On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
O.K., so now we have a third case; in the event that someone has posted something horrible on WR (a highly likely possibility), and they are also running for something on Wikipedia (like adminship), you think it would be beneficial to link to that awful post. ... "While I can't exactly think of an example" - aye, there's the rub. It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
Here's a fourth case: the Brandt link on Wikipedia Signpost.
I don't see any specific benefit to Wikipedia in having its unofficial newspaper link to WR.
Here's a fifth case: links to attack sites in the talk page discussing the attack sites policy.
I don't think there is such a policy, though, so its moot. There was a strawman policy proposed at one time, which seemed specifically designed to draw attention to WR, but that's a different situation.
The list starts to get large.
No, it's still extremely small.