It’s the little things in articles that appear to show that the author or writer is really human amidst a mix of words.
Occasional mis-spelt words in articles are occasions to see the humanity of the writer. For example, in a review of mine in 1996, it should be organisation’s but is mis-spelt organisationis. Here, the “i” replaces the apostrophe, although it should be an apostrophe and not an i if one were being correct. Another example in the same review is combining “by” with the letter next to it, which is “a”. It should read like this: by a. But by and a are combined to bya.
There are only two mis-spelt words or combination of words in this review which is quite enough as three would be too many. Too many mistakes spoils the whole article.
But I don’t remember making those mistakes, and if I did, the editor should have corrected them. But were left, by the editor, or the words were deliberately altered for the very reason I stated at the start: to make the writer look human, that he makes mistakes. However, it surely shows that the editor is the one who’s making mistakes as the final job of editing is left to the editor.
Personally, I despise those little “deliberate” errors in articles that seem to be left uncorrected for no reason but to show the writer is human. I may accommodate it if it’s done to my article somehow, but don’t appreciate it. I prefer the fine, smooth form of writing. But these days, and even back in the day, deliberately inserting errors is and was the fashion, just to look being human. What a bad look that’s put on a piece of writing.