Reducing Anonymity on Wikipedia

This CNN article discusses a recent move by Wikipedia to ask a writer who claims to be an expert for their credentials before they can post or edit an article. The move comes after it was discovered that a "high-ranking member of Wikipedia's bureaucracy" who was really a college dropout pretended he was a college professor and claimed to have a Ph.D. in Religion. Wikipedia recognizes that anonymity is a huge reason for the website's success so they were explicit in saying that this new move does not mean that regular users cannot remain anonymous. Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, says that it is intended to "give a positive incentive rather than absolute prohibition, so that people can contribute without a lot of hassle." This must add more substance to the argument that Wikipedia is not a valuable source of information since virtually anybody can post or edit articles. The actions of this high-ranking member only prove that given the veil of anonymity, there is a high chance for fraud since there are really no penalties. If this man could so easily lie about his life, what's to stop him from being wrong about certain topics or posting incorrect information? Do you think Wikipedia is correct in taking steps to force people who claim to be experts on a certain subject to provide proof of their claims? Or does this go against the user-oriented philosophy that has made Wikipedia such a huge success?