This seems to be exactly the problem Larry Sanger talks about - We don't care whether somebody is a renowned expert on a subject or has just read a few lines related to a subject in the past. If they can write it down, we consider them equal.
A second fallacy I see in this message is that it equates factual correctness with credibility. There's more than just factual correctness to make a good article, there is also balance. Getting experts is not what helps here (although it helps a bit, because they are supposed to know about the subject, and thus notice missing portions), but we should recognize the problem as being one.
Andre Engels
Sounds like an interesting idea, but why do we need 'experts' for? Anyone can fact and reference check, and after facts have been verified with multiple sources they are then as 'credible' as credible can be in my thinking.
It is time to apply the Wiki philosophy to not just providing the content, but to verifying it with reference checks from multiple sources. It worked for content, I am sure it will work for verification if the community are given the tools (tools such as intelligent foot/end notes, autonumbering of citations, etc.).