4 ms·

I don't know about the quality of moderation in r/AskHistorians however. I read a recent answer there whose first sentence was the opposite of reality. Thinkin

I don't know about the quality of moderation in r/AskHistorians however. I read a recent answer there whose first sentence was the opposite of reality. Thinking of how I could demonstrate this easily and effectively, where any person could follow up easily and see what's right, I posted a comment saying it contradicted the second sentence of the Wikipedia article on the topic. My comment was automatically banned by the auto-moderator because it had a link to Wikipedia and no other links. I tried reading the subreddit rules before posting, but it's pretty hard to find this rule -- indeed, it is not explicitly stated as far as I can tell.

IanCal 10y ago
> My comment was automatically banned by the auto-moderator because it had a link to Wikipedia and no other links. I tried reading the subreddit rules before posting, but it's pretty hard to find this rule -- indeed, it is not explicitly stated as far as I can tell. It is at least currently in the subreddit rules page, as linked to on the main site. "Wikipedia, or any other single tertiary resource, used by itself not a suitable basis for a comment in this subreddit." https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules In general on reddit, if you've had a comment removed and think it's not right then message the moderators.
- areyousure 10y ago
  The comment I was responding to was written by a moderator, who saw my comment and edited their comment to hedge their incorrect claim. They messaged me but my comment was not reinstated. I don't think that a subreddit that bans links to Wikipedia can be considered a good source of information.
  - ganset 10y ago
    This is incredible. Did you spend more than 10 seconds even reading the sidebar? To post an answer on /r/AskHistorians you have to have a degree in the field in question or proven experience in the field. I don't think that people who consider Wikipedia the end-all-be-all knowledgebase should be considered for anything.
    - areyousure 10y ago
      I did read the sidebar. [The Hacker News guidelines contain the following text: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."] I was not posting an answer. I was correcting an error in an answer, and I thought that showing that it contradicted Wikipedia was productive. (The automated implementation of the subreddit rules disagreed.) I thought it would be great if my comment resulted in either the answer or the Wikipedia article being edited so that they were in line; this objective was vaguely achieved.
  - IanCal 10y ago
    > I don't think that a subreddit that bans links to Wikipedia can be considered a good source of information. I don't believe it does as I recently posted a comment with a wikipedia link. It does, however require more authoritative sources than wikipedia, mine did at least have several other corroborating sources. Perhaps the auto-mod is set to remove comments without at least one non-wiki link. They encourage people who would otherwise have linked just to wikipedia to hunt out the sources that claim comes from and use those instead. I hope they put in a note in their comment or said thanks at least, I'd hope for more there.
    - areyousure 10y ago
      Yes, as my post a few back mentioned, I think the automated ban is for comments that include a link to Wikipedia but not elsewhere. They were nice about things; the PM read "AskHistorians doesn't allow Wikipedia, but .... I clarified in my OP .... Thanks for prompting the clarification!"

IanCal 10y ago

> My comment was automatically banned by the auto-moderator because it had a link to Wikipedia and no other links. I tried reading the subreddit rules before posting, but it's pretty hard to find this rule -- indeed, it is not explicitly stated as far as I can tell. It is at least currently in the subreddit rules page, as linked to on the main site. "Wikipedia, or any other single tertiary resource, used by itself not a suitable basis for a comment in this subreddit." https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules In general on reddit, if you've had a comment removed and think it's not right then message the moderators.

areyousure 10y ago
The comment I was responding to was written by a moderator, who saw my comment and edited their comment to hedge their incorrect claim. They messaged me but my comment was not reinstated. I don't think that a subreddit that bans links to Wikipedia can be considered a good source of information.
- ganset 10y ago
  This is incredible. Did you spend more than 10 seconds even reading the sidebar? To post an answer on /r/AskHistorians you have to have a degree in the field in question or proven experience in the field. I don't think that people who consider Wikipedia the end-all-be-all knowledgebase should be considered for anything.
  - areyousure 10y ago
    I did read the sidebar. [The Hacker News guidelines contain the following text: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."] I was not posting an answer. I was correcting an error in an answer, and I thought that showing that it contradicted Wikipedia was productive. (The automated implementation of the subreddit rules disagreed.) I thought it would be great if my comment resulted in either the answer or the Wikipedia article being edited so that they were in line; this objective was vaguely achieved.
- IanCal 10y ago
  > I don't think that a subreddit that bans links to Wikipedia can be considered a good source of information. I don't believe it does as I recently posted a comment with a wikipedia link. It does, however require more authoritative sources than wikipedia, mine did at least have several other corroborating sources. Perhaps the auto-mod is set to remove comments without at least one non-wiki link. They encourage people who would otherwise have linked just to wikipedia to hunt out the sources that claim comes from and use those instead. I hope they put in a note in their comment or said thanks at least, I'd hope for more there.
  - areyousure 10y ago
    Yes, as my post a few back mentioned, I think the automated ban is for comments that include a link to Wikipedia but not elsewhere. They were nice about things; the PM read "AskHistorians doesn't allow Wikipedia, but .... I clarified in my OP .... Thanks for prompting the clarification!"