It's not as bad as I feared it could be. But it's also not really good. I raised the issue of requiring references very early because I feared that otherwise the site might become a place where anyone can peddle their favorite theory, and if it sounds plausible enough, it'll be upvoted.
What I realized is that the answers with many references aren't actually better than the ones without references. You can find a reference for pretty much anything related to health, the really hard part is evaluating them and putting them into context.
Overall, the community is not as critical as I'd like. My perspective as a Skeptics mod is probably skewed, but I know just how much bad information about health is out there. I expect solid evidence, or at least the admission that we don't really have any solid evidence yet.
I'm not really seeing anything here yet that actually makes the internet a better place. It doesn't make it worse at the moment, but that's not much to say given the amount of terrible health advice you can find on the internet.
Update impressions after nearly two weeks:
My opinion is now more negative than it was at the beginning. Answers just need to look good, the community is not evaluating them critically enough in many cases and just upvoting them based on appearances.