In a recent thread there was some debate as to whether it is appropriate, or helpful to contribute previous threads as an answer to a newly asked question. From my perspective both sides seems to bring up valid points.
On the one hand it is expected that many people either improperly, or flat out don't search for their question to see if it's already been adequately answered. Obviously re-answering questions that have been properly addressed isn't in the best interests of this sub. In addition, some pointed out that those older threads can be used by those contributing in the thread to further the discussion.
On the other hand just posting previous answers can have the effect of stifling conversation. When an older example is given it can very well lead some people to just skip over furthering discussion. This being the internet, it is easy to see how one could perceive these posts as carrying a tone of "this has already been addressed in finality" while, as others have stated, they mean it to be just a further jumping off point.
While both arguments have merit, I must say I stand behind others being able to post these previous answers. What I personally find issue with is that these posts often contain no context, merely a link. It seems that while in most situations just posting a link is discouraged, these posts are allowed to exist with merely a link and usually something along the lines of "this has already been asked" added at the end.
I feel that, if people are going to be posting links to previous threads they should be adding context or direct links to comments (perhaps with ?context=# added) for what part of the thread relates to the subject matter at hand. Often times these older posts are inadequate at answering the new question, or don't cover the full scope of the question. At the very least the double standard of "just posting a link" should be addressed.
Other's thoughts on the situation?
Edit: I hope nobody takes this as a personal affront. I can't say I've ever had any personal complaints regarding flair'd posters. I feel my original subject would benefit from being reworded "merely posting".
2nd Edit: For clarification purposes, the post that people were debating in the thread I linked was
"There's been at least one thread on this in the past. There may be others.
I am not claiming this is a norm from dedicated posters here, nor am I claiming no former links should never be posted. The rules of this sub state that one should "Please take some time to put the links in context for the person asking the question." The caveat being that, before that, it states "Do not just post links to other sites as an answer." (emphasis is mine)
Should these links not have context as well? This comment is by no means the only one of its kind. Does it violate the rules of the subreddit? No one is claiming a lack of professionalism from the flair'd users of this subreddit (as most of these posts seem to be addressing thus far), but the fact is that content is not solely provided by users with flair. Should an exception be made or not?
As someone who has been linking to prior AskHistorians discussions before we even had a popular questions page, I think posting them is useful to the OP and others. I've had lots of positive replies from users who didn't look at the popular questions or didn't find the appropriate section.
I always try to make sure to word my responses in a way that doesn't cut off discussion or discourages anyone from posting further answers. I do actually check the questions in the FAQ for relevant and in-depth answers. If I find a particularly good one, I will point it out. If the FAQ section is lacking, I will refrain from posting it.
Every historian knows that there is no "final" answer for historical questions. I think the appropriate solution is to link to prior discussions and encourage further new answers.
I feel that, if people are going to be posting links to previous threads they should be adding context
This subreddit has many wiki pages devoted to collecting previously asked questions in this subreddit: the Popular Questions pages. This is an extremely useful resource.
When I see a new question here that's been answered before, I will provide a link to the relevant section of the Popular Questions wiki pages. However... while I may recognise a question about the number of deaths caused by European diseases among the Native Americans when the Europeans arrived in the Americas, that doesn't mean I know anything about the topic. So, rather than add some possibly misleading or wrong "context", I simply direct the asker to the relevant section of the Popular Questions pages, where experts have already answered the question before. I say that the asker "may be interested" in that section, and leave it at that. I don't say the question has already been answered (I don't know for sure). I don't tell anyone else not to answer the question. I simply point out some previous material in this subreddit that the asker may not be aware of. It saves them using the 'search' function to have to find it for themselves.
When an older example is given it can very well lead some people to just skip over furthering discussion. This being the internet, it is easy to see how one could perceive these posts as carrying a tone of "this has already been addressed in finality"
It's worth remembering who we're talking about here: who is potentially answering - and not answering - these questions.
Most flaired users here would not refrain from answering a new question just because there's a link to a previous question or a Popular Questions section. They're flaired users because they want to answer questions here. And, seeing a link to a previous question in a thread won't stop them. When a historian here has information to give you, they will give it to you whether the question already has an answer or not.
The people who are most likely to see a link to a previous thread and assume "this has already been addressed in finality" are the random redditors who aren't historians. To be blunt: the people who wouldn't be able to answer the question properly anyway. The real historians know that there's no such thing as a question about history being "addressed in finality", and they'll add information when and where they can.
I challenge you to find any historian here who will ignore a question they can answer simply because there's already a link to a previous question in the thread.
As a frequent commenter to the various dark age/fall of rome threads, my personal workaround for these issues is to simultaneously post a previous link response, as well as a summation paragraph of what was said in the link.
