The comment I was responding to was written by a moderator, who saw my comment and edited their comment to hedge their incorrect claim. They messaged me but my comment was not reinstated.
I don't think that a subreddit that bans links to Wikipedia can be considered a good source of information.
> 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!"
I did read the sidebar. [The Hacker News guidelines contain the following text: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."]
I was not posting an answer. I was correcting an error in an answer, and I thought that showing that it contradicted Wikipedia was productive. (The automated implementation of the subreddit rules disagreed.) I thought it would be great if my comment resulted in either the answer or the Wikipedia article being edited so that they were in line; this objective was vaguely achieved.
I don't think that a subreddit that bans links to Wikipedia can be considered a good source of information.