"Those who say that any well-formed, non-dup question of interest should be let in and those who think it's a stop of last-resort after checking all conceivable documentation and scouring the internet."
This is wrong in multiple dimensions and [edit: the next sentence which i didn't quote is] flamebait.
One camp believes in following these guidelines to a fault. The other camp thinks some of the rules are counterproductive to SO's principles.
This reminds me of the unhelpful SO answers where they state the answer to a question is already stated as part of a spec and won't be answered with a link to the spec. My preferred answer to these questions will quote applicable parts of the spec along with reference numbers and a link.
I don't understand why I have to click another link to go to another site that doesn't have the same context and awareness of where I just came from.
And may no longer even EXIST ... seriously love when working with old libraries and all i have is some dump copy on github of a long dead source code littered with comments about see the web page for the docs... the docs dont come from the comments, and lo and behold, the stack overflow post ... slaps you in the face with yet another link.
I agree that it's not the most nuanced picture, but it correctly captures the ongoing debate on meta about this very question -- a debate whose very existence suggests that these guidelines aren't cut and dry at all.
For example, where is the guideline that answers this without ambiguity?
This is wrong in multiple dimensions and [edit: the next sentence which i didn't quote is] flamebait.
One camp believes in following these guidelines to a fault. The other camp thinks some of the rules are counterproductive to SO's principles.
Source: http://stackoverflow.com/help, the guidelines are clearly outlined.