Many people get their facts from this site. Many people also do not do properly read and understand the answers they read, but merely mindlessly look at the upvote count and figure it must be true.
Here's an example of an obviously false answer by user @user5341: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/41526
Upvoted 21 times, yet it contains claims that are in no way supported by the provided articles and pictures (which I assume were provided in as confusing of a way as possible to make it harder to check the claim).
Why are there not any mechanisms in place to prevent such false answers, propagandaic even, from coming off as legitimate?
One idea could be to have a "approved" or "verified" marker which only moderators or otherwise high-rep posters can award to a post, if that moderator themselves checked the sources cited and can verify that the claims are indeed correct. This would then be an addition to the usual upvotes.
Then if any random reader sees a post with 50 upvotes but no "approved"-marker, that means that nobody trustworthy has yet to check the claims in the post, and so one should still remain suspicious.