AskHistorians

I'm just concerned we don't have the same pool of expert historians here to reach the same standard. I do think we should be as rigorous as we can but I do wonder if using the other communities standards would mean just no answers to any questions.

Definitely requiring sources is a good idea though. And I'm not sure how to delineate this but making sure they're quality sources too, since there's some pretty bad historical analysis out there these days and Lemmy has a lot of partisans who will want to push their agenda over the truth.

Seconding this. I'd rather have a few really quality posts than a graveyard of spam and low effort bs. High standards are EXACTLY what made the reddit version great. It might have some rough growing pains, but it will be worth it in the long run.

Quality over quantity.

You joke, but ruling with an iron fist in an academic sub is preferable. Requiring a bit of academic integrity in responses to questions is what makes a history sub valid. For instance, requiring all responses to provide sources should be a bare minimum.

Shit man, even AskHistorians on R*ddit doesn't require sources in the original answer. From the Old Place:

We do not require sources to be preemptively listed in an answer on /r/AskHistorians, but do expect that respondents be familiar with relevant and reliable literature on the topic, and that answers reflect current academic understanding or debates on the subject at hand.

Even though sources are not mandatory, if someone asks you to provide sources in good faith, please provide them willingly and happily. If you are not prepared to substantiate your claims when asked, please think twice before answering. Requests for sources which are not fulfilled within a reasonable span of time will generally result in the removal of the answer.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but:

That sounds an awful lot like work + My historical expertise is far more narrow than broad. I can address any subject of the Roman Empire to at least some degree; I can talk with some specificity on premodern European economics and society; I like to think I have a good understanding of the industrial revolution and modern history.

But there are vast gaps in my knowledge - I couldn't give you more than the names of the major Chinese dynasties, nor tell you more than a handful of trivia and comparisons gleaned from articles that mention China only in passing. My understanding of pre-Mughal India is near-nonexistent, most of my knowledge of the medieval Islamic world is only in relation to Europe, Africa is a continent I desperately want to learn more about but never seem to be able to find source/time/motivation coinciding, etc etc etc etc. Relying on me would greatly restrict the topics that could be seriously covered.

Besides, I was never more than an undergrad. I'm not quite a rando from the street, but also, don't take me too seriously!