Is there a way for this website to check the long term tendencies of what's going on and moniter it? If not, should it be done?

Question

I gave an answer to the question My child is afraid of death. Then I got feedback so I deleted the answer. Here are 2 images of my deleted answer and the feedback as visible by me from my account.

I think nobody can figure out on their own how to do everything like a God and maybe every question needs a check at the end of every month on the generality of the history of the form of its answers that month because that is the feedback for everyone on their contributions and they need it. I know it's about what answers to give given what the question was, not what questions to ask. However, I think that rather than treat every answer as a separate problem to deal with independently, it's better to combine all the problems of the generality of the different answers to a given question in a given month into a single problem. I think maybe it's easier to manage the long term generality of all the answers to the question that month when it's done that way.

I'm not a parent myself. I was giving advide to 40 year olds and I'm only 35 maybe because I kind of got an idea of the way the mind is headed. I got diagnosed with PDD NOS at a young age. Maybe I'm different and can't figure out how to function on Stack Exchange. If I believe that to be the case, I would probably delete my account on all of Stack Exchange. I wish every question on this website would get monitered every month and the long term generality of the answers and their accuracy would be verified. Maybe it could be like Wikipedia where somebody can be bold and try something and create an article and if it turns out to be a bad one, it won't last very long before it gets deleted. Please don't give me an answer like "Wow, you're the hero who caught a problem." That is not what matters. What matter is that if the problem happens that somebody can't do it. Hopefully, everyone who recognizes a problem in themself would try and do something to fix it. Then we would be like "If they recognized a problem in themself, they would try and fix it, duh," and that's all that matters.

Answer 1

You suggest,

...I think that rather than treat every answer as a separate problem to deal with independently, it's better to combine all the problems of the generality of the different answers to a given question in a given month into a single problem.

There is no review of questions or answers on any kind of a regular basis, and it's unlikely there will be in the future. The reason for this is that a 'review' of sorts is done when each question/answer is posted and read by users/members of the site's community.

All users in the community can upvote or downvote, which is a measure of its value. Users with a small amount of reputation can comment asking for clarification. Users can flag inappropriate or problematic content. Every site's culture is a bit different; each "sandbox", though they all contain sand, have their own rules, found in the help section and more precisely here in meta. Your question here is an example of input from our community, which includes you. Users familiar with the site's culture are very valuable in quality assurance, so to speak, because with a certain amount of reputation, they can up/down vote, vote to close, and even vote to delete. This is the SE model. I can't speak to similarities to or differences from Wikipedia, as I have no idea how it works (literally no idea.)

Your answer was a bit problematic on several levels. First, it comes very close to challenging the premise: the OP was asking for help, and your answer basically said there (for various reasons) that the OP's child had no reason to be afraid. Second, there it wasn't really helpful to the OP's immediate problem (there were no concrete suggestions as to how to address these issues with the child. Third, you made statements which were presented as facts but provided no support for such "facts". Not every statement needs support; "Babies cry" needs no support, because most everyone has experienced this. "Nature has made it so that they don't have the threat of death for about 100 years" is not universally true, and it's not supported. When stated as fact, it should be supported because it's highly debatable. You go on to say that by age 40, "...their brain will have developed so well that they will probably be able to handle it better." This isn't helpful to the OP's present situation, nor is it an established fact. Many people are preoccupied with death even well into their 40s (Woody Allen is a famous example.) But this is a minor point and relatively nit-picky.

The introduction of Polly Playtime out of the blue without its purpose is very confusing. Has Polly Playtime been shown to help kids deal with the concept of death? If it has, can you support that by cite a reliable source? (E.g. a professional psychological associations, or a pediatricians association recommendation, a well-respected expert in child development, a research paper concluding it's value is positive or other?)

Another problem is that a links only reference without a brief explanation of it's concept (e.g. an explanation of what it is/does/says) is frowned upon on by all SE sites.

There were a number of problems with your answer. It could have been down voted, it could have been deleted as "not an answer" (see above) or because it challenged the premise, and had unsupported assertions. As a moderator, I chose to concentrate on the unsupported (implied) recommendation of Polly Playtime.

In summary, there is no periodic assessment of questions or answers. That would require more time, effort, and manpower than SE has. Instead, questions and answers are "evaluated" when presented bu the community, of which moderators are a part, and exist to help users insure questions and answers meet community standards.

_{There are parameters which are generated, but not about the quality of a particular q/a.}