jayjg wrote:
Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
I can think of four classes of occasion:
1. When the site is the topic of an article or the source for an article, 2. As part of a policy discussion around WP:BADSITES or any related policy, 3. As part of a collection of evidence as to why a particular site is banned, and 4. When a Wikipedia participant's behavior on or participation in one of those sites is raised as an issue in any on-WP proceeding, like an RFA or anything in dispute resolution.
If the first hasn't happened yet, it will eventually. As people never tire of pointing out, we're a top-10 website, so like it or not, our critics will eventually become notable just for opposing us. For example, see:
http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/07/cx_cw_0308hate_print.html
The second and third are pretty normal things we do when discussing and implementing policy. Indeed, on current trends I expect BADSITES will never become a solid policy because the suppression of relevant information is antithetical to the way we get anywhere together.
As to the last, the nature and extent of one's participation in a BADSITE seems like a relevant factor to me, especially in questions of discipline or community trust.
William