While Robert already describes why compulsory down-vote comments are a bad idea I want to address another part of your question. The assumption that everything you deem good is objectively good or will be deemed good by other people. That's just not the case. That's the internet for you.
In fact I think some of your examples aren't particularly good questions. Most of those questions are very generic and are not based on anything resembling an actual problem. Look at the first one:
Can someone explain very simplified how the Winternitz OTS/Lamport OTS works?
I read the Wiki example, but I am still confused to be honest. Could someone provide a really simple example?
That's not a good question. I'd even argue it's the opposite. It's calling for a blanket explanation of a quite complex process. Have a look at what the tool tips from the up vote says. This question shows research effort; it's useful and clear. The question is a literal zero for three. It shows no effort (even less before my edit), it doesn't bother to show the connection to IOTA and it doesn't mention what's unclear with the Wikipedia page—or even what Wikipedia page it is referring to.
In effect it asks for a better Wikipedia page on Lamport Signature Schemes or hash based cryptography or just its section about one time signature schemes? That's not a good Q&A question.
The down vote tool tip says, "This question shows no research effort, it is unclear or not useful". Highscore. I totally get why one would press that button.
Same applies more or less for this question you mentioned. Translation: I heard a word, explain it, put it into context, what's the relation to the other thing I heard. Just put the title into Google and ask yourself if any effort went into that question. It's very much deserving of a downvote.
Remember, private beta sets the scope and tone for the site. Do you want thoughtful questions or do you want drive-by Wikipedia requests?