Editor’s Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
adrianovaroli
Ars Tribunus Militum
Well there are also the other villagers saying "I'm not sure forging quotes in a journalistic piece is such a big deal". I mean they are there. You omitted those, somehow.
(BTW I'm on camp let's just wait a moment. I do hope Ars does more than just this announcement.)
Upvote
15
(23
/
-8)
I use these Threadreader links, since they're not directly to Twitter/X, and compile the thread in a more readable manner.
The Trust Thermocline:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588115310124539904.html
And the follow-up thread on The Trust Thermocline:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588148634662707200.html
Upvote
28
(28
/
0)
Whether or not it's ironic for a former Ars journalist who has been describing why posting something a person didn't say as a direct quote is a violation of journalistic standards to be ejected for doing exactly that...
Or for a publication to punish one of its users for doing something that they haven't (publicly at least) disciplined one of their journalists for doing, in the comments for the retraction of the story the journalist might need to be disciplined for...
I have to say that it might be the funniest reason to get ejected from this discussion.
Upvote
51
(56
/
-5)
I might be showing my age, but I remember buying a book called the "internet yellow pages" around 1995, that was a listing of different websites, with a short summary of why we should visit that page. I almost think it'll be cool if an updated book could be published.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
Resistance
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
To expand, it would be reasonable for you to claim it is hyperbole, heck I might even agree with you.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect any action will placate everyone here. Clearly, some people who are not invested in the situation at all beyond anonymous commentary won't be happy until the authors of the retracted piece are jobless and blackballed from the entire industry, so I definitely believe and acknowledge they won't be happy with Benj being put on unpaid leave. I was speaking on my opinion, which is that unpaid leave would be more than enough to satisfy my concerns of adequate punishment and 'restore' faith in Ars, such as it is needed. I also think any reasonable person would agree that that is sufficient in terms of "should we abandon Ars wholesale".
Other viewpoints obviously exist, but I don't think Ars need concern themselves with that group; certainly anyone calling for an author's head or bemoaning the death of an entire publication after what appears to be a first-time mistake, followed by a full retraction by Ars merely 2 hours later, without having access to all the relevant information (or, in many cases here, straight up ignoring the facts of the situation they are privy to) is definitely not to be heeded.
I am reserving my own final judgment until we know more or at least until Ars has had more time to investigate and publish a follow-up statement or article on what happened in more detail, but things would have to sway in a very unexpected direction at this point for me to take such issue with Ars or Benj that I cancel my subscription or stop reading them altogether. I will likely still subscribe to Ars regardless of whether Benj remains on their payroll, given the facts that the public is currently privy to.
Edit - correct one instance of 'paid leave' to 'unpaid leave'. Oops.
Upvote
-7
(17
/
-24)
Or instead of linking to a machine roll-up of a threaded paraphrase that somebody wearing animal ears posted to Xitter, you could link to the article they were paraphrasing:
The Trust Thermocline
Upvote
-18
(0
/
-18)
adrianovaroli
Ars Tribunus Militum
I've muted TylerH, but rethinking on this and the post I replied to I guess he could be hung up on the strict correctness of bits and pieces of stuff, like "is this really 'AI Slop'? It's not!" "Is it actually correct to say that "everything" in the article was fabricated? It's not!" and... They'd be correct, and also it doesn't matter.
I have been that kind of a nerd, myself. I can sorta understand.
Upvote
5
(14
/
-9)
Yes. I said this on the last page, but these things take time.
For example, whichever person on CN's legal team is assigned to handle Ars matters (if that's the setup; I have no idea how their org setup works) is most likely guzzling Maalox like candy right now, or at least spent the weekend doing so, because they had to start looking at this from a lot of angles: Okay, the writer misquoted the subject of the article. How much exposure does Ars / CN have? Is the subject threatening a lawsuit? Is there evidence of actual malice? Is there documentation of the workflow and approval flow? Who signed off on what parts and when? Who, ultimately, hit "publish" in the WordPress CMS? Was the tool Benj used named, or is it easily identifiable? Is its author easily identifiable? Does Ars have exposure for libel by association in that matter, and is the author threatening a lawsuit for such?
All of that, and a whole lot more that isn't immediately springing to mind, has to be examined by the legal department with a fine-toothed comb.
And all of that doesn't even touch on what CN's HR policies are and what the disciplinary and separation procedures as outlined in CN's handbook and CN's collective bargaining agreement with the CWA are.
The long story short is that there's a whole shit-ton of stuff to unpack before decisions can be made.
