Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
Even though experts are no guarantee for quality, the credibility of Wikipedia will grow as articles have been approved by field experts.
As for the admittance of experts, I think expert status should not just be given to people with lot of titles or the like. Actually, I think most of the current frequent editors, or at least the sysops, would already qualify as an expert in my view. Having finished a higher-level education on a specific subject, or even still studying is already some qualification. A proven record of quality edits to Wikipedia articles on the subject should be enough to get expert-status.
The issue of identifying experts remains at the root of the issue. You are right in recognizing that the ones who have contributed have proven their worth, and should be granted every credit that that implies.
What that all means is that we have absolutely no need to bow and scrape and compromise just for the sake of trying to attract experts. Doing that seems to demean the contributions that have already been made.
Eclecticology