[Posting wearing my battered free-speech (ex)activist hat, not the Wikipedia-critic hat]
1) Stand-down a little - apparently Twitter is only being asked to produce identity information, same as the Wikimedia Foundation has been in other cases (under court order). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13477811 "Lawyers at Schillings who represent CTB have issued a statement clarifying the action it has taken. It said it was not suing Twitter but had made an application "to obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a small number of individuals who may have breached a court order"." That is, this isn't a provider liability case. 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the super-injunction inhibits those sources, then it effectively inhibits Wikipedia (even if it's impolitic to put it that way). I actually believe that the accumulated sourcing now *should* satisfy Wikipedia's verification requirements in the case of the footballer, and was tempted to make that argument. But given I have a nontrivial connection to UK jurisdiction, plus I'm sure I'd get a huge amount of personal attack due to the various politics, it wasn't worth it. Just observing, on various talk pages, I believe the WP:NOTCENSORED faction has made its sourcing argument poorly. Maybe there's another lesson there as to relative costs imposed. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
