Policy for voting
Based on the voting patterns I've seen so far, I think we need to discuss how to properly vote on parenting.SE. I'd like to propose a focus on the post's objective quality rather than the individual reader's subjective (dis)agreement.
The voting arrows have hover texts: this post is useful, this post is not useful. That is generally a good guideline, but what does "useful" mean? On most SE sites, the questions and answers deal with relatively exact sciences where one approach is objectively better than another, for instance with math or computer programming. It's easy to understand that plainly wrong answers need to be downvoted.
But parenting is not an exact science so most answers are not "plainly wrong". Instead, they just don't fit on the asker's child, or in the voter's culture -- but those aren't good reasons to downvote! On parenting, I feel that downvotes should only be given to answers that are objectively, provably wrong or harmful (e.g. not answering the question, or an answer that suggests something that contains dangerous chemicals).
For this site to work, we need to support authors who write high-quality contributions regardless of whether or not I personally agree with the world-view at hand. There are topics about religion, or about weapons, just to name a few that are clearly controversial to many readers. It can be hard to support that, but you don't have to. Just do this: don't downvote out of disagreement.
You can upvote based on quality, and also based on agreement. This will ensure that high-quality answers, and answers that have community support, bubble to the top.
Do you agree? Can we use the above as a discussion basis, and it until we can link to it as a community-supported policy?