If your son would ask, "Dad, why... ?", would you answer: "Too broad, closed"?

Question

I think, the answer is no.

Instead, you would do this:

1. You would decode, what your son really wants to know.
2. You would summarize an answer on your best skills.
3. Doing this, you would optimize an answer to these goals:
   4. The answer should be big enough to answer the question.
   5. It shouldn't be so big that it makes your son bored.
   6. It must be interesting, to keep your son curious about the topic and make him wish to learn much more.
   7. It wouldn't be a problem for you, if an exact answer would be 200 pages long. You would know very well, that this would not serve the best of your son - instead, you would give him an interesting summary.
   8. The answer should adapt to the knowledge level of your son:
      9. It shouldn't contain only trivialities for him.
      10. But it shouldn't be too complex for him, making the answer incomprehensible for him.

Could we do the same, at least a part of the "too broad" questions? Why not?

Answer 1

And it would be based on your specific knowledge of your son, and not necessarily helpful to anybody else.

We don't know enough to decode what an anonymous person on the Internet asks; that's why we have to seek clarification, and in the meantime should hold off on guess-based answers that might be way off the mark. And the next person who comes here with the same question might be very different from your son and not benefit from a Peter's-son-tuned answer.

Answer 2

If your son would ask, “Dad, why… ?”, would you answer: “Too broad, closed”?

We are not parents. That's is not how SE is supposed to function.

Your analogy of parenting is wrong because nestled within that is the expectation of obligation. That the person being asked is ultimately obligated to provide an answer. Parents are expected to be patient with their children, to take them by the hand, to guide and work with them to help them grow and develop. Good vs. bad parenting is based on how well parents fulfill that obligation.

Nobody on this site is obligated to provide an answer. Nobody on this site is obligated to work with someone to help them grow or develop.

Your analogy is flawed.

There are many analogies that people can come up with for how SE works, but the one I think best exemplifies it is this.

You go into a bathroom stall. While doing your business, you notice a question written on the wall. If it's of reasonably narrow scope, then you can answer it while otherwise engaged. And if the question is complete, then you'll be able to answer it without having to track down the person who wrote the question.

Someone who comes into that stall later on can learn from the answer you provided, and maybe provide a better one.

That is the ideal interaction on Stack Overflow.

Answer 3

Having a child is only one analogy. A more appropriate analogy would be a university professor lecturing in front of hundreds of students. How much time should they spend with a single student who can't ask a succinct, or even necessarily understandable, question at the expense of all of the others who are also trying to learn and who have their own questions? Even if multiple professors are sharing a teaching role, each one of them can only spend so much time on an individual.

Closing a question does not mean that it remains closed. If the question is sufficiently edited so that it makes sense, then it can be reopened and answered.

Also, in at least some cases, the close votes don't happen immediately. The questioner is able to respond to comments and edit their question—and those who voted to close it can retract their votes when this happens.

If it's not possible to answer a question, because it really is too broad, and the questioner isn't able to clarify what it is that they want, then closing it, or at least voting to close it, is reasonable.