BS [rebuttal] Wiki?

[padren]

Ok, not so much a BS wiki, but a rebuttal wiki....

 

My thinking is: we often get posts on arguments, whether creationism or the nature of the fall of WTC7, and we end up replying with previous threads that cover the same thing.

 

So lets say someone wants to post about WTC7 and how it fell at a speed equal or faster to 9.8m/s^2, and that it takes an implosion and negative pressure inside the building to cause that to occur.

 

I can only bet that people have either already posted info that shows it didn't fall that fast and that the premise is wrong, or demonstrated some other evidence that shows a building can suffer natural collapse within those characteristics.

 

 

It would be really sweet, to be able to paste in a link to a wiki topic that showed that the argument was made, that rebuttals were posted, and counter arguments to that was also posted.

 

Then, any new conversation in a thread would have a chance of starting out with those established facts, instead of being a constant rehashing.

 

 

The main concern would be people posting rather BSish stuff into the wiki, which is why I think it would need a rule such as only counter-arguments with credible external links would be accepted.

 

Maybe a rebuttal could be classified as scientific vs logical vs philisophical, the latter reserved for topics that are too existential for true scientific debate.

 

 

Anyway, what do people think - would it be worth doing?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We already have WiSci, and modifying it to serve that purpose would be trivial. We just have to see if that's the direction we'd like to go with it.

[the tree]

Also: http://wikireason.net/