No. There are many subreddits on this site. There are a number of history subreddits. There are multiple which are specifically in the "question/answer" format. We provide a curated experience. /r/AskHistory doesn't. /r/AskHistory is what you want.

So, you can test this out yourself.

/r/AskHistory is the original history-themed question-and-answer sub. /r/AskHistorians was created to be the "expert" version of that. In the former, there are few rules and light moderation. Here, there is a very high bar, and merciless moderation that keeps it that way.

Compare the results of this multi-year parallel experiment. If you look through /r/askhistory/comments vs /r/AskHistorians/comments, judge for yourself the trade-off between quantity and quality. One thing you'll notice is that very few of the answers in the former are high quality: people who are serious about wanting to share their knowledge will tend to migrate away from a forum where they will get drown out by the highly upvoted background noise.

If you have a question about history, ask yourself if you're looking for a lively discussion with a bunch of people who may or may not have actually studied the topic, or an in-depth answer by someone who has. If the former, post there. If the latter, post here.

edit: oh, btw, there was a mod announcement a while back discussing comment removals - Rules Roundtable #20: [removed]

So, I'm not a Mod, and the two mod responses here are more than adequate, but I thought I'd add in a non-Mod response as someone who frequents this sub (mainly as a lurker and very very occasionally as an interested lay-contributer to a very specific niche), and therefore has a slightly different perspective.

So at the risk of swimming outside my lane here, I'm going to add to the "No's" already delivered here and (without meaning to offend you, OP) beg to disagree with what you're suggesting. Strongly, if I may.

Frankly, if you want to see what happens with this system you're proposing, go to /r/history - because what you're suggesting is exactly what that sub is.

The difference between the quality in that sub's answers and this sub's answers are like chalk and cheese. Or... less ambiguously (but more colourfully) shit and the-exact-colloquial-opposite-of-shit, respectively.

An awful lot of the "knowledge" or content on r/history is trope, myth, stereotype, unverifiable poorly-thought through opinion or just plain bloody wrong. The number of times I've seen Redditors upvote absolute tripe to the score of hundreds of upvotes is literally ridiculous. Literally Ridiculous. As in a situation worthy of ridicule, scorn and contempt. Note, I am not referring to you, OP, as ridiculous. But your well intended suggestion would lead to those exact ridiculous conditions.

I appreciate your good intentions, but, from a non-Mod's perspective, what you're suggesting would turn this sub's quality into r/history's, which more than occasionally provides no purpose but to serve as an example of waste of the internet bandwidth used to upload and then download the text involved. And given how little bandwidth and data that represents, that's possibly the most damning indictment of a sub of this type that I can think of.