https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/14lf3nh/were_back_and_weve_brought_updates/
created by CommodoreCoCo on 28/06/2023 at 17:08 UTC
160 upvotes, 7 top-level comments (showing 7)
Hello folks, it's been a while!
We are reopening today alongside some updates and clarifications to how this sub operates.
/r/AskAnthropology has grown substantially since any major changes were last made official.
This requires some updates to our rules, the addition of new moderators, and new features to centralize recurring questions and discussions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, applications for moderators are open. Please DM us if interested. You should have a demonstrated history of positive engagement on this sub and that. ability to use Slack and the Moderator Toolbbox browser extension. Responsibilities include day-to-day comment/submission removal and assistance with new and revitalized features.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's update includes the codification of some rules[1] that have already been implemented within existing language and some changes to account for the increased level of participation.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/wiki/rules/
Let’s talk about the big ones.
Questions must be specific in their topic or their cultural scope, if not both. Questions that are overly vague will be removed, and the user prompted on how to improve their submission. Such questions include those that ask about all cultures or all of prehistory, or that do not narrow their topic beyond “religion” or “gender."
Specific questions that would be removed include:
This is not meant to be a judgment of the quality of these questions. Some are worth a lifetime of study, some it would be wrong to suggest they even have an answer. The main intention is to create a better reading experience for users and easier workload for moderators. Such questions invariably attract a large number of low-effort answers, a handful of clarifications about definitions, and a few veteran users explaining for the thousandth time why there’s no good answer.
As for those which *do* have worthwhile discussion behind them, we will be introducing a new feature soon to address that.
Answers should consist of more than just a link or reference to a source. If there is a particularly relevant source you want to recommend, please provide a brief summary of its main points and relevance to the question.
Pretty self-explanatory. Recommending a book is not an answer to a question. Give a few sentences on what the book has to say about the topic. *Someone should learn something from your comment itself.* Likewise, sources should be *relevant*. There are many great books that talk about a long of topics, but they are rarely a good place for someone to learn more about something specific. (Is this targeted at people saying “Just read *Dawn of Everything*” in response to every single question? Perhaps. Perhaps.)
Answers on this subreddit must be detailed, evidenced-based, and well contextualized.
Answers are detailed when they describe specific people, places, or events.
Answers are evidenced-based when they explain where their information comes from. This may include references to specific artifacts, links to cultural documents, or citations of relevant experts.
Answers are well contextualized when they situate information in a broader cultural/historical setting or discuss contemporary academic perspectives on the topic.
This update is an effort to be clearer in what constitutes a good answer.
Given the sorts of questions asked here, standards like those of /r/AskHistorians or /r/AskScience are unreasonable. The general public simply doesn’t know enough about anthropology to ask questions that require such answers.
At the same time, an answer must be more substantial than simply mentioning a true fact. Generalizing across groups, isolating practices from their context, and overlooking the ways knowledge is produced are antithetical to anthropological values.
"Detailed" is the describing behaviors associated with *H. erectus*, not just "our ancestors" generally.
"Evidence-based" is indicating the specific fossils or artifacts that suggest *H. erectus* practiced this behavior and why they the support that conclusion.
"Well-contextualized" is discussing why this makes *H. erectus* different from earlier hominins, how this discovery impacted the field of paleoanthropology at the time, or whether there's any debate over these interpretations.
Meeting these three standards does not require writing long comments, and long comments do not automatically meet them. Likewise, as before, citations are not required. However, you may find it difficult to meet these standards without consulting a source or writing 4-5 sentences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is all for now. Stay tuned for some more updates next week.
Comment by JosephRohrbach at 28/06/2023 at 18:47 UTC
39 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Just going to chime in that I think the new rules are cool. In my *entirely* unbiased opinion as a flair over there, r/AskHistorians has the best moderation practices of any academic sub (or sub in general) on Reddit, but that's obviously very labour-intensive. It can also result in slightly lower answer rates. This seems like a good compromise, achieving higher answer rates with a lower mod workload.
Comment by caffiend98 at 29/06/2023 at 00:12 UTC
12 upvotes, 1 direct replies
So does this mean Reddit kicked out mods who were opposed to reopening?
Comment by the_gubna at 28/06/2023 at 19:58 UTC
12 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Very much in support of these changes, and appreciate the time and care taken to communicate them so clearly and openly.
As far as "Recommending Sources" and citations more generally: I don't know if it's the public's lack of understanding of the field (as compared to "science" or "history") or what, but I've recently noticed an uptick in answers that end with "and here are some unformatted links to journal articles that maybe sorta have something to do with the topic".
Curious if anyone on the mod team has had a similar experience lately.
Comment by Choice-Lawfulness978 at 28/06/2023 at 17:36 UTC
25 upvotes, 4 direct replies
To be frank, I think the new question rules really suck.
How do we expect people to approach the discipline for knowledge if we exclude questions for being too broad? Imho it's better to answer the same questions a hundred times than implicitly setting a minimum knowledge of anthropology for even participating in the sub.
Comment by [deleted] at 28/06/2023 at 18:07 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Thanks to all the mods who put in the work to develop better rules. I like this direction while also maintaining the flexibility that distinguishes this sub from the stricter academic subs.
Also happy to see the sub back!
Comment by [deleted] at 28/06/2023 at 20:16 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by MareNamedBoogie at 29/06/2023 at 16:26 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
All right, I've already come across a question. There's a top-level question about where dirt comes that forms stratigraphy, and it specifically mentions the Grand Canyon strata. The reply box of course says 'must refer to anthropoligical sources', which I would totally do if this weren't more of a general science question. Applicable to anthropological context, yes, but general science nonetheless. I can provide a correct answer without citing sources - but would I be allowed to write it?