|The stupid question is the question not asked|
The premise of this entire thread is wrong answers. The fact that many problems have multiple solutions isn't being disputed. The case of a question receiving multiple answers in itself isn't being discussed either. The problem being discussed is wrong answers.
You think there's a straight limit between "wrong" and "not-optimal"? I don't think so, and I think the important part is where they meet. If someone states 'perldoc -f print' is the documentation to the integrated space-ship, this is clearly wrong, and someone will correct this. Sure, *you* know something is wrong, but you can't be sure the poster of the "wrong" answer has the same opinion. I'd rather say he must have any reasons good enough for him to post it.
Perhaps you don't, and if you restrict yourself to "discussions" and "meditation", you'll see it isn't an answering machine. But almost all threads in "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" start with a question - from someone seeking an answer.
Maybe that's not the optimum then. You can't write wisdom down, you can't categorize wisdom. You do that with knowledge, and I thought that's what Tutorials, Q&A etc. is for. I still see the main advantage of PM in being a community based on discussions, but perhaps you don't.
Perhaps you don't see it as an answering machine, but that's how PM is being marketed ("if you have questions, Perlmonks is the place to be"), and that's how the largest and busiest section looks like.
The existance of questions and answers doesn't mean it's an answering machine. The question is: where is the answer found? An answering machine takes the question, makes an index lookup, posts the answer. The benefit of a community is the open discussion that leads to answers, ideas and maybe even better answers. Or are all other communities offsprings of Project Chaos and don't allow the asking of questions?
Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley