Show me the experts who edit Wikipedia articles?

Professor Bill Wedemeyer from Michigan State University was a heavy editor of Wikipedia, and he even championed the cause at Wikimania meet-ups. He makes me sad, because I'm a big fan of the Spartans. At least Jon Awbrey (another former Spartan) offsets Wedemeyer's addictive delusion. Wedemeyer is User:Proteins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proteins

Wedemeyer seems to have quit Wikipedia, at least for the past 6 months. Most experts who elect to edit Wikipedia are driven off the site within a couple of years.

Here's where I punked some scientists who were bragging that their articles about proteins are immune to vandalism, because they're so smart and vandals are (typically) so dumb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SmY_RNA&...

After the nonsense about "introns" was stuck there for a day and a half (and it even fooled the great Wikipedia admin "Nihiltres"), I confessed to these braggarts that they'd been snookered. Then one of them changed the article back and blocked my sockpuppet account, thinking that would be the end of it. If they hadn't blocked my account, I would have just walked away. Instead, I made a couple of more socks, made their user pages sound all immersed in science and such, then put nonsense into eight more protein-related articles. To this day, about 18 months later, five of the eight articles still contain the nonsense. That's what Wikipedia's policy on "blocking" users gets them.

***Special note regarding a crying, whimpering answer below***: I just invoiced a client last week for $180 related to Wikipedia editing. I hope that doesn't make a True Believer bust a blood vessel. Potty mouth.

+++Follow-up note+++: Ha ha! The abusive answer from D.P. was removed by Yahoo! Hopefully, such an aggressive person will be permanently blocked from Yahoo! Answers. What is it with people who get banned everywhere they go?

There are people of all education levels on Wikipedia. One I know off the top of my head that claims to be an expert in physics or something is User:MaterialScientist. But even if not everyone is experts, Wikipedia works effectively as a huge number of users review article content and reach consensus on what is true or not, often based upon third-party sources. Surprisingly, this works pretty well.

Well, in mathematics there are David Eppstein and Arthur Rubin, but that's of course taking your assumption that the users going by those usernames really are David Eppstein and Arthur Rubin.

But there's good reason to doubt that, especially with Arthur Rubin. Two days ago, User:Arthur Rubin went to 81 (number) and deleted the entire math section, which as far as I can tell, is correct (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=81_%28nu... Well, User:Knodeltheory (who has so far not claimed any special expertise in mathematics) sent some well-deserved sarcasm Arthur's way:

"Oh, and great job on 81 (number), you re-deleted "In mathematics." But you're the mathematician with the Erdos number, so you tell me if 81 really isn't a perfect totient number nor a member of the Mian-Chowla sequence."

Arthur then restored the math section, but instead of thanking Knodeltheory for pointing out his mistake, Arthur berated Knodel for violating "consensus" (read: Arthur's authority as a Wikipedia sysop). Now, ask yourself, are those the actions of a math genius who co-authored a paper with Paul Erdos, or the actions of a Wikipedia admin concerned only with that his orders be obeyed at all costs?

Wikipedia is a publicly edited source. Meaning that you yourself can go and start a page, or you can also edit an entry if you find it is lacking. So giving names would be nearly impossible.