Is there/could there be this much controversy today, do you-all think? Ex.'s: A dictionary should give primacy to generic terms, he asserted, not proper names, not geographical appendixes, not biographical information, not famous sayings, nor names from the Bible and the plays of William Shakespeare. ... The circuitous entry for door, quoted in a caustic Washington Post article, became well known: “a movable piece of a firm material or a structure supported usu. along one side and swinging on pivots or hinges, sliding along a groove, rolling up and down, revolving as one of four leaves, or folding like an accordion by means of which an opening may be closed or kept open . . .” and so on.
This definition, said Gove, was for someone who had never seen a door. ...

One sympathetic lexicographer, after using the dictionary routinely for years, complained that in listing spelling variants (momento for memento, for instance) the editors came “close to denying the possibility of error in spelling.” ...

W3 infamously included an almost full set of entries for curse words...

W2 had made expansive use of a range of labels including correct and incorrect, proper and improper, erroneous, humorous, jocular, ludicrous, gallicism, and poetic... Gove reduced possible labels to five: slang, nonstandard, substandard, obsolete, and archaic. ...

The most infamous entry in Webster’s Third, by far, was for ain’t. ... the New Yorker ran a cartoon showing a receptionist at Merriam telling a visitor that “Dr. Gove ain’t in.”

So many news articles today contain spelling errors; this is one place where one could expect correct usage, IMO. But either the editing process has degenerated or I am now among the minority in caring about spelling and grammar.