I'm not interested in generalities and slippery
though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to
Wikipedia to link to WR?
If that's the source for a claim in on of our articles?
To name one concrete example: our [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] contains a
rather short paragraph on "Copyright issues" containing weasel words
like "A significant number of people... have comment that... some
articles are copyright violations." This claim is entirely unsourced
(the cited source only speaks about our problem with images).
The only attempt of a numerical study of our copyright problem that I
know of, was the one published by Daniel Brandt ("1 to 2 % of
biographies on wikipedia are plagiarized"). This would be a good
addition to the article, but it would need a link to Brandt's website
(wikipedia-watch), which is the only place that the methodology of the
study is described.
(I presume wikipedia-watch is on your short list of attack sites; if
not: what if he had published the results on WR? DB is a frequent