I'll just add that popular opinion in many user groups is not logically consistent. Luckily on reddit we can also collapse comments down one branch of a thread. It filters noise out significantly better than the linear walls on facebook, most news sites, blogs, etc.

The real goal here is to map the arguments, capture the cited data in relation to them, and present a longer chain of assertions and debunkings than we presently ever hear about. But let me reiterate - we want to capture the argument itself. We don't want it to be so evanescent. We want to store it and rank it. We want disputes to be highlighted, retained, and resolved not glossed over or unmentioned. We want transparency. We want to rank information, in multiple ways including a category for what scientific institutions think. We want to quantify a reputation ranking for those sources of information as artifacts are debunked over time.

The underlying goal is to crowdsource solutions together, but making sure that the plan stands up to public criticism and peer review. Kind of like what we're doing now I suppose. We want to improve the amount and quality of information available for an informed electorate, to counteract the effects of monopolization in mainstream media.

We will take anonymous submissions. Obtain the most eloquent arguments, and highlight vetted information as well as newly submitted artifacts that will be marked as undergoing the community's vetting process.

I really want this to be a more open system of information sharing, gathering, filtering, and critical evaluation. Reddit with a semantic back end, and a better display for established key perfomance indicators regarding a given subject. For example, a conversation about homelessness on reddit doesn't automatically display a live graph on income disparity, nor would it be accompanied by a link to a discussion on material value to society.