Why is Reddit not a reliable source of experts? Some people say that you should take for granted for opinions on Reddit, because comparing it to academic journals is like comparing kindergarten to university. But I don't understand. Well, it's true that it is incomplete from a scientific point of view, but most active users in a specialized subreddit likely know what they are talking about. It also has the same peer review mechanism like Stack Exchange, and you can always visit users' profiles to evaluate their expertise. Saying a frequent redditor is not necessarily an expert is like saying top users in Academia Stack Exchange are not necessarily academics I think.

So if you can trust (to a certain degree) ideas from TED talks, Wikipedia, or Stack Exchange, then why should Reddit be an exception?

PS: I think the keyword specialized subreddit hasn't been implemented enough in the answers. Yes, all of the points are applicable in a generic subreddit, but I'm talking about subs that the fact one is in there means that they must have a certain level of knowledge, or else they can't never find out the sub. Any random person can create accounts, upvote, and write hilarious comments, but only those who actually have the knowledge can write serious ones and show the holes in my knowledge. 



Related:
• Are TED presentations academically credible?
• Are there instances where citing Wikipedia is allowed?
• When should we ask questions on Reddit? (quite a misleading title in this context, but anyway)
Well, it's true that it is incomplete from a scientific point of view


Why did you write anything after this sentence?



This is probably a bit flippant. But seriously. It's "incomplete from a scientific point of view", according to your own words. Why do you need anything further to justify the fact that reddit is on a completely different level than academic journals? You are focusing too much on the identity of the writer, when you should have been focusing on the actual content. Science isn't about who wrote what; it's about the research. People can publish anonymously in top journals, if they are so inclined and the editors agree.

Not to mention that reddit (and this website) is a popularity contest. Any random person can create an account and upvote everything. Does writing a hilarious answer filled with private jokes make you a great scientist? No. Does it garner a lot of upvotes on reddit? Yes. Do you not see the conflict here? Calling this "peer review" is laughably naive. Reddit users don't go through the painful process of checking all the details of a comment before deciding to click on that arrow button.


  So if you can trust (to a certain degree) ideas from TED talks, Wikipedia, or Stack Exchange, then why should Reddit be an exception?


Just like with TED talks, Wikipedia, StackExchange, and journal articles, you should use your own judgment when determining what to trust and not believe blindly anything that is told to you. It's also true that if something is presented in the form of a funny anecdote on an anonymous website, you should proceed with extreme caution. I don't even understand why it's up for discussion.

PS: I certainly hope that you don't trust blindly anything written by top users here. StackExchange "reputation" is simply a measure of how much time one has wasted on this website. People who have never done any kind of research or teaching have garnered thousands and thousands of points asking braindead questions and parroting well-known talking points without really understanding what they are talking about.