I probably flagged several of these (and I think you handled a bunch of my flags last night, too). I nearly asked this question here on meta myself after having a few flags declined, but decided instead to have a few drinks and take a break.
I read through the meta questions that Michael mentioned in his comment, and started going through the low-quality answer review tab. I figured that, after reading four or so questions on meta essentially agreeing that link-only (or borderline link-only) questions should be deleted with extreme prejudice, that I would be helping out by flagging these.
I do see that there's a distinction drawn (particularly in SLacks' case), where a correct short answer with an additional external link does suffice. I wholeheartedly admit that flag was wrong, and I should've paid closer attention to that answer. Sorry about that.
Now, reading this question, I feel like this is far more of a gray area than I previously thought. I don't want to ask a question in my answer (or rather, my explanation) here, but I feel like the inconsistency in this application leaves reviewers without clear guidelines. I understand and respect that the mods do not (and should not) act as a singular unit.
If I should do the legwork myself, look up some source information on the link, and edit that information into the answer with a note about the reason for the edit, I'm happy to do that.
If I should leave a comment (which I do for answers that aren't as old -- and I'll fully admit I may have accidentally flagged more recent answers over the past few days) and ask the authors to do this themselves, I'm also happy to do that.
Finally, I will say that sometimes it's irritating and difficult to be a somewhat low-reputation user who's trying to help out without answering questions. I really feel like the flagging interface doesn't leave much room for discussion or understanding...and, in fact, I feel like rejected edits and closed questions here do that, too.