The tool tip for the "vote up" arrow for questions says:
This question shows research effort; it is useful and clear
and for "vote down":
"this question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful"
"not useful" can mean a lot of things. A natural interpretation would be that this is a question which does not work well in the format of this site.
The example you give is a super-broad question, there is a whole field about that, meta-philosophy. So wouldn't it be better to read an introductory book instead of asking here? At best you get a nice summary of meta-philosophy.
I guess 70%-80% of votes are "correct" here.
I think that it is more likely for up-votes to be incorrect, though. For example it is completely incomprehensible to me why such a question gets five up-votes. But if we are not envious, we can ignore incorrect up-votes. Incorrect down-votes are more problematic.
There are interesting questions which are clear, useful and show research effort, but sound a bit complaining/belligerent or poetic/pompous. Those tend to get, in my view, down-voted incorrectly a lot.
Also questions which are about something in the "transition zone" between philosophy and the specialized "science" (in the broad sense), i.e. philosophical questions about mathematics which look just like mathematical questions, tend, in my view, attract a lot of incorrect down-votes and even close-votes.
For example, I think that this wasn't such a bad question. Would have never down-voted or voted to close it.
There also seems to be a tendency to deal out down-votes more readily because of clumsy writing style, spelling and grammar mistakes, which is sad, because like me many users are not native English speakers.
Still, I must admit that I down-vote a lot more on philosophy.SE compared to other sub-communities. But this is also a problem of the answers. There are a lot of bad answers here, which in my view get down-voted nearly always correctly.
Because contrary to the stereotype of the elitism of philosophy, the layman can easily suffer from the illusion that he is able to understand technical philosophical questions.
If you ask on math.SE "Why are vector spaces not isomorphic to their duals?" you will probably not get very bad answers. Because the uninformed user doesn't even know what duals or isomorphic means. If you understand these terms, you had some "higher" math education and not give a very bad answer.
But if you ask on philosophy.SE "What is the difference between not true and false?", you'll might get bogus answers like this.