I find sometimes the process of writing a summation paragraph gives me a new way to look at the same issue, and thus accomplishes the dual task of not wasting old resources, as well as providing new ones.
And with that said, I would agree to some extent that merely posting an older link may not be wholly helpful, but people are always interested in chiming in, new or old, and insufficient responses of great interest tend to attract people who want to give (or ask for) more indepth responses.
Yes, as long as the linked thread actually includes some good and relevant answers!
The one caveat I would put (speaking for myself, not speaking ex catheda), is that when people do so, I like to see them include a "Here are some previous threads that were similar and got some great answers, but don't let that be a deterrent from others answering it here." Or something to that effect. Just because it was answered in the past doesn't mean new, useful info can't be added.
Quoting some excerpts from the answers, using > of course, is also great, to give readers an idea of what they will find if they click through, but again, not a requirement
Well I'm one of the culprits of this practice. In fact, it was for doing exactly this that the mods gave me this flair, and I get frequent positive feedback from OPs and mods, so I assume it's generally a "good thing" to do. I echo /u/Algernon_Asimov on this one; here's my 2 cents:
linking to FAQs/posts helps the OP by connecting them with responses, as opposed to possibly getting none (since an expert may not see it, may not have time, or may be burned out from answering the same question over & over). This also helps the experts by reducing repetetive work for them.
linking helps the OP by providing them with a wider range of responses than they would likely get. For example, if I link to the FAQ or a handful of previous posts, the OP is benefiting from all the responses that were generated by several questions, which represent the knowledge of more respondents, and often come at the same issue from more perspectives. So I feel that the the OP gets more diversity & a wider picture. For example yesterday we had posts re "Soviet views of America", & "life at Oxford in the middle ages": in both cases, they benefited from the responses generated by whole collections of past threads that asked different but related questions.
linking helps the OP by connecting them with responses faster than waiting for an expert
linking does not in any way discourage real experts from contributing more info. But I know what you mean.. it can sometimes look like it's stifling conversation. I used to always preface my links with something like "Not discouraging further contributions ...", but I got bored of typing it and seemed too form-letter-ish. So now I say something like "check here for previous responses", which I don't feel closes the door on new responses being added. In any case, someone who really has something to say will say it regardless of whether I've provided a link.
However, linking does stifle contributions from non-experts, which frankly I see as a major benefit to the OP, the sub readers in general, and the mods particularly. For example, the "trimming nails" thread from the other day: I didn't get to it with a link to the FAQ for several hours, by which time, the thread had already spun out. When casual readers see that a post hasn't been answered, they'll try to help out the OP with anecdotes, links to wikipedia, etc, or make jokes or comments like "I want to know this too!", which is just noise that the moderators have to deal with by deleting & banning, and then responding to complaints/PMs etc. Jumping on posts as soon as they arrive in the New Queue with links to something reasonable shows everyone that the OP has been given something (so they don't feel as compelled), and further, it has the effect of setting the bar for further reponses (so if they do respond, it's higher quality).
re whether linking can come off as rude: I try to word my posts in a friendly manner: I don't want to come off condescending or harsh, but I don't stick to any particular formula so maybe I don't always achieve that, and of course, you never know how someone will interpret what you write. I have seen some non-flaired users give links with no comment, which do seem terse to me
Re adding a TL;DR with the links: I never do this unless I really know the topic, which is seldom. In fact I make a point of minimizing any editorializing on my part: I am not an expert on these topics and am not qualified to identify which (if any) of the responses are "correct" nor to distill them down to essential points. I prefer that the OP make their own interpretation/conclusions.
Re whether it's a double-standard that we can post links to the FAQ/posts but not links to Wikipedia/articles: I don't think it is. The former are previous discussions in this sub, which have already been subject to follow-up questions, requests for clarifications, and moderation.
edit: typos
I personally, very strongly feel that in recent times this subreddit is suffering heavily from an over amount of automation. It's not asking historians things and engaging in discussions and debates, it's becoming an archive, a digital library of some contributors' opinions, and it's ultimately killing the experience for me. Especially since I believe that people are overly aggressively and liberally linking to previous threads. If there's any crossovers in questions people link you to some previous thread, where hidden somewhere in an unrelated question there's a reference that might be similar.
"How did people before clocks know when to meet up" gets linked to a thread about servants waking their masters up in pre-alarm clock days. That's such a general answer that it seems too easy and lazy. Obviously the "Did Hitler really dislike Jews?" stuff, sure, it's been asked to death, but sometimes similar questions can be rephrased or sometimes it just bears a new set of eyes and can inspire new discussions.
I still come here more frequently than other subs, but my passion for it is dying out, since the point is supposed to be engaging in and learning from learned people, not simply going to a library. If that's what the sub is going to become, I'm just going to go to a library.