https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it."
Ironically, 20 years of Internet discussions have made me quite an... authority on this subject. I have become ridiculously good at recognizing fallacies from long experience, and these are TEXTBOOK call to authority fallacies.
No, I am referring to the correct fallacy--which, according to the Wikipedia article you referenced, is now being called, more correctly, "argument from unqualified (or unreliable) authority." My example of Barbara Loe Fisher as an unqualified "authority" is spot-on. That woman has utterly no clue; I doubt she could read and correctly interpret a scientific paper if her life depended on it.
Arguing from authority, in itself, is not a logical fallacy. For instance, I happen to be an expert on the subject of vaccines. I read the medical literature extensively; with my PhD in biochemistry, I understand quite well the biology of the vaccines and of the human body's response to vaccines. I have designed a vaccine, and I have published a scientific article on the vaccine research I did myself, as well as at least 40 other articles on the subject, mostly for use by policy experts. So, given my background and experience with the subject, it is completely appropriate for me to use my position as a bonafide authority to explain why vaccines are beneficial, and the rationale behind the public policy of mandatory vaccination.
Ironically, 20 years of Internet discussions have made me quite an... authority on this subject. I have become ridiculously good at recognizing fallacies from long experience, and these are TEXTBOOK call to authority fallacies.
No, what 20 years of internet discussion have made you is an expert at reducing every argument to some kind of fallacy. This saves you, I suppose, from the trouble of actually having to present evidence to support your side. I've seen that tactic used by a lot of people who don't like the science regarding their pet ideology, but cannot actually refute the science. For example, strict interpretation creationists and "organic food" fanatics will sometimes dismiss counterarguments as some sort of logical fallacy, for the exact same reason: science does not support their opinion.
Let me give you a bit of a warning here: I have, for several years here on FreeRepublic, spoken up to quash anti-vax propaganda whenever it rears its ugly head. Since I do have reams of facts originating directly from the scientists doing the research on my side, it is extremely difficult to refute any of the evidence that I present. I like to think that because of my efforts, spanning many years, anti-vaxxers feel uncomfortable trying to post anti-vax nonsense here--at least, this issue seems to come up far less often than it did a few years ago.