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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
