Denny Colt wrote:
Whatever microscopic benefit can be (argued by some) to be gained by linking to a hate site like Wikipedia Review is immediately outweighed by the harm that place and similar pages create.
But what benefit (however microscopic) is to be gained by banning links to the place?
Do you support that?
I don't support [[Hungarian notation]], [[female circumcision]], or the [[2003 Iraq war]]. But I'm not going to try to ban links to sites which discuss those topics.
I have asked multiple people, can you think of a single GOOD reason to link to that site in particular, and got not one good answer, only strawmen arguments about censorship and mccarthyism.
Sorry if you find my mention of Hungarian notation &c to be a strawman. Sorry if you disagree with me that blacklisting is an extremely dangerous weapon, quite akin to censorship, and to be employed only as an absolute last resort, under considerable duress, and when there's a clear case to be made that the blacklisting (or the censorship) does mitigate an active threat to the project.
Yes, Wikipedia Review is an active threat to the project. But banning links to it does not in any way mitigate that threat.
If you support inclusion of links to WR, shall we link to hivemind as well, and the encyclopedia dramatica wiki?
Speaking of strawmen. But: where relevant, yes, certainly. They won't go away if we stop linking to them, either.