18

This is something of a follow-on to Are answers which merely summarize other answers acceptable?.

I came across this answer to How can I clear the NuGet package cache using the command line?. Just as I was thinking "Wow, what a succinct yet comprehensive answer designed for readability..." I saw the note at the bottom stating that it's "... a rollup of all the existing answers ...". Upon further inspection, the answer contains one bit of its own commentary ("(can be used in a .bat file)"), one section that rewords and reformats another answer but also embeds its screenshot, and at least three sections that were copied verbatim from parts of other answers.

I, personally, don't see the value in such an answer and the answers to the linked Meta question would seem to agree, but if one were to try to "fix" such an answer, how would they do so?

  1. Edit the answer to note in a prominent location that its content (largely) originates from the other answers.
  2. Edit the answer to blockquote all content copied verbatim from another answer.
  3. Edit the answer to mention the author of the answer from which each section of content originates.
  4. Edit the answer to link to the answer from which each section of content originates.
  5. All of the above.
  6. Leave a comment suggesting that the author do any or all of 1-4.
  7. Do nothing. (The answer is fine as-is.)
  8. Downvote.
  9. Flag the answer (as plagiarism/lacking adequate attribution).
  10. Vote for deletion. (The answer is currently +22/-0, so, for users with that privilege, that doesn't apply?)
  11. Something else.

If it were me I'd choose 5 (and probably 7, for these reasons) just to be thorough and as a courtesy to the authors of the other answers, but I don't know if that's what's required nor if that's what's appropriate (from the standpoint of content curation). Also, there's not a lot of "meat" to each section of the answer, so I don't know if a code snippet with little or no text really rises to the level of plagiarism.

I've read How to reference material written by others and other Meta questions on the matter, but I think what makes this tricky/unclear is the source of the content is not only internal to Stack Overflow but internal to the question. Therefore, do the usual attribution rules still apply, or is it enough to say "This content comes from somewhere on this page" and leave it to the reader to determine where and from whom?

