O.K., so now we have a third case; in the event that
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.