I'd like to bump this.
I think it's an excellent idea for a forum and pulls EEVblog towards more discipline orientated topics.
Oldway said another post...
Answers to security questions should be made by people who prove their qualification and in a non-anonymous way so that they can be held responsible for the erroneous and dangerous advices they give and even be suited in the courts for their consequences.
On the subject of electronics "safety" (to avoid ambiguity).
That sounds good in concept, but I see two problems arising. The first it implies Dave or anyone who contributes has a duty of care. In some parts of the world this would also enable readers to make not only lawsuits, but frivolous lawsuits. The other is it's best to have an actual open and multiway conversation, least the forum be heavily moderated. Law/regulations/standards, equipment are country specific and we know that people can give incorrect advice and readers also interpret advice incorrectly.
As for people using their real names and providing their credentials, well if they want to be a subject matter expert I see no problems, even if they use a second account or their post signature. However I think it should be entirely optional, which leads to a similar problem.
My solution to those problems would be the person providing the advice instead quote or provide an actual documented source, the audience or individual asking the question can then refer to it if required. This has been pretty standard on the internet for the last 20 years so I'm sure it will serve us well, it also helps to clarify situations as there is nothing better than a good explanation and a black and white diagram to go along with it.
I would also put a disclaimer sticky up as well, it only needs to be simple and also outline the requirements on providing advice:
"Warning - Discussion on this forum can cover topics working with voltages above (insert ELV/SELV). It is no substitute for supervised training relevant to your location and experience. Feel free to ask questions but when replying with advice, for clarity provide a relevant source of the standards or training for readers."