3 ms·

Who is the author? Is this accurate? Is it one guy's theory, a fringe theory, one of competing mainstream theories, or consensus? Certainly Reddit and the comm

Who is the author? Is this accurate? Is it one guy's theory, a fringe theory, one of competing mainstream theories, or consensus? Certainly Reddit and the comment's length are not indicators of accuracy. They are indicators of an author with a lot of time and motivation, which could be good or bad.

Analemma_ 8y ago
In general this is true, but /r/AskHistorians (along with /r/AskScience) is an exception. It has very high standards for answers (as you can see several times a day when a the mods nuke an entire thread for not being good enough): all answers have to cite reliable sources and they have many “verified” posters who the mods have confirmed are actual historians in their field. I’m sure misinformation sneaks in on occasion, but overall the posts are reliable and you can consider them, including this one, to be reliable.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  I find that /r/AskHistorians values length of answers and the formation of a narrative there within to be valued above pretty much any other concern. Citations are rare, and its even rarer that anyone checks out of they match up. Stuff isn't really vetted, although occasionally really outrageous stuff gets called out. I would not classify it as reliable, even if accurate and knowledgeable people post there.
  - AlotOfReading 8y ago
    AskHistorians is definitely not about the length of answers, except in that it takes a fair bit of writing to communicate complicated histories. The format does encourage a narrative, but that's reflective of the fact that most of the people reading are laypeople, not scholarly peers who can be expected to know unstated background. If you personally find it easy to teach laypeople the breadth of a field of discourse without narrative simplification, you have a very rare skill. That said, I think many people misunderstand the discourse that's happening there. It's not academic, but instead a touchpoint between academics(-ish) and laypeople. The kinds of questions being asked are decidedly not the sorts of questions discussed in literature. Flairs in turn have to give an educated answer that actually communicates with the asker. Citations don't really fit well into what's happening for either side. They're time consuming to produce and no one reads or even understands them, nor do they provide particularly relevant information. You can't usually cite a consensus, after all.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  Thanks. Where can I find out the credentials of who wrote that answer? Also, as I asked before, how do I know where this theory fits in the domain of accepted theories? > It has very high standards for answers (as you can see several times a day when a the mods nuke an entire thread for not being good enough): I'll point out that this practice indicates nothing about the quality; it depends on the mods and not on the quality. If the mods' taste happens to correlate with quality, only then would it result in higher quality comments. For example, mods in a forum that promotes conspiracy theories might also delete threads that don't match their definition of 'quality'. I'm a little concerned that the parent comment might represent a Reddit theory of accuracy, quality and scholarship, but not the real thing.
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    Their criteria for an "expert" flair are discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4p4wl7/rules_roundtable_13_what_is_an_expert_what_does/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4p4wl7/rules... As for individual posters, you can probably just message them and they'll be happy to provide their background. If not, I'm guessing you can message the mods and ask for some proof that they are who they say they are.

Analemma_ 8y ago

In general this is true, but /r/AskHistorians (along with /r/AskScience) is an exception. It has very high standards for answers (as you can see several times a day when a the mods nuke an entire thread for not being good enough): all answers have to cite reliable sources and they have many “verified” posters who the mods have confirmed are actual historians in their field. I’m sure misinformation sneaks in on occasion, but overall the posts are reliable and you can consider them, including this one, to be reliable.

throwaway2048 8y ago
I find that /r/AskHistorians values length of answers and the formation of a narrative there within to be valued above pretty much any other concern. Citations are rare, and its even rarer that anyone checks out of they match up. Stuff isn't really vetted, although occasionally really outrageous stuff gets called out. I would not classify it as reliable, even if accurate and knowledgeable people post there.
- AlotOfReading 8y ago
  AskHistorians is definitely not about the length of answers, except in that it takes a fair bit of writing to communicate complicated histories. The format does encourage a narrative, but that's reflective of the fact that most of the people reading are laypeople, not scholarly peers who can be expected to know unstated background. If you personally find it easy to teach laypeople the breadth of a field of discourse without narrative simplification, you have a very rare skill. That said, I think many people misunderstand the discourse that's happening there. It's not academic, but instead a touchpoint between academics(-ish) and laypeople. The kinds of questions being asked are decidedly not the sorts of questions discussed in literature. Flairs in turn have to give an educated answer that actually communicates with the asker. Citations don't really fit well into what's happening for either side. They're time consuming to produce and no one reads or even understands them, nor do they provide particularly relevant information. You can't usually cite a consensus, after all.
forapurpose 8y ago
Thanks. Where can I find out the credentials of who wrote that answer? Also, as I asked before, how do I know where this theory fits in the domain of accepted theories? > It has very high standards for answers (as you can see several times a day when a the mods nuke an entire thread for not being good enough): I'll point out that this practice indicates nothing about the quality; it depends on the mods and not on the quality. If the mods' taste happens to correlate with quality, only then would it result in higher quality comments. For example, mods in a forum that promotes conspiracy theories might also delete threads that don't match their definition of 'quality'. I'm a little concerned that the parent comment might represent a Reddit theory of accuracy, quality and scholarship, but not the real thing.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  Their criteria for an "expert" flair are discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4p4wl7/rules_roundtable_13_what_is_an_expert_what_does/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4p4wl7/rules... As for individual posters, you can probably just message them and they'll be happy to provide their background. If not, I'm guessing you can message the mods and ask for some proof that they are who they say they are.