Which of course has problems with the definition of "credible". I'm probably pretty credible on coding and performance tuning, since I do a lot of that, but I'm far from credible on a number of other things in SQL Server, and partially credible on other things.

So, does that mean I would get to "vote" only on certain posts? Would Gail's votes count more than mine on some posts (since she's definitely more credible on certain subjects)? How about Joe Celko? He's got credibility on certain things, and is dead wrong on others, even ignoring his tendency to do his best to be rude and arrogant. What does he get to vote on? How much do his votes count? Jeff Moden is highly credible on a number of SQL subjects, but I've seen him "vote", in effect, against SSIS solutions that were perfectly valid, just because he personally dislikes SSIS. Same for CLR solutions. He's come around a bit on those recently, but check some of his posts from last year even, on either of those subjects.

Which brings up, what happens if some credible expert votes for something, and five minutes later is told a better solution by someone who's completely new to the site, tests it, and finds out their solution is better? I've seen that happen numerous times.

The Stack Overflow solution has positive factors, but it also has negative ones, and some of them are eggregiously negative. There are a lot of high-vote solutions on there that are valid but far from optimum. Some because they were optimum at the time they were voted for, but no longer are, others for other reasons.