On 5/29/07, Michael Snow wikipedia@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.