Why don't people wait a half an hour before commenting? Would it be a good feature to allow the asker to see that the answerer is editing?

While we do urge that everyone read this, there is a TL;DR at the end that will sum up the essence of it. And sticky posts are a thing now! /r/AskHistorians has grown from humble beginnings to become the leading community on Reddit when it comes to historical discussion.

It could never have happened without the almost 175,000 people who have chosen to read and contribute here, and we thank you sincerely for all the help and content you've provided! Nevertheless, this community expects the moderation team to uphold certain standards in /r/AskHistorians, and one aspect of that is providing guidelines for what constitutes a good answer. This community has justifiably high expectations when it comes to the content that gets posted here, and it's important that those expectations are obviously and properly articulated.

If you've been reading regularly over the last two years (yes, it has very nearly been that long!), you'll have noticed from time to time that not every answer to the questions asked here is created equally in terms of its quality, accuracy and overall usefulness. With /r/AskHistorians growing all the time, and new readers constantly joining us, it would be worthwhile to return to the question of what makes a good answer. The moderators in /r/AskHistorians are frequently asked about this.

Usually this happens while we're in the unhappy process of removing someone's comment, but it's a subject that could stand to be expanded on somewhat. The official rules have a lot to say on the matter, but one can always say more. Before we get to that, I would like to emphasize a matter of principle which informs everything that follows.

It is not meant as some stern rebuke or haughty dismissal, but just as something to be considered. It's a thing that may at first seem surprising. I say this not because it's counter-intuitive, but rather because so many of those who end up posting in here seem to forget it.

We do not have to post here. Let's pause for a moment to consider that. We do not have to post here.

You and I both have no obligation to post a single word in /r/AskHistorians, and this is true no matter who we are. Everything that happens here is strictly voluntary. You chose to subscribe, if indeed you are a subscriber, and you're choosing to read this right now.

Everyone who asks or answers a question does so only because they want to, not because they have to. Every flaired user had to voluntarily put in the work necessary to earn that flair, and then voluntarily maintain a standard of posting sufficient to retain it. Each and every one of our moderators is here purely by choice.

We are not obliged to post. We are not entitled to post. It would be perfectly fine (if not at all desirable) for every question asked in /r/AskHistorians to go completely unanswered.

Many questions do, in fact -- and that's okay. I'll explain a bit more about why below, but this is important to keep in mind as we examine what it means to post here. Pursuant to the second point, no post we make absolutely has to show up here.

If a question is too hard for us to answer, or our question is redirected to another subreddit, or our comment is removed for violating one of the subreddit's rules, in no sense have any of our rights been infringed upon. This is not meant as any kind of rebuke, to be clear -- just something, again, to keep in mind. So, given all of the above, it is important to further note that every word we post here is a choice.

We choose to do it; nobody forces us to. With that in mind, what sort of choices should we make when answering a question in /r/AskHistorians? Do I, personally, actually know a lot about the subject at hand?

Am I essentially certain that what I know about it is true? Am I prepared to go into real detail about this? If the answer to any of these questions is "no", please think twice about posting.

If the answer to all of them is no, do not post at all. Let's break down what is meant by the above three questions. Do I, personally, actually know a lot about the subject at hand?

In /r/AskHistorians, we are looking to connect inquiring readers with people who are actually knowledgeable about the subjects at hand. It's as simple as that. If you are not actually knowledgeable, please do not post at all.

You're certainly allowed to ask a follow-up question, if you have one, but do not attempt to answer a question unless you, personally, have done a great deal of research on the subject at hand. Do not post. Am I essentially certain that what I know about it is true?

While "truth" is a notoriously tricky concept, we earnestly request that you not post unless you have personally conducted enough research into the subject to be convinced that a particular position has good warrants. This is not to say that only mainstream opinions are permissible in /r/AskHistorians, for the nature of historiography demands that it constantly be open to revision based on new information and new perspectives, but anything you choose to post here should be something that you believe in enough to defend, and that you would be prepared to defend if challenged. It should go without saying that you should have good reasons -- and good sources to back it up -- for believing in the truth of what you say.

Pursuant to the above, if you wish to present a perspective on a matter being discussed in /r/AskHistorians that you must candidly admit to yourself is not that of the mainstream, but which you nevertheless believe to be correct, you are absolutely welcome to do so -- just be prepared to make it clear why you feel justified in saying it, and why you feel the more widely held view of the matter should be challenged. In short, revisionism is not necessarily a dirty word -- just be absolutely open about it from the very start. Do not post.

Am I prepared to go into real detail about this? This is important. As many contributors have found out to their dismay, single-sentence answers are never, ever good enough in /r/AskHistorians.

