I have to respond to this, because while you make some valid points, you're also misrepresenting a number of things.
The censorship on Wikipedia of sites like WR surrounds Wikipedia's consideration for its users' privacy. Sites like WR frequently have users who will delve into the personal lives of editors they happen to dislike, and try to publish as much information as possible, in ways verging on harassment. In addition, having their identities revealed can cause a number of problems for the editors: I know Wikipedia editors who keep science articles free of crackpot theories, and they tend to keep their true identities hidden because otherwise crackpots would go after them with frivolous lawsuits and real world harassment of employers and family. The censorship is based around this, not around what people happen to dislike.
Also, while many threads on WR are useful, many others are not, having been created mainly by people who dislike Wikipedia for not pandering to their particular viewpoints, and thus go about trying to claim that everything about Wikipedia is bad. And while there are occasionally problems with RFCs, RfArb, ANI, RfD, and so on, I've generally found that, unless one is searching for problems, things typically work well. Reading only Wikipedia Review is like reading only news about criminals: it can easily give a very distorted view of reality.