jayjg wrote:
No, the litmus test should be "does this link benefit Wikipedia in any way".. And the answer, as it turns out, is "almost never".
This is equally fair. Indeed, it's really a different wording of the same concept. If the link benefits Wikipedia in any way, it's pretty likely that removing it will stir up drama. And vice verse,
They always were rare.
Well, I have to grant that this is fairly legitimate. Despite my best efforts when I was an admin on that forum, it was next to impossible to keep a lid on things, and things have only gone downhill since. Nonetheless, there are a number of occasions where there are reasoned discussions that don't involve personal attacks
Aside from providing the venue for it and cheering on the perpetrators.
Harassment and stalking, no. That isn't cheered on in the slightest, and users who have been found to have engaged in it have been removed from the forum in the past. As for "defamation", I don't think that's really a valid concern regarding Wikipedia Review. There have been some nasty personal attacks, but nothing defamatory. Of course, other sites *do* engage in this practice.