On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
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?
Not this again... Someone apparently thought it was worthwhile to cite a criticism from WR in the Expert rebellion discussion. In the case of TNH's blog, it is being used to cite numerous articles. One does not need to think of occaisions; the uses are already out there.
WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
Links to attack sites have been removed from talk pages. [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] do not apply to talk pages.
Since nothing in WR could be added to an article (as it doesn't qualify under [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]), and since Talk: pages is to describe article content, then there's no benefit to Wikipedia in linking to it on Talk: pages.
Again, that's what the claim was; that it benefits Wikipedia to link to WR. I can see how it benefits WR, of course.