2009/12/2 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
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...
From the Telegraph article:
"The judge, who said the amendment had been taken down once a complaint was made, ordered that the mother and child must not be identified in reports on the case but refused to extend anonymity to Wikimedia Foundation Inc. "