Please forgive that I haven't read everyone's comments here. However, I may have some valuable insights to all this... *While my rep is VERY low, I hope you'll take my comments very seriously as* - if you check my profile you'll see - I've been around the block a few times, but this isn't about me...

First, let me say up front, I think **this topic should be about process**, not about personality or people because the core issues here are really issues about process. And, I for one am all for using automation combined with process to help the site be all it can be. But I also want it understood that, in my view, **PEOPLE are the real core value here, their intelligence, skill, knowledge, dedication, willingness to help**, etc. So, the best bet is to use compute power to leverage the human intelligence / resource that's available - and ***it's all about the interaction of the human and the software that are the make-or-break of SF*** - and the rest of the related sites, for that matter.

**There's PLENTY of human resource available.** It just needs to be leveraged properly - not always easy to do, but SF is already reasonably mature in doing this; I perceive that **the incentive system could use some tweaking** to use what capitalists like to call "market forces" to improve the site.  Some examples:

 - **Give us - plebs, low-rep people, all of us who visit the site - a
   substantial incentive to edit other people's answers, and not just
   for the edit that results, but a share in follow-on up votes.**

 - **Create an easy way for people of low rep to say, "these two questions
   look about the same, here, I've merged them!"**, where mods can quickly
   review, confirm and merge articles before it is actually completed.
   The primary labor is done by the community at large, they feel good
   for helping, someone of greater knowledge / skill comes along and
   confirms things, and everyone shares in the new rep points that come
   later and people can bask in the perception that they did good. *And
   the site needs a lot less cleanup from people who might burn-out.*

Two keys here: grant enough reputation points per action and you'll get the action, but only if the second key, ease of use, is also present. 

**A main point: tweak the amount of rep points to get the action you want.**

If a lot of low value / useless articles exist, make a way for people of low reputation to decrease them by seeking these out and giving them something to do about it. Dis-incentivize the creation of new questions when similar ones seem to be out there. But, **rather than dis-incentivizing via taking rep away, instead give a larger chunk of rep for helping people improve similar questions,** spurring dialogue. For example, MAYBE - just thinking out loud here - **the existing comment system can be tweaked to include a "follow-up question" capability which includes a good reputation bonus for improving the whole question / answer tree on a given subject.** *I think most of the code is already there.* 

Bumping up the amount of reputation points given for various actions can give room for more subtle tweaks in the middle, tailoring incentives a bit better, and certainly **sharing in up-vote rep points for helping improve someone else's questions and / or answers** is desperately needed to keep people focused on existing entries.

It's worth pointing out that **not granting the newest of newbies up-vote** capability seems very odd to me and **disincentivizes participation.** It's as if the new person is told "we can't trust you for ANYTHING". I don't understand why you need to earn the ability to do an up-vote.

**It can also be annoying when you get a down vote and have zero idea why - turns people off.** An anonymous but requisite "reason you got a down-vote" would be a great addition to help people learn, feel connected, that whatever the down vote was was justified, etc. You'll get a lot more help when people feel things are fair and if they don't understand they won't think it's fair. *Not only does it help avoid the tumbleweeds, it also helps the quality of each user's interaction **while at the same time reducing their angst.***

This might be harder to implement but I think **it'd be great to use Bayesian logic to help bring questions to people on the site that they might be able to answer**, thus lowering the number of unresponded-to questions and improving the quality of existing entries (maybe two lists for someone, those with NO answer, and those with unconfirmed answers). It could work similarly as a spam-filter in reverse, and the positive reinforcements (to teach the software) are the articles people take the time to look at and the tags they use. A key reason I'd like this is to assuage my own feelings of guilt - for every time I come to the site get an answer, I try very hard to leave two new answers, the question is the time I have available. ... I have a LOT of experience (in the real world) that's very valuable and I'm happy to share as thanks for the help I get, so **any system that helps me get to the questions I can likely answer would be a win-win for everyone** - I'm SURE I'm not alone.

In closing, **I admire the effort of most everyone involved with SF** - and the rest of the Stack Overflow community. MOST people are very sincere and give of themselves. The WHOLE POINT of my comments here are to say, *we don't have to loose the HopelessN00bs of the world,* **NOBODY has to be burdened with cleanup load if the system is self-cleaning - and I think it can be with the right reputation reward tweaks** ...  *I hope these suggestions are of value.*

EDIT:

Barely 10 minutes pass and I get a cowardly down vote with no comment. It's that kind of behavior that drives people away. You want a dieing community? That's how you create it.

You think the post unresponsive to the subject? what? At least have the balls / courtesy to say WHY. Coward. Nobody who posts positively oriented suggestions deserves a down-vote because it's basically pissing on people who are trying to be helpful.