On 2 Dec 2009, at 16:20, michael west wrote: What do you mean by "spiked"? Mike

The judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html Note WMF not represented but the judgment quotes the privacy policy extensively. -- Sam Blacketer

On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote: 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... Mike

2009/12/2 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>: 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. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html The respondent is the WMF. I can understand the provision might be sought but I'm glad it wasn't granted. -- geni

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- Sam Blacketer

Andrew Turvey wrote: When did they start answering whether an oversight have taken place? KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: Never mind the legal technicalities, I'm still snorting coffee over my desk at the bit that says: 'The open nature of the site has led to embarrassing instances in which pages have been edited to contain false information. Tony Blair’s entry was once edited to state that his middle name was “Whoop-de-do’’.' I bloody love Wikipedia, I do.

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 17:36 +0000, Bod Notbod wrote: If you have a twitter account, might want to follow these guys then... FakeAPStylebook Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be referred to as "he" despite being a hermaphroditic alien reptoid. -- Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects. * Problems replying? Forward bounces to brianmc(a)skynet.be to raise with Godaddy Hosting.