I don't think that a subreddit that bans links to Wikipedia can be considered a good source of information.
I don't believe it does as I recently posted a comment with a wikipedia link. It does, however require more authoritative sources than wikipedia, mine did at least have several other corroborating sources. Perhaps the auto-mod is set to remove comments without at least one non-wiki link.
They encourage people who would otherwise have linked just to wikipedia to hunt out the sources that claim comes from and use those instead.
I hope they put in a note in their comment or said thanks at least, I'd hope for more there.
Yes, as my post a few back mentioned, I think the automated ban is for comments that include a link to Wikipedia but not elsewhere.
They were nice about things; the PM read "AskHistorians doesn't allow Wikipedia, but .... I clarified in my OP .... Thanks for prompting the clarification!"
Comments
I don't believe it does as I recently posted a comment with a wikipedia link. It does, however require more authoritative sources than wikipedia, mine did at least have several other corroborating sources. Perhaps the auto-mod is set to remove comments without at least one non-wiki link.
They encourage people who would otherwise have linked just to wikipedia to hunt out the sources that claim comes from and use those instead.
I hope they put in a note in their comment or said thanks at least, I'd hope for more there.
Yes, as my post a few back mentioned, I think the automated ban is for comments that include a link to Wikipedia but not elsewhere.
They were nice about things; the PM read "AskHistorians doesn't allow Wikipedia, but .... I clarified in my OP .... Thanks for prompting the clarification!"