Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

On July 5, 2023, io9 published a Star Wars films-and-TV chronology under the “Gizmodo Bot” byline. Contemporaneous coverage reported factual and ordering errors, while io9 deputy editor James Whitbrook said he had been notified only shortly before publication and that io9 staff had not edited or published the piece.

What io9 published

The article, titled “A Chronological List of Star Wars Movies & TV Shows,” appeared on io9 on July 5, 2023, with “Gizmodo Bot” as its byline. TheWrap reported factual errors; The Desk described the chronology as incorrectly ordering films and series and containing other inaccuracies.

What errors were reported?

TheWrap gave one concrete example: the chronology placed the animated series The Clone Wars after The Rise of Skywalker, although the series’ events take place much earlier. That is a reported example, not a complete inventory of the article’s errors. The contemporaneous coverage cited here does not establish a full list.

Did io9 staff know before publication?

Whitbrook, io9’s deputy editor, said he was told about the article roughly ten minutes before it went live and that no one at io9 participated in editing or publishing it. In his statement, quoted by TheWrap on July 5, 2023, he said: “I was informed approximately 10 minutes beforehand, and no one at io9 played a part in its editing or publication.”

Free tools Windows power users keep installed

One-click scans. No signup required.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

The Desk reported that Whitbrook sent G/O Media a lengthy list of corrections. That account points to a newsroom dispute over notice and editorial involvement, but the reporting cited here does not establish the complete production chain or how any proposed corrections were handled.

Why did Whitbrook object?

Whitbrook criticized the article’s accuracy and writing, and objected that its comments section was closed. He argued that closing comments prevented readers from publicly holding the publication accountable. The Desk quoted his assessment: “It is shoddily written, it is riddled with basic errors; in closing the comments section off, it denies our readers, the lifeblood of this network, the chance to publicly hold us accountable, and to call this work exactly what it is: embarrassing, unpublishable, disrespectful of both the audience and the people who work here, and a blow to our authority and integrity.”

Those words express Whitbrook’s judgment of the article and its publication; they are not an independent measurement of its quality. His comments identify several concerns raised by the incident: whether the newsroom had meaningful advance notice, whether editors reviewed the material, how errors would be corrected, and whether readers could respond publicly.

How did the AI announcement fit in?

Contemporaneous coverage placed the io9 article amid G/O Media’s announcement of a test of AI-created content across its publications. TheWrap linked the incident to that announcement, and Futurism reported that the io9 publication followed it by roughly a week. These reports provide context for the timing; they do not, by themselves, establish the company’s full policy or the technical process used to produce this particular article.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Support on Ko-Fi

What remains unknown

The contemporaneous accounts cited here do not identify which AI model, if any, generated the chronology, what prompt or workflow was used, or the complete sequence of human review. They also do not establish the full correction history or whether the article was later revised or removed. Those details should not be inferred from the byline or from the article’s errors alone.

Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.