Apparently the conclusion on licensing is that users implicitly license their content to StackOverflow under cc-wiki. However, it was months after posting on StackOverflow that I ever noticed the fine print that user content was licensed under cc-wiki, and I still haven't seen anything warning the user about this or asking them to license their content to StackOverflow under cc-wiki.
If the agreement is that users license their content under cc-wiki, why won't StackOverflow say this somewhere and ask for agreement? Let me be perfectly clear what I mean since no one seems to get it. There are several issues that need to be nailed down. Who owns the content? Under what license does StackOverflow make use of the content? Under what license does StackOverflow license the content to others? Precisely one of these questions is answered: what license StackOverflow makes the content available to others under. Without you first licensing the content to StackOverflow though, they don't have any right to make this license to others, but StackOverflow never asks you to license your content to them nor even states that you are doing so. The only thing they state is that they will license your content to others under cc-wiki. What possible right do they have to do this if I haven't first licensed my content to them? At the very least, the notice could be changed to "user-submitted content is licensed to StackOverflow under cc-wiki and redistributed under cc-wiki as well." Otherwise this is all just hand-waving and hoping no one sues, because StackOverflow has entered into absolutely no legal agreement with me yet they think they can relicense my content.
Furthermore, without asking for this agreement, how does StackOverflow come to the conclusion that they have received this license? I think the implicit agreement argument is BS because of how tucked away in the fine print the license terms are.
I don't want to discuss whether or not cc-wiki is a good choice, and I've given up on trying to get StackOverflow to explain how they can assume a license they never asked for. I just want to know one thing. What could it possibly hurt to warn users that you assume this license and to make the agreement explicit rather than implicit?