Hi, this looks like a very good idea to me. People use a whole set of standards to judge how serious an argument is, and this is a biggy.

I'm interested in your four reasons: which I would summarise as 1) Donors think you're more credible - get more money 2) Generally people think you're more credible - more support and perhaps more confidence from those currently interested 3) Provides good references to answer basic questions - not sure what the deep benefit is here, apart from the desire to stop people being wrong on the internet clahing with having a day job 4) Give good researchers the tools to collaborate - get more people on the same problem, perhaps from a different angle

I think they're all valid, but that they don't make explicit one of the most important benefits, and what really should be the main purpose of any publication

5) Invite criticism - by talking the right language to the right people, you will spark responses and counter-arguments. At least some of these might raise serious concerns or problems that need to be addressed as soon as possible and might even change the direction of thinking on a few key issues