How should the community handle responses that some see as patently wrong to the point of dangerous, but others see from some other position?
To use a hypothetical posting situation with respect to an occasionally flaring up controversy, vaccines will yield this result. If an answer advises that someone shun Vaccine X because of Risk A cited in Study B, how should opponents of the view handle responding? Generally, most people on here are neither doctors nor public health pathologists, so should medical advice be dispensed to begin with?
The standard options are flagging, commenting, and/or down-voting. And massive editing, which is a whole other thing.
The practical difficulties will stem from being able to have a dialog where bad answers can be properly addressed, keeping bad questions/answers from attracting a bunch of attention, misinformation clarified; but ideally speaking there is actually a certain value to having the bad answers in place as mile-markers of where some bad information got put up and was corrected.
How should the beta treat answers of dubious origin and mixed value?