3

Do I comply with all the terms & conditions of SE, such as correct attribution, if on a webpage with HowTo questions I add a list with links to some questions on a SE site?

Here a 2 samples of such webpages (about half the way down on these pages):

In the above 2 webpages, I tried to comply with the Attribution Required instructions as good as I can and understand them. But I noticed the links mentioned there are broken (+ I cannot find a way to suggest correcting them). And that page does not have any links to "good" samples.

I also reviewed Defending Attribution Required, but I'm unsure if the above 2 webpages comply with this part in it:

Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

The actual phrasing of the questions in the 2 webpages are edited versions of the original question title (like "my" suggested edit of the question, to make it better fit for my purpose). That seems to me like some type of "alter, transform or build upon this work".

Improve this question
9
  • I'm interested in understanding what might be reasons for somebody downvoting a question like this (and without leaving any indication). Is it because there is something in the question that I shouldn't ask? Or that somebody just doesn't agree to (like to indicate "I don't like it that I have to do such attribution")? Or maybe it's considered as a duplicate question? Or ..., Or ... Similar request for upvotes. I understand voting is anonymous, but maybe something like "Explain your upvote / downvote" (without showing the username) might make sense?
    – Pierre.Vriens
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 15:57
  • 7
    Friendly tip: don't waste so much time and efforts trying to figure out why the downvotes, it's a battle you lose before it's even started. Just let it slide, develop a thicker skin etc. Believe me, it would make you feel tons better. And if you're here just to get upvotes then, well, you're in the wrong place.
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 16:06
  • 4
    I second what Shadow said. If you participate on SE, don't participate for votes.
    – Infinite Recursion
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 16:19
  • 4
    I second InfiniteRecursion's seconding ShadowWizard. Votes are nice, they give us rep, which gives us privileges etc. However, don't aim to get votes, they come naturally. Most importantly, people can downvote for many different reasons. Including they are in a bad mood. Nothing can be done about that, by anyone. There are greater things in life to be thinking about than a downvote on a website!
    – James
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 16:22
  • 1
    @ShadowWizard: thx, I'm not worrying about them, just curious to learn to ask questions the right way. And those downvotes don't influence my feelings, don't worry. Also, I'm not here for "upvotes", but to find "answers", and "help answering". Good enough? Same for Infinite Recursion.
    – Pierre.Vriens
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 16:24
  • 2
    It doesn't look this way from your way of commenting and considering your past comments and actions as well. Anyway, things here on MSE are different as people tried to explain in the past. Downvotes here do not mean a bad question or answer - even question asked perfectly can get -100 in a day just because other users simply do not agree with what it says/means/asks for. It's that simple. So at least here on MSE, don't let the votes decide if you need to "improve" the post or not.
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 16:30
  • 2
    I second James's seconding InfiniteRecursion's seconding ShadowWizard. Here on meta, votes are different. If you post sometjing that the community likes, Yay!, you get some up votes. If you post something that is down voted, ahw shame. Think about what you posted, and what they didn't like. For example, a lot of the time basic questions that are seen as obvious are down voted...
    – Tim
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 17:40
  • 1
    Also, you said that users should have to comment. They are already suggested to, and have a look at this: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/251906/… and see the comments below (and yes, there is sarcasm there).
    – Tim
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 17:44
  • Thanks all for your valuable feedback! James confirms what I've been experiencing also. And I honestly don't "mind" (may I say "care"?) about some -19 voting status of my question from about a week ago (think positive: I went up from -20 while I was waiting for it to reach -50 or so). And what Shadow... and Tim wrote is what has become clear to me also. Also thanks for the link Tim, I will add a comment there also ...
    – Pierre.Vriens
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 18:27

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11

The "attribution" rule is only relevant when you "republish" the content, which you are not, you are just linking to it.

To quote the blog:

If you republish this content, we require that you [snip]

Just having a link to content which is on a Stack Exchange site is fine, because to view the actual content you link to, a person has to come to Stack Exchange.

And then the content is in its original place with the owner details, site rules, etc, etc.

If however you copy the content from a Stack Exchange site and paste it onto your own website, then you need to start thinking about attributing the owner/user/etc, as per the blog states.

Improve this answer
6
  • Thx @James! Note my last parg in my question I added. I think it is more then "just linking". Instead rather "a link to the original question to illustrate (+ give credit) where the inspiration for my (rephrased) version came from".
    – Pierre.Vriens
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 15:27
  • Yes, when you "republish", you have not republished, just linked to. You are not using the content on your site, just saying "click this to go to some content on this other site"
    – James
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 15:41
  • It seems to me that per the feedback from @james my current phrasing is at least correct, but maybe it is even overkill. So would it be OK to not add that "( by userid)" at the end of each question, which to be honest I find a bit of overkill (and requires extra work to add for each question). The '(*)' footnote in it I would like to leave included, even though from comment from James it might not even be required, If I correctly understand his answer/comments
    – Pierre.Vriens
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 15:51
  • Not sure what you mean by Userid. You can ignore that blog if you are just linking to Stack. Just make a link to the content, no other details are required as far as I can see. If you copied the text from the Stack question or answer and pasted it elsewhere, then you need to start worrying about attributions.
    – James
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 16:01
  • 1) "copy text from a Stack site and paste onto another website" = Do all of these things you are talking about as per the blog - userid, etc ------------ 2) "link to Stack" = just link to Stack
    – James
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 16:09
  • I just accepted this answer, thank you James! And I also edited my list of questions on those 2 pages, by removing the userids for each question again. With that I consider this question as closed, or at least "good enough". Not sure if I need to do/indicate anything else to indicate so. With that I wonder "is it OK to ask my next question now, without taking a risk that I might ask too much questions?". Just so that you know: I have dozens of questions, many of them came from reading, digesting and desecting the help pages the past week or so ...
    – Pierre.Vriens
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 19:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .