can you suggest any similar scenarios in article space?
On 7/11/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
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.
- "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.
- "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]]).
- 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)
- 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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l