In today’s fast-paced, ever-evolving digital landscape, the term ‘expert’ has become a point of debate, especially among academics and professionals. What exactly defines an expert? Various sources present differing views on the subject, but the traditional definition, according to the Oxford Dictionary, describes an expert as ‘a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.’ This definition, while helpful, has been stretched and challenged by the rise of social media and digital platforms, where the line between knowledge and influence has become increasingly blurred. Daniel Newman, in his Forbes article titled Experts May Have Influence, But What Makes an Expert?, offers a critical take on this issue. He argues that true expertise is not merely about influence or the number of followers amassed but rather about deep knowledge, proven ability, and credibility in a specific field. Newman’s perspective is especially relevant in today’s context, where self-proclaimed expertise is becoming alarmingly prevalent, particularly in academia.

In the academic world, expertise is traditionally established through rigorous peer-reviewed work, extensive research, and years of study. Academics spend significant portions of their careers contributing to their fields through publications, teaching, and practical applications of their knowledge. Expertise in this sense is not only about acquiring knowledge but also about contributing to the development of a particular discipline. However, the advent of social media has complicated this process. Platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn allow anyone with a platform to claim expertise, often with little to no verification of their credentials. As a result, the line between an “influencer” and an “expert” has become increasingly blurry, leading to a conflation of popularity with authority.

Newman’s view offers clarity amid this confusion. He emphasizes that true expertise is not measured by how many people an individual can influence but by their ability to consistently offer solutions to real-world problems. In his article, he highlights that an expert is someone who not only possesses deep knowledge but can also apply it practically and effectively. This distinction is crucial, especially in an age where individuals can amass large followings on social media without necessarily demonstrating true expertise. The digital age has made it easier than ever for self-proclaimed experts to rise to prominence, often based on their ability to attract attention rather than their ability to solve problems or contribute meaningfully to their field.

The digital world has, in many ways, democratized access to information and platforms. On the one hand, this has opened up new opportunities for knowledge sharing and collaboration across borders and disciplines. On the other hand, it has also allowed individuals to present themselves as experts without the necessary qualifications or experience. Social media platforms, in particular, amplify the voices of those who can generate the most engagement, whether through likes, shares, or comments. As a result, the sheer number of followers or the amount of visibility someone achieves often becomes a false indicator of mastery, making it difficult for audiences to discern genuine experts from those with merely a strong digital presence.

Academics face particular challenges in maintaining credibility in this environment. Traditional markers of expertise, such as published papers, years of research, and contributions to scientific knowledge, are being overshadowed by the viral spread of easy-to-digest, sometimes oversimplified content. Social media platforms prioritize brevity and entertainment value, which often conflicts with the deep, nuanced knowledge that true experts bring to the table. This shift has led to confusion about what constitutes true mastery in various fields, as those who are better at packaging information for mass consumption can often gain more visibility than those with legitimate expertise.

The confusion between popularity and expertise in the digital world has broader implications beyond academia. As more individuals rely on online platforms for information, the potential for misinformation increases. People may trust a so-called expert based on their online following, only to receive misleading or incomplete advice. This is particularly problematic in areas such as health, technology, or economics, where poor guidance can lead to tangible, and sometimes harmful, consequences. In these cases, the difference between true expertise and mere influence can have significant real-world repercussions.

To truly be considered an expert, one must not only possess deep, specialized knowledge but also the ability to solve complex problems within their field of study. Expertise is demonstrated through sustained and verifiable contributions that make a tangible difference, not through the mere appearance of knowledge. True experts are those who have a track record of applying their skills to benefit others, whether through advancing their discipline, offering practical solutions, or providing insights that lead to meaningful change. In this sense, expertise is not about projecting an image of authority but about being able to substantiate that authority with real-world results.

Newman’s argument is particularly relevant when considering the rise of influencers who are often mistaken for experts simply because of their visibility. While influence can play a role in spreading information and ideas, it does not necessarily equate to expertise. Expertise is about mastery, the ability to apply knowledge, and proven success in solving problems. This is why it is crucial, especially in academia and other professional fields, to maintain a critical eye when evaluating so-called experts. Relying solely on social media metrics, such as followers or likes, as indicators of expertise can lead to the propagation of misinformation and the devaluation of true mastery.

In conclusion, while the digital world has opened up access to information and provided new opportunities for knowledge sharing, it has also blurred the lines between experts and influencers. As Daniel Newman rightly points out, influence alone does not make one an expert. In today’s environment, it is more important than ever to distinguish between those who have genuine expertise and those who simply project an image of authority online. By focusing on mastery, the ability to apply knowledge, and a proven track record of solving problems, we can ensure that the wisdom we seek is rooted in genuine understanding and proficiency rather than the fleeting metrics of digital popularity.