The Citizendium system should be abole to deal with this. However, it can only work in those areas where expert editors are actually there. Some weeks ago I posted a request for editor assistance on the talk page of every editor in the workgroup. So far no replies.

Re: “For now at least, there seems to be a continuing demand for more authoritative information sources.”

Personally, I demand not only authoritativeness - well established - but also pedagogic superlativeness. What good can I assign to explanation, if the explainer lacks explanatory skill, pedagogically speaking?

Re: “Nevertheless, I plausibly assume that various classes of certified professionals, and some others said to be “experts” or “authorities,” have a role in society of articulating what is known in their fields or
industries.”

I would include as experts many popular science writers, for example, who cannot claim certification as a professional in the field they write about, but whose ability to research a subject, put the issue together coherently, in a way the reader can verify for herself, with style and grace and explanatory excellence.

Re: “Wikipedia’s “Verifiability” policy holds that “material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published
source using an inline citation.””

Even so, “reliable, published” sources may find themselves abused by interpretations ‘out-of-context’, or abused by reader bias, or even by malicious intent.

Anthony.Sebastian

On a general level, I agree with the majority of the points you make in the first three sections, in particular the conclusion that ‘ultimately, the credibility of
Wikipedia remains “tethered” to expert opinion’. I did find, however, that the “Wikipedia Potential Thesis” sidetracked somewhat one of the main issues. The question of whether authority for experts is ultimately unnecessary if Wikipedia succeeds in its primary goal is peripheral to the question of whether an (officially?) authoritative role for experts is necessary for that goal.

In section four, I found that the argument became less convincing. While the problems of the dominance of the persistent and the enforceability of restrictions & punishments are certainly valid, the usefulness of Citizendium’s (CZ) policies as a solution is dubious, especially insofar as it disrupts that strength of openness you mention near the start. For all that CZ has grown, it would be unrealistic, to say the least, that the scale of the growth corresponds to the growth of Wikipedia. In my opinion, this comparison, for all that it might be invalidated by any number of factors, illustrates a constructive value of openness reasonably well. I mean to say that while CZ’s policies may be (prima facie) effective, there are surely other methods of dealing with the problem which do not have nearly as many detrimental side-effects.

I haven’t read any of the other articles yet, but this one certainly reminds me of the usefulness of considering the core problems of openness and how they can be dealt with. If the concerns you raise in section four could be solved, or more likely, alleviated, without causing the project to be significantly less open, it would be a significant improvement for Wikipedia, its quality, and its reputation.