Last edited:
Upvote
46
(47
/
-1)
Resistance
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
If you want people to interpret what you write as what you mean then you should write what you mean.
So ars should only concern themselves with viewpoints that are the same as yours, got it.
Upvote
13
(22
/
-9)
It's a bit deeper than that, and as much as I enjoy a good prank, consider this fair warning a bucket of cold water may be coming:
This incident and the response to it by those on the masthead are going to get the full attention of The Great Satan--aka Condé Naste corporate council. Wheels' post above regarding the fragility of trust is a huge factor, and as someone who truly enjoys the discussion in this community and the spirit Ken, et al, engender, I hope (and believe) it will be heavily, heavily weighted in any disciplinary consequence for those involved. Here's the rub: "those involved" is a broad group. Losing a few or a large number of subscribers would be a Bad Thing.
A far worse thing would be for Ars to lose its editorial independence from Condé Naste.
The actions taken, both disciplinary and process-related, may or may not ever be officially acknowledged. What we are told is going to be stretched between what is needed to mitigate the loss of trust and any potential liability that might be created by any disclosures. We don't have to like that. We can always vote with both our wallets and our choice to remove Ars from our sources of news. But pissing off long-time subscribers and lurkers is not the only thing at stake here.
Upvote
46
(48
/
-2)
Sure, as I said, "as explained by Benj in his BlueSky post" (implicit in that is the presumption that Benj is telling the truth, to which I'm happy to say 'trust but verify', but not 'assume he is lying'), and as I explained elsewhere more recently, "things would have to sway in a very unexpected direction at this point for me to take such issue with Ars or Benj that I cancel my subscription or stop reading them altogether". If Benj lied about what he said in the BlueSky explanation, and has done more AI-generated content than just that handful of quotes, that would certainly qualify as 'a very unexpected direction'. I think most people (current US govt leadership excluded) tend to tell the truth once caught (very publicly) in a situation involving false statements, like submitting an article with AI-hallucinated quotes.
I don't think Benj is the kind of person to double down on lies to save face, given that he admitted to the mistake and apologized as soon as he was able to, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that his explanation as to what happened is accurate, along with Ars' own internal investigation which came to the same (general) conclusion (given the line about this appearing to be an isolated incident).
Upvote
-1
(13
/
-14)
Resistance
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
I've been that way too. I've also been the kind of person that thinks everyone should just speak the same language and we should get rid of every other language, and also that language should be English. Past me was super cringe, which is a good thing, if you don't vehemently reject some of your previously held opinions then you've got some pretty big flaws.
Upvote
14
(18
/
-4)
Saving his colleagues the profound mess and headaches that he has caused them, when the final outcome probably is not in doubt, is one of the reasons I think Mr. Edwards should immediately resign his position (perhaps, at management's discretion, after participating in a process failure analysis that is clearly sorely needed). If he ever wants to work again in this or a related field, it would be a tiny first step towards building back up his professional reputation.
Whether I, as a hiring manager, conditioned on everything else would think about hiring somebody who owned the enormity of their fuckup, versus one who has demonstrated that they will fight tooth and claw to gouge every last drop of blood from an employer whose reputation they damaged.
(blah blah caveat about "alleged" conduct--but in this case, presumably Mr. Edwards does know what he did or didn't do)
Upvote
15
(22
/
-7)
While I don't think this was directed at me specifically, I always find it interesting when people on the internet tell me that the fact I have a different opinion from them is solely because I'm emotionally upset, angry, or whatever when I'm actually feeling quite calm and composed. It may actually be the closest I'll ever come to knowing what my life would have been like if I'd been born into this society as a woman.
Upvote
41
(45
/
-4)
Oh you are right, sorry on chrome it's just a press. Not press and hold. Just tested on Jim's.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The sad thing is that we'd probably now use AI to help with such an enormous undertaking due to the size of today's internet. I, for one, do not wish to volunteer to check its work.
(edited for clarity and repeated repeatings)
Upvote
-3
(2
/
-5)
This is an excellent comment, and it really underscores just how badly Mr. Edwards fucked over his colleagues.
Upvote
2
(9
/
-7)
You are clearly delirious. Clearly we can criticize them regardless of practical considerations.
Upvote
-4
(3
/
-7)
You want to reward someone/company for checks notes doing what they're supposed to do?
Upvote
-6
(3
/
-9)
Agreed. The soccer rule of two yellow cards (warnings) then a red one (out!) ought to apply.
Personal anecdote. When I applied for the job I still hold, I appended to my resume a pie chart showing the QA assessments of my work (technical translation) by my then-employer, from stellar to garbage : 98% were of good quality or better, but 2% were utter trash.
