Well over six months ago I personally persuaded several top-notch writers in their field to contribute to Wikipedia articles. In each and every case they finally gave up in frustration after their work was reverted or challenged on grounds that were pure bullshit.
Were the grounds really pure bullshit? In my experience, experts struggle with NOR and citing sources, since original research is what they do for a living. If an expert comes along and changes something on a page and just cites their own expertise as the source, then it is going to be challenged, and so it should be. Writing encyclopedia articles is very different to writing journal articles. Being good at one doesn't make you good at the other.
While encouraging experts to edit Wikipedia is great, they shouldn't be doing it as experts, they should just be doing it as people interested in the subject, the same as everyone else. What experts should do as experts is review articles and put their stamp on them as being correct. Such a system would greatly improve Wikipedia's reliability and make people trust us far more. Of course, this system has been proposed dozens of times, and it's very hard to implement due to the difficulty is defining and verifying experts. Perhaps we should start on a small scale with just a few fields where it is easier (eg. academic fields where we can simply require being a lecturer at a reputable university).