Q:

Upvotes on questions will now be worth the same as upvotes on answers

Those of you who suffer from banner blindness may not have noticed the announcement:
Stack Overflow is changing the reputation scoring system to make the reputation earned from upvotes on questions equal to the reputation earned from upvotes on answers. Previously, upvotes on questions netted you only +5 reputation, whereas upvotes on answers netted you +10 reputation. Now, upvotes on posts will always be worth +10 reputation, regardless of whether that post is a question or an answer.
This change will not only take effect for contributions from here forward, but it will also be applied retroactively. A global reputation recalculation is pending and will be completed soon. Note that this recalculation will take the daily reputation cap into account. (The Mortarboard, Epic, Legendary, and Yearling badges will also be awarded, as they would have been earned under the new logic, but they are awarded nightly by a separate, background process, and thus may not show up at the same time as your recalculated reputation.)
The net effect will be to reward the contributions of users who have asked well-received questions, in recognition of the fact that useful, high-quality questions are just as valuable as high-quality answers. Asking a good question is difficult, takes practice, and is a meaningful contribution to the community at large, critical to our mission of building a high-quality library of questions and answers to practical programming problems.
No other changes are being made to the reputation system. Receiving downvotes on one of your questions will still reduce your reputation by the same amount as before. Casting downvotes on questions is still "free", in the sense that it does not reduce the reputation of the voter.
Why? You can find more detailed background information in my answer here, including a review of the history and an assessment of the facts that justify this change.
The biggest immediate change will be a substantial increase in user reputation scores, and thus an increase in the number of users having certain privileges.
As with far too many events of late, this change has been accompanied by a fair amount of drama. The proposed policy modifications were privately announced to community moderators by staff members some time back. Unfortunately, a less-than-ethical member of the larger Stack Exchange moderator community leaked this private communication to the public, and did so in a rather sensationalist way. I want to commend the Stack Exchange employees both for soliciting feedback from moderators and for listening to that feedback. I would ask that the community focus on the facts of the announcement and the policy as it has actually been implemented.
To that end, if you have questions, concerns, comments, or other feedback about this change, please post it as an answer here. You can also express your sentiments silently by voting. As always, we ask that you keep your feedback constructive and respectful. Feedback from those who cannot comply with this requirement is subject to removal.

A:

It looks like the question upvote weight is being doubled, but the downvote weight is not being increased in proportion.
I don't mind the change, but we should be rewarding good question askers, not just any question askers. Without the downvote weight also increasing, this change is more strongly incentivizing posting poor questions.
Why is the rep cost for having your question downvoted not also increasing?
To put things in perspective, a question which is downvoted 4 times and upvoted once will still be a net positive for the asker. And if you use Stack Overflow at all, you'll know questions that get downvoted in 4:1 ratio are generally garbage and should not be rewarded at all (they should be edited or closed/deleted).

A:

I'll ignore the problems of the decision being made behind walls and being contrary to what the community asked.
I'll ignore the fact that what we, as engineers, wanted, was more quality and less noise, not a bigger amount of trivial questions that maintained documentation (or sometimes similar previous questions) would better answer.
I'll address a deeper point of morality.
What made us answer, the promise behind the very word "reputation", which was described as "earned by convincing your peers that you know what you’re talking about", was that those points were a kind of measure of our problem solving ability, of our technical knowledge.
This was the very reason behind the badges, the flair, the gamification.
Even when we gave advice in comments and sometimes answered as CW or in the chat, the meaning of those points was never lost.
Those points weren't the reward for building some SEO tailored content or for making more people look at ads; they were a recognition of our abilities. This was not the whole of it; most of us big answerers are also part of many communities and FOSS projects because we're helpers at heart, but it was a core motivation.
And now, the rule changes. Now reputation seems to be a measure of the traffic we build. 
This is why I feel betrayed. Because it's a contract change, it's a depreciation of what made us build SO.

A:

To that end, if you have questions, concerns, comments, or other
  feedback about this change, please post it as an answer here.

Feedback???
To what end? Decision has already been made, regardless of the negative feedback on the Meta site. One of the questions posted before official announcements and that is not deleted is Should the weight of question upvotes be increased network-wide?
This decision will be detrimental to the quality of Stack Overflow. I believe it is final nail in the coffin. 
RIP Stack Overflow, welcome Homework Overflow.

I will repeat what I said in answer to the linked question because some things you can never say enough times:

Should the weight of question upvotes be increased network-wide?

No.

Answers are more valuable than questions because they require knowledge, giving more reputation to answers rewards learning and acquiring that knowledge.
Users asking a question (trying to solve problem) will get answers besides the reputation, a solution to their problem which is a reward on its own.
Reputation unlocks moderation powers - reputation gained through knowledge means moderation will be done by more knowledgeable people and that reduces potential errors.
We don't need to add more incentive for people to ask questions, especially not on Stack Overflow, there are already way too many poorly researched and poorly asked questions.
Questions often get upvotes because of "me, too" problems. Someone has a problem, finds the answer on existing question and upvotes both even though question might be less than stellar or even rather poor.

As the end result, giving same reputation for questions as for answers will only reduce overall quality. 

