The burden lies with them. Continuously and forever.

“The dilemma is easy to apply here, too. If Wikipedians actually believe that the credibility of articles is improved by citing things written by experts, will it not improve them even more if people like the experts cited are given a modest role in the project? And, on the other hand, if (somehow) it is not the fact that the cited references were created by experts, one has to wonder what the references are for. They have a mysterious, talismanic value, apparently. It seems that we all know that footnotes makes articles much more credible—but why? Whatever the reason, Wikipedians wouldn’t want to say that it’s because the people cited are credible authorities on their subjects.”

I would very much like to say that it’s because the people/works cited are credible authorities on their subject. The fact remains that if an expert is so knowledgeable and gifted in making his/her point clear, then they should be asked to do just that. If they fulfill the burden of convincing others, then so be it. If not, then they need to do more work.

Wikipedia is simply a reflection of accumulated thought on the matter at hand – and if enough people are paying attention, the experts’ opinions will certainly be noted for what they are – valuable and worthy of inclusion.

It’s a tough spot to be a professional expert in any sort of democratic system – especially given that your expert knowledge of your expert knowledge often precludes others from recognizing…your expert knowledge. And thus, the mob sometimes/often makes the “wrong” decision, and it’s a strong temptation for experts to try to ensconce themselves in some way that sidesteps the mob – that values (in some way, that experts can design so it’s right) expertise over popularity. But of course that’s not…democratic. And that’s where I get off the bus. Which is to say nothing of where that bus goes when experts are ensconced outside of the influence of public opinion. But really, the answer is not to scrap democracy or transparency – it’s for experts to figure out better ways of convincing others of their expertise.

the footnote thing is answered further down the article