[mistermann]

I definitely think so, this sounds like what I think might be a big, big part of the solution to this problem.

I would really hope that there's a threaded discussion component, and I would hope that differing opinions/theories are allowed (and critiqued, obviously).

[hectorperez]

Thanks for the feedback!

Do you mean a threaded discussion per topic or per opinion?

[mistermann]

It's a very tough problem.

Of course, there's going to be the typical reddit-like absolute nonsense bickering, deceit, lying, disingenuousness, half-truths, etc. But within this mess there is frequently some extremely good information.

And then there's the academic/professional opinion, which would tend to be less verbose and higher quality, but then we know from experience that now and then these people are a little casual with the truth.

I would like to see a site where people can go to (as much as is practically possible) solve disagreements on popular topics. Take climate change: I would like to see the problem clearly described in (as much as is practically possible) layman's terms, so the average voter can understand it. For those interested in more detail or technical depth, drill down hierarchically into deeper levels of documentation.

Also, I would like to see any issues or loose ends raised by those who are not completely on board (aka "deniers", because only certain thoughts are allowed these days) debunked thoroughly, or left with a status of "we don't know how this fits into our theory".

To me it would be tremendously more efficient if rather than bickering on the internet, we could simply link to the objective (reviewed by both "sides") facts. Wouldn't having a resource like this been a good idea for the Clinto campaign, rather than hiring people to infiltrate internet forums? It makes me wonder why this approach wasn't taken.