I believe things like this and hivemind should be a database of the names, universities, graduation dates, field(s), and profession of all editors who have ever claimed a degree and. If the editor's claimed credentials are false, with evidence that the degrees are fake, it should be listed as so. The real name of the editor should still remain, though, if the degree is fake, to provide accountability. In the case of of an editor who claims experience, but not necessarily a degree, and has edited in their supposed field, the information should be: real given name and surname, field of expertise, a link to the editor's report, and profession. At least one e-mail address, if known, should be provided for contact. In the event the e-mail address is used for harassment, the address should be taken down. Processes should be the same if the expertise is fake.
My definition of an expert is someone who has experience (i.e., not book knowledge, and not intuition) in a field, and has done a report on their experience. The two words seem to have the same root, exper-. For example, I would define an expert in Indian anthropology as someone who has actually went to India, extensively study and document a culture there (their customs, life, and cultural highlights), optionally live with the people, and then organize their journal/documentation and write a report about it, then publish it.
|