On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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...
> 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.

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

Reply via email to