Here's a post that exemplifies my question:
Looking at the history, all I can think of is "poor OP." Several items of note:
In an attempt to simplify his question, he made some edits to his code that made his code not compile. While posting code that doesn't compile can imply that someone just threw some pseudocode together, it can also be the result of legitimate actions such as making edits to production code, refactors made to satisfy commenters, etc.
If you look at what got OP's question closed for a while, it was the omission of a parameter name in a legit edit. All of the other code was completely valid and was easily understandable. As peer developers on a code review site, we should easily be able to infer the nature of a compilation error and as such exercise discretion in choosing to close a question. It appeared to me that a dogpile resulted over a missing parameter name.
Observe that OP felt compelled to modify his question so heavily as a result that it warranted a rollback. While I can only speculate on why he changed it, I am concerned that the level of scrutiny applied to code examples may contribute to users drastically changing their code and obsoleting code examples in answers.
My question really comes down to whether others agree that the means by which code examples are deemed worthy are a bit too strict and can have negative consequences. I believe we should be a bit more flexible in understanding what OP's intent is.
Why can't we either fix syntax errors for them or go ahead and answer anyway instead of using bureaucracy to force OP to edit his question? If we vote the question closed or on hold, we've put a hold on all new answers and further discussions on those answers that may actually be answering what OP is looking for, which I find very counterproductive, especially since a lot of us are in different time zones.
@Heslacher brought up a second issue with the example that I missed and I agree that it may no longer be as small of a fix as I originally thought, but the fact that I missed it and it had little bearing on my understanding of what OP was asking for speaks to the gray area that exists when OP's code doesn't compile but you know exactly what they want/need.
Consider posts similar to this example. If you legitimately cannot understand what OP is asking because the code is so egregiously bad, that is one thing, but I find that the attitude around here is generally requiring all ambiguity to be explicitly dispelled before an answer can be provided. Why don't we still answer, fixing or calling out the error instead of limiting our contributions to those solely around making the error go away?