Hello everyone and welcome to the 16th installment of our continuing series of Rules Roundtables! This project is an effort to demystify the subreddit and also to gather your feedback to help improve it! We aren't just covering the hard and fast rules though, but also looking at other aspects of the subreddit and the community. This week, we're looking at the standards for asking questions beyond the core rules, which have by now been covered in several previous installments of this series.
###First Things First
An unofficial motto of /r/AskHistorians would perhaps be that there is no such thing as a stupid question. Or as Carl Sagan much more eloquently stated it:
There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question.
With that in mind, we try to be as hands-off as possible, and the rules that are in place constraining questions, such as "Example Seeking" or the "20 Year Rule" are kept as limited as we deem workable. However, questions can sometimes be naive. They can sometimes be ill-phrased. And they can sometimes be very tedious. So what we are going to be addressing today are the types of questions which aren't banned by the rules but nevertheless do at times post issue or bring about complains/concerns from the user base, and explain how the mod team approaches these questions which some might think to consider "dumb".
###Not Dumb Questions
Falsely Premised Questions:
Often times a question will be asked in which the underlying premise of the question is off. As long as it isn't in a manner which violates the rules concerning Soapboxing in questions, we will rarely remove a question simply because it is based on a faulty question. We try to be understanding and accommodating that the very reason someone has come to the subreddit is to learn, and removing the question generally won't help the user who asked it, but rather would punish the user for their lack of knowledge. Our decided preference and hope is that their misunderstanding can be corrected by users or flairs of the subreddit, and so those questions are allowed to remain.
It should be noted that with these corrections, the standards of the sub still generally apply! At the very least, we expect corrections and discussion to be conducted with politeness and non-judgmentally, and while we do tend to offer some more wiggle-room when it comes to correctives, such comments should still strive to comport with the rules, and at the very least be comprehensive enough to help the OP understand why they are incorrect, not simply the fact that they are.
"Ancient World", "Medieval World", and other "Scopes":
As exemplified by the "Example Seeking Rule", we try to ensure that questions don't end up too broad in scope. But the flip-side, of course, is the need to balance those constraints with the simple fact that, like with falsely premised questions, laymen coming here to ask questions might not know enough to make their question as specific as some might like to see. While "Middle Ages" can break up into a multitude of sub-periods without even considering geography, to those without an underlying base of knowledge it might just be "Medieval Europe", "the Ancient World", or "Pre-Columbian America". We are of the opinion that while insisting that posters specify whether they mean 13th Century Aquitaine or 10th Century Wessex might make it easier to answer the question, it also will dissuade people from asking them in the first place, so we aim to strike a balance, which in this case means conceding to broad but popular periodizations.
The topic of periodization will be covered in more depth with a later Rules Roundtable, but the important part here is that we won't remove questions which use broad, but common restrictors of scope. We like it when the OP can try to narrow down their question best that they can, but we aren't looking to jack them up simply because they don't know the difference between 9th Century Lombardy and 12th Century Burgundy.
Additionally, we actually will generally remove comments which amount to nothing more than "When/Where in the Middle Ages?" There is often little value in such an interrogation on its own, since a user asking a question with a lack of specificity likely is doing so because they simply don't have a more specific frame of reference. That isn't to say that we frown entirely on such an approach, but we do ask and expect that prospective answerers try to make OP aware in a productive manner, either by seeking to explain the wide variations as part of their answer, or otherwise helping the OP narrow down rather than simply telling them they ought to.
Repeat Questions:
A common complaint is that certain questions get asked repeatedly. There are certainly some which hardly a week goes by without some iteration popping up. We know that for frequent browsers, this it might get tedious seeing "What was Hitler's favorite children's breakfast cereal?" repeatedly, but we have no interest in curtailing questions simply because they are not unique. Even in the case of questions which have spectacular answers featured in the FAQ, History isn't a mathematical equation where only one, single answer says it all. As covered in the previous Roundtable, there can be many different angles of approach, and aspects to emphasize. We certainly encourage users politely linking to previous responses in the FAQ, but we believe that there is never the absolute last word on a question. Additionally, from a more pragmatic perspective, maintaining and updating a list of moratoriumed questions would be a large burden on the modteam.
"Yes"/"No" Questions/Basic Fact Questions:
Our policy here is that OP only gets to set the parameters of their question insofar as it complies with the rules of the sub. Which means questions which are "Yes" or "No" answers, or else asking for a very specific fact - "What was the name of that big tank battle in the Gulf War?" - will nevertheless need to be answered to the standards of the subreddit. It would need to explain a little about Eastings 73, not just the fact that was its name, and a reply which does only the latter would be removed! We generally don't remove the questions themselves though.
