What's the community's take on asking a question in order to answer it so that it will serve as a future reference? This might be tied to the meta question, Should we expect original research to occur on this site.
For my particular example: I was pitched a multi-level marketing program about a year and half ago. It was very early in the morning and I was quite excited about the financial prospects of "partnering" with this acquaintance of mine in his newfound business.
I got home and began trying to research the company, called Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, FHTM. Well, anal analyzer/skeptic that I am... that turned into a 20ish page mathematical analysis. I concluded that this company is, in fact, a pyramid scheme and should be avoided like the plague. I finished my last revision in Aug 2010 and THIS USA Today article, to my delight, nearly matched my predicted mathematical model of actual earnings for representatives.
In any case, those trying to look into this company will be met by incredibly divisive blog posts, YouTube videos, reassurances from those involved, some state government cease-and-desist issuances, etc. Unfortunately, friends often have a higher pull than objective facts and I worry that some might be pulled into something like this.
To finish up, I thought about asking a question just to link to my paper and present the summary since skeptics.SE seems to have a pretty high page rank -- if you search for a question's title via a reasonably close phrase, the skeptics.SE post will appear even if it was very recent. So... I see the primary purpose of the site as answering other people's questions, but I see some value in any who have already conducted extensive research on something posting their own answers. If anyone else comes along wondering, the answer will be found. My answer would be the same as if someone else had asked the question, and there has been at least ONE around this area (not this company) so far.
Is there a pre-existing policy/recommendation on something like this?