In some cases, I can see this being a good idea, but we already have forums, IRC,
and a wiki. A forum (or the IRC channel) is a good place to ask questions, and the wiki is a great place for user-editable, persistent information. I don't really think anything else is particularly necessary, and having too much redundancy here could hurt anyway.
On top of this, of course, is the fact that if you have vote-based answers, the top answers will always be a variant of 'kill the elves,' 'flood the world with magma,' or propagated but inaccurate rumours, generally all unrelated to the topic at hand.
Yes. Democracy is one of the worst ways to answer questions.
I don't care about having a wiki page.
Er, why? The wiki is
the go-to place for persistent information.
That's why you downvote and/or flag the wrong answers. That's also what mods are for: to fix things when the commmunity gets it wrong. It worked pretty well on Stack Overflow.
"Downvote the wrong answers" is obviously not a valid solution to the problem of the majority being wrong about something, and they'd be wrong often enough that moderating it would just be a hassle and you'd be better off not bothering with the democratic process to begin with.
People yell at you to hit the wiki whenever you ask something resembling a trivial question, which is fine, except if you can't find the info in the wiki.
And this would solve the problem how?