The statistically correct answer is not necessarily the true one (if there is such a thing as 'truth'). Many people can believe something to be true, and if I query those people i can calculate which answer is statistically correct. That's the 'wisdom of the crowd'.

Calling a flat earth or a geocentric universe "statistically correct" at past historical points is really inane, don't you think? In doing so, you abuse the notion of what statistics is supposed to represent, which is, generally, a statement of an estimate (and/or distribution), as well as the precision of that statement. Since "correct" is binary, it carries an implied precision of 100%, which renders the notion of "statistically correct" is pretty absurd.

The "wisdom of crowds" is mostly bullshit. It works fine for trivial things like estimating the number of beans in a jar. So what. It completely fails for anything requiring deep expertise.

Seems like this is what you get when you have programmers try to be statisticians, I suppose.

"Statistically correct" gobbledygook that signifies nothing.