Thread by @ClaireBerlinski

Actually, to be strictly accurate, I stealth-edit a *lot* of typos. We ran the wrong number on only just last week. (What was it? I can't remember. I just remember the horror of realizing the number was wrong, and sneaking in guiltily, in the dead of night, to change it.)

https://twitter.com/is_OwenLewis/status/1397010470830178305

(Oh! I remember what it was. I referred to the Paris climate accords as the product of "COP21." That was a ghastly mistake. I think it was my fault, too. Though I don't know how I did it.)

No, "not many minor errors" would not be correct. @cosmo_globalist

I'd say, "many minor errors, but we work assiduously to correct them." We never strive to mislead.

This reminds me: We need to correct the record (again) about the Sputnik: claireberlinski.substack.com/p/finish-off-c…

When we make a correction like that, we'll make it the way we made our first correction: We'll write, e.g., "UPDATE: Russia seems to have falsified its data and the Lancet seems to have credulously overlooked this. We in turn credulously trusted the Lancet."

"We apologize for the error, and sincerely hope none of our readers died because they trusted us."

But we wouldn't just sneak back and revise our *entire editorial line* on one of the most significant questions of the C21st, the way Vox did, no.