2009/12/2 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:
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. "