As soon as Joel tweeted about Eric Lippert's fantastic answer, the viewcount shot up. The OP received three gold badges for the question, which itself has so far garnered 191 upvotes and been favourited 107 times... despite being, frankly, a medium-quality question at best, with a whole slew of pre-existing duplicates.
Fortunately, this scenario comes up fairly rarely, but in my opinion it does demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the Stack Exchange voting system: question/answer score isn't merely a function of upvotes and downvotes, but also of how many masses of people have had the opportunity to vote, however it was that the question became known to them.
Now, I'm almost loathed to suggest the following as it's a pretty hacky "fix", but I want to open the floor to ideas, suggestions and opinions by starting with the following draft proposal:
Question/Answer Score = Ceil((Upvotes - Downvotes) / f(Number_Of_Question_Views))
f is some weighted, but linear, transformation.
Even if constructed such that questions with an "average" number of page views would not see any significant impact from the addition of the new factor, this would immediately result in heavy rep changes for quite a few people, and for quite a few honestly high-quality questions. This could be a practical drawback, but I reckon the result would be a much fairer distribution of rep.
And it's not just about reputation. I'm almost anticipating an onslaught of "Stack Overflow is not a competition" comments on this suggestion, but reputation is the mechanism for determining, if only partially, the strength of an individual contributor... and the strength of individual questions/answers. It's misleading to have super-highly voted questions that are orders of magnitude lower in quality than some absolutely superb questions that are stuck with a score of, say, 12.
The overall question of whether users should benefit from publicity has been posed before; in this question, I'm pre-supposing that the answer is no, and asking what can be done about it.
It was also discussed more generally two years ago. Again, since I'm suggesting a specific "fix", I'm not considering that to be a duplicate.
This question is also related, though it focuses on internal SE factors rather than the effects of massive external publicity.
The floor is open.