I once read a theory about how various skill levels respond to basic questions, but by some twist of fate I can't remember where I read it. Google is of no help because it indexes words and I can't quite remember which words were used. (Was it "novice" or "newbie"? Was it "simple" or "basic" questions? And so on.) I've spent about 1/2 an hour trying to track it down and I can't. It's possible that as soon as I post this, someone will recognize it and source it for me in 10 seconds. Or it might be a community puzzle that never gets solved. (Except I have no clue what subject matter the idea was first expressed in. It's probably related to programming, but who knows?)
At any rate, the idea is that novices are intensely interested in basic questions. They don't know the first thing about a subject, so every bit of knowledge is nourishing to them. Average users are intensely disinterested in basic questions. They know where the answers can be found and it's boring to see questions that can be answered in a FAQ or the manual. Bizarrely, experts are sometimes interested in basic questions again. The reasons range from basic questions being deeper than they first appear to the official answer being subtly wrong. It's as if these questions gain new life once you obtain mastery in a subject.
Assuming this unsourced theory is correct, we'd expect the majority of users to object to basic questions even though they might be interesting to both newcomers and experts. That's because most participants will be average users. Newcomers will quickly become average users or will wander off. Experts will be few in number in the best of times.
Now I'm not saying that if you hate all basic questions, you aren't yet an expert. But I do say that if you look, there's a surprising amount of depth to most of the questions that get labeled "too simple" or trivial. It seems to me that philosophers are obsessed with reexamining settled questions.
I personally find sourcing quotes a valuable exercise. Earlier I quoted Cromwell's Rule in an answer and it was fun to trace it all the way back to its origin. I like knowing the true context behind those things we vaguely remember as important. Sometimes we find that the words surrounding the words we remember are vitally important to recall.
The only real objection I have to these questions is that they are contagious like yawns (they start popping up all over and get tedious) or like songs (you can't get them out of your mind once they get there).
(And I agree with mfg's answer as well, if it isn't already clear.)