Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
And indeed we have no such ban. But Wikipedia Review contains virtually nothing *but* such attacks, and incidentally is a forum so any innocuous thread can rapidly be hijacked. Linking to WR is inappropriate in every circumstance raised thus far.
Simple enough, really.
If Wikiabuse contained a thoughtful critique of a notable event in Wikipedia's history, it might well be justifiable as a link, because there is at least some effort to keep it sane and resist "outing".
But not WR. No thanks.
Guy (JzG)
I have, in the past, given quite a few examples of when a link to WR would be appropriate. My person viewpoint is that, in general, links to it should be avoided. It isn't a reliable source, and due to the nature of much of the content hosted there, can be problematic to link to under most circumstances.
However, let's look at a few scenarios where it might be appropriate.
1. "Editor X" is up for adminship. "Editor X" is also the given username of a person posting virulent attacks to WR. A good-faith contributor adds a question along the lines of "Are you the same user as [link] on Wikipedia Review? If so, how do you justify [linked remark]" Now, it could be argued that a link is not necessary in this case, but it could be considered helpful, and removing such a link added in good faith, under the banner of "zomg attack site", would likely inflame the situation - especially if the good-faith user in question was threatened or "warned" for adding the link.
2. "Editor Y" is involved in an arbcom dispute. "Editor Y" has posted to Wikipedia Review, and this can be verified. A good-faith user adds links to some of his more virulent attacks to provide evidence of bad faith on the part of "Editor Y". (This situation is not hypothetical, btw. See: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark]]).
3. Wikipedia Review has a thread outlining a number of significant problems in an article on Wikipedia. A good-faith user, attempting to call this to the attention of fellow editors on Wikipedia, links to this thread on the talk page of the associated article or in a community location. (Note that this type of situation is unlikely; while I initially set up the "Articles" forum for this purpose, it has rarely been used for this purpose, and certainly not recently)
4. A user has been personally attacked by Wikipedia Review, and is attempting to diffuse the situation by linking to said attacks, thereby making them entirely ineffective.
There may be a few other circumstances I haven't thought of where a link to Wikipedia Review would be appropriate, or could be added in good faith. There are very few such circumstances, but they do exist.