3 ms·

In general, I have trouble trusting environments that can be described as "strongly moderated and curated". I find that environments that rely on censorship te

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.