[all2]

How will you be handling "soft" topics like history?

What about the handling/records of/provenance of artifacts?

Who is the arbiter of Truth? Will this wind up like Snopes or Wikipedia with an entrenched viewpoint that is dogma and defended at all costs? How will you avoid this?

Will alternative views/paths of inquiry be considered seriously? For example; vaccination efficacy research? I understand this is a hot-button issue, but that's exactly why I picked it. How you handle it will be a litmus test of how other issues will be handled.

How will you avoid the apathy and dogmatic approaches of many scientific journals?

What about scientific verification (or lack-there-of)?

[camdenlock]

Sad to see the most important set of questions in this thread not only go unanswered, but downvoted too.

[msla]

Speaking as someone who asked a similar question: I doubt they're going to answer this, because it would tip their hand, and no possible answer would benefit this little publicity junket/advertorial PR dump.

If they say they're going to moderate the site such that vaccines don't cause autism, in their view, that's taking the "party line dogma all alternative views are crushed by moderator fiat" approach, as per the comment you're replying to.

If they say it's going to be a free-for-all, they're implicitly saying that, unless they get a team of users onboard to stamp out nonsense quickly, their site is going to be Yahoo Answers with more Ajax, and a clearinghouse for "Big Pharma Chemtrails Cause Morgellons Vaccines To Sterilize White Babies" type nonsense, because the extremists always seem to have time to spread their idiocy into any unmoderated or lightly-moderated forum.

However, the questions still have value, if only because the answers resonate in their nonexistence.