I knew this was audacious. The response would be either "Foolish loonie, to the trash" or "Hmmm... intriguing...".
I was called the very next day for an interview. For a government agency, that's lightning fast. The manager who saw me was of course puzzled as to why I included that 2% of cockups. I explained : first, I prefer to be completely honest, and second, a competent professional rarely makes mistakes, but he does, it's spectacular.
I was hired.
When I supervise new hires (and do remedial training), my policy is clear. One instance of bad work can happen to the best of us. Two warrant a stern warning. Three, you're hanging by a thread. With a pattern of bad work, though, you're demoted or out.
In the present case, however, a full, transparent account of what went wrong is warranted, along with the measures that will be implemented to prevent it ever happening again.
(edit: last paragraph added)
Last edited:
Upvote
6
(22
/
-16)
I think a lot of this comes out of today's engrained 24hr news-cycle and social media environment -- we've been conditioned to "engage" with instant reactions and judgements, with a lot less room left for sober, considered judgement. "Let's stay calm" and "Lets wait and see how all the facts eventually shake out" doesn't mesh well with the click-bait-y world we live in now.
Upvote
30
(32
/
-2)
No, I didn't leave anything out. There are those who want a more thorough accounting before deciding, for whatever their reasons may be. And there are those who want a certain reporter gone because they can never trust him again. Your quoted group is included in the former. The (seeming) majority is in the latter. Including the exalted Jim Salter who's more-or-less stated that the reporter might be able to have a career elsewhere, but not longer here.
It's this kind of Sith reasoning to which I take exception. The idea that people can't grow, and learn from mistakes. Obviously this was one. Why does it need to cost them their job, immediately? Perform an investigation. Determine if this was a pattern, or a first offense. Make sure they understand the severity of the infraction.
They don't need to be terminated, and potentially canceled in the industry, to learn. They can be counseled and educated. They can be made to understand that this can't happen again.
Upvote
-13
(16
/
-29)
what even is the point of a reporter who just uses an ai to lie? why would I ever want to read that trash? even if I went insane and did want ai slop, I could just generate garbage myself, to my own tastes.
edit: also, note that there is no indication from ars that there actually is/will be some kind of ongoing investigation into this. it may be generally presumed there will be, but they have not actually said so.
Upvote
-6
(18
/
-24)
Amusingly, this is not how soccer works. A major transgression absolutely will result in immediate ejection. In fact, a not-insignificant aspect of arguing with your buds while watching a soccer game is whether a player's first transgression merits immediate ejection or merely a caution.
And that's the whole 26 pages of comments! Does a journalist fraudulently ascribing fabricated quotes amount to an immediate-termination offense?
Upvote
61
(64
/
-3)
adrianovaroli
Ars Tribunus Militum
Also it's one yellow card and then the second is an automatic red. It's not two chances and then out.
On the other hand, referees have considerable leeway to just admonish players verbally and not show cards. But nevermind.
Just remembered: one of the things that will net you an instant red card, even if the match is only 2 minutes in, is jumping to kick a ball with your foot high, and hitting another player in the head.
And, crucially, most of the times these aren't done on purpose. Rarely somebody wants to maim a fellow player. It's just inadvertent. And still basically the only choice the referee has is an instant red card, because it's such a dangerous thing to do.
Last edited:
Upvote
55
(55
/
0)
The only way you regain my trust is to at least suspend the offending author for 6 months, if not fire them.
Upvote
-16
(5
/
-21)
You're describing how you mentor an intern, not how you discipline a senior staffer.
Upvote
52
(55
/
-3)
If we go that far, we should get rid of the objectionable parts of English, too, which has strong roots in both Germanic and Latinate soil, and has a well-deserved reputation for beating up other languages in dark corners and stealing their vocabulary.
Upvote
-2
(4
/
-6)
No. I'm describing how you treat a respected employee who made a mistake. After an investigation which determines whether or not there was a patter of non-compliance or a one-off occurrence. Which, to my knowledge, has not occurred yet.
Upvote
-8
(17
/
-25)
adrianovaroli
Ars Tribunus Militum
I don't think you're capturing how this incident has utterly broken the trust in the whole site's quality. It's not just trusting Benj Edwards. And that's also why I, myself, right now, don't ask for his dismissal: many things went wrong here. He was working while sick. Why. He submitted work that wasn't checked for quote veracity. Why.
If a senior AI
Last edited:
Upvote
43
(43
/
0)
- Status