There's a post over on meta.se that I like to link in to discussions like this: it's worth a read in full, and I'll excerpt it here in part:

##What you do here isn't just about solving one person's problem.

See, once you realize that it's not just about the one asker, or the four voters, but rather the fifteen thousand searchers with the same problem... Well, suddenly, a whole ton of things that seem prickly and self-important, like editing out "Thanks in advance!" aren't about being "a bunch of power-happy pedants," they're about helping all the people who will ever have that problem to find the best answers. (Emphasis in the original.)

Yes, we're partially about helping the original querent. And we're more about helping the long tail of readers who will ever see a post. Which leads us to a tricky balancing act: each one of us--editors, voters, answerers--comes to an individual, personal understanding of where they draw the line between those two priorities that sometimes exist in tension.

Some people ( o/ ) think that a quick close-edit-reopen cycle are good for the site and good for the querent. Others think that the "sting" of seeing their question "on hold" is too great a harm to visit upon new users. This Network, I believe, has room for both sorts of stackizens.

Yes, we're about helping people. And we sometimes have different ideas about how best to do that. Vote your conscience, trust that others are doing the same, and ask questions when something doesn't pass your "smell test."

There's a post over on meta.se that I like to link in to discussions like this: it's worth a read in full, and I'll excerpt it here in part:

What you do here isn't just about solving one person's problem.

See, once you realize that it's not just about the one asker, or the four voters, but rather the fifteen thousand searchers with the same problem... Well, suddenly, a whole ton of things that seem prickly and self-important, like editing out "Thanks in advance!" aren't about being "a bunch of power-happy pedants," they're about helping all the people who will ever have that problem to find the best answers. (Emphasis in the original.)

Yes, we're partially about helping the original querent. And we're more about helping the long tail of readers who will ever see a post. Which leads us to a tricky balancing act: each one of us--editors, voters, answerers--comes to an individual, personal understanding of where they draw the line between those two priorities that sometimes exist in tension.

Some people ( o/ ) think that a quick close-edit-reopen cycle are good for the site and good for the querent. Others think that the "sting" of seeing their question "on hold" is too great a harm to visit upon new users. This Network, I believe, has room for both sorts of stackizens.

Yes, we're about helping people. And we sometimes have different ideas about how best to do that. Vote your conscience, trust that others are doing the same, and ask questions when something doesn't pass your "smell test."