[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[jayjg]

On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> [oops, sent just to Jay first time]
>
> On 30/05/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > A link to whichever attack site we're discussing? Pretty remarkable if
> > > one turns up. A link to something that someone might construe as an
> > > attack site in the future for their own bizzare purposes? As we have
> > > seen, sadly, not improbable...
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would
> > linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please
> > give some specific examples, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an
> > encyclopedia, and the purpose of Talk: pages is to discuss article
> > content, and that article content must comply with [[WP:V]] and
> > [[WP:RS]].
>
> I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its
> ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to
> link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole
> Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by
> someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through
> with a bit of noise.

I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments,
though,  I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to
Wikipedia to link to WR?