Question proper: Serious answers are mostly not liked. And those most like the Wikipedia articles are highly-favored. Is this so?
How this statement is to be understood is, underneath, indicated or sketched: An expressionistic general question concerning Stack Exchange Philosophy as memory and as the annihilation of thought:
It seems to me that this site has a prejudice towards memory, that of articles and the, so to say, World English Speaking University textbook, by which I mean what is taught in introductory university classes and tends to correspond to the Wikipedia articles on the subject.
By and large, I have observed, serious questions produced by naive writers, who know nothing of philosophy, are remorselessly crushed and generally ultimately removed from the site. So that all real philosophic sense is stifled, and one is instead recommended to ask about the Wikipedia articles, in all effect. For instance when one is told not to ask about things a dictionary could deal with, and in many other cases where questions are put on "hold".
So, the result is that philosophy becomes the same as the newspaper, as Hegel put it, or, what is the same, Wikipedia articles. Memory replaces philosophic sense, and the real character of any philosophy is removed from discussion in order to get to what one can memorize from the Wiki pages.
Should we not, therefore, say that here we mainly have in mind the production of a reference database, concerned with memorization about comments on philosophy, rather than any questions about philosophizing? Which, one, here, mainly wishes to destroy as a form of obscurantism which is inappropriate to the scientific, the welt-frei, or worth free, age. Wikipedia is a kind of worth-free wissenschaft, for it is a matter of memory and not thought.
A sort of buyer beware warning should accompany the Philosophy Stack Exchange pages. To allow newcomers not to be squelched in the bud. Perhaps the following:
We have a particular bias, do not think that because your remarks are ill-treated it is a sign of a lack of philosophic merit. Rather, it is a sign that each web sight has its own bent or bias, and your question, likely of serious merit, has not fit ours.
So, the simple question, about which what is above informs us through indication as to its bent, might be stated as follows: Does this site concern memory and memorization, or thinking and thought? Thought on memorized articles, or thought about thought and what thought is?