Bice: Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley has been quietly editing her own Wikipedia page
www.jsonline.com
Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley was scolded by a Wikipedia editor this month for her heavy editing of her own biography on the online encyclopedia.

Last week, a person with the Twitter handle @arizonasunblock from Tampa, Florida, noticed that Bradley, who has been on the high court since 2015, appeared to make major changes to her Wikipedia biography earlier this year.

  • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
    1641·
    1 year ago

    “Liberal media has distorted my record since the beginning of my judicial career, and I refuse to let false accusations go unchecked,” Bradley told the Journal Sentinel in an email. “On my wikipedia page, I added excerpts from actual opinions and removed dishonest information about my background.”

    What, then, was getting under her skin?

    It’s clear Bradley really, really disliked the section in her Wikipedia page dealing with a Republican challenge to the stay-at-home order issued by the administration of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in response the COVID-19 pandemic.

    According to her Wikipedia page, in May 2020, Bradley “compared the state’s stay-at-home orders to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II,” a case known as Korematsu v. the United States.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      117·
      1 year ago

      “It’s so unfair that my own words can be written down for posterity!”

      Tell me she doesn’t know that just because you’ve edited a Wikipedia page, that the previous version still exists, and is likely to draw attention and discussion because of your edits.

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        462·
        1 year ago

        And is super easy to revert to the prior version too. It’s basically two clicks to make it happen. And then have an admin protect the page to only allow established editors so randos can’t do this with just an IP address again.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          4·
          1 year ago

          Just in case she happened to read my comment, I didn’t want to use the word “revert” in order to avoid confusion.

      • JDubbleu@programming.dev
        23·
        1 year ago

        I love too that she mentioned, “REAL OPINIONS” as if those are more valid than the exact words she said.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        It’s an inaccurate epithet anyhow. Uncle Tom was overly nice to whites so as not to draw their wrath.

        In the end, the whites beat Uncle Tom to death when he refused to give the whereabouts of two runaway slaves.

        I don’t know what epithet you’d call someone who turned in the two slaves and lived to work the big house another day, but that’s what you should call Clarence.

        I used to call Clarence an Uncle Tom, but then I read the book.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
            1·
            1 year ago

            As someone who also read the book and was shocked that Tom wasn’t the minstrel show Tom that really earned the name: this weird effort to take back his name is self defeating and artificial.

            It says quite a lot that people also try to say “Maybe we should call them Uncle Ruckuses instead!”

            Mainly, it says they’re not clued in enough to realize the show/comic had two Uncle Toms. One had Uncle in his name, the other Tom.

            MacGruder wasn’t being very subtle, and yet everyone seems to have missed it anyways.

            Hell, if nothing else this whole weird idea is erasure of the minstrel shows. If you want to raise some actual awareness then feel free to separate Book Tom from Minstrel Tom, because we need to remember both.