0

Expanding on this guys question, who IMO was too friendly to stirr up people:

Why is history.SE such a hostile place?

I agree with them in one point: the aggressive downvoting and instinctive closing of concise questions that could be answered with confidence, but apparently are beyond the horizon of some, lowers the quality of this Q&A. Just one example: asking if there are differences between Neanderthals and AMH is a concise question that can easily be answered with peer reviewed articles. Saying it needs clarification looks like ignorance.

Otoh, wildly speculating and claiming out of the blue without source and reason in questions and answers, proliferation of right wing conspiracy bunk, and right away undereducated answers citing second row bible interpretations as a source are being celebrated.

This is about concise Q's and A's that get downvoted (not necessarily the NAZI one, I only share the user's thoughts about "hostility", not their content) and low quality Q's and A's without source and background that get upvoted, are even celebrated. And about high rated individuals using their rating for arguments of authority.

Example: Tis question refers to media notorious for spreading right wing ideology, fake news and content opposing scientific findings. Of the two answers one names a side line bible interpretation and the other is just an opinion with an unrelated wikipedia link. There is not a single link to actual facts on the matter. A nice example of a post factual "reality".

Another Question that would belong into the category unsourced and opinionated is the one about "Vercingetorix' constraints" a few weeks ago. High rated people don't source even when asked to do so, but readily close and downvote when lower ranks fail in a minor way. The question could have been a very good start to point out the limits and transitions between history and prehistory had it been asked more on the point and naming the sources that lead to it.

Otoh, an example for a concise question is this. It doesn't need clarification, it actually con not be clearer. Paleo-Anthropology, even genetics meanwhile have a lot to say to it. A remark by a high ranked user shows fundamental lack of expertise.

Poll: Do we want to remind people to stick to published work or at least common text book sense ? Or do we say no, pseudoscience over quality ?

Will be around for a few days to see the reaction and decide if I stay or not.

12
  • 4
    I don't understand the scope of this Q: first half seems to complain about low quality Qs that get DV'd, yet second half seems to complain about low quality As? I either Q or A is bad, is then not true that* we should downvote more* and and be less friendly to bad stuff? – LаngLаngС Jul 30 '20 at 9:54
  • 2
    Still confuses me. But anyway: please edit such qualifications into the post itself. (Btw: I know it's an uphill battle, but if you find nazi content, please flag it. And I hope you are aware of the kneejerk upvoting of certain content here that leads lowQ stuff get pushed to HNQ, where it is then "celebrated" ?) – LаngLаngС Jul 30 '20 at 10:36
  • 1
    @LаngLаngС I think by "the Nazi question" they mean this question, which prompted the Meta question they link to. I don't think they're referring to actual neo-Nazi content. – F1Krazy Jul 30 '20 at 10:38
  • 1
    I think it would help your case if you could provide examples of concise but high-quality posts that have been downvoted, and low-quality posts that have been upvoted. You wouldn't be singling out any users by doing so. – F1Krazy Jul 30 '20 at 10:46
  • I have overworked the question and spent more than enough time here. It either to some avail or not. I hoped to stirr up people to stick to facts more closely. – user43870 Jul 30 '20 at 11:02
  • 2
    Your example question has been edited (by another user) in such a way as to make it very different from the question that was asked by the OP (and the version of the question that was closed). That original question implied continuity from Neanderthals to modern humans, and there is nothing to stop the OP rolling back to that original edit. There are good reasons why SE discourages edits that change the meaning of a post. If you wish to post a self-answered version of that question, by all means do so. – sempaiscuba Jul 30 '20 at 13:22
  • 1
    The user is temporarily suspended. Beyond that, as is SE policy, I am not going to comment on moderator actions in public. However, you appear to fundamentally misunderstand the role of moderators (See the Theory of Moderation for more information about that). Personally, I would love it if citations to reputable sources were required for all non-trivial assertions. However, the community has not yet seen fit to make that a policy here. – sempaiscuba Jul 30 '20 at 13:39
  • So you think that the questions and answers I listed are ok and in line with history:SE rulles/guidelines ? (plant warfare and Vercingetrix' constraints) – user43870 Jul 30 '20 at 13:40
  • 6
    Sadly, yes. I think that too many questions and answers are of low quality, and am happy to be the 5th (or 3rd) vote to close (or delete) those posts as a member of this community. However, in my opinion, moderators should not use their "super vote" unless the posted question or answer breaches an actual SE, or History:SE policy. – sempaiscuba Jul 30 '20 at 13:43
  • 1
    FWIW (& what I gather from this post): This seems to be an often discussed issue here on meta. Perhaps you may want to add your concerns or ideas, or votes(!) to some of the older posts in that list? – LаngLаngС Jul 30 '20 at 15:28
  • 1
    A reminder: The SE Code of Conduct applies to comments on Meta sites as well. – sempaiscuba Jul 30 '20 at 19:20
  • 1
    It's perhaps worth clarifying the problem with the Neanderthal question, which appears to be one of the factors that prompted this question. The OP of that question has now posted it in expanded form on Mythology & Folklore:SE. Having read that, I think our users were right to close the question on History:SE, requesting further details or clarity. Had the OP then added the details they have given on M&F:SE, I'd guess that the question would still have been closed as a "push question". – sempaiscuba Jul 31 '20 at 21:43

You must log in to answer this question.