jayjg wrote:
O.K., so now we have a third case; in the event that someone has posted something horrible on WR (a highly likely possibility), and they are also running for something on Wikipedia (like adminship), you think it would be beneficial to link to that awful post.
I didn't say that. You are simply putting words into my mouth. It would be beneficial to point out that such a posting exists, and a link *may* be appropriate, depending on the content and context of the discussion being linked to.
"While I can't exactly think of an example" - aye, there's the rub. It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
There are very few circumstances where a link could be justified, I will grant that. But, as I said, there are occasions where one is beneficial.
Here's another possibility. Wikipedia Review's "Articles" forum was initially designed to discuss article content in depth, and point out any specific problems in language, structure, sourcing, whathaveyou. It has rarely been used for this purpose, but if and when a user did post another in-depth evaluation, it certainly could be beneficial to point it out on Wikipedia.
Let's suppose Daniel Brandt ran his plagiarism checker again, and posted the result on Wikipedia Review. Would a link to the site not be beneficial to the project in calling a problem to the attention of editors?
Realize, I'm speaking strictly of links in project and user space. There is exactly one occasion where a link to the site may be justified in article space, and that is in a biography page that should have been deleted a long time ago. The link might also have been beneficial in the [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] article, but the site strayed a bit from it's original stated goal, and it isn't quite as useful in that arena as it was designed to be.