I largely agree with the answer of Olin Lathrop, but I'd like to put things in a slightly different perspective.

We need a rep system, even if it is not ideal, especially on technical/scientific sites. Why? Because Internet is what it is and no one is forced to reveal its true identity.

Reputation in real world matters, otherwise vocal opinions could swamp sound scientific reasoning outside academic or expert circles, where everyone can evaluate each other statement with confidence and rebut them with sound arguments if necessary.

You say "Your arguments should be your support in a constructive debate, not reputation".

This is overly idealistic and works in real life only between "peers" and with topics whose discussion doesn't need much basic knowledge. That's why, for example, some cunning and intellectually dishonest politicians get away with utter crappy reasoning: people aren't equipped with enough knowledge and competences to understand they are being scammed.

These sites are not only a place for high-level quality discussions about specific topics. They are a place for learning, even for newbies.

Imagine the following scenario.

A newbie (let's call him Lars) asks for an explanation of a difficult topic. Lars is an average 17yo high-school student who is not an English native speaker. Lars could also be a 35yo worker who hadn't got the chance to get higher education in his life, but he's a very passionate amateur. It doesn't matter for this scenario.

Two users, let's call them Bob and Jane, answer with two completely incompatible explanations, both credible at face value.

In real life Jane is an academic with years of experience, Bob is a smart troll who likes to have fun messing with people. Jane's profile faithfully summarizes her resume, and she posts under her real name. Bob's profile is completely fake, not even his name is real, and he boasts about difficult to verify achievements.

How would a newbie know who to trust without the competences to perform extensive cross-validations of information (even assuming he is willing to do so)?

Maybe Lars will trust Jane because she is an "uni prof", but how about the very convincing arguments made by Bob who is a "knowledgeable professional in the field" and happen to be a very clever storyteller.

Without a way for the community to say "Hey Lars, trust Jane, not Bob!" Lars could get very bad information.

And no, just voting on the answers is definitely not enough. Why?

1. Since statistically most people on a site are newbies, votes on wrong but exceptionally well written answers may swamp votes on right answers (plenty of examples on SE network).

2. There is a snowball effect: once a wrong answer gains some upvotes, it's difficult for later answers to recover, even if they are right. The Fastest Gun In the West (FGITW) wins, even if they are the evil ones! (Plenty of examples on SE network).

So rep points are, if implemented "correctly", a statistically meaningful way for the community to say "We trust this guy!".

Moreover, it's a way to say "Thanks you guy for your efforts!". In fact the above scenario is extremely depressing for Jane: she spent half an hour researching sources and trying to dumb down the topic for Lars, then she sees Bob's answer skyrocketing above hers.

I had that feeling more than once on EE StackExchange.

Ok, we are adults an we've got thick skin. You can endure that treatment once in a while. But what happens when Bob-like users almost always win? Well, Jane-like users are completely pissed-off and leave the site. After all, why putting on a community site quality content that no one care about, when Jane could put the same content on her blog and maybe get also some revenues by donations and patrons?!?

No one works gratis to be slapped regularly on the face! Well, unless you are the "Someone is wrong on the Internet"-type.

posted over 3 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

3y ago

Lorenzo Donati‭

14 3 63 20