What if we assume that questions of the form "Is X true" mean "What does denomination Y say about X" for all Y?

Question

(Sorry if the title is sort of algebraic. I did not know a way to state it better as a title.)

Currently, Truth Questions are bad. I have an idea on how we can make them good.

The idea is we would use the PPCG model. On PPCG, when someone asks a question, answers can use whatever programming language they like. The Hello World question, for example, has hundreds of answers. The questioner even said he won't accept any answer, since the goal isn't to find the absolute best answer, but the best answer in each language (this isn't the case for all questions, just this one in particular).

What would could do is when one asks a question like "Should I fast, and if so, how?", answers would choose a denomination and answer according to that denomination.

This would allows us to basically create an encyclopedia of beliefs. Instead of having to ask an individual question for each denomination, you can ask just one and get many answers.

This would not affect any other questions besides Truth questions. I think it would be a useful addition to this site to allow these types of questions.

(We could even make a rule saying the denomination must exist before the question is asked, to prevent people from making denominatinos where the answer is trivial, similar to how on PPCG they ban new languages for old questions. (jk))

Answer 1

Note that on PPCG questions are either explicitly popularity contests, or the competition is won according to the objective rules as adjudicated by the catalogue snippet while the voting is for unofficial popularity.

There is no parallel way of objectively judging answers on this site, which means we could only ever have popularity contests here. That's why the site rules are as they are.

Answer 2

This was tried in the early days of the site. The result makes a mockery of the SE voting system. Instead of the most informative, useful, and high quality answer content getting voted to the top the voting represented whatever view was most popular among the active user base. Good content was getting down voted because people didn't happen to agree with the theology and poorly constructed answers were getting upvoted because people did agree with it and they wanted to see their view "win".

In short, what you describe is a recipe for every question to host a popularity contest.