There have been a few recent suggestions about either removing the daily reputation limit here on Meta or increasing it. The questions have been received differently and their answers actually contradict one another.
closed as too localized by Rosinante, Toon Krijthe, ChrisF♦, Martijn Pieters, Rory Oct 5 '12 at 18:55
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Overall, I do not see major differences in what the reputation scores mean and believe that yshuduietelu's answer was pretty good. It is totally a measurement for how the system trusts and ranks you amongst others in the community.
But... I do see a difference in what the real world values are for the scores. For example, I most likely will never brag about having a high meta score and I'll never put it on my resume while the SO reputation score in theory could be used for those things...
The reason there is a reputation limit was to keep the system constrained and prevent runaways users. Some argue that this has worked others look at the rankings and see the top few users as unreachable.
I simply do not think the rep limit on the meta site is as important as the others because it requires heavy participation from users to drive the best results (yes you could argue this for the other sites too). As TheTXI pointed out here, once you hit the limit, you are not as likely to stay involved with things. I feel the same way. Why have a system that would discourage folks from participation? Rcar also suggested that the cap limit here on meta would have the same affect on him here...
I believe reputation means the same thing on meta as it does the other sites; its a measure of how much the system trusts you as voted upon by your peers. In this case, the system is concerned with your involvement about and discussion of the concerns of the overall stackoverflow ecosystem. With increased reputation comes increased tools (editing, etc) and in the same way as it does other places, an increased "trust" in your answers. If you see someone with 10k rep answer a question about the site, subconsciously I believe people are more likely to trust that person's answer than the answer from a person with 1 rep. Just the way it would be with a programming question on SO or a system admin question on SF.
On meta-SO, it is arguably easier to receive votes, because there can be so many more 'correct' answers which are not duplicates, in the same way that myself and yshuditelu can be right (me more than him =P) and not contradict each other at all.
So limiting rep makes just as much, or MORE sense here, because the only way to gain rep faster than others is to have your answer marked as correct. If you simply 'shotgun' answers all over the place on SO, you will not get votes. But if you do that here, there is a chance that you could get significantly upvoted without putting any thought into any of your answers.
The reputation reflects both your involvement, your tendency to provide solid answers, and how often people agree with you.