I'll begin with a mea culpa. In the original version of my answer to the following question How do I get a well-rounded understanding of chess openings? I gave the wrong variation. Someone pointed it out with a down vote, and gave the correct variation. I even sent him a post admitting my error, and thanked him for the heads up.
The issue was, in downvoting me the first time, he said, "This answer is horrible...I wish I could down-mod this down into negative territory." Am I (the OP) wrong is thinking that this seems a bit harsh?
After my correction (and reply) he replied,
"Your utter mis-understanding of the positional considerations after 5...Na5 warrant that you entirely delete this answer -- it's a travesty and will only pass on your severely flawed understanding to others with even less knowledge, thereby hindering their chess progress rather than enhancing it."
It's certainly ok to say, "This is wrong, and here's the correct line," or I disagree with your interpretation, here's mine "(with or without a down vote).
But it seems to me that the above criticism goes a bit beyond this. Are my critic's comments within the bounds of civil discourse on this site?