I strongly disagree, IMO actively surfacing a highly-relevant but incorrect result is worse than not surfacing anything at all.
As for determining what the "correct" answer is, the authority of the source is certainly a good place to start. Obviously nothing is fool-proof, but Yahoo! Answers is certainly less likely to be correct than Wikipedia, for example.
Now with the Google results, there is nothing even remotely relevant to my search, so I don't even have candidates with which I could do further research into their veracity.
Once again I think Google just thinks they are smarter than the average user, but it's making their search engine useless for certain queries.
And I don't like the idea that a search engine should be doing the critical thinking for users. That's more dangerous than the content they are supposedly protecting us from.
I don’t want Google to have an opinion. I don’t want Google to second guess me.
We are a long way, I hope, from, “Hey, Siri, what’s your opinion about....”
If this were happening 15 years ago, people would be outraged instead of supporting it. What kind of nonsense is this that the search engine should reinforce political stances? My political beliefs are my choice, and if I want to reinforce them, that's my prerogative. The search engine should not make that choice for me. Well unless you are baidu.com and backed by a one-party system.
Other search engines are no different.
You make your "personal choice" of ranking algorithm, by choosing which search engine to use.
A great benefit to Google would be that SEO would be hard to game because everyone has different filters. That is already sort of the case but it should be the user, not Google, deciding which narratives and aspects to filter.
Or maybe a text search equivalent to Yelp’s “re-search in this area” (after narrowing the map). Perhaps to be able to select some results and hit a “more like this” button.