This forum is about the free exchange of ideas, much as in the classroom or lecture group, the difference being that there is no leader: everyone who wishes to has a place at the table and, though some will necessarily be better informed on this or that topic than someone else, and vice-versa, there isn't a place for academic snobbery in the discussion.
I agree with this completely! This wasn't what I was referring to, however. I was commenting on what I regard as, for lack of a better term, a hierarchy of confidence in the correctness of information, though I was really just touching on this.
Of course, people who post here, as you point out, are mostly engaged in informal discussion. No need to reference every statement of fact with a footnote. <g>
But with information in general, the criteria people cited -- academic credentials and experience/expertise -- are important, more or less, depending in large
part, getting back to your point, on the outlet where the information is published. But most important, I'd say, no matter where published, is the rigor and thoroughness with which you do your research.
All this is relative, more or less. A non-academic expert who knows more about a certain topic than anyone in the world wouldn't be able to be published in some journals. A Ph.D. without any experience in a certain topic who did encyclopedic research might miss important issues or nuances because of
his inexperience in that subject, despite
his academic credentials and hard
work.
But online, in these discussions, people should feel free to share information and opinions, I agree. It's always helpful, though, when people qualify what they say (as you did!) by pointing to whatever background, experience, and so on that they have on what they're commenting on.
At the opposite extreme, you have "Internet expertiseism," nonexperts who pose as experts online, a common enough phenomenon. It's clear what the psychology and dynamics are behind this. Joe addresses this here, regarding authentication, in the
Fake Ancient Coin Reports and
Discussion board with
his directive, "IF YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO GIVE ADVICE - DON'T." This is blunt language, but I think it speaks to what we've all seen
plenty of times, a useful counterbalance.