If this site is intended for discussion of philosophy, then perhaps it would be appropriate to strive for academic answers to questions, even when the questions are not academic themselves. However, as an autodidact whose understanding of philosophy comes from reading and thinking, with a lack of academic discussion on the concepts, but with much informal discussion on the concepts with other readers and thinkers, I would personally find a requirement for academic answers crippling, even in the case where it's decided that this site is only for discussion and not doing. Quoting of texts is great, and links for clarification on the academic definition of concepts is fine, but I would hope that sometimes an informal, conversational, answer by a non-academic can hit the nail right on the head for some users.
Further, is it not an unfair constraint to the general doing of philosophy by our users, who may not be academics, to demand that answers to questions be stated in the context of academia's perspective on the pre-existing philosophical corpus? Certainly, many philosophers of the past—while not operating completely in a void, insofar as their society was likely influenced by past philosophers—did not have printed materials nor anything resembling academia to reference or educate when constructing their arguments. And yet, while they may have covered a lot of the same ground, we respect some of the different conclusions they've come to.
Note: I am using the vocabulary of the question of whether this site is for doing philosophy or discussing philosophy in this one, as the answers to this question may also imply answers to that one. Also, I am using the terms academic and academia in reference to the current state of higher education; i.e., the modern university system.