Go advertise your "just like /r/floobinart but with more zimbledings" sub everywhere to get people to come to it.
Go advertise your "just like /r/floobinart but with more zimbledings" sub everywhere to get people to come to it.
Reddit, with good moderation, is a world apart from what you see if you visit the main page.
On a side note, it's also a great place to go and see discussions around things you highly disagree with. It might help to understand the motivations of "the other side".
I read a recent answer there whose first sentence was the opposite of reality. Thinking of how I could demonstrate this easily and effectively, where any person could follow up easily and see what's right, I posted a comment saying it contradicted the second sentence of the Wikipedia article on the topic.
My comment was automatically banned by the auto-moderator because it had a link to Wikipedia and no other links. I tried reading the subreddit rules before posting, but it's pretty hard to find this rule -- indeed, it is not explicitly stated as far as I can tell.
It is at least currently in the subreddit rules page, as linked to on the main site.
"Wikipedia, or any other single tertiary resource, used by itself not a suitable basis for a comment in this subreddit."
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules
In general on reddit, if you've had a comment removed and think it's not right then message the moderators.
I don't think that a subreddit that bans links to Wikipedia can be considered a good source of information.
I don't believe it does as I recently posted a comment with a wikipedia link. It does, however require more authoritative sources than wikipedia, mine did at least have several other corroborating sources. Perhaps the auto-mod is set to remove comments without at least one non-wiki link.
They encourage people who would otherwise have linked just to wikipedia to hunt out the sources that claim comes from and use those instead.
I hope they put in a note in their comment or said thanks at least, I'd hope for more there.
They were nice about things; the PM read "AskHistorians doesn't allow Wikipedia, but .... I clarified in my OP .... Thanks for prompting the clarification!"
To post an answer on /r/AskHistorians you have to have a degree in the field in question or proven experience in the field.
I don't think that people who consider Wikipedia the end-all-be-all knowledgebase should be considered for anything.
I was not posting an answer. I was correcting an error in an answer, and I thought that showing that it contradicted Wikipedia was productive. (The automated implementation of the subreddit rules disagreed.) I thought it would be great if my comment resulted in either the answer or the Wikipedia article being edited so that they were in line; this objective was vaguely achieved.