There's always more to be said about a given subject, and our readers come here to receive in-depth and substantive answers from people who have put a great deal of time and effort into their study. By "real detail", we primarily mean this: a comment that actually answers the question in depth. If you were asking it, which answer would you rather receive?

"I'm not a historian, but I remember reading once that some scholars are unsure if he was really a historical figure. A short multi-paragaph essay explaining what the Old Testament says about David, what has been discovered archaeologically since the 19th C. Lest you think that answers 1a through 1c are strawmen, I can assure you that I and the rest of the moderating team have to remove comments of that caliber and depth on an hourly basis.

Answer 2 is perhaps useful, but it's still not what we're after here -- but I'll leave that to my colleague /u/caffarelli to explain in greater depth in a bit. Anyway, if you're anything like the typical /r/AskHistorians reader, you'll be wanting something like answer 3. And why shouldn't you?

We have thousands of active users here providing answers of this sort every single day, on any number of different topics, and getting such a useful, comprehensive answer from one of them is the hoped-for consequence of asking a question here in the first place. So why do so many users think that 1a through 1c are worth posting? They obviously do, because we get literally hundreds of comments like this every day.

If you're reading this, take it to heart -- don't post answers like those ones ever again. Unless you're both willing and able to work towards an answer like 3, please think twice before answering a question at all. Detail isn't always a matter of length, either; it is abundantly possible to say in a single paragraph all that needs to be said on the matter, and it is just as possible to spend an entire essay saying nothing whatever of value.

Over the course of my career I am confident that I've managed to achieve both, from time to time, but obviously they're not of equal merit. Do not post. All of this having been said... what does an actually good answer look like?

In /r/AskHistorians, our mandate is to connect inquiring readers with people who possess deep reserves of knowledge on the subjects at hand. Over the course of this subreddit's existence, we've been remarkably fortunate in the quality of specialists we've been able to attract. We have university professors and published authors; practicing attorneys and globe-trotting archaeologists; research librarians and digital humanities wizards.

We also have plenty of people with jobs that have nothing to do with history, whose education was in another field, and who routinely post high-quality answers all the same. In /r/AskHistorians, it's not about where you come from -- it's about what you can do. So... what should you do?

A) A good answer answers the OP's question in the terms it sets out. This obviously becomes difficult if the question itself is afflicted by problems, but in that case the good answer will be the one that identifies those problems and attempts to produce a better question in its stead -- and answers it. B) A good answer is based upon and expressive of a deep reserve of knowledge of the subject at hand.

Your choice to answer a question in /r/AskHistorians reflects your serious degree of confidence in the truth of what you say and your ability to say a lot about it. C) A good answer anticipates likely follow-up questions rather than ignoring them. If, in the course of providing your answer, you have to make reference to people, places, things or events that are likely to be news to the OP, don't just wait for them to ask you about it -- provide proper context and explanation up front.

So, for example, if you're answering a question about who the most prominent British propagandists of the First World War were, don't just say "Lord Northcliffe" and leave it at that. The inquiring poster is likely not going to be casually familiar with Northcliffe, or with Crewe House, or with the War Propaganda Bureau, or with the complexities of the Ministry of Information. These are easily-anticipated questions, and it behooves you to try to provide at least a modicum of substance about them up front.

D) A good answer accepts that the person asking does not know a lot about it and attempts to remedy this in a polite and friendly manner. While there are absolutely certain types of questions that we officially discourage in /r/AskHistorians, there are no questions that we believe to be intrinsically stupid unless they're intended as such. The people asking questions here are doing so out of an honest desire to learn, and if you can only respond to them with condescension or contempt we request that you find some other subreddit in which to ply your trade.

E) Finally: better no answer than a poor answer. To promote a better understanding of history on Reddit. To do so by connecting inquiring readers with people capable of providing in-depth and accurate answers to their questions, as all of the above should show.

This is what we do here. This is the job before us. In light of this, poor, speculative, sketchy, uncertain answers are not contributions -- they are obstacles.

Do not post answers you aren't sure about in the hope that someone will come along and correct you. Do not post hopelessly incomplete answers based on a skimming of a Wikipedia article just because nobody has yet replied after a few hours. Do not guess.

Do not invent. Answering a question in /r/AskHistorians is a choice, and when you make that choice you affirm that you have given the subject on which you're writing a considerable amount of time as a researcher. You are confident that what you say is true, and do not have to qualify it untowardly; you are going to go into significant detail as you describe what you know, and will not resent or reject requests for further information; you will respect the person asking the question and attempt to help them however you can.

You will say everything you need to in order to provide an immediately useful answer to the question at hand, and you will be prepared to say more if necessary. These are the pre-requisites for properly answering a question in /r/AskHistorians. If you cannot fulfill them, well... do not post at all.