Not saying everything in this article is wrong, but I actually think the opposite is more true.<p>Google + Wikipedia + chatgpt + youtube are imperfect sources of knowledge, but they are vastly better than the no-knowledge people had in the days when credentialism was born.<p>It used to be an simple argument: "Is your job $PROFESSION? No? Then you probably know almost nothing about it." There's not much subtlety here, you literally won't know that profession's knowledge. There's maybe some osmosis if you're family with someone in the profession, but by and large: you just didn't know anything at all about it.<p>Now the argument is more subtle: Do you know this thing at a shallow wikipedia-level only? Is this thing a shallow subject that you could plausibly learn without being a practitioner? What's the difference between someone who has watched 30 videos on YouTube about installing a bathtub and someone who installs bathtubs professionally? It's some difference, but is it a lot? A little?<p>I get where this article is coming from: we all suddenly have this broader knowledge than we ever would have in the past, but it's not robust deep knowledge. But the answer isn't to counter it with "make sure you see their credentials or they know nothing". The answer is we need our model of expertise to accept a spectrum of expertise, rather than a binary choice like "got a degree in it or not"