I have been active for a while here now, and it is a growing concern of mine that this site is not always capable of highlighting quality answers through vote counts. In other words, I'm worried that the wrong answers are upvoted for the wrong reasons. I am particularly concerned with faulty linguistic information (i.e., not fringe dogmatic positions).
To give some examples: this answer suggests relations between roots using a method reject by contemporary linguistisc. Here somebody suggests that the Hebrew script contained vowels; here somebody suggests that many scholars distrust the MT to the point that it has no value at all.
Indeed, some of these answers have a negative score. But if an answer has +1/-3 (like the first example), the author still got +4 reputation out of that, and is hence not directly pressured to remove the content.
It is vital that we as a community are able to highlight what is good content and what is not. On relatively low traffic sites this is difficult using vote counts (it is also an issue on Philosophy.SE, where I moderate). Perhaps we should consider quicker deletion?
To be clear: I am all for exploring alternative lines of thought. What matters to me is that fringe positions aren't implicitly pushed as "The Right Method". To compare, Physics.SE explicitly disallows non-mainstream physics. In a field where the borders may be more fuzzy this may be difficult, but I would be in favour of quicker deletion of non-mainstream content at least if it does not make it clear that it is non-mainstream. What do you think?