On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM, geni
<geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
>
>> I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
>> about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
>> being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why
>> that might have been attempted.
>
> Um... that's not how I read it. I read it as the court considering
> requiring no press coverage of the order at all - but deciding
> against that. Nothing about preventing the WMF's name from being
> released...
Section 10
# As the title to this judgment shows, I made orders giving anonymity
to the Applicants. One provision which was sought, but which I did not
grant, was an order giving anonymity to the Respondent.
The respondent is the WMF. I can understand the provision might be
sought but I'm glad it wasn't granted.
Paragraph 11 of the judgment seems to imply that it was the applicant who wanted anonymity for WMF, the respondent, while the WMF was entirely open about it. Perhaps the applicant was concerned that someone would be able to work out which article was involved and therefore obtain a copy of the edits in question. Note the following section (paras 13-32) where the applicant wants to stop the court providing information to a non-party.
Without any knowledge of who is involved and which article is involved I would hope the edits were oversighted since the court clearly considered the issue was substantial enough to grant the Norwich Pharmacal order itself. Presumably the foundation knows and can act.