I disagree with people being attributed as credible, because I think content can suffer much more from heavy handed moderation compared to being "brigated" by m

I disagree with people being attributed as credible, because I think content can suffer much more from heavy handed moderation compared to being "brigated" by motivated individuals. Because the latter is easily identifiable. You basically complain that people upvote the wrong opinions, which I would not disagree with. Credible sources have also spread misinformation. I think the current system is fine and heavy handed approaches and information hierarchies are counter productive. There are great communities without a leadership and hands off approaches. You idea would lead to "Influencers" getting more control on content because those would be the "leaders". Can be good, can be bad. I think the latter would be the more common occurrence. But people too invested in online communities also tend to do a large amount of damage. An example would be the people at the top of Reddit karma. If we had "credible" leaders, there would be less room for objections, which I would like to see more often.