In A Corrected History of the Typo Adrienne LaFrance argues that maybe print errors aren’t such a bad thing:

What we’ve lost, in many cases, online, isn’t the integrity of print, but the traceability of its weaknesses. Centuries ago, “errata lists became, paradoxically, markers of well-made books.” The made in “well-made” is a key word here. Mistakes can serve as reminders that books are made at all—the physicality of the process, the “connection between the book going wrong, momentarily, and a sense of the process of production being briefly revealed, or implied,” as Smyth put it in a recent paper about print in Early Modern England. It’s why readers relish newspaper typos—they represent the lifting of a veil, and hint at the human (and that human’s fallibility) on the other end of the object. 

If this kind of thing is of interest to you, it reminds me of post I wrote a couple of years ago called The unnecessary fear of digital perfection. It cites a bunch of articles that lament the fact that we don’t let ourselves make mistakes any more.