I think you in part misunderstand the aim of the active moderation on this subreddit. It isn't simply a matter of "Is the answer correct, yes or no?" We remove plenty of answers that are technically correct, but simply do not meet our standards. This isn't a subreddit you come to simply because you want a quick, basic answer from someone who can link to Wikipedia. Users come here because they are looking for a comprehensive response from someone who is well acquainted with the topic. The core mission is well encapsulated by "The Four Questions" we lay out in our Rules that we ask anyone thinking of responding to a question to consider:
As such, we routinely remove answers that are technically correct, but show that the poster is not an expert, and not treating the question with the level of comprehensiveness we expect here (This is expanded on significantly by the amazing /u/NMW here. Were we not to remove them, it would seriously compromise the ability of the subreddit to cultivate the longer answers people come here expecting, and the flaired community that is so important in making AH what it is. In this regards, I've written about it several times before, so no sense in reinventing the wheel, and I'll instead point you to this previous discussion, which I'll quote the initial post of:
It is a fair question, and one that is answered in part here, but nevertheless I do wish to expand a little further in addressing them, so without further ado, here is what they asked
I've always thought that people disclosing that they are educated guesses would foster discussion and allow for corrections to be made by someone in the know. Getting a real, full answer to the questions posted on this sub can be a matter of luck and good will. It takes time to put a real response together and it doesn't always happen.
There have been more that sounds few times I've had something to add, but not the time for a full write up, that has gone unsaid because of the super strict rules. That said, I get it and appreciate it most of the time, but some of these questions really can only be answered by some educated guessing. Most history I've read utilises a goodly amount of educated guessing anyway. Why delete it if the disclosure is made clearly?
I'd like to see a mechanism for serious, disclosed educated guessing to occur in this sub. I think there is a legitimate place for it on many of the questions asked. Thoughts?
No, much of what is raised there is answered by Jschool above, but the thread in question is a really perfect example of why we remove things, and provide a curated space, rather than letting Speculative responses stand if they are properly marked. To start, you're getting a treat. This is the entirety of the removed comment:
Didn't take much money to run around and give speeches to a public that was very, very interested in current events and political races. The newspapers which almost everybody read supplied the publicity. I'm sure there were also special interests favoring certain things. I don't think campaign staffs amounted to much more than an advisor or two and a horse and carriage. Plus most of public lived within a couple hundred miles of Philadelphia/NYC/DC. BTW....these are mostly "educated guesses." There wasn't anything else here.
As you can see, with almost every sentence introduced by "I'm sure" or "I don't think", there is nothing there which indicates even passing familiarity with the situation on hand. The entirety of the response is guess work. Now, to the sub's credit, the response was heavily downvoted. It stands at -16, and was visible for 3 minutes, 53 second before it was reported and removed, so people reacted quite critically to it. But that is in no small part because we have worked long and hard to cultivate the standards of this sub, and users know what they are and help to enforce them as well. We've had threads hitting /r/all, bringing in users unfamiliar with the sub, where nearly identical responses quickly were getting upvoted, so it is easy to assume that in an alternative universe where all else being the same, we didn't remove that stuff because the speculation was clearly disclosed, perhaps it would have been upvoted. If it was though, in the several hours between when it was posted and when /u/The_Alaskan posted their fantastic response it would have been upvoted heavily, and likely have spawned a very large discussion, but likely one that was similarly speculative throughout for the most part.
So you ask "Why delete it if the disclosure is made clearly?" and the answer is that we do it to create a space where someone like The_Alaskan wants to contribute. Sure, we're all working for meaningless internet points here in the end, but knowing that the response which you not only have put several hours into writing, but considerably more time in researching and gaining the underlying knowledge to answer the question in the first place, won't have to compete with something like the above, is important. The architecture of reddit heavily favors the early respondents. There are plenty of examples of this even on /r/AskHistorians despite our removal happy policies, where an answer quickly dashed off which just meets the bare minimum of acceptability sits at the top with dozens of responses, while the answer that most would say is objectively better languishes below with a few upvotes, as it was posted hours and hours later, and simply doesn't get the attention. The rules are designed to minimize that. We can't eliminate it of course, but we can do our best to minimize it.
And additionally, speculation can often be flat out wrong. /r/restricteddata already touched a bit on this in his own response here, but to address it specifically as it related here, leaving up a speculative response to "allow for corrections to be made by someone in the know" is a dangerous game. It not only assumes that someone in the know will show up to make those corrections, which isn't guaranteed, but that even if it does happen, those who came to the thread before then, read the response, and left thinking they had learned something, will return later and see the correction. This isn't a safe assumption to make. Certainly, the mod team can't fact check every single claim made on this sub, but we do our best (ask me how much time I've spent tracking down info on sources people cite...), unfounded speculation is a pretty easy one to make a call on.
So, the sum of it is that as you noted "[g]etting a real, full answer to the questions posted on this sub can be a matter of luck and good will", and that is absolutely true, we try to stack the deck in favor of getting one as much as we can. That good will, in no small part, is because we remove things. It is because the person capable of giving the "real, full answer" knows that the speculation such as what I pointed to will be removed. We curate this space to make it into one which people who are involved in academia, academically trained, or otherwise well educated on various historical topics want to contribute to, so while not removing it, and letting is stand might "foster discussion" in the short run, in the long run it would degrade the quality of the subreddit and likely drive away contributors who were drawn here because of the high standards. And of course, this doesn't just apply to speculation, this applies to many of the other rules we have in place, but I think that speculation is perhaps the most clear cut example for it.