On the long run, paid voting will not be feasible for most, when fact-checkers are introduced.
What's to prevent an individual or company from either ranking up enough of their own accounts to be "fact-checkers", or buying off existing "fact-checkers"?
If fact checkers debunk it as a fake news in future, even if the community gets paid to vote for certain outcome, in this case, real, or fake news, it is what fact checkers conclude, which counts.
Then what is the point in the voters at all then? If fact checkers can overrule them completely, then they serve no purpose.
I also agree with examplens points above. Whether an article is factual or fictious is not down to a consensus agreement. It is down to facts. A fact is a fact regardless of whether people like it or whether people vote for it. The majority of people at the time thought slavery was fine. The majority of people at the time thought blood letting with leeches was an effective treatment for most medical issues. The majority of people at the moment think that USD is both safe and stable. The majority can't be trusted, and consensus doesn't make something true or false.