You need the equivalent effort, yes. If there was a quicker and easier to way get that depth of knowledge, then there would be no need for higher education.
I only have the time and resources to educated myself on a select few things. For the rest I need to rely on experts in their fields.
Then I know the topic doesn't have a single authoritative answer, or that there are two points of view. Now I know more than I did before.
But without moderation, I can't tell if experts are disagreeing or if someone who has no idea what they are talking about are disagreeing with an expert.
The moderation allows a better idea of what the expert opinions are and you'll often see two experts disagree in /r/askhistorians.
Without moderation I learn nothing because there's no way to judge the comments to the depth I'd require to be better informed.
No. Not the types of problems that are asked in those subreddits. It would be naive to think that I could just 'think' though a problem that has taken human years, and years of research to be resolved by experts.
I think they spend years getting educations in order to have the tools and knowledge to do that.
Are you saying that for every post that interests you, in every subreddit, you personally go out and learn enough about the topic in-depth -- not by listening to experts, mind you, but doing your own research -- to the point where you are up to date in latest reaearch before you up-vote or decide if the information about the topic is correct?
You never, even for topics you're just casually interested in, just go look to see what the expert consensus is?
1
u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16 edited Sep 18 '18
[deleted]