Yes, I'm aware of discussions, leaks, etc. that have gone on recently regarding potential plans from SE to implement this network-wide. However, for the sake of this post, let's ignore those, and consider this as a standalone request.
tl;dr: I believe that here on Meta Stack Exchange, it often takes more effort to write a question, as much as or even greater than writing an answer, and the reputation gain should reflect that.
Here on this site, it often takes much more research, thought, and effort to write a well-received question than it does to write a well-received answer. When writing a question, you have to do a lot of research (e.g. "based on the prior posts and what's going on, is this idea likely to be positively received by the community?", "has this idea been proposed before? [if so,] what are some arguments against the reasons for not implementing it at this time and new arguments that weren't brought up in that prior post?", "am I presenting my ideas in the right way", etc.). Even for a non-feature-request post, you have to be nuanced in the ways you present your points so that people will be likely to give you a good answer or get a good picture of your idea.
Whereas to write an answer, it's much simpler, as often the question author has already done quite a bit of the work and research for you, so that all you need to do is make an opinion on it, or find the relevant post where something is mentioned. (That's not to say it's easy, but it is, as a whole, relatively easier than writing a question.)
If you were to go through my questions, you'll see that as a whole, they are rather long, containing many nuanced points, but if you go through my answers, they are as a whole shorter, and much of the research behind them just things mentioned in the questions they were answering. When I was writing them, I would take much more time writing a question than an answer on average.
Some similar points were raised back when the reputation gain was changed to 5 in 2011: *
Meta Stack [Exchange] 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 support tag]), you are writing opening posts. That's because [Meta.SE] is actually a forum, not a Q&A site. On [Meta.SE], a very good point can be articulated in the opening post. It does not work at all like other Stack Exchange sites. On [MSE], "questions" are just as important as "answers."
Based on that, I believe that the fact that less rep is awarded for writing questions than answers here on this site to be pretty lopsided. I'd argue that at least here on Meta.SE, it should be upped.
That's not to say that the same analogy can be applied to all sites, however. On some sites, e.g. Travel, it's more beneficial to retain the current reputation gain, because of the large amount of zero-research questions from new users (about, e.g., UK visa refusals, of which most are duplicates). There are also a bunch of posts already arguing against this being implemented network-wide for similar reasons, but most of those arguments don't make much sense for this site.
If you disagree with this request, it would be very nice if you explained why, so I can edit this post to address potential concerns.
To those suggesting eliminating Meta reputation
There was a study conducted as to the effects of using a different model for awarding privileges: either the sum of all sites, or the highest reputation on a single site. Both were found to unfairly bias Stack Overflow users, while the current model would help keep things fair. As was explained by Shog9 in the post:
The biggest potential problem with either of these approaches is simply the raw volume of voters on Stack Overflow.
The second-biggest potential problem would be the massive skew between upvotes and downvotes. When considering agreement or disagreement, this could be an issue.
The smaller potential problem... Is that it becomes even less enticing to actually participate here. Because there's no reputation, because voting is skewed toward SO, because the only people who have to participate here are rank newbies who can't post on any other meta... And employees.
Also, as argued by some folks in the comments, this site is essentially a Q&A site...about Stack Exchange. Stack Exchange is "its own area of expertise" (as put forth by ArtOfCode).
Finally, a bunch of users (including me) derive most of my network reputation from contributions to this site, so they'd stand to lose quite a bit of their network rep.
* That quoted answer was written before the mso-mse-split; back when it was written, the site today known as MSE was then known as MSO.
Yes, this is a repost of my prior answer to a now-deleted question. However, as it doesn't contain any of the arguments raised in leaked posts, community members have decided it's OK to repost such answers. As other discussions talk about having this raised network-wide, and my answer wouldn't make much sense there, I've opted to post a new question instead.
