In science, peer review works a bit like upvotes: person A says that "yes, I think this work doesn't have any major flaws". Over time people who have published lots of work that has got such approval accrue reputation.
So far this is reminiscent of Stack Overflow.
But in science, if someone with a lot of reputation says that a certain work has no flaws, this has a lot of weight, while a crackpot with zero reputation saying the same thing contributes pretty much nothing. Similarly, if a reputable person says "this unsolved question is a good one to answer", that has a lot more weight than if, say, I were to say that.
This seems to be a very sane and sensible system.
Why doesn't Stack Overflow work the same? Do you reckon it wouldn't work for Stack Overflow if something like that were attempted? Why not?