user28: There was a simple question about the initiation of gut flora, asked by an undergrad student. I just googled it and pasted a simple wiki explanation. On one hand, this site could be a good compilation of interesting but easy to find the answer of questions, which you would normally don't ask yourself unless you read them. On the other hand, the person who asks the questions can very easily find the answers himsefl/herself. I guess, it comes to the question about whether non-expert questions should be allowed, but what I am mostly concerned about is that experts won't find the site appealing.
So how do you think we should deal with such questions? Answer them, but not upvote them for example?

user307: Perhaps the poster himself could clear things up. Keep in mind that these words are only my personal suggestions.
Although I am only an undergraduate student, I am still a student of biology. I can imagine that many other of my fellow students at the university would ponder about a similar question, or in fact that same one. I personally feel as though it was not a Biology 101 question, but more importantly, it is clearly of use to legitimate biology students. 
Secondly, this is a questions and answers site. I cannot simply ask Wikipedia a question, and searching through its entire database can certainly be wearisome if you do not know where to start. However, it would ideally be preferable if an expert Stack exchange user posts unique, expert answers, rather than simply quoting Wikipedia word-for-word. As we would like to appeal to expert users, tailored personal answers would certainly aid in doing so. 
Lastly, as mentioned early, the integration of particular or current studies into an answer could reinforce even an expert's view on the matter. And in the end, no one is TRULY an expert of all things biology; there is certainly more content to learn about all thing related to biology, even basic concepts.
Please comment your impressions.

user69: I know that on English.SE any such question is closed as "General Reference". 

This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information. 

This does happen fairly often and the consensus seems to be that a link to the resource in question is posted as a comment on the question.   I assume it would be possible to ask to have a similar close reason added to Biology.SE, however so far I am inclined to say that such a move is not necessary.
When I look at the question that I believe you are referring to ("How does the microbial environment in your gut initiate"), Kevin's answer links to research papers that I would argue would be  of interest to experts even if the original question phrasing would not.  
The approach that Kevin took would seem to be an alternative implementation of the discussion on can we avoid counterproductive disciplinary fragmentation (where the generally accepted strategy was to improve the biology in poor questions rather than simply not tolerating them at all).  In providing a high level answer to an admittedly easily self answered question, we have avoided the scenario of alienating users that concerns were raised about in the above meta question.
However, I think your and the communities concerns about attractiveness to experts are also extremely valid, therefore perhaps we should be using voting to greater effect?
The full SE description of the voting arrows as everyone knows is


UP This question shows research effort, it is useful and clear
DOWN This question does not show any research effort, it is unclear or not useful


So, all considered I personally would be inclined to:

Reward the effort of answers that have gone beyond just what was necessary to answer the question in order to maintain the appeal of the site to experts by strong up-voting
Penalise questions where the asker has not put in sufficient research effort (i.e. bare minimum Googling!) in the intended way by down-voting.

I am a strong believer that, especially at this early stage, questions that can be salvaged and improved by the community should be =)

28: <p>There was a simple question about the initiation of gut flora, asked by an undergrad student. I just googled it and pasted a simple wiki explanation. On one hand, this site could be a good compilation of interesting but easy to find the answer of questions, which you would normally don't ask yourself unless you read them. On the other hand, the person who asks the questions can very easily find the answers himsefl/herself. I guess, it comes to the question about whether non-expert questions should be allowed, but what I am mostly concerned about is that experts won't find the site appealing.</p>

<p>So how do you think we should deal with such questions? Answer them, but not upvote them for example?</p>
 307: <p>Perhaps the poster himself could clear things up. Keep in mind that these words are only my personal suggestions.</p>

<p>Although I am only an undergraduate student, I am still a student of biology. I can imagine that many other of my fellow students at the university would ponder about a similar question, or in fact that same one. I personally feel as though it was not a Biology 101 question, but more importantly, it is clearly of use to legitimate biology students. </p>

<p>Secondly, this is a questions and answers site. I cannot simply ask Wikipedia a question, and searching through its entire database can certainly be wearisome if you do not know where to start. However, it would ideally be preferable if an expert Stack exchange user posts unique, expert answers, rather than simply quoting Wikipedia word-for-word. As we would like to appeal to expert users, tailored personal answers would certainly aid in doing so. </p>

<p>Lastly, as mentioned early, the integration of particular or current studies into an answer could reinforce even an expert's view on the matter. And in the end, no one is TRULY an expert of all things biology; there is certainly more content to learn about all thing related to biology, even basic concepts.</p>

<p>Please comment your impressions.</p>
 69: <p>I know that on English.SE any such question is closed as "General Reference". </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>This does happen fairly often and the consensus seems to be that a link to the resource in question is posted as a comment on the question.   I assume it would be possible to ask to have a similar close reason added to Biology.SE, however so far I am inclined to say that such a move is not necessary.</p>

<p>When I look at the question that I believe you are referring to ("<a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/522/how-does-the-microbial-environment-in-your-gut-initiate">How does the microbial environment in your gut initiate</a>"), Kevin's answer links to research papers that I would argue would be  of interest to experts even if the original question phrasing would not.  </p>

<p>The approach that Kevin took would seem to be an alternative implementation of the discussion on <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49/can-we-avoid-counterproductive-disciplinary-fragmentation">can we avoid counterproductive disciplinary fragmentation</a> (where the <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49/can-we-avoid-counterproductive-disciplinary-fragmentation/50#50">generally accepted strategy</a> was to improve the biology in poor questions rather than simply not tolerating them at all).  In providing a high level answer to an admittedly easily self answered question, we have avoided the scenario of alienating users that concerns were raised about in the above meta question.</p>

<p>However, I think your and the communities concerns about attractiveness to experts are also extremely valid, therefore perhaps we should be using voting to greater effect?</p>

<p>The full SE description of the voting arrows as everyone knows is</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>UP <em>This question shows research effort</em>, it is useful and clear</li>
  <li>DOWN <em>This question does not show any research effort</em>, it is unclear or not useful</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>So, all considered I personally would be inclined to:</strong></p>

<ol>
<li>Reward the effort of answers that have gone beyond just what was necessary to answer the question in order to maintain the appeal of the site to experts by strong up-voting</li>
<li>Penalise questions where the asker has not put in sufficient research effort (i.e. bare minimum Googling!) in the intended way by down-voting.</li>
</ol>

<p><strong>I am a strong believer that, especially at this early stage, questions that <em>can be</em> salvaged and improved by the community <em>should be</em> =)</strong></p>
