This is going to be short because I think the other answers have the other angles covered.

There is very clearly an identity struggle going on here. I'm picking up three main themes:

• The IT professionals standard: It's hard to maintain in the face of least common denominator, but it's what makes this SE site unique.
• Not scaring away new users: Some people are genuinely clueless. Some are genuinely confrontational assholes who don't care about the rules and just want you to make their problem go away. Somewhere in the middle of there are well-meaning people who make mistakes, and potentially the next generation of SF users. These are the ones we don't want to scare away.
• Not having the time to invest in helping everyone who can't be bothered to read about our subject matter: Flies in the face of not scaring away new users at a glance, but not entirely. We can't afford to use a delicate touch in all cases or we'll never get anything done. Worse, we'll get burnt out from going through the motions constantly with people who aren't salvageable.

All of these points are legitimate when acting as checks and balances to each other, but cannot exist in vacuum. Speaking as a relatively new SF user but a decently experienced sysadmin: if you completely disregard any of these bullet points, the value of the site is destroyed in my eyes. Going "all in" with any single one of these approaches is self-defeating.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to this: we're all doing this in our spare time, and we can only afford to invest as much effort into things as a person is willing to put into a question.

New people will make mistakes, but so long as you can perceive effort or intent toward building a good question or contributing (even if misdirected, i.e. off-topic), it's worth an attempt to help steer them toward being better at doing so. The people who can't be bothered (and there are many) are the ones you can't afford to spend much time on, if any at all.

If in doubt, err on the side of helping someone out. If someone can't be bothered to put in the effort, be concise without being rude, or let your downvote do the talking. Just don't spend much time on them.

This is going to be short because I think the other answers have the other angles covered.

There is very clearly an identity struggle going on here. I'm picking up three main themes:

• The "IT professionals" standard:
  It's hard to maintain in the face of least common denominator, but it's what makes this SE site unique.
• Not scaring away new users:
  Some people are genuinely clueless. Some are genuinely confrontational assholes who don't care about the rules and just want you to make their problem go away. Somewhere in the middle of there are well-meaning people who make mistakes, and potentially the next generation of SF users. These are the ones we don't want to scare away.
• Not having the time to invest in helping everyone who can't be bothered to read about our subject matter:
  Flies in the face of not scaring away new users at a glance, but not entirely. We can't afford to use a delicate touch in all cases or we'll never get anything done. Worse, we'll get burnt out from going through the motions constantly with people who aren't salvageable.

All of these points are legitimate when acting as checks and balances to each other, but cannot exist in vacuum. Speaking as a relatively new SF user but a decently experienced sysadmin: if you completely disregard any of these bullet points, the value of the site is destroyed in my eyes. Going "all in" with any single one of these approaches is self-defeating.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to this: we're all doing this in our spare time, and we can only afford to invest as much effort into things as a person is willing to put into a question.

New people will make mistakes, but so long as you can perceive effort or intent toward building a good question or contributing (even if misdirected, i.e. off-topic), it's worth an attempt to help steer them toward being better at doing so. The people who can't be bothered (and there are many) are the ones you can't afford to spend much time on, if any at all.

If in doubt, err on the side of helping someone out. If someone can't be bothered to put in the effort, be concise without being rude, or let your downvote do the talking. Just don't spend much time on them.

This is going to be short because I think the other answers have the other angles covered.

There is very clearly an identity struggle going on here. I'm picking up three main themes:

• The IT professionals standard: It's hard to maintain in the face of least common denominator, but it's what makes this SE site unique.
• Not scaring away new users: Some people are genuinely clueless. Some are genuinely confrontational assholes who don't care about the rules and just want you to make their problem go away. Somewhere in the middle of there are well-meaning people who make mistakes, and potentially the next generation of SF users. These are the ones we don't want to scare away.
• Not having the time to invest in helping everyone who can't be bothered to read about our subject matter: Flies in the face of not scaring away new users at a glance, but not entirely. We can't afford to use a delicate touch in all cases or we'll never get anything done. Worse, we'll get burnt out from going through the motions constantly with people who aren't salvageable.

All of these points are legitimate when acting as checks and balances to each other, but cannot exist in vacuum. Speaking as a relatively new SF user but a decently experienced sysadmin: if you completely disregard any of these bullet points, the value of the site is destroyed in my eyes. Going "all in" with any single one of these approaches is self-defeating.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to this: we're all doing this in our spare time, and we can only afford to invest as much effort into things as a person is willing to put into a question.

New people will make mistakes, but so long as you can perceive effort or intent toward building a good question or contributing (even if misdirected, i.e. off-topic), it's worth an attempt to help steer them toward being better at doing so. The people who can't be bothered (and there are many) are the ones you can't afford to spend much time on, if any at all.

If in doubt, err on the side of helping someone out. If someone can't be bothered to put in the effort, be concise without being rude, or let your downvote do the talking. Just don't spend much time on them.

This is going to be short because I think the other answers have the other angles covered.

There is very clearly an identity struggle going on here. I'm picking up three main themes:

• The IT professionals standard: It's hard to maintain in the face of least common denominator, but it's what makes this SE site unique.
• Not scaring away new users: Some people are genuinely clueless. Some are genuinely confrontational assholes who don't care about the rules and just want you to make their problem go away. Somewhere in the middle of there are well-meaning people who make mistakes, and potentially the next generation of SF users. These are the ones we don't want to scare away.
• Not having the time to invest in helping everyone who can't be bothered to read about our subject matter: Flies in the face of not scaring away new users at a glance, but not entirely. We can't afford to use a delicate touch in all cases or we'll never get anything done. Worse, we'll get burnt out from going through the motions constantly with people who aren't salvageable.

All of these points are legitimate when acting as checks and balances to each other, but cannot exist in vacuum. Speaking as a relatively new SF user but a decently experienced sysadmin: if you completely disregard any of these bullet points, the value of the site is destroyed in my eyes. Going "all in" with any single one of these approaches is self-defeating.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to this: we're all doing this in our spare time, and we can only afford to invest as much effort into things as a person is willing to put into a question.

New people will make mistakes, but so long as you can perceive effort or intent toward building a good question or contributing (even if misdirected, i.e. off-topic), it's worth an attempt to help steer them toward being better at doing so. The people who can't be bothered (and there are many) are the ones you can't afford to spend much time on, if any at all.

If in doubt, err on the side of helping someone out. If someone can't be bothered to put in the effort, be concise without being rude, or let your downvote do the talking. Just don't spend much time on them.