Folks, because of the sensitivity of this topic, each comment here will be manually approved. Reddit has strict rules on revealing the identity of users, and we intend to abide by those. Our goal is to be as transparent as possible without harming a particular person's reputation.

Something that I have never gotten my mind around, even if I a graduate student (not in history, however), is where common knowledge ends and where does plagiarism begin. "Everyone" knows that Constantinople fell in 1453, for example, and I would probably not need to provide a source for that; while I would definitely need to provide a source if I quoted an obscure detail from a very specific soldier's memoir of the siege, for example.

There is a gray line somewhere in the middle that defines what is ok and what is not, but I've never really found it.

Do cases (like the one from last night) tend to be more malicious, or just ignorance/laziness from what the mod team has seen?

As a non historian reader, I appreciate this sub's dedication to academic rigour. Thanks mod team.

As someone who wasn't online yesterday could someone give some context, or at least say who the AMA was with?

I'm no historian, in another field entirely, but it is very refreshing indeed to see a internet forum have such respect for academic integrity.

As a casual browser I feel very confident in knowing that the replies I am reading in this subreddit are not only accurate, but also have the relevant citation and sourcing.

So thanks for being transparent, and keep up the hard work.

I am actually really glad you folks are clamping down so hard. As much as others like to complain about the moderation here, I come here to learn about history, and a lot of questions that I've never even considered asking get asked.

So I'm glad that I can read this sub and be fairly sure I'm reading a well researched answer.

Is plagiarism serious enough to warrant notifying academic/professional authorities? I mean, do the mods feel there's a duty to uphold academic conduct both in the real world and in the sub, or is there a more hands-off approach?

Could AskHistorians benefit from a plagiarism/citation bot? (Notwithstanding the current no bots rule)

I am in favor of punishing plagiarism strictly, and even with banning the user. However, I am not a fan of zero-tolerance policies on principle. There are times when strict and severe is warranted, and times when the best solution might take a different form. They can be particularly frustrating in discipline policies in public schools.

Has it always been a zero-tolerance policy on plagiarism with a one-size-fits-all consequence here? Would that be a topic the mods are interested in revisiting?

I hope this isn't interpreted as a complaint. I love this sub and I'm awed by the dedication of the mods here. I just don't often have a chance to discuss zero-tolerance policies in a setting that I care about.

It doesn't matter whether answers come from the longest-serving moderator, a first-time commenter thrilled to share niche brilliance, or a New York Times bestselling author. If the information is accurate, verifiable and comprehensive, we accept it. If it doesn't meet those standards, we remove it. The end result is that we can trust the answers we get to our questions about history because we can trust the people who answer them.

I don't follow this paragraph, particularly the last sentence. It seems like it should read "because we can trust the moderators." I don't mean to sound glib or anything. I just think that the larger point of this post is that whether or not you trust a contributor around here is largely irrelevant; what really matters is that the info is up to snuff.

I would just like to thank you guys for doing such a wonderful job at maintaining the standards in this subreddit. You don't get paid for it and yet somehow managed to commit a large amount of time making sure that only the best answers remain up, and thus provide a wonderful place to learn.

I have nothing of great value to add except that I think you mods do a really fantastic job. The work you put into this place is very much appreciated.

How do you recognize plagiarism on here? I understand that the specifics of this case are sensitive and you don't want to give any, but in general (without giving people good loophole material), what do you look for in order to spot plagiarism?

You say you've only seen it a few times on here. Do you think that's because it rarely happens or because it's difficult to notice?

It's interesting to me. From a game theoric perspective there are distinct differences between rigorously enforced and selectively enforced policies. The knowledge that even people doing AMA's will be held to follow the sub's rules on things like this regardless of their implied privilege has an effect on people who are deciding how to act within this community, so long as they are aware of the precedent of course.

It's interesting to me, how things like this propagate through time.

I agree with the policy, but is it safe to say you operate pretty much under the same rules a university would? This just throws me back right into my induction lecture on academic integrity.

Just a quick question: what's the policy on self-plagiarism?

Thank you mods for making this sub great. It is very telling that only rarely does something from this sub get posted on /r/badhistory . It is always a pleasure to read through the very clean and transparant comments, and to follow up on the sources used by the mods. While your strict policies sometimes get criticized, I must agree that they are essential for making this sub as educational as it is.

Thanks for reinforcing the reliability and credibility of this sub. I'm yet to "earn" my flair, and hope to in the future. For now, I love having a place to dawdle through historical musings and awesome niche knowledge. That is able to be sourced and lead to other reliable information. Love this place and the work that you guys do for us!

Thank you for such awesome moderation! This sub would not be what it is without the level of strictness you all enforce.