William Pietri wrote:
As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."
The best counter for this perception problem, IMO, is not to convince people to trust Wikipedia's content because the people working on it are certified in some way - "expert" contributors is no guarantee of a good product. Rather, we should simply try to show that Wikipedia's _content_ is objectively good. The Nature study comparing article quality to Britannica is a good example, credentials and authorship never entered into it.