This is going to sound like sour grapes: it isn't, as I can hopefully demonstrate. I think it makes a useful case study to raise an interesting question.
One of the first questions on the site that I attempted to answer was Was Neil Gaiman's Stardust influenced by C.S. Lewis? because I knew a fair amount about the genesis of the book and I thought I could show that the questioners thesis was, at the very least, a minor aspect in the creation of the work.
The reason is that by co-incidence, I'd just finished reading a novel called Lud-in-the-Mist. Habitually upon finished a novel I like to google around to see if there are any interesting literary allusions connected with it. In this case, I found a large number with Stardust. Try it yourself: google for "Lud-in-the-Mist Stardust" and see what comes back.
I tried to distill these oft-remarked upon similarities into an answer and show that there was a strong connection between the two books and that, in turn, these strong connections suggested an influence from Lewis was unlikely.
Another answer did the same, but they got the wrong book. Their suggested influence, a writer called Lucy Clifford, was named by Gaiman in the same article I used as a reference but only in passing. He named (and praised) Lud-in-the-Mist more frequently. Google "Lucy Clifford Stardust" and you'll see that, aside from the original interview, there's almost nothing.
I would hope that demonstrates that what I'm suggesting is a more factually accurate answer than the other. Yet it's sinking. I presume that's because I went out on a limb and made a statement about Lewis belonging within the great tradition of Tolkien, which Gaiman was trying to escape from in writing the novel.
It's fair that I was probably on shaky ground make that allusion: it's interesting to consider but I presented what was a weak thesis fairly strongly and that's going to get people's backs up. I should probably go and edit it, and will do so once this has run its course on meta: but the damage is already done.
So: we have a situation where a badly worded but accurate answer has been outvoted by a clear but incorrect one. This worries me, because anyone looking at that question and the highest voted answer alone is going to walk away with the wrong answer. It seems to me this is a big potential danger for this site, or indeed any SE site, where there's no scientifically agreed 'correct' answer.
Hence the question: on what basis should we be "voting" for things, especially on an SE site where there are dubious criteria for what qualifies as the "right" answer?
