I mean real point?
There is even some sort of movement for closing questions. But what's the goal? What's the difference? "Closure is definitely not the end of the road for a question" - so, even being closed, a question remains on-site, sound and safe.
Let's take this unfortunate question for example. There was a vast effort spent in trying to close it. But what was the goal? What are the benefits? Imagine the civic duty succeeded. What would be the difference then? The question would become just some sort of protected, just in a more strict form of conventional protection. And so what? I doubt there can be another answer comparable to accepted one - so, even if remains open, it scarcely will be answered again. But again, even being colsed - will it lose anything?
Let's take another type of question - some real offtopic or too localized one.
Okay, it got closed and won't accept answers from eager volunteers anymore. What are the benefits again? I see none:
- A closed question won't make the site less polluted - the question itself remains.
- A closed question won't do any harm to already written and accepted answers - so, it never make a lesson for neither OP nor a rep-hunter. The former got their typo spotted and the latter snatched a couple of precious rep points way faster than question get even 2 closevotes.
I'd understand if a question got deleted. That would make sense (for the too localized questions I mean, as for the good answers it would be a catastrophe). But I see no point in such a closevote-craze. Especially considering the fact that only 1/10 of questions that deserved to be closed, got closed indeed.
Again, I'd understand a closevote as a preventive measure against some old-chewed topic to pollute the active questions list. But that's just 1%. And what's the point in closing questions which last activity were back in '08 then?
So, noone to read the question body before starting for answer? Well, as usual.