Since you distinguish questions and answers: most, but not all, of the noise (I wouldn't call it spam) is from people asking about simple things that they should have read in the docs first. But the de facto community response to this is accomodating, whether by substantive answers or by pointers to the docs. On the question side of things, it seems that if you don't like the noise, you're better off not fighting it. I'd suggest that you either thicken your sunglasses or adopt as your favorite forum (say) c.l.p.m, which is less tolerant to FAQs. Take it as a psychological given that you are unlikely to get people to change their behavior just by complaining about it.

On the answer side of things, in general you're asking why people reply with myths; the solution to that riddle lies in the riddle itself. They reply with myths presumably because they believe they are true. This is the case in all communities. The question is how receptive the community is to people who call on the myth. In my humble opinion, PM isn't bad in that respect either. We've had dogma-challenging posts here, we've had contoversies here. Nothing is stopping you from writing a substantive Meditation about a something you think monks hold a wide misconception about. Don't jump to the meta-level yet, please: unless you think there's a *Perl* myth going on about, this whole discussion is academic. I am pretty sure that if you write up a well reasoned noncomformist post, it would get all the attention it deserves.