|more useful options|
Abigail-II, don't forget TMTOWTDI
What is your standard of correctness? What if someone disagrees with its definition? You express a view of PerlMonks that is oligarchic in nature--where a select group of powerful individuals is responsible for bestowing wisdom.
My response is, "But what about hubris", that characteristic to which none other than St. Larry himself attaches such import? Hubris is the democratic urge to raise oneself up to the gods, and at the monastery that is accomplished by posting.
It seems to me that in an unmoderated forum for sharing knowledge, it's more realistic to expect a process to occur in which members post, and reflect upon each others' postings. From this process a shared concensus will arise. Obviously poor posts will be quickly identified and labelled as such.
As others have mentioned, there is clear value in this process, over and apart from the value the initial requestor receives from having his or her singular problem addressed. It's democratic and it works.
In reply to Perlmonks - democracy or oligarchy?