major stories, so that's another factor which takes load off Benj.

It's not actually why I left though; I left because the comments were a creeping disaster and nothing much was happening with that issue. Moderation has been MUCH better lately so I was thinking of coming back, but I do need to be convinced this kind of thing is not going to happen again and Ars is going to return to taking time to report the right news at the right pace.

Based on Benj Edward's own statement, it's entirely possible he did not disclose he was COVID+ and decided to work as normal. I know I've been there when I was COVID+ in a WFH context. With the retraction and apology, the rest is just an internal matter.

 

[Snark218]

So why did Jim Salter get bounced? There’s usually a moderator note when that happens. Possibly I missed it. Possibly.

 

[Meathim]

Based on Benj Edward's own statement, it's entirely possible he did not disclose he was COVID+ and decided to work as normal. I know I've been there when I was COVID+ in a WFH context. With the retraction and apology, the rest is just an internal matter.

This is my assumption.

 

[Carno]

For those commentators who are denouncing what they see as torches and pitchforks, it's important to understand that the he-must-be-fired brigade do not necessarily see this as a question of punishment. Rather, it is: is Benj Edwards fit for purpose? Is he able to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of an Ars Technica journalist on February 17, 2026 and beyond?

These duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, drawing in traffic (paid and unpaid) through trustworthiness and professionalism. We've seen many readers express their concern about ending their subscriptions. Would you really bother to ever click on a Benj Edwards article again? Duties and responsibilities apparently included joint writing projects with other Ars journalists. If you worked for Ars, would you ever share a byline with Mr. Edwards?

The answers to these questions, to my mind, are an unfortunate but utterly deserved "hell no".

I agree. He has damaged the brand and his outputs going forward will no longer increase revenue, they will reduce it. Why would a business keep paying someone who reduces their revenue when he’s supposed to be increasing it?

Especially when trust is SUCH a huge factor. Trust that the journalist is being impartial, trust that the journalist has done their due diligence, trust that the journalist has looked at something from all angles, and these days, trust that the journalist hasn’t embedded fecal matter into their product. I’m tired of being force fed AI slop everywhere else, I just don’t have any more energy to try to deduce whether this individual has stealth fed us all fecal matter.

He only got caught because the person quoted called it out; that’s the ONLY reason. How much slop has he fed us before and how would we know if he does it in the future? In my mind it’s not worth it, I’m just going to skip his articles. He wasn’t much of a journalist before this incident, anyway.

 

[Aurich]

So why did Jim Salter get bounced? There’s usually a moderator note when that happens. Possibly I missed it. Possibly.

Two tips people may or may not know:

1) If you click on the little meeple icon on people's posts it will show you everything they posted in a thread

2) When we eject people there now a notice on their post, and it remains even after the eject expires. It will explain the reason, the length etc (this is why the tool tip thing on mobile isn't really an issue for ejects, there's always a clearly visible message on the actual post itself with any browser)

For convenience here is that post, and the explanation I left:

Edit: It was just pointed out to me that the meeple icon is only in the forum view, you need to use that instead of the front page comment view to see it.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

So, just to get the facts straight: Your take is that nobody is assming responsibility here, and nobody is attempting to fix this? Including the person who made the mistake? Seriously?

Additionally: the quotes were fake but the core matter of the stort remained intact. How is that "scratched the shit out of" level of damage?

I got my car back. The scratch is gone. I got an apology. The only thing that remains is the mob outside the workshop that - on somebody alses behalf - is demanding blood be spilled to satisfy their basic instincts.

F*ck man; even the original victim of the misquotes is having a laugh over this now, admitting that no material facts were misrepresented, and that the story has given much more positive exposure than he could have ever dreamed of.

Where is the damage you speak of - other than in the mob of sealions in front of the workshop?

See why analogies don't always work? You said I said something I didn't say. I'm not "demanding blood be spilled."

Here, I'll be more direct.

Instead of acknowledging and correcting the mistake, which is the standard response to a mistake in a publication, Ars has decided to bury the mistake. They didn't say who made the mistake. They removed the original article, contents and byline, so I didn't even know what the fuck it was about, what the mistake was, or who made it. That's the opposite of taking responsibility.

If the fake quotes were the only issue, as you claim, and the rest of the piece still has value, why aren't you mad that they removed it entirely? They should have removed the incorrect quotes, adding a note that they were removed but a previous version contained made up quotes attributed to someone who had to reach out and correct them. If Ars has no confidence that any of the article is valid, well researched, verifiable, etc. then the correct thing to do is to remove the bullshit quotes, leave the rest of it for posterity, but start with a very prominent note from the editor explaining the situation, the issues that were found, and that it's being left there for transparency.

And I know Ars knows this is not the standard way to handle a mistake or update to an article because I have seen them add to articles with a note about additions, like you're supposed to.

The damage is to the trust readers have for Ars. We trust that Ars isn't going to publish purely made up bullshit. We trust that they will make every effort to verify what they write and they follow-up with updates if new information comes to light.

 

[Thad Boyd]

So why did Jim Salter get bounced? There’s usually a moderator note when that happens. Possibly I missed it. Possibly.

Edited a quote back on page 16.

You can probably guess my opinion on that decision.

 

[AbidingArs]

So why did Jim Salter get bounced? There’s usually a moderator note when that happens. Possibly I missed it. Possibly.

You did - this post has the ejection notice and Aurich mentioned it in this post as well. There may be some irony of getting ejected for modifying a quote in this comment thread but we'll need Alanis to chime in to be sure.