Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
And indeed we have no such ban. But Wikipedia Review
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.
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
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
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
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.