The primary philosophical idea which Conservapedia tries to combat with the best of the public is that of "gatekeeping". Gatekeepers refer to those who control the flow of knowledge, and can affect the social perceptions of individuals. This is also how experts are created because they are educated within the social system - as a result, their beliefs are often tempered towards the status quo. This also ties into credentials, since having good credentials signals that someone is an "expert" and therefore more powerful on the social hierarchy than someone who has no credentials. As a result, people will continue to support the status quo in order to avoid losing their authority. This is the basic idea that the editors of Conservapedia put forth to support their best of the public philosophy: since "experts" are compromised by the status quo, they cannot support the truth. The public is free from such conflicts of interest and therefore a non-expert can look on a subject without bias. However, since they are not credentialed experts, the best of the public are often shot down by experts for not having experience. In its most basic form, the best of the public actually seems to offer a decent argument for why the public can be better than the morally compromised experts. Continuing this Philosophy 101 line of thought, Conservapedia experts seem to feel that the best of the public are like those who were released from Plato's cave, individuals who aren't trapped in a monolithic structure and are able to see the truth that the experts are ignorant of.
However, the whole philosophy has some pretty enormous logical holes. First of all, how does one determine who the best of the public are? Does any random Joe Shmoe off the street qualify? The only way I can give the idea any sort of credence is if the "best of the public" has extensive knowledge of a subject in question, otherwise they're just "the public"... of course, this dramatically lowers the number of people who can qualify, and overlaps significantly with "experts". The examples on the best of the public page don't really help clarify matters any - how the hell is the Virgin Mary an example of the "best of the public"??? Is anyone who did anything without getting credentialed for it first suddenly considered "the best"? Geez, I must be the best Tim Horton's employee ever because I didn't do my training videos to get credentialed!
There's also the problem that the best of the public just makes less sense than credentialing. Put simply, the expert opinion social structure has more sound reasoning behind it. Experts are considered as such for a reason - they (generally) know what the hell they're talking about. They've studied the topic for years and so should have a good idea of the arguments and counter-arguments within the community. Comparing an expert to a guy who read all about a topic on
This really leads into the obvious problem with the best of the public - it's espoused by Conservapedia and therefore has an extreme fundamentalist-conservative bias. Conservapedia's editors will claim that the experts are biased and the best of the public aren't, but their entire conception of who qualifies is based on their political leaning - disagree with Conservapedia, and you're suddenly exempt from qualification. Conservapedia also seems to be at odds with itself in determining the best of the public and experts, because they still cite "reputable" sources on their pages and Andrew Schlafly's own page is just a rundown of all the credentials he has. It's pretty clear that the best of the public is just used by Conservapedia as an excuse to discredit ideologies that they disagree with (eg, evolution) and replace them with pro-fundamentalist ideologies (eg, creationism and/or intelligent design).
While the best of the public is probably not a very great way to go about reforming the social construction of knowledge, it does have some good insights. Experts might be given too much credit sometimes, as it's very easy for them to throw out their credentials or experience and rub it in someone's face, rather than addressing counter-arguments directly. Ideally, the best of the public can stand beside expert opinion and shape knowledge together... but they'll have to put politics aside first if they want the idea to have any sort of chance of working.