General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFormer clerk rewrites SCOTUS contenders' Wikipedia bios
A former law clerk for a potential Supreme Court nominee embarked on a Wikipedia editing spree over the past week, bolstering the page of his former boss while altering the pages of her competitors in an apparent attempt to invite liberal skepticism, according to a statement from his fellow clerks.After POLITICO began inquiring about the changes on Friday, a group of former law clerks for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson identified the anonymous editor as Matteo Godi, another former Jackson clerk. Godi did not respond to multiple emailed requests or a phone call.
In a statement, the former clerks for Jackson who requested anonymity in order to identify the online editor said Godi has edited his former bosss Wikipedia page as a matter of course for several years. They said Jackson was not aware of Godis edits on the pages of other judges.
Those edits display a pattern: The page for Jackson, seen by many as a Supreme Court frontrunner, was tweaked to paint her in a more favorable light for a liberal audience, while the pages for other potential nominees South Carolina federal district court Judge J. Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger were altered to make them potentially less appealing to a left-leaning audience.
[link:https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/04/former-clerk-rewrites-supreme-court-wikipedia-bios-00005914|
Karadeniz
(22,468 posts)Sneederbunk
(14,275 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)just effed up to hell.
Not only was not helpful, but it might have jeopardized her nomination. I hope this matter is correctable.
yardwork
(61,538 posts)This reflects badly on the staffer but doesn't matter beyond that. The staffer was stupid. Probably wrecked their own career, but this should have no bearing on the nomination process.
MichMan
(11,867 posts)yardwork
(61,538 posts)Libel is very difficult to prove, especially if you're famous enough to have a wiki page.
I love Wikipedia but always remember that anybody can edit the pages.
msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)I was under the impression that an editor had to have qualifications which includes verification of the subject.
guess I was mistaken.
MichMan
(11,867 posts)yardwork
(61,538 posts)Response to yardwork (Reply #8)
MichMan This message was self-deleted by its author.
yardwork
(61,538 posts)Tweaking Wiki bios to highlight or downplay accomplishments isn't slanderous. It's unethical and looks sleazy and reflects poorly on the former clerk but what was the impact on the nominees?
MichMan
(11,867 posts)Not only did he highlight or downplay entries in the page of his former boss, he also altered the pages of other top contenders to make them look worse. I don't think that is something that should be just ignored.
Do you think trying to interfere with the nomination process for potential SC Justices warrants being disbarred?
Sympthsical
(9,035 posts)Of course people are going to look at Wikipedia to learn about potential nominees. Some of those people will check to see what edits are being made since the nomination chatter began.
Wikipedia keeps edit histories that can be accessed by anyone.
So . . . well done there.
yardwork
(61,538 posts)What a stupid thing to do.