Should we curate a “bogus science” wiki or similar?
I don't think so. It's a lot of work, and it's fraught with issues. For example what do you do if you disagree with another curator? What if something that's supposed to be bogus turns out to be legitimate science? What if something that you think is legitimate science, is actually bogus science?
A recent answer and subsequent comment discussion revealed there are possibly many bogus science sources on the web that are apparently invading the SE network.
The question on meta talked about deleting answers, and referred to a particular answer that had been deleted! Emilio Pisanty was good enough to link to a copy of it. IMHO it's a wrong answer. But IMHO it's better to keep it around along with the downvotes and comments.
I understand that downvoting plays a key role in keeping this kind of information in check, but it seem like it might be beneficial to have an easily-available source to point to, when debunking really bad pseudo-science answers.
There's nothing stopping you setting up your own bogus-science website and referring to it. The difficulties come when you have a public bogus-science website. Then you have a repeat of the issues you see on stack exchange.
I don't know exactly how this would be handled in the current framework of SE, since most other network sites don't have to deal with this kind of problem, but I think it could be immensely helpful here. Something like a community wiki that could be regularly updated when users of a high enough reputation...
The issue there is that a high reputation doesn't mean everything from that user is correct. I'd say this is something like letting the "expert in the field" referee any papers that offer information that demonstrates that the expert is wrong. Science only advances when the expert in the field is shown to be wrong.
...stumble across bogus news sites, improperly interpreted articles, baseless claims, etc., so that when references to them inevitably come up in answers we can just say "No, and here's the source debunking that: X"
There's no issue with you doing that provided you link to a clear argument that does show why the wrong answer is wrong. But I've seen people claiming they've debunked something when they haven't, whilst meanwhile peddling time travel, the evil twin universe, the multiverse, and so on. The problem is in deciding what's right and wrong. People can be unreasonable about this.
Does that make sense within the context of Physics:SE? Anecdotally, I've seen more and more pseudo-science cropping up in various places that ends up making its way into the mainstream, so I think having a good, solid, well-maintained list here to refute it could do the community a lot of good. Thoughts?
There's something of a precedent with "canonical answers", but they present their own problems. What do you do if a "canonical answer" is totally wrong?
My thoughts are that there's an awful lot of pseudoscience that has made it into the mainstream. But when you try to clear that up with a correct answer, people who believe in the pseudoscience want to downvote/debunk/delete it.