I’ve always loved the name rbutr. It works on many levels, and is very brandable. But unfortunately it very strongly ties us to the word rebuttal – which is really just a part of what rbutr does.
rbutr is about mapping contrary responses to the pages they respond to. Contrary responses may include corrections, debunkings, counter arguments, critiques, rebuttals, refutations, mockery, and a number of other forms of critical response to the content. If we just restricted ourselves to “rebuttals” then we can’t use mere contradictions to make a point.
Aside: One of my favourite “rebuttals” of all time used the Wikipedia entry for the UK as a general rbutl to an advert that claimed that 120 million Brits suffered from back pain. The wikipedia article clearly states that the population of the UK is 62 million. Thus the claim was clearly refuted by a simple piece of contrary evidence – none of which represented any sort of rebuttal, but perfectly fulfilled the role desired by this system: to provide access to contrary evidence, counter arguments and/or criticisms of the source material!
It is very awkward to list all of those variations of opposition, so I think we need to coin a new word to cover them all. I think “Contrary” might do it nicely. As in rbutr allows users to connect ‘contraries’ to articles, so that people can see the list of contraries from the contradicted article.
Of course I will need to define ‘contrary’ every time I use it, but at least I can define it once in a conversation or article, and then short circuit that whole need to list rebuttal, contradiction, critique, correction, counter argument, debunking and dispute every time I describe the type of content which counts as a contrary.
What do you think? Got a better suggestion?