Openness has a boundary when it conflicts with the very purpose of a stackexchange.
In all seriousness, when looking something up in a SE, I do not want to read narratives or opinions, but questions and answers that have some kind of factual background. And the facts in philosophy happen to be books, fragments, letters and articles, so that is what we should build both questions and answers on.
And I think you are to some extend right, this would reduce the danger of cognitive bias. But it does not prevent it (as there are several different readings for every philosopher out there, although I personally do not get how this could ever happen) and the big question remains wether the sheer amount of moderation and direct influence by moderators really is what we want. In the end, it should be the community that corrects itself via votes. Problem being: It doesn't. The blabla questions and answers have thousands of views and hundreds of votes, while most of the good ones barely make it to 100 views.
However, changing this through great effort by the moderator team (for which nobody pays them and they would have to endure much hate while given little support) may reduce popularity among some people and especially laymen, but the current status clearly prevents this site from gaining popularity among more experienced students and professionals, of which it would profit the most imho.
Why? Well, point one for me is that I honestly doubt that the special problems I ask can be answered here! Because both a look at some question titles and looking for certain philosopher's tags and the Q/A ratio and quality will make me doubt and out of experience. Point two, which is intertwined: People in academics chronically suffer under lack of time. I am myself contributing because I see it as a little exercise in fields I am interested in anyways and it is a mean for my procrastination.
Now normally if you are short of time, you would need to have the certainty that it is worth to contribute because you get something back out of it. But if 99% of the question are (certainly) philosophical, but not at the actuality and depth you need (postgrad philosophers need to do something NEW on texts with contemporary sources), you think twice. If you have to dig up sources basic and nevertheless specific enough because questions are overly broad for properly answering it (according to the standards you got used to!), it also is just not worth it.
This is not arrogance or snobbishness...it is mere necessity. Once the community of professionals is big enough to perpetuate and self-sustain the level of mutual benefit, everything's fine. After that point, spare time can be invested into more general or basic questions by them as well. But to be honest, my main benefits are mostly procrastination and nurturing my slightly narcisstic parts at the moment. In some rare moments it is remembering stuff I almost forgot or precising certain readings of specific concepts, which is fine. But is it worth it digging through pages of questions about basic logic, naming of fallacies, the existence of God and wether it is wrong to kill babies? In case, I will rather write an email to a fellow researcher and meet them for a coffee...
I, personally, have no problem in having a process of forming a question/answer, i.e. helping through comments to let them rest on a factual basis. It's just that I all too often sit there and ask myself: Seriously? or Again? while upvotes pop up out of nowhere.
Regarding your network question in particular - I just reread it and realised that the answer does not really answer it. That's actually not your fault, it is shabby reading on our side (I explicitely include myself here). It totally makes sense to ask wether ideas similar to Hegel's Geist are discussed in recent philosophy. But I see no problem with cognitive bias there...