Expertise does not confer knowledge on a subject, knowledge on a subject confers expertise. If someone clearly doesn't know what they're talking about (particularly if there are gaping holes in their understanding) then they are not experts and that normally comes across from reading what they have written.

Any expert response should have sufficient referencing if it deals with evidence-based issues, and it should conform to the basic rules of logic. It should also provide a context of alternative perspectives, should a context be suitable for the audience. A response from anyone is valid and potentially useful as long as it conforms to logical rules and doesn't over-extrapolate from data or experience. Overlooked alternative explanations can be raised by other (expert) commentators, which is what makes an open format so useful - there is an informal process of peer review.

This is an excellent question, an when I started Skeptic Exchange I hadn't considered the possibility that due to the very nature of skepticism users would question every aspect of the process.

My personal opinion is questioning the process is a good thing and can only increase confidence in the answers (and questions and questioners).

Behind the scenes we are trying to recruit "experts" (with a loose definition), but the way the site is constructed I believe it transparent enough for people to have confidence in the answers.

Here are the main ways we try to maintain the quality:

1. New Users — new users are quite limited in terms of permissions etc. This is to maintain a (small) barrier to entry so the site is not over run with "nut-jobs". I understand it can be quite frustrating for new, enthusiastic users but believe me when I say A LOT of woo and pseudo-science cranks have registered and tried to muddied the waters but have so far failed.

2. Democracy — Skeptic Exchange isn't a democracy, they don't work on the Internet. But if the community likes and respects you, you will gain more influence and powers. This is the same for anyone; Skeptic, true-beleiver etc. Well constructed, scientifically valid with links to reputable papers etc will be voted up. Opinion, speculation, FUD or propaganda will be voted down.

3. Expert Moderators — I am trying to recruit moderators that have a speciality or interest in specific, nitch areas. Well they all might not have a PhD, they have demonstrated a passion and skeptical bent toward their subject. If you know anyone who would be good at moderation (it's quite easy and not very time consuming), let me know: richard.stelling@bristolskeptics.co.uk

In conclusion, not every answer will be written by an expert but the community can sort and filter the data by VOTING UP or VOTING DOWN and those with enough reputation can help by editing poor questions, retagging or leaving comments.

The skeptical community across the world has to be more than the sum of its parts to help rebalance society, the media and government. Skeptic Exchange is by no means the solution but it's a massive step in the right direction; community building, knowledge exchange and information distribution.

What is an expert? How can you tell an expert from a non-expert? Does someone being "an expert" make their statements more or less valid than someone who isn't?

I have met many people who are ignorant and foolish both with and without credentials or experience. It's a mistake to take an expert opinion as more valid without really understanding the merits and failings of their argument - that would be accepting an argument from authority, and is a lazy way to reason as well as dangerous. Listening to experts can be useful as a shortcut to getting information for your own research and consideration, and often they may have valuable insights that couldn't be gained any other way, but don't take anyone's word as sacrosanct.

Listen, understand, research, apply critical thought, and decide for yourself.

Also remember that being wrong is part of the scientific process - one of the main advantages of science is that it's self-correcting, and skepticism relies on this process to steer ever closer to fact and reality.

I'm sure most users of this site will be viewing every answer they read with skepticism, however, this website is indeed a victim of its own philosophy. The high reputation people probably would dispute that there is aworld outside of themselves. now I have over 50 points I see that it is possible to be so skeptical and earn so many reputational points that you start believing your own hype until you come round full circle and start believing yourself.

I fear that day - for that is the day that I revisit some of my earlier answers and dispute them all. I may even vote myself down.

Anyway, I know it's a roundabout way of saying this, but the point that I am really trying to make here is that the point of skeptics exchange, as I see it is, to weed out the imposters and hoaxers of the world by using the maxim, "Better to say nothing and be thought a fool - than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

In other words those that are on this site and are not experts will be found out and ignored (see the small number of votes this answer has received). Similarly, those people who have not put themsevles forward as experts are silent and therefore I will consider them as fools.

Incidentally I voted your question up as it was a great question that we should all refer back to when answerng questions.

How many people in the world are "expert" or even "professional" skeptics, paranormal debunkers, etc.? e.g. do it fulltime, for pay like Randi, Shermer, etc.? If we link to articles by such experts in our answers, does that count?

I hope at least some of us in the SE user base are perhaps expert mathematicians, scientists, writers, academics, or engineers (I fall into that category) where logic, critical thinking skills and skepticism are an important part of our workaday toolset. For me, debugging complicated computer algorithms is the perfect place to learn critical thinking, skepticism, and when the inevitable bug shows up, humility.

New answers posted on old questions cause the question to go to the top of the front page and since the site isn't exactly overrun with excess discussion (at least at this point) each new response is likely to be read by some (large?) fraction of the active user base.

A fresh, valuable insight can still be voted to the top, even on old questions. Perhaps old questions with lots of answers will have new answers posted way down at the bottom but by definition those questions with their heaps of answers already represent a wide variety of opinions---which still avoids the problem of one (incorrect) answer stagnating at the top.

No answer should be taken without question. Read the argument. If evidence is given...evaluated it and go to the source article.

I think that the FAQ answers some of those questions, particularly regarding incentives if you use the site? Have a look at the FAQ for the Skeptic Exchange for more.

I would hope that anybody asking a question on here would approach any answers provided by fellow users with skepticism equal to that they would with any information passed onto them. Doing your own research is the best way to discover what is and isn't fact. This site is just one way of doing this. Personally, when I've seen an answer that intrigues me on here, I'll go and research the points made further by making up my mind.