The FAQ is inconsistent:
What is reputation? states:
The primary way to gain reputation is by posting good questions and useful answers. Your peers will vote on your posts, and those votes will cause you to gain (or, in rare cases, lose) reputation:
On Meta Stack Overflow, voting is often used to express agreement or disagreement, not to point out a lack of quality or helpfulness.
These statements are contradictory: how can "posting good questions and useful answers" result in votes that "will cause you to gain (or, in rare cases, lose) reputation" if voting here does not indicate "quality or helpfulness"?
At very least, the FAQ should be corrected one way or the other.
What is reputation? also states:
Reputation is a rough measurement of how much the community trusts you; it is earned by convincing your peers that you know what you’re talking about.
Again, this is inconsistent with the idea that votes "express agreement or disagreement". The following would be more correct:
Reputation is a rough measurement of how much the community agrees with you; it is earned by making popular suggestions.
Whilst having answers accepted and earning bounties could arguably still fit with this definition, it somewhat falls apart with reputation adjustments from other means: offering bounties; accepting others' answers; casting downvotes on answers; having suggested edits approved; and associating an account.
It's unclear to me whether reputation here should carry the usual benefits (which it currently does):
Furthermore, downvotes can lead to a post ban. Do we really mean to say that people who make a number of suggestions with which the community (overwhelmingly?) disagrees should be banned from posting further on MSO?
There's a proposal not to penalise MSO downvotes, which could go some way toward alleviating these bizarre outcomes.
I'm aware that there is a proposal to set MSO rep according to rep earned elsewhere in the SE network, which I think is imminently sensible.
My proposal here is an interim measure: simply fix the FAQ so that it's consistent and explains the purpose behind a reputation on MSO (which I don't really understand, especially given the lack of such on the child meta sites). The privileges page should be updated at the same time.