Newspapers used to employ teams of sub-editors to fix up the articles. I used to do that job for a major newspaper, and it was surprising to see how bad some of the stuff coming from journalists was. Sometimes you'd basically have to rewrite the whole article from scratch. With the decline in quality of what gets published, I can only assume that when paper sales collapsed and revenues dropped they all decided to cut costs by firing the sub-editors.

But this is just some website that probably never had any quality control to start with.

[–] Morphit@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd love to have human editors to fix up stories, but we have the technology now. There are FOSS tools like redpen that will help with spelling and grammar. AI tools ought to do a somewhat reasonable job of appraising a piece of text and yeah, a second human ought to sign off before publishing. I'd have thought content management systems would have review stages like software development. Authors could accept or override suggestions, but be required to acknowledge them. Like why isn't journops a thing?

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

With this article I wonder whether we're seeing a content-management screwup. It looks almost like it's rendering the metadata markup associated with text instead of the text itself.