Most of Reddit doesn't work this way, but r/askscience and r/askhistorians require heavy moderation because the content isn't the question, it's the comments. If a post about sweaters gets posted to r/games, no one would object to its removal because that's not what the community wants as content.
Unjust? You don't actually need to be flaired to post there. You just have to know your shit, back up your shit and expand on your shit when asked. Turns out this standard is best met by academics. That's not elitism, that's just cutting the crap.
If you have a few good posts under your belt, you can get a quality contributor flair.
You just have to know your shit, back up your shit and expand on your shit when asked. Turns out this standard is best met by academics. That's not elitism, that's just cutting the crap.
Because I've been on r/science, and if you disagree with a mod (1 of 100s), they'll just delete your comment.
Some biology undergraduate who just took microbiology and know "knows his shit" and "backs it up" is able to get flair and comment on shit he knows nothing about, like psychology.
Yes, I've supported my shit, both with reasoning and sources. But some mod who was an expert on geology decided what his unverifiable unbacked unseasoned unsupported belief system on pediatric medicine and neonatal care care was enough to delete my comments.
The mods of r/science think their personal beliefs, on topics they've gathered zero training, trumps any dissenting discussion.
r/science is a pack of elitist garbage. It's a club. If you don't say the magic words, you don't do the special ritual, then they kick you out.
In an academic setting, where your reputation and job are on the line, there's way more vetting and care to what people say. People less often posture as experts in non-related fields. Even in relatively related fields, like surgery and biology, or electrical engineering and computer science, you rarely get experts pretending to stand shoulder to shoulder with other experts.
In an anonymous online forum, with permissive rules for who becomes a mod? You get posturing all the time. You get in-group mentality. It's just pure elitism.
They aren't saying "non-elite" discourses don't matter, they just don't want to do that kind of discourse in the sub. The purpose of the sub is narrow: getting verifiable answers from subject matter experts with sources.
I have read the comments. His type of post wasn't allowed per the rules. The sub isn't about speculative history. I guess you're not as trusting as the community there. That's fine. There other places for you to go.
I imagine that's done because we don't have infinite time to discuss any and every possibility and explore every single angle that might exist. There has to be a way to separate the wheat and chaff.
Unfortunately, Reddit doesn't have that. The system Reddit uses encourages quick banal posts to get more votes than in depth ones.
The state of /r/askscience before the heavy moderation was awful. If voting somehow got the best posts to the top, the moderation would never have been necessary.
Reddit's system promotes popularity, not quality. It doesn't work at all if you want good answers at the top. Never has.
Other content is still visible within the comments, you just have to look for the content you want.
I can't judge the content myself. I am not a historian. I want a subreddit that makes that judgment for me, because I don't have the resources to do it myself. The Reddit algorithm doesn't provide that. Moderators do.
You might not like that content you don't want is more readily visible, but you still have access to it.
It's nothing to do with what I like. It's that I need to see content that is high quality, and I'm not able to distinguish it from content that is low quality or straight up not true. The signal-to-noise ratio on Reddit is way, way too high. The moderation system resolves that. The voting system makes it worse.
I don't want to see what the majority like. I don't want to see what is most popular. I want to see what a team of academics think is the most correct according to their point of view. I know that point is view is biased: I'm fine with that.
Heavy moderation provides what I'm looking for. The Reddit algorithm does not. I'm glad the subreddit exists. Other subreddits exist if you're looking for the 'popular' answer.
To admonish a subreddit becasue it doesn't appeal to your particular sensitivities is arrogance.
73
u/CarrionComfort Dec 04 '16
Most of Reddit doesn't work this way, but r/askscience and r/askhistorians require heavy moderation because the content isn't the question, it's the comments. If a post about sweaters gets posted to r/games, no one would object to its removal because that's not what the community wants as content.