fathom - 6:52 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0) [edited by: fathom at 7:05 pm (utc) on May 27, 2013]
What evidence would there be to suggest that Wikipedia is not whitelisted?
I am not simply taking Google word...
You most certainly did when you stated:
The lack of a Google acknowledgement is the best evidence.
Your statement is not evidence at all and can be classified as an unsubstantiated opinion. Case studies do exist, which support the theory that Wikipedia is whitelisted. Whether you choose to research these studies to determine their legitimacy is a matter of personal choice or lack thereof.
According to your theory, I also must be whitelisted.
If it were subjected to the same spam links that were used in the case studies I noted, and did not witness a Penguin demotion, then it would provide evidence of whitelisting. But it has not and therefore is inconsequential for the purpose of this discussion.
I cannot prove a null which is the side topic here.
But I did already note that I have websites that emulate Wikipedia architecture and they do perfectly well which was the rational for why I must be whitelisted to.
[edited by: fathom at 7:05 pm (utc) on May 27, 2013]