4 ms·
A comment by a flaired user in /r/AskHistorians is a very different thing to a "Reddit comment".
by BigJono 10y ago
A comment by a flaired user in /r/AskHistorians is a very different thing to a "Reddit comment".
- fsloth 10y agoYes, but it's just a reddit comment none the less with no way to backtrack to peer reviewed work.
- jetru 10y agoWe've all learnt that "peer reviewed work" is code for "accept other peoples papers so they will accept ours" and has nothing to do with confirming the finding.
- fsloth 10y agoDon't throw the baby away with the bathwater. Peer reviewed publications offers the only venue for accountable reporting on complex subjects. By definition this mean "accountability to peers" and is the only mechanism which outsiders can use to gauge the credibility of claims. Like all things humans do that is not pure maths, it's not perfect but the best we have.
- mulmen 10y agoAre you implying that we should just accept peer reviewed work and Reddit comments as equally valid? I don't disagree with you, peer-review is no guarantee of proof but I assign more weight to it than an upvote. Especially if I can read the work myself and investigate further sources.
- oxide 10y agoI think his point is the fact that /r/AskHistorians comments are usually sourced properly and are strictly moderated.
- mulmen 10y agoBut this one isn't so it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt based on higher quality peers. /r/AskHistorians may be a fine place to discuss history but without sources the comments can be treated as nothing more than opinion.
- mulmen 10y agoIt isn't though. Without sources it's still just a Reddit comment. We should have higher standards than this.