I can see that. Still, if I were writing articles for Ars for so little, I would probably be entertaining the notion that part of the value was building enough experience so that I might get a higher paying gig at a major outfit. If they aren't doing it already, it won't be long before the interview process will involve a plagiarism search. Heck you could probably sell that to news organizations. Tietel is creating a trail of wrong-doing that can forever haunt her.
Presumes a few things: A) that higher-paying gigs exist. The model of late is 1) blog 2) move blog to higher-paying site 3) sell higher-paying site to old media 4) profit. The old media buyout thing is dying off, though - it's just not happening as much. So the payoffs are less and less likely. B) That publishers give a shit. Gawker demonstrably doesn't. HuffPo demonstrably doesn't. Vice demonstrably doesn't. When the NYT have Jayson Blair and Dan Pink on their rap sheets the online bureaus can argue that the standards aren't as important as they were. C) That anybody really remembers. Ben Domenech still has a job. Henry Blodgett is CEO of Business Insider.
Yes, my presumptions may be wrong. But as you mention to b_b, paywalls are coming back. I agree, and the jobs behind them are likely going to be competitive. I suspect Teitel's actions could keep he on this side of the wall. I can't see being a writer and not thinking about that. But, people do stupid things. This is one of them.