Yesterday, reputation on questions was changed for consistency's sake:
We amended question rep on meta so it is in line with the rest of the sites. So now, upvotes on questions are worth 5 points.
Additionally, we are planning another change to rep that restricts the amount of rep you can get from questions only, see: Should we cap reputation gained from questions at +2000? for details.
We wanted to make sure all our sites have consistent rep rules, to avoid confusion.
Consistency is a worthy goal, but consistency for consistency's sake is not.
Meta Stack Overflow is already different. The other sites, and even the site metas, are Q&A sites. Here, you're not really writing questions (useless you're using the [stackoverflow] or [support] tags), you are writing opening posts. That's because Meta Stack Overflow is actually a forum, not a Q&A site. On Meta Stack Overflow, a very good point can be articulated in the opening post. It does not work at all like other Stack Exchange Network sites. On MSO, "questions" are just as important as "answers."
It shouldn't matter whether Meta Stack Overflow has a different reputation system. In fact, it would make sense for Meta Stack Overflow to have a different reputation system because it doesn't work like other sites. The previous reputation system gave the proper weight to contributions on MSO.
It's a change for consistency's sake. It's not an attempt at to solving a concrete problem.
It should be changed back.