Just read an answer in SO and 'seemed' to learn something new about Java references.
But did I?
Point being, in Wikipedia, the more external references an item has the more valid it 'seems'.
I think that a concept as this should be incorporated to the SO sites in order to add more validity to answers - when possible of course.
I would also encourage this with some reputation points.
Added screen shot from Wikipedia to be a bit more clear.
Reputation had been raised as a possible incentive but it is not the point. The point is that arbitrary users of differing knowledge and experience can choose to up-vote a particular answer over others where in actuality that answer is wrong. Later on someone can stumble upon this while googling up their pain-point of the day and go about to get the wrong impression due to the fact that, say, 10 people preferred one answer over the rest, and that is if he's lucky, since most questions on SO don't receive such a high amount of participation.
You (out there that have replied by voting against my suggestion) can then go on by saying that if the masses think something is right then it must be so. But that is not always the case.
My suggestion is to find out a scheme where people on their daily hunt for reputation points do a more thorough job.
Wikipedia faces a similar obstacle with their quest for the truth, I believe - and I do not always take all that is written there at face value. I have a custom to check the reference count in order to try to assess the credibility of an item. But then that might be my flawed outlook...