2009/12/2 Michael Peel <em...@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. "

Wikimedia UK mailing list
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to