It's election time and I read a bunch of meta.
I noticed that there seems to be a lot of focus by hi-rep users and moderators on low quality questions. Much of those discussions involve laments by discouraged users about how the community is doomed. It looks like the matter of low quality questions has even culminated in at least one SF rage-quit. This confuses me. I mean, I understand that if you look at the front page there is a lot of what has been described as "typed-out diarrhea". But why are single individuals so invested in policing all of the low-quality questions on this site?
The scope of what is on-topic on SF is obviously much much broader than what any single individual could ever hope to have a comprehensive professional understanding of. Furthermore, the breadth of technologies that are on topic at SF seems likely to increase over time and so will the number of questions per day - both high and low quality. At some point the volume of low-quality questions became high enough that either some low-quality questions persist or some acceptable-quality questions become collateral damage. And these are still small numbers compared with SO which probably handles about 50x the volume of SF. Yet SO seems to be managing this without so much drama. Is SF somehow fundamentally more vulnerable to low-quality questions than SO?
I subscribe to a few tags on SF, SO, and networkengineering.SE. Those tags surface questions I care a lot about because they almost always concern topics I work with almost daily. Altogether, I see about 10 questions from these tags each day. Some days half of them are indeed "typed-out diarrhea". I make sure those get flagged, downvoted, or improved. At that volume it's absolutely manageable for me. I have even gone back and answered an old question that I just happened to learn the answer to.
My point is that it makes no difference to me whether 500-odd questions about "panels" were closed "rightly" or "wrongly" or without "due consultation" or whatever. I benefit from SF just the same whether those questions remained open, closed, or were never asked in the first place. The broken windows argument seems irrelevant to me because those broken windows are in a part of SF I never see. But I see many other users whom I respect dedicating mindshare to these broken windows instead what must be more productive pursuits. Why should I care about broken windows in parts of SF I never visit?
Background: I started frequenting SF in 2012. I'm an avid beneficiary of SF but my systems administration work started well after many of the SF questions I benefit from were answered. Perhaps I am missing some relevant history.