"I am a [...]" Questions:
There is probably no topic more divisive on /r/AskHistorians than the infamous "I am a [...]" question. Based on polling we have done, most users have no opinion on them one way or the other, but while there are clearly those who enjoy asking them, there is a vocal minority who would love nothing more than to ban them! The reasons some people prefer to ask them are not really germane to this discussion, although I'm interested in hearing them nevertheless, but two things do need to be said.
However much some people dislike them, we have not, nor will in the future, considered banning this phrasing of a question, and will not remove them except in cases where they violate other submission rules, or the use of the first person adds a gratuitously unnecessary level of imagery (You can ask how the medieval legal system handled rape. Please don't ask the question as "a medieval rapist").
While we won't ban the phrasing, we do, frankly, advice against it. It is only a minority of flairs who like questions asked in the first person. Most simply ignore the phrasing of it and answer it as if asked in a more conventional manner, while again, a minority will actively avoid answering those questions! As such, using such phrasing can, possibly, drive away someone who otherwise might be the ideal person to answer it but is unlikely to draw in someone who can but would have avoided a more conventional wording. So instead of asking “I am a French peasant in 1789. How does the Revolution affect my daily life over the next decade?”, at least consider simply writing out “How did the French Revolution affect the daily life of peasants?”. In the end if is your choice, but when writing a question you should always be considering your audience!
###Can You Sum This Up Please?
We remove as few questions as we can here, because everyone deserves an answer! What rules we do have are mostly pragmatic and based on the experience of the modteam as being conducive to smooth running of the subreddit. There are sometimes questions which don't break those rules, but nevertheless are 'naive, tedious, ill-phrased, or lack adequate self-criticism'. While those questions can be problematic, we believe that the mission of this sub is better served by allowing them to remain standing in as many cases as possible. So we hope that you all will keep in mind that even a bad question is usually asked with good intentions and ensure that this remains the best place on the internet to come and learn about the past.
The reasons some people prefer to ask them are not really germane to this discussion, although I'm interested in hearing them nevertheless
As someone who finds those questions exceptionally irritating (although I don't think we should ban them), I'll say why. One, they're inherently very tricky to answer for some flairs to answer. As /u/sunagainstgold pointed out the other day, "we have no unfiltered peasant voices from Medieval Europe." The problem of whether historical subalterns can "speak" has been the subject of long-term debates within the academy. I'm immensely unqualified to weigh in on any side of that discussion, which has been critiqued and analyzed by many people way smarter than me, But I think it is somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand because it means that these questions are way easier to answer for some than for others. Questions like "I am a cobbler in NYC in 1830, what is my life like?" are great if you study post-18th century Anglosphere stuff where a lot of textual evidence from a wide range of sources have survived. However, we simply don't have that kind of evidence for may historical actors. I understand the value of trying to study history from below and I am absolutely not saying that the lack of direct evidence should prevent us from studying peasants or other groups who are not represented in archives and major textual sources. However, I personally think that questions like that often tend to be overly specific and only end up limiting the answers given. As pointed out in the OP, there's absolutely no reason for the roleplaying in questions. Asking the question normally doesn't prevent you from asking questions about subjects which don't receive as much attention.
Outside of the scholarly implications, my more personal reasons for disliking the question is that these questions only started after someone delivered an amazing narrative response about murders in 18th century Boston (I can't find the thread now, but it used to be the top question of all time here). The user who put the time and energy into that response did an incredible job and went far and above the call of duty in doing so. Unfortunately, many of the people who try to ask similar questions seem to be fishing for a similar level of response. Frankly, I find this irritating for a couple of reasons. One, because I'm not really interested in writing Hundred Years War fanfiction in order to answer questions. Two, while this sub is famous for massive, ridiculously long posts, we can't always put in the time and energy to give that level of response (and not every question merits it in the first place). This may be somewhat uncharitable, but when you do reply to a question and the OP doesn't bother to respond, is it because they were expecting one of the million word answers they saw in other answers? I suspect many of the roleplaying questions are also from people trying to do research for a book or something. I don't necessarily mind that, but if you are researching for a book, then just be upfront about it.
At this point, the limiting step on this subreddit is answers, not questions. The front page has plenty of questions with no answers, rather than a handful of questions overflowing with answers. This is to be expected given the high standards required with an answer versus the nearly no standards required with a question. So why is there such a concern with any prospect that has the potential of discouraging yet more questions? Simple courtesy should demand that before a questioner ask for an indepth, well sourced answer that will consume a fair bit of time to compose, they demonstrate that say they've spent 5 minutes of their own time even just on google or wikipedia on the question.
Falsely premised questions based on popular misconceptions that still get printed in popular books is one thing. False premises that could be cured with a brief glance at a wikipedia page on another. Again, I don't think demanding a bit from the questioner is unreasonable.
Furthermore, there have been a lot of questions where the questioner attempts to bias the answer right off the bat, and I've never seem called a violation of the rules. What I mean is questions phrased like "Why did X do Y instead of Z? Surely Z must have been easier/cheaper/better/sexier/whatever." The first part is a question. The second part is a claim, and if it is a claim that cannot be backed up with evidence, then yes, you should "punish the user for their lack of knowledge."
The justification for repeat questions should lead to answerers being disallowed from simply saying "let me quote my response to this question last month" and instead be forced to rethink and reformulate their answer, since it will likely be at least slightly different each time. But they aren't, and that's a good thing. "No final answer" would be applicable if questioners demonstrated they had read previous answers and shown they wanted something further or more or different. But that happens once in a blue moon. The vast majority of the time none of them considered maybe someone else asked about the superpopular Game of Thrones episode that aired that week. The only caveat to this is the reddit search function is awful, and the previous solution of using google search became unbearable when they started including mobile results for desktop users.
I understand at this point "I am a" questions are here forever, but what you've posted more than explains why they're a bad idea. They add nothing (I would argue they add bias), at best the actual phrasing is ignored by answerers and at worst the entire question is ignored, they are inappropriate for certain topics. And yet they're a staple of reddit and so must be endured.
I think in the Meta-Hitler thread, a good guideline was given: ask what you want, but think about what you really want to know before asking.
Were there ever well-tested and commonly believed ideas in recorded history that got completely proven wrong due to an original oversight, new idea, or invention? Just as importantly, what was the mentality of those who believed in these ideas?
Interesting topic. Thanks for posting.
Our policy here is that OP only gets to set the parameters of their question insofar as it complies with the rules of the sub. Which means questions which are "Yes" or "No" answers, or else asking for a very specific fact - "What was the name of that big tank battle in the Gulf War?" - will nevertheless need to be answered to the standards of the subreddit. It would need to explain a little about Eastings 73, not just the fact that was its name, and a reply which does only the latter would be removed! We generally don't remove the questions themselves though.
I can understand basic questions such as How many knight were there really?, because the question itself is open to many answers depending on who you ask. Your example on the other hand, deals with only one possible answer. Eastings 73. I struggle to see the point of view were anything else would be necessary. Sure, you could talk about why it's called Eastings 73, or if other people call it something else, that's not what I'm referring to. As soon as you go beyond that point, I have to remain self-critical.
I ask myself, is what I'm writing now part of something that will lead to the question? Does the OP need the history behind Easting73 in order to understand the answer? Do I contribute to the person's understanding of the question? Is this a quality post, a post that respect the OP, or am simply I filling-in with a general overview to pass the bar?
Some questions are more straight forward and simple that others. This subreddit is famed for enhancing Reddit's understanding of history, which often has to do with context around the question, but I have some doubts if that is always appropriate. Does my self criticism make any sense? Or, perhaps I've missed something?
Our policy here is that OP only gets to set the parameters of their question insofar as it complies with the rules of the sub. Which means questions which are "Yes" or "No" answers, or else asking for a very specific fact - "What was the name of that big tank battle in the Gulf War?" - will nevertheless need to be answered to the standards of the subreddit. It would need to explain a little about Eastings 73, not just the fact that was its name, and a reply which does only the latter would be removed! We generally don't remove the questions themselves though.
lets test the no stupid questions rule: does this hold for followup questions in the comments as well? Y/N or is it a contextual thing?
Is it breaking the rules to comment on a question solely in order to modify the question to perhaps be better phrased or less tedious? I've wondered if that's against the etiquette of the sub, even if it's not directly banned.
One of my issues with the 'I am a ...' questions is that they generally carry with them a lot of assumptions; they presume a combination of person or setting that sometimes never existed. There's just not that much that can be answered to 'I'm a Jew in the SS, how would I feel to be assigned at Mauthausen as a camp guard' beyond 'you never existed'. Sure, you can write a lot about why that person never existed, but then you're not really answering the question directly. You'd need to first deconstruct someones preconceptions, and after that there's not often much one can do to give the questioner a more accurate view of history. So, it's a lot of effort for not a lot of gain, in my opinion.
Banning the question is maybe a bit too much, but I'd be in favour of making the negative advice a bit stronger, and if possible a bit more prominent. It's not the worst way of asking history-related questions, and I suppose it can make historical topics more relatable, but I wouldn't mind seeing a whole lot less of them.
This sub isn't...fun anymore. The front page has tons of unanswered questions but comment sections filled with mod deleted posts saying that xyz's response is sub-par and all that's left behind is someone trying to tack on their own question to yours. I'm also sure that many have had the issues of posts being blocked by mods for this or that reason but isn't that what upvotes are for?
I understand wanting to have standards for a subreddit, that's fine however this subreddit is beginning to get a bad air of academia about it, the kind that pushes undergrads away from humanities (you know the exact type I'm talking about). Instead of more and more rules, why not ease up on the gas a bit and let us all coast for awhile with the mod's hands still on the wheel?