4 ms·

Reddit is a magnificent source of useful knowledge. r/AskHistorians r/bikewrench To name just two. There is nothing even remotely comparable. But you need to

Reddit is a magnificent source of useful knowledge. r/AskHistorians r/bikewrench To name just two. There is nothing even remotely comparable. But you need to be able to detect sarcasm and irony.

blablabla123 2y ago
...which is sometimes incredibly hard and it might not be possible because it's such a niche topic or people might be just wrong. Just thinking about Urban Myths, Conspiracy theories etc. where even without a niche factor things may sound unbelievable but actually disproving can be effort that is out of proportion
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mvdtnz 2y ago
I have seen a tremendous amount of bad advice on bikewrench.
- oldgradstudent 2y ago
  But a lot of great advice. I became a half decent home bike mechanic through reading it, and of course Park Tool videos.
giantrobot 2y ago
I don't know about bikewrench but AskHistorians is a useful source of knowledge because it is strongly moderated and curated. It's not just a bunch of random assholes spouting off on topics. Top level replies are unceremoniously removed if they lack sourcing or make unsourced/unsubstantiated claims. Top level posters also try to self-correct by clearly indicating when they're making claims of fact that are disputed or have unclear evidence. OpenAI, Google, and the other LLMs-are-smart boosters seem to think because the Internet is large it must be smart. They're applying the infinite monkey theorem[0] incorrectly. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
- VancouverMan 2y ago
  In general, I have trouble trusting environments that can be described as "strongly moderated and curated". I find that environments that rely on censorship tend to foster dogma, rather than knowledge and real understanding of the topics at hand. They give an illusion of quality and trustworthiness. It's something we see happen at this site to some extent, for example. I'd rather see ideas and information being freely expressed, and if necessary, pitted against one another, with me being the one to judge for myself the ideas/claims/positions/arguments/perspectives/etc. that are being expressed.
  - giantrobot 2y ago
    Your comment is orthogonal to the quality of the AskHistorians subreddit. AskHistorians' moderation tends towards curating posts following the rules rather than content. There's often competing narratives on questions where there's academic dispute of facts. Regardless of whether you think that's the right approach to moderation, top level posts are sourced and can at least be examined. It's a marked improvement over the unsourced musings of random Redditors.

Reddit is a magnificent source of useful knowledge. r/AskHistorians r/bikewrench To name just two. There is nothing even remotely comparable. But you need to be able to detect sarcasm and irony.

blablabla123 2y ago

...which is sometimes incredibly hard and it might not be possible because it's such a niche topic or people might be just wrong. Just thinking about Urban Myths, Conspiracy theories etc. where even without a niche factor things may sound unbelievable but actually disproving can be effort that is out of proportion

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mvdtnz 2y ago

I have seen a tremendous amount of bad advice on bikewrench.

oldgradstudent 2y ago
But a lot of great advice. I became a half decent home bike mechanic through reading it, and of course Park Tool videos.

giantrobot 2y ago

I don't know about bikewrench but AskHistorians is a useful source of knowledge because it is strongly moderated and curated. It's not just a bunch of random assholes spouting off on topics. Top level replies are unceremoniously removed if they lack sourcing or make unsourced/unsubstantiated claims. Top level posters also try to self-correct by clearly indicating when they're making claims of fact that are disputed or have unclear evidence. OpenAI, Google, and the other LLMs-are-smart boosters seem to think because the Internet is large it must be smart. They're applying the infinite monkey theorem[0] incorrectly. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

VancouverMan 2y ago
In general, I have trouble trusting environments that can be described as "strongly moderated and curated". I find that environments that rely on censorship tend to foster dogma, rather than knowledge and real understanding of the topics at hand. They give an illusion of quality and trustworthiness. It's something we see happen at this site to some extent, for example. I'd rather see ideas and information being freely expressed, and if necessary, pitted against one another, with me being the one to judge for myself the ideas/claims/positions/arguments/perspectives/etc. that are being expressed.
- giantrobot 2y ago
  Your comment is orthogonal to the quality of the AskHistorians subreddit. AskHistorians' moderation tends towards curating posts following the rules rather than content. There's often competing narratives on questions where there's academic dispute of facts. Regardless of whether you think that's the right approach to moderation, top level posts are sourced and can at least be examined. It's a marked improvement over the unsourced musings of random Redditors.