[WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy

[Blu Aardvark]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> And indeed we have no such ban.  But Wikipedia Review contains
> virtually nothing *but* such attacks, and incidentally is a forum so
> any innocuous thread can rapidly be hijacked.  Linking to WR is
> inappropriate in every circumstance raised thus far.
>
> Simple enough, really.
>
> If Wikiabuse contained a thoughtful critique of a notable event in
> Wikipedia's history, it might well be justifiable as a link, because
> there is at least some effort to keep it sane and resist "outing".
>
> But not WR.  No thanks.
>
> Guy (JzG)
>   


I have, in the past, given quite a few examples of when a link to WR 
would be appropriate. My person viewpoint is that, in general, links to 
it should be avoided. It isn't a reliable source, and due to the nature 
of much of the content hosted there, can be problematic to link to under 
most circumstances.

However, let's look at a few scenarios where it might be appropriate.

1. "Editor X" is up for adminship. "Editor X" is also the given username 
of a person posting virulent attacks to WR. A good-faith contributor 
adds a question along the lines of "Are you the same user as [link] on 
Wikipedia Review? If so, how do you justify [linked remark]" Now, it 
could be argued that a link is not necessary in this case, but it could 
be considered helpful, and removing such a link added in good faith, 
under the banner of "zomg attack site", would likely inflame the 
situation - especially if the good-faith user in question was threatened 
or "warned" for adding the link.

2. "Editor Y" is involved in an arbcom dispute. "Editor Y" has posted to 
Wikipedia Review, and this can be verified. A good-faith user adds links 
to some of his more virulent attacks to provide evidence of bad faith on 
the part of "Editor Y". (This situation is not hypothetical, btw. See: 
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark]]).

3. Wikipedia Review has a thread outlining a number of significant 
problems in an article on Wikipedia. A good-faith user, attempting to 
call this to the attention of fellow editors on Wikipedia, links to this 
thread on the talk page of the associated article or in a community 
location. (Note that this type of situation is unlikely; while I 
initially set up the "Articles" forum for this purpose, it has rarely 
been used for this purpose, and certainly not recently)

4. A user has been personally attacked by Wikipedia Review, and is 
attempting to diffuse the situation by linking to said attacks, thereby 
making them entirely ineffective.

There may be a few other circumstances I haven't thought of where a link 
to Wikipedia Review would be appropriate, or could be added in good 
faith. There are very few such circumstances, but they do exist.