In the case of hallucinated quotes, I think the more important aspect is to describe how this happened, whether the author is a regular contributor, how the edi

In the case of hallucinated quotes, I think the more important aspect is to describe how this happened, whether the author is a regular contributor, how the editors missed it, and what steps are being taken to prevent it from happening in the future. It's good to issue a correction, and in this case to retract the article. But it doesn't really give me confidence going forward, especially where this was flagged because the misquoted person raised the issue. It's not like Ars' own processes somehow unearthed this error. It makes me think I should get in the habit of reading week-old Ars articles, whose errors would likely have been caught by early readers.