Expanding on this guys question, who IMO was too friendly to stirr up people:
I agree with them in one point: the aggressive downvoting and instinctive closing of concise questions that could be answered with confidence, but apparently are beyond the horizon of some, lowers the quality of this Q&A. Just one example: asking if there are differences between Neanderthals and AMH is a concise question that can easily be answered with peer reviewed articles. Saying it needs clarification looks like ignorance.
Otoh, wildly speculating and claiming out of the blue without source and reason in questions and answers, proliferation of right wing conspiracy bunk, and right away undereducated answers citing second row bible interpretations as a source are being celebrated.
This is about concise Q's and A's that get downvoted (not necessarily the NAZI one, I only share the user's thoughts about "hostility", not their content) and low quality Q's and A's without source and background that get upvoted, are even celebrated. And about high rated individuals using their rating for arguments of authority.
Example: Tis question refers to media notorious for spreading right wing ideology, fake news and content opposing scientific findings. Of the two answers one names a side line bible interpretation and the other is just an opinion with an unrelated wikipedia link. There is not a single link to actual facts on the matter. A nice example of a post factual "reality".
Another Question that would belong into the category unsourced and opinionated is the one about "Vercingetorix' constraints" a few weeks ago. High rated people don't source even when asked to do so, but readily close and downvote when lower ranks fail in a minor way. The question could have been a very good start to point out the limits and transitions between history and prehistory had it been asked more on the point and naming the sources that lead to it.
Otoh, an example for a concise question is this. It doesn't need clarification, it actually con not be clearer. Paleo-Anthropology, even genetics meanwhile have a lot to say to it. A remark by a high ranked user shows fundamental lack of expertise.
Poll: Do we want to remind people to stick to published work or at least common text book sense ? Or do we say no, pseudoscience over quality ?
Will be around for a few days to see the reaction and decide if I stay or not.