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.