Consider this recent answer about dealing with smoke detectors making annoying noise on Shabbat. In it, the answerer, coming from a point-of-view outside traditional Judaism but knowledgeable and concerned about smoke detector safety, makes two on-point recommendations, presented as alternatives to each other:
Leave the noisy smoke detector undisturbed and un-muffled so that it can continue to do its safety-critical job.
Replace the battery on Shabbat, since the smoke detector's safety-critical job trumps observance of Shabbat.
It seems likely (and let's assume, at least for the sake of this meta post) that the first recommendation is consistent with Halacha and valuable as an answer to the question, while the second recommendation is not consistent with Halacha and therefore, from the point of view of traditional Judaism, misleading.
In this type of case, where an answer contains both valuable, on-point information and incorrect, on-point information, should an individual editor:
Comment an objection and leave the post alone, while voting it up, down, or neither based on the balance of the value of its current information?
Edit out the incorrect information, leaving a comment to explain why?
Comment asking the author to edit and follow up with an edit if the author doesn't?
If the correct course of action depends on how much of the answer is valuable and how much is incorrect, what's a good way to determine where those lines are?
If the correct course of action depend on how unanimous or controversial the wrongness of the wrong part is, what's a good way to draw that line?