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.).