Slim Virgin wrote:
I'm saying three things (1) there is never a good reason to link to one of these sites, so don't do it; (2) no matter what page you link to, there's likely to be a serious personal attack on it, because the particularly egregious sites are full of them; (3) that we shouldn't, as an encyclopedia, want to increase the readership of websites that seem devoted to encouraging stalking, harassment, "outing," and defamation.
(1) Nonsense. There are occasionally, albeit rarely, occasions where there is good reason to link to one of those sites. The litmus test should be, "Would removing this link stir up more drama than allowing it to remain?", because if the answer is yes, removing the link will actually draw more attention to the site. I've given quite a few examples of occasions where a link might be appropriate - again, it all depends on the content and the context of the link given. (2) Eh, not entirely. There are quite a few threads on Wikipedia Review which don't contain serious personal attacks. Admittedly, they are increasingly rare these days. (3) It should be noted that none of the sites mentioned actively support stalking, harassment, or defamation. Nonetheless, this concern is valid and reasonable, and by no means should Wikipedia be used to increase the readership of those sites. However, blind reversion of links /actually increases the readership of those sites/. Again, the litmus test should be "Would removing the link stir up more drama than allowing it to remain?" If the answer is yes, then removing the link is going to have the opposite effect than the one you desire.