HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Former clerk rewrites SCO...

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 12:28 PM

Former 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 boss’s Wikipedia page “as a matter of course” for several years. They said Jackson was not aware of Godi’s 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|

14 replies, 913 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply Former clerk rewrites SCOTUS contenders' Wikipedia bios (Original post)
MichMan Feb 2022 OP
Karadeniz Feb 2022 #1
Sneederbunk Feb 2022 #2
msfiddlestix Feb 2022 #3
yardwork Feb 2022 #4
MichMan Feb 2022 #6
yardwork Feb 2022 #7
msfiddlestix Feb 2022 #14
MichMan Feb 2022 #5
yardwork Feb 2022 #8
MichMan Feb 2022 #10
yardwork Feb 2022 #11
MichMan Feb 2022 #13
Sympthsical Feb 2022 #9
yardwork Feb 2022 #12

Response to MichMan (Original post)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 12:42 PM

1. DINO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Original post)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 12:42 PM

2. Not helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Original post)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:11 PM

3. jeeze.. really? what a way to disqualify even if she wasn't aware

just effed up to hell.

Not only was not helpful, but it might have jeopardized her nomination. I hope this matter is correctable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msfiddlestix (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:18 PM

4. Wikipedia is open source. Anybody can become an editor and alter pages.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:21 PM

6. No legal consequences for malicious altering ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:27 PM

7. None whatsoever unless somebody won a libel case.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 07:27 PM

14. Hope you're correct on last point

I was under the impression that an editor had to have qualifications which includes verification of the subject.

guess I was mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msfiddlestix (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:20 PM

5. Anyone who isn't selected should sue him and he should also be disbarred

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:28 PM

8. Honestly, I doubt the Senate considers Wiki pages as part of the review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #8)


Response to MichMan (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:35 PM

11. What was slanderous about the alterations?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:47 PM

13. The perpetrator is currently a lawyer for a DC law firm

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Original post)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:28 PM

9. An ultimate "You know we can see you, right?"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sympthsical (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 5, 2022, 02:36 PM

12. I know, right?

What a stupid thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread