Let's imagine there is a very persistent member, with a high reputation (above 10k for example). This member is capable of giving good answers sometimes, but also capable of expressing opinions that are just wrong, and sometimes even dangerous (sometimes the two in the same answer). Let's also imagine that this member is so persistent that everyone seems to be tired to correcting him.
What would be the correct attitude?
- Just let go, but in that case the "credibility" of the voting system is somehow impacted. For a newcomer who doesn't know this particular member, the reputation alone makes the answer authoritative.
- Downvoting and explaining in the comment? Most can do that kind of things within limits, but our imaginary member is more persistent than anyone else, so they'll "win" by attrition anyway. And also, downvoting costs reputation (at symbolic level), I understand that it has been done to avoid abusive downvotes, but in that case, it's also punishing those who want to improve the quality of the answers given our imaginary member is extremely prolific and manage to compensate the downvotes by enough upvotes.
- Flag the answers?
- Editing the answer and keep only the good part? A bit abusive for non moderator I'd think, I give it for reference.
I've seen this question, but I'd like to add a nuance, linked to the high reputation. How to handle answers you don't agree with?