This is an extend of my answer on Should we initiate assisted dying?

As how I see, lack of experienced users is inevitable and we should have accepted that as a part of a growing site. The essence reason for the dying is lack of downvotes. Voting is the most important thing in the SE model. But if downvotes are that important, why is there a rep requirement for downvote privilege?

The reason for requiring 125 rep to have that privilege is to expect you to involve and have more knowledge on the community before voting. But if knowledge on medical is much more important than the knowledge of the community, then why don't we encourage new users, even lurkers to downvote bad posts? We may have a risk of having non-well-intended downvotes, but will the risk overcome the benefit? I think if this site is dying anyway, then it doesn't hurt to have a try. At best it will survive, at worst we have a study case.

Tl;dr: not enough downvotes on bad answers vs good answers get downvoted by trolls

  • 1
    Won't a low rep medical expert easily get enough reputation to gain the down-vote privilege by answering and editing questions? – Arsak Mar 27 '18 at 23:25
  • But who will vote for them? They need to have at least 12 upvotes in answers to get that privilege. And who will write good questions for them to answer? We need to stay somewhere, don't we? And this is the thing we haven't tried – Ooker Mar 28 '18 at 1:15
  • 1
    What we really need is to lower the threshold that we can delete questions. – Graham Chiu Mar 28 '18 at 5:28
  • @GrahamChiu why can't closing them enough? – Ooker Mar 28 '18 at 11:18

If we allow those with no reputation to down-vote, this can be very damaging to the regular users of the site and in turn, damaging to the site. This is because trolls (and we do have a lot of them), can come in and down-vote good questions and answers which will damage the reputation of the site and its users.

Reputation points here not only convince your peers that you know what you’re talking about, but it shows that you understand the setup of the site. Have the limit at 100/101, and anyone who has good reputation elsewhere in the SE community will be able to down-vote within Health.SE even though they haven't built any reputation within Health.SE based on knowledge of the subject areas within Health.SE

It is a fine balancing act which is needed to protect not only the good and valid answers within the site, but also prevent bad answers from having higher voting levels than those which are good. You don't want a bad answer having -2 and a good answer having -3 or worse!

  • So you prefer to see good answers be protected from trolls rather than bad answers get downvoted by experts? I'm not saying which is better though, but I admit that I prefer the latter than the former, because that's what the site needs right now – Ooker Mar 27 '18 at 16:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .