"You don't go to CNN for dick jokes; don't come here for hard hitting journalism."
I'm not a starry eyed early adopter of StackExchange (and judging by rep and account age distributions, I'm not minority). On yet another day of Googling "quick questions" I didn't know how to answer, I found SO and realized what a helpful resource a well-organized, well-moderated site with logical, consistent, comprehensive style and content rules which are being followed is. I don't really see it as a community in the social sense, I consider it more of a public medium for enthusiasts to share knowledge with each other.
I come here when I have a question, and I want it to be answered with, for lack of a better word, minimal bullshit. No advertisements from a company trying to sell a cheap knockoff of an open source program for $39.99, no crazy forum trolls with an axe to grind spinning yarns about god knows what, no incomprehensible babble that's barely even English, just sane, rational, level-headed advice from sane and rational people. Importantly, consistently sane advice from consistently sane people.
When I want cute nerd humor, I go to my RSS reader and dive in my humor feeds, or hop over to my favorite techie hangout forums. Nerd humor isn't hard to find. What would be annoying, though, is if half the time I excitedly clicked on an SO result from my search I found, to my disappointment, that it was only a cheeky joke and there's no actual solution to my problem (which I've probably wrestled with for hours, exhausting my patience). This would very quickly move SE sites to my mental blacklist.
The SE sites provide a very valuable, much-needed service (sober, quality, reliable Q&A) and do so very well. I don't see the point of branching off into an oversaturated market (nerd humor), and I while there's the occasional gem, I don't think the SO community consistently produces exceptional humor (and besides, we can agree on what is a good solution to a problem, but how can we agree what is funny and whose taste is right?). There may be such a thing as wisdom of the crowds, but I find the notion of a "sense of humor of the crowds" to be... Well, humorous.
Speaking of bad humor, the example is both a terrible answer (exactly the kind I hope to escape by coming here!) and not very good humor (I didn't laugh, I didn't smile, I finished reading and realized he forgot to add a punchline to his attempt at a joke, and regretted the time I spent reading it). The question clearly asks for a comparison of digital media, which certainly does not include stone tablets. It even goes on to list the particular digital media that the asker is interested in. Imagine that after much frustrated searching and tinkering, you asked (or found on google) a question about whether you should use a Windows or Linux as your development platform given your specific need, then I walked in and suggested MacOS or Symbian or something else ridiculous. It would feel like a slap on the face and waste everyone's time; worse, it would dilute the primary usefulness of the site.
And if you agree that humor should not be encouraged, you also should agree that it's very important for it to be discouraged. The reason is this: It is a lot less work to come up with wisecracks than to solve problems, even when the "solution" is writing down something you know, because you must think carefully about how to express your knowledge, whereas humorous quips "come to you" in a moment. Moreover, most people don't know the solution so are not qualified to try and answer it, but practically everyone can make a -good or bad- witty remark. People will also tend to judge solutions on their merits, while there always seems to arise a large crowd who thinks the "vote up" button means "lol tru dat mate haha". All of this combines to make it very easy, once it becomes common place, for humor to overwhelm genuine contributions.