3 ms·

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 as

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.

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.