In a recent court proceeding, WMF’s legal team offered a supposed middle path, proposing it take the unusual step of serving summons to the editors itself, thereby revealing their identities only to the court, not the wider public. Wikipedians, however, do not see this as a compromise—it’s capitulation. Last week, Wikipedia editors published an open letter to the Foundation, urging it to protect its volunteers’ privacy regardless of the outcome. It reads in part

only to the court, not the wider public

Would this really be that much better? Once the information is out, it's impossible to hide again

And the consequences would not end with this case. Compliance may discourage contributions from editors worldwide, not just those under authoritarian rule. WMF submission could encourage other governments to make similar demands, putting Wikipedia in an untenable position and reducing its influence where free knowledge is needed most

This bit also seemed important

Jimbo's justification is that if they don't do this to the page, they'll completely lose their chance of arguing in court, and 1. they can always restore it if the court orders something they decide not to do 2. the contents of the article are already archived all over the internet

I would never have become aware that that article existed if not for everyone talking about it being censored. The Streisand effect seems to still be alive.

Isn't it pretty normal for judges to prohibit plaintiffs and defendants from talking about active court cases outside of the court room? I doubt Asian News International is allowed to publish articles about the case, either.