It definitely depends on the specific post, but there are a lot of flaired users here that are also BadHistory regulars.

I believe this post violates the 20 year rule Nope, this doesn't violate the 20y rule and I'm a muppet! (and apologies for posting if it is), but in the event that it's acceptable, here's the explanation I provided over PM.

Hiya!

Your post violates /r/Askhistorians 20 year rule, so it's going to be removed by the mods. But, nonetheless, it's worth answering.

If it helps answer your question: Many of the mods here at /r/askhistorians are also mods of /r/badhistory. Many of the flaired community members here at /r/askhistorians, such as myself, are also active community members over at /r/badhistory. /r/badhistory doesn't try to maintain the same academic rigor that we do here on /r/askhistorians. Because most of the active community members there are familiar with a lot of public misconceptions (eg States rights, Nazi apologia, Noble savages, so on and so forth) we will often mention things off-hand in /r/badhistory and assume others know what we're talking about, when we'd usually explain or cite them here on /r/askhistorians. However, aside from the informality, /r/badhistory, just like /r/askhistorians, is a subreddit that practices evidence-based argumentation centred around academic peer review. If you make a claim there and somebody challenges, you'd best be ready to support it! People do make mistakes, of course, but they're just about always caught out and corrected.

So yeah, in short, if /r/askhistorians is a bunch of us historians in the classroom, then /r/badhistory is a bunch of us hanging out at the pub at the end of the day. Have a good one! :)

I've seen a good number of pretty bad comments at badhistory and that's to be expected. What will someone spend time writing up to critique as bad history? stuff they care a lot about which means they tend to be a bit biased and many tend to read their OP in an unfavorable light. That being said there are lots of good posts there and quality contributors. To use an example: Zukhov made a post about the "lost cause" which was essentially just a long ask historians post (or two) without having to wait for someone to ask the question.

Well, it ranges from extremely excellent (e.g. the Post on Pope Pius) to rather bad. Since it isn't as tightly moderated posts have to be rated on an individual level. A good post will have the same things in them that a good post here would have.

But there also is obviously more joking, more circlejerking and more arguing than here.