[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[jayjg]

On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
> > O.K., so now we have a third case; in the event that someone has
> > 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.
> >...
> > "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.
>
> Here's a fourth case: the Brandt link on Wikipedia Signpost.

I don't see any specific benefit to Wikipedia in having its unofficial
newspaper link to WR.

>
> Here's a fifth case: links to attack sites in the talk page discussing
> the attack sites policy.

I don't think there is such a policy, though, so its moot. There was a
strawman policy proposed at one time, which seemed specifically
designed to draw attention to WR, but that's a different situation.

> The list starts to get large.

No, it's still extremely small.