Genuinely confused by this statement. You don't visit things you know about, because fake experts ruin it. Then you visit things you don't know about, because you believe the information to be genuine.
Not trying to be a dick here, but this line of reasoning just isn't clicking so asking.
Essentially, whenever I look into communities of things that I'm interested in, I'll see a dedicated core of people insisting that it must be experienced a specific way, and any other way is wrong. Basically wine snobs, but for everything.
However, if I'm an outsider looking to get information for a gift or something I have a passing interest in, this can be quite often useful. If the snobs acknowledge something as legit, then I know that it's likely to be good.
Edit: Karrot_Kream put it perfectly with their use of the phrase "gatekeeping". Special interest groups have this problem, and Reddit fails to solve it.
This got me to thinking though...almost every news outlet flubs covering deeply technical things folks here would be familiar with, and we all have a laugh. But we get our news from them and generally believe it, so do we all suffer from it to some extent?
The underlying presumption of it is every person working at a paper is equally wrong about the topic they write.
However, most newspapers are focused on politics and so those might be better.
I would not expect a good analysis on the Palestinian conflict from Linus Tech Tips nor a good analysis on the latest graphics cards from Foreign Affairs.
>I would not expect a good analysis on the Palestinian conflict from Linus Tech Tips
I know you were just making an extreme comparison, but I genuinely think they'd do a good job of it if push came to shove. Linus and the people who work for him are beyond professional.
> I would not expect a good analysis on the Palestinian conflict from Linus Tech Tips
No, but such analysis would be informative when you stop to analyze just how persuasive he manages to sound when he's talking about something he obviously knows nothing about. His tone, cadence, body language.. it would reveal to you how good he is at mimicking the superficial characteristics of being an expert. If he's bad at those things when speaking outside his wheelhouse, that's a good thing! But if he's really good at seeming like an expert when you have good reason to think he isn't one, that's a huge warning sign that he might not actually be so proficient in the things you previously believed him to be good at.
Not trying to be a dick here, but this line of reasoning just isn't clicking so asking.