A recent thread brought up the issue of the appropriateness of discussing correctness of a published paper on MO.
I did a little digging on Meta, and found a few relevant threads:
It would appear the consensus here is that discussion of the correctness of published papers should be fairly specific. Rather than discussing the correctness of the entire paper, the author of the MathOverflow thread should read the paper and ask specific questions about specific steps in the paper.
So we are aiming for less of a general "editorial" stance from MO, and more of a specific discussion of the component issues in a paper.
Is this a summary of the consensus, or am I missing something?