Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/Expert peer review

please see User:ExpertIdeasBot. They are doing something along this line. I don't know whether it is competing or complimentary, but thought you should know about it. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting project, although it seems to be not at its peak success yet and with the bot having a very loose definition of "expert". Thanks for mentioning, — Esquivalience (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO there is quite a fair possibility that invitation of experts under such framework might attract a disproportional number of non-mainstream experts, because they are more motivated in promotion their viewpoints outside of the academic community. Эйхер (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Valid point; however, I believe that the criteria for "expert" in this proposal is enough to drive away any faux experts or expert POV-pushers (many of them do not even have PhDs, and they certainly will not win any awards except for quack ones). But I have tightened the criteria, requiring cited publications. — Esquivalience (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's likely that Mr Duane Gish (PhD) fits. Эйхер (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Under the minimum criteria, he would only be considered as an expert in biochemistry, not biology as a whole, as he has published no works on evolutionary biology (in fact, opposes it). And per footnote (f), there is wide discretion to reject fringe theorists and "experts" (such as apologists of pseudoscience), so any competent volunteer would reject anyone self-interested in pushing quack theories. Suggestions are also not binding on the article and still must pass community scrutiny. — Esquivalience (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)