His most prominent objection was to a quote from Bo Olson, a former Amazon employee, who said, “Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk.” Mr. Carney said that Mr. Olson’s brief time at Amazon ended after he had tried to defraud vendors and falsify business records to conceal his actions.

He said Mr. Olson admitted what he had done when confronted and resigned immediately.

Mr. Carney said that Amazon was in regular contact over a seven-month period with Jodi Kantor, one of the Times reporters who wrote the article, and that she never told the company that they intended to quote Mr. Olson. “Did Ms. Kantor’s editors at The Times ask her whether Mr. Olson might have an axe to grind?” Mr. Carney wrote.

In his response, Mr. Baquet wrote that The Times contacted Mr. Olson on Monday and that he said he had never been confronted by Amazon with accusations of fraudulent conduct or falsifying records, and did not admit such conduct. Mr. Baquet said the paper would have mentioned that Mr. Olson’s status at the company was contested, had he known.

Mr. Baquet said other current and former Amazon employees interviewed for the article recounted similar stories of people crying publicly at the company.

Reached by phone, Mr. Olson declined to comment further.

It is rare for Amazon to undertake a full-throated attack on an article critical of the company. Shortly after the article appeared, Jeffrey P. Bezos, its chief executive and founder, sent an email to the company’s employees saying that he didn’t “recognize this Amazon and I very much hope you don’t, either.”

It is even more unusual for the company to share information from its personnel files to challenge an article, as it did for Mr. Olson and others. “Amazon wants to rewrite story by releasing personal details about employees,” Glenn Fleishman, a freelance journalist who worked at Amazon briefly in the late ’90s, wrote on Twitter.

Mr. Carney declined to be interviewed. In a statement, he responded to a question about Amazon’s decision to use personnel records to rebut accusations from a former employee. “It is unusual,” he wrote. “If The Times had followed normal standards and checked their sources, we might have said, ‘This source may not be credible — here’s why.’ ”

He added, “If The Times insisted on relying on the source, we would have gone on the record with the reasons why the source might not be credible or what the other side of the story was.”