Okay, time to buck the accepted norms again: I think the FAQ is actually wrong - or at least it doesn't tell the whole story. Reputation is several things:
- Points in a game, as seen by many users
- How good you are at asking questions on the relevant set of topics
- How good you are at answering questions on the relevant set of topics
- (If a post isn't marked CW but should be) How entertaining you can be
It's used as a measure of how much the community trusts you not to mess things up if you're given more privileges. That's just a surrogate metric though, basically because we have no other simple way of telling how much the community trusts a particular user.
Just because someone is good technically (or knows everything to do with a particular game, if that's the topic of the site in question, for example) doesn't mean they have any sense of what's right for the community.
Someone could be a complete git but still get reputation for giving correct answers. They could still be bad for the site (by generally being obnoxious and giving it a bad name on Twitter, for example) - that would discourage some people for voting for them, but probably not everyone.
On the reverse side, someone can be very good for the site, but rarely contribute in a way which gives them rep. This is harder to do before you get enough rep to edit questions, but that's the most obvious example.
Given that this water is already somewhat muddy, I don't think it really makes much sense to start splitting rep into two different types. Someone who contributes great questions is just as likely to be good for the site (and use extra powers wisely) as someone who contributes great answers, IMO. In fact, I'd say the average quality of question (in terms of style, precision etc) is lower than the average quality of answer - so I'd like to encourage good questions more, not less :)