On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
[oops, sent just to Jay first time]
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
A link to whichever attack site we're discussing? Pretty remarkable if one turns up. A link to something that someone might construe as an attack site in the future for their own bizzare purposes? As we have seen, sadly, not improbable...
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please give some specific examples, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the purpose of Talk: pages is to discuss article content, and that article content must comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].
I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through with a bit of noise.
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments, though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to WR?