> Wikipedia not only respects but requires expert support for its content. However, it uses a very specific definition of “expert”: Someone who can get their as

> Wikipedia not only respects but requires expert support for its content. However, it uses a very specific definition of “expert”: Someone who can get their assertions published in one or more Reliable Sources. Yes exactly, "it gets cited" is not "expertise". And "it has not been cited much" is not a lack of expertise. That is what people are complaining about. And no, vague hand-waving about "Reliable Sources" doesn't help. You can't just redefine "expert" to an very specific non-standard meaning and then use that for your argument. This is playing word-games and doesn't engage with the substance of the criticism. And look, I'm not even saying Wikipedia is wrong to have the policies that it has. But any policy on this matter will have real limitations and trade-offs, and the current one is no exception. Being dismissive of that and playing word-games around it is not going to change that. The article then continues to defend Wikipedia against some of the allegations entirely without any knowledge of the conflicts or facts involved. It's just speculating in thin air.