On 5/29/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)att.net> wrote:
Actually, the arbitration decision often relied on for
removing links to
attack sites involved Encyclopedia Dramatica and did not mention
Wikipedia Review at all. How far that principle extends is obviously a
matter of debate, but for an endeavor that requires as much
fact-checking as Wikipedia, I'm constantly disappointed with the
inability of some people to keep even simple, easily checked facts straight.
It was more general than that. They found that: "A website that
engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning
the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack
site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under
any circumstances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links…
Note: a website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private
information doesn't include websites that just happen to name someone
once, but that mostly do other things.
There was also a recent request for clarification, where it was
confirmed that the definition included Wikipedia Review.