This question already has an answer here:
There's been a lot of activity about mass down voting today, and what seemed like a lot of mass sympathy voting, so I'm asking about how we should handle sympathy voting.
Some people feel that if you simply answer a question that is being asked that your answer is justified regardless of whether the practice in question could be harmful. Is the point of SO to help people answer questions they have or to help them code properly?
I believe the answer is to help them code properly. This isn't just another Q and A site, this is Stack Overflow, we are a community and we need to decide what is important in our eyes as a whole, as I see It I believe a lot of people would agree proper coding is better than blindly answering questions to help people as it will prevent security issues as well as resource issues if you follow more modern coding practices.
But is that what down voting is for?
Down voting bad questions/answers is the only way to prevent bad content on the site.
However some people feel the need to help no matter what, which is understandable. I think we should try our best to help out people in our community. I also think that comments could help the issue if left with a downvote, even though I don't think this should be mandatory.
I also think editing questions/answers is perfectly fine for correcting these kinds of issues as long as it doesn't warp the original point of the question mainly how do I do x with y and maybe z?
But is that what up voting is for?
Up voting is the only way to bring good questions/answers to light.
So the question remains:
Should sympathy votes be used to counter unexplained downvotes on blindly helpful answers?