I do think people need to be cautious about what they believe, but that applies even to stuff presented by SOME experts. I've seen material presented by experts/authorities that either misses something important or presents something misleading. Of course, on a site like this there's a whole lot more bad information than one authority sites in general.
There's a problem, though, that, to me, seems like it may have gotten worse with the "new" emphasis on "first-person writing being crap". I specifically limit my subjects to only those in which I have read, researched or experienced first hand in the past. I stay away from the whole world of other subjects because I only have enough time (and only want to spend enough time) writing from what I know. I'm very careful about what I'll call "knowing", and I make sure that if I present something as fact it can easily be backed up I'm asked to, or anyone else wants to check for himself. I've been writing and researching for over thirty five years. There are a few subjects in which I have quite a bit of experience. I'm someone who reads when I run into something in my personal life and someone who reads just out of interest in those subjects I care about. I'm not young, and I've had a whole lot of things (good and bad) happen in my life a whole lot more than some of the same things ever happen in a lot of people's lives.
BUT, when I write a Hub I often write a first-hand thing because I want to make it very clear that I'm writing from my experience/learning - not from research done specifically for the Hub. People can decide if they only want "expert" or want something different. What I often see these days, though, is people writing from personal opinion/experience but maybe being too afraid to write in first person. As a result, they'll write stuff that one would know no expert would ever say. These days a lot of stuff implies "expert", and without it being (at least in some places) in first-person it seems like the author is being a little deceitful.
It's really important for a person to know his subject, or at least know research sources, well enough to be able to recognize what's solid and what may not be. Experienced writers know how to find the legitimate resources. People with little writing experience and/or no interest in the subject aren't as skilled at finding the most reliable sources.
I don't see much value in regurgitated info unless it's really in-depth and complete.
