The fine art of copy editing is dead.
Wikipedia knows the difference between a baler and a bailer. The New York Times, not so much.
Copy editing is to a news site as the drums are to recorded music. You can still tell a low-budget Creative Commons recording apart from a Major Label because the big-time studios get the drums right. (Send me a CC track with drums as well-done as "American Idiot" and I'll take that back.) But the fit and finish of the writing in peer media is often better than what cut-back Mainstream Media outlets can manage any more. I suppose that's good news. Next time the Times wants to convince us that somebody has Weapons of Mass Destruction, or some huge bank needs a Federal bailout, their copy will look as ratty as anybody's.