My argument is that it is difficult for casual observers to assess each individual project, so we as a group outsource this job to an accredited agency, who verifies that a set of projects has been completed that match a pre-defined standard.

When I go to a doctor's office, I don't really always have time to investigate in detail the various projects he undertook.

What's at stake here is that the agency tasked with upholding the standard (the U of Manitoba) seems to have slackened the agreed-upon standard for the sets of projects involved to reach the level of "PhD in Mathematics".

A lot of PhD recipients are judged by their project, in that they continue to do research in and explore the area of their research. Building something and releasing it as an open source project, for example, says something about an individual. It doesn't necessarily say everything you need to know. The same goes for someone with a PhD or any academic degree. Both are useful in judging the worthwhileness of an individual.

Wrong, Ph.D. candidates get a lot of pressure to be associated with an idea, or a set of related projects, and they can get a lot of flak if they deviate a little because when you apply for an academic or industrial job, "you want to be known for an idea, not for your degree" (disclaimer: i'm a ph.d. candidate)