Well, I wrote the blog post on it that Logan cites. It probably isn't too surprising that I have a coin to toss in this fountain.
Mathematics also uses soft-question as an "always Community Wiki" option. Consider, on Mathematics, they do have soft questions, but they are not overwhelming of their normal content. Indeed, their top questions by votes are largely populated by non-soft questions, both extremely appealing and technically intriguing. There's a lot of good stuff there that proves that Mathematics is a site about hard mathematics, not simply a place to discuss softer points. And Mathematics currently rounds out at the top of all Stack Exchange 2.0 sites in question volume, standing on this platform of hard questions.
My personal stance is that it is a bit off-putting to try and have an entire caste of questions be considered "On-topic, and acceptable, but unworthy of reputation". Which is what you get if you try to say that there's a whole tag or class of questions that must be community wiki. It paints the site in a haughty light, one where the community tells you whether or not your contributions are "worthy", which I don't think is a very healthy light to be depicted in. For a site that already has restrictions on entry (research-level only), it makes the site even less welcoming. Community wiki shouldn't be seen as a reputation filter.
If it isn't about what is "worthy" of reputation, it confuses me a bit, to hear "Making soft questions not earn reputation makes reputation a better metric of who is active in addressing theoretical physics questions" in the same breath I hear "Soft questions should be allowed on a site that is about theoretical physics questions". Are soft questions considered a part of theoretical physics or not? If they are, why are they not contributory to reputation? If they are not, why are they allowed on the site?
This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)