This a suggestion I do not oppose.
There is really quite an amount of problems addressed in that question.
First of all, the wisdom of the crowd is not always reliable in the first place. We should know that. Sometimes the asker is a plain idiot. That happens. A lot? I have posts on other sites with the most extreme voting difference where I provided a very detailed answer, referenced my sources and even ended up with a negative score "too long", "do not like what you wrote" etc. Despite giving very plain and clearly the best answer. Bandwagon waltzed through town, this misalignment will probably never be corrected. OP apparently never read my final version of the answer and accepted a short but bogus answer.
An effect that worked twice in a similar way, though hopefully not with a bogus answer, in my favour, to be fair.
Sometimes the answers are bad.
The accepted answer always relies on one person and her preferences alone. "Correctness" is to be established through voting, not alone, but primarily. There are badges for that, "outperforming an accepted answer".
What is "correct"? This is in most cases not so obvious as this question makes it look like. Final verdicts are an enemy of knowledge acquisition. Just like an accept from a never returning user on a wrong or at least inferior answer is a thorn in the side of a Q&A, such a requested marking might stifle progress of knowledge.
Who is knowledgable? In principle this is not reliably addressable here. I will not disclose any real information or even credentials that I have, neither should anyone. And if anyone does it, were are the guarantees that this information is correct and not just an impostering appeal to authority of unknowable validity? Even experts can err, and I have seen my share of this kind in all fields and walks of life.
Since voting is the correcting principle in this system of merits on SE, we are thrown back to not only our lack of real experts, medical professionals etc. We are thrown back on our sheer lack of core user base. And what is really compounding this small user base is the voting laziness within that small group.
The answer that prompted this discussion can and should be seen from two different perspectives of correctness.
- Does it confirm to our guidelines of format, reference providing etc?
- Is its content acceptable, correct or good?
- How do you, the voter, assess its up or downvote worthiness?
The OP (Graham) for this discussion only argues about 2 and 3, which are reasons not to be dismissed, but the answer already fails bullet point 1! That alone is reason to criticise the answer and if not improved: downvote it.
We did not do that! Apparently not effectively enough, to say the least.
It is precisely a design goal of any SE site that one question generates more than one answer. The theory is that one answer will be better than the other answer. The answer that prompted this is exactly one of the few cases where and when on our site this design goal that is necessary to graduate a site out of beta is fulfilled numerically (really >2.5 are needed?) and is showing the merits or demerits of the answers exactly like the theory envisions it.
The theory is a bit flawed, like I pointed out in the introduction. But here it seems to work out even though the voter sample is n=small.
Yes, we need more users with a healthy background, like medics, students, practitioners or theorists in a variety of fields. But we need more users overall, more active users, more questions, more answers, more votes. That does not sound greedy or overly ambitious. It is just a sign of severe deficiencies. The proposed marking for accepted but incorrect is then one supplement where we need much more healthy diet, that is life and style.
Asking for special treatment in this situation seems like a futile begging trip to the developers or staff at SE.
Your correcting comments are already in place and will hopefully stay there.