dkimbel

I think we're of a similar mind -- I was imagining a system where a user could input certain premises they agree with or values that they hold, and then they could see what conclusions follow (or would follow, with the addition of further premises). You certainly could end up with dubious conclusions, given what premises you start from. At the very least, though, different ideologies would actually come with an explicit set of premises, and people who disagree with those ideologies would be able to see exactly what they disagree on.

Something related to this Logipedia that I'd be interested to see (or work on building one day) is a site intermediate between this and Wikipedia -- a site where users can view or create logical arguments, and combine smaller arguments into larger ones. I'm not sure how many people would actually use such a site, but it'd surely promote a higher level of public discourse than, say, Twitter. The only way we really communicate online is using strings; there has to be some potential for something more structured.

A few of the images on this site make it clear that LI2 is fudging its diversity numbers. That's concerning; if I were Hogwarts or Stark Industries, I'd pull out of the partnership.