I just saw a few questions that were in itself perfectly valid, but badly worded. I do not mean the problem where the author is not native English and comes across rather harsh unintentially.
I mean for example this question about double escaping in PHP. Was it right to close this? I can very well sympathize with that, because you reap what you sow and the author asked for it. But that doesn't make the question any less valid, does it?
Another example is this question about disappearing content on eBay. Again, I think the question in itself is okay, just the author seemed to be extremely excited about this "Magic".
These are just two examples that just make me wonder: Are the tools that we have adequate and are they used in the right way?
I'm not saying that they are or are not, I would just like to know if there is really no better way to preserve a good question? Editing requires 2000 rep, while closing requires 3000. So in theory, everyone who could vote close could also edit it.
On the other hand, I agree we shouldn't support laziness and have to decrypt the question from the author. Then again, closing the question to "punish" the author for sloppiness also punishes the people who could use the answer.
People could just ask the same question when they run into the same problem though.
So in theory we have all the tools and options to punish "bad" users and to keep questions at a high quality level. But still I sometimes "feel" that something is slightly off-balance and could need fine tuning, but I'm not sure what.
Or am I just "overreacting" because of 1 in thousands of questions are wrecked that way?
(This is SO specific, no idea about SU or SF)