So this is what my teachers meant when they said "don't trust Wikipedia".

I've seen this happen so many times and it's always so embarrassing. There's a lovely template that you can slap onto an article that says something along the lines of "this article appears to have been edited by someone with a close association with the subject." It's truly a marvel in how close it skates towards saying, "the subject of this bio didn't like parts of what people were saying, so they edited it to suit themselves" without saying exactly that. It's subtly brutal.

Fortunately for the feelings of people who edit their own wiki bios, I suspect that they probably don't feel the sense of shame that I would if I were in that position.

Which iirc is against Wikipedia rules

It's uncanny how much "conservative" and "can't take responsibility of their documented actions" overlap.

That’s silly - judges are supposed to have clerks to do that for them.

I'll have to go post this to the Wikipedia admin noticeboards to be dealt with, though it's likely someone else has already beat me to the punch if this is hitting the news itself.

The REAL way to fix this is:

1. Host a personal blog arguing about details
2. Use a pseudonym like "SpaghettiSaiyan69" and add start sprinkling those links as reference.
3. Wait a few more weeks as those links become source of truth

It's a shitty thing to do. But not illegal. I'm sure there's something worse to accuse her of doing, than breaking the terms of services of Wikipedia.