We should definitely be proactive in editing questions to be more to the point and more correct.
For example, this question had a bad title.
This question probably should remove references to a specific language.
Most questions with pointless intro/outro text should probably be removed (i.e. "Hi", or "Thanks").
I'd even go so far as to correct capitalization of proper nouns, i.e. Unity instead of unity.
Sometimes I'll even go in and remove potential flamebait subjectivity, even if it's seemingly harmless. See this example.
If you think of questions as things that people are much more likely to find by searching at some point in the future instead of a discussion group, it makes sense for people with the time and the reputation to treat edits as a copy editor would. Or think of it like wikipedia, where lots of people touching topics incessantly somehow creates a reasonably high quality resource. Granted, I'm only really coming from my personal experiences with StackOverflow, where most of the time I don't have to ask questions because somebody before me usually did and I was able to find it easily.
On the flip side, I'm less inclined to drastically edit poor questions, especially if the person obviously isn't a professional or enthusiast (i.e. the target audience for a site like this). If I saw the question in your example before the fixups, I'd just vote it down and maybe even vote to close it as off topic (although honestly I'm probably going to do that anyway since broad, newbie questions like that kind of go against the whole point of stackexchange sites). Some people will argue that there's sometimes a good question buried beneath the cruft, but I don't think it's worth the trouble.