17
  • 6
    I agree that although it's nice to have all the information in one answer, it's already in one place; the entire question and answers. The fact, however, that the user's who's answer it is doesn't use blockquotes is a big "no-no" for me. If you don't check the rest of the question, it could come across as the answer is the user's own words. This is especially true where the only attribution is "This answer is a rollup of all the existing answers for your convenience"; there's no actual links to the answer or user as per the cc by-sa rules.
    – Larnu
    Nov 10, 2021 at 9:38
  • 14
    TL;DR: It's borderline plagiarism, and doesn't add any additional value (as the information is already there in a different answer).
    – Larnu
    Nov 10, 2021 at 9:38
  • 7
    None, the answer shouldn't exist, even with attribution. Why are we duplicating the same information?
    – Braiam
    Nov 10, 2021 at 9:38
  • Seems like possibly, option 11: Something Else. Raise a custom moderator flag, explaining why the answer shouldn't exist (for reasons you've highlighted) and they can handle it. Getting the "normal" curators to delete it would be impossible, without a voting ring; and those aren't helpful to anyone.
    – Larnu
    Nov 10, 2021 at 9:43
  • 1
    @Larnu I honestly don't see how it is "borderline", it is quite clear to me. They even copied the image created by someone else, so one couldn't argue that they just came up with similar code.
    – Tom
    Nov 10, 2021 at 9:47
  • I said "borderline", @Tom, because they do state it is from content on the same question; so you don't have to "look" for the original source. Don't misunderstand me, I do think it's wrong, and I'm on the side of the fence where I feel it is plagiarism; just not as clear cut as some of the content you see (where no blockquotes or any kind of citation or acknowledge that the words are not original exist).
    – Larnu
    Nov 10, 2021 at 9:51
  • 1
    "Therefore, do the usual attribution rules still apply, or is it enough to say "This content comes from somewhere on this page" and leave it to the reader to determine where and from whom?" I'd posit this question you asked is not useful. I'd take a more practical approach "If an answer refers to other answers, does it improve it to have a link to said answers". And I'd argue that the answer is "Undoubtedly yes". I don't see a reason to withhold this information. It makes tracking down the answer and thus further information easier. See also meta.stackoverflow.com/q/410553
    – VLAZ
    Nov 10, 2021 at 10:01
  • I'm not sure that answer is really applicable here, @VLAZ . It explain how you should be referencing other content on the site, but it doesn't state that combining several of the "good" answers into one (with or without attribution) is "ok".
    – Larnu
    Nov 10, 2021 at 10:05
  • @Larnu it talks about how to improve vague references and why you'd want to do that. I'd argue that an unattributed quote qualifies as a vague reference.
    – VLAZ
    Nov 10, 2021 at 10:07
  • 3
    But the entire post is solely made up of vague references, @VLAZ. There is no original content in it.
    – Larnu
    Nov 10, 2021 at 10:08
  • @Larnu Sorry, I was trying to be as generic as possible about "attributing other answers to the same question". For the record, I do agree - I am not in favour of posting an answer that just repeats other answers. Be it a summary or not. It might be useful in some cases but I'd say we shouldn't be discussing them in generic terms but very, very specific ones.
    – VLAZ
    Nov 10, 2021 at 10:14
  • 1
    I suppose another way I could have framed this question was, for all the places I've read "link to the source" as the proper protocol, does a question (page) have to link to (a subset of) itself? @VLAZ That question raises some good points and I agree that linking/quoting the source answer of content is good practice and helpful to the reader, but my issue is whether that's required from the standpoint of providing sufficient attribution and/or performing content evaluation. Nov 10, 2021 at 10:24
  • @LanceU.Matthews in terms of sufficient attribution I'd say "no, it's not needed". I side with zcoop98 and his answer to "Is full attribution required when quoting parts of the question in an answer?" - the license agreement tends to be practical and since the answers are all linked under the same answer you probably don't legally have to explicitly attribute them. Probably. But maybe you do. I'm not actually clear on the situation in that meta Q. However, from knowledge perspective you want attribution. Which also satisfies the legal question.
    – VLAZ
    Nov 10, 2021 at 10:29
  • 1
    I do agree with @VLAZ that direct attribution is likely uneeded, provided you denote that the words aren't your own and that the source is from a different answer on the same question. I honestly think my main "gripe" is that the content comes across as the OP's own words, as they aren't in block quotes; they should still be in them when you aren't using your own words.
    – Larnu
    Nov 10, 2021 at 11:30
  • 1
    @TimAbell This question is about the content of the answer you posted. I asked because I genuinely did not know the answer; what should I have done instead? Which part(s) of this Q&A are "attack[ing]" you and, considering no one mentioned you by name nor demeaned your character, how did they do so "personally"? That you emphasized "kind" also suggests that there are unkind messages towards you on this Q&A; if so, where? "license that encourages ... extending with attribution" — You didn't provide attribution. "help others with what I create" — Others created the content you posted. Apr 7 at 21:23

3 Answers 3

7

"Summary" answers can be valuable, if they add information on how the other answers compare to each other or otherwise streamline the solution. (Is it a difference of environment? Do the other answers together form a series of steps to solve the problem? Did they overcomplicate it?) This sometimes requires a familiarity with the technology to evaluate.

If the copied content was just a basic console command (or similar), then there might not be a need for attribution. That's because there's no room for originality, and the same commands are likely found anywhere the topic is explained.

But the answer here copied swathes of text from the other answers. That needs attribution (e.g. a linked mention that it comes from "user37's answer") and the copied content needs to be in quote format (blockquote or "quotes"). And the parts that were copied and then partially reworded shouldn't have been: either quote or paraphrase (both require attribution, but paraphrasing doesn't require quote format).

All in all, it's not enough to generically say your answer is based on other people's answers when you've copied their original work. Proper attribution means that we'll know who did what, even if the other answers are edited or deleted.

5
  • 3
    I disagree with the implication that copying "just console commands" is okay by default. While many console commands are pretty basic, even short commands can require a notable level of skill and domain knowledge. For many questions, providing the proper commands is the core contribution of answers. Nov 10, 2021 at 16:24
  • 1
    I'd be wary of your first paragraph. Answers should, first and foremost, answer the question. Your first paragraph seems to describe posts that might not answer the question but are meta-commentary on other answers. Here is a litmus test - can the answer, taken in isolation, solve the problem or help solving the problem? If the post says "Solution by X is twice as fast as solution by Y" I'd argue it is not addressing the question. Even if it includes the solutions by X and Y, then I'd still class it as a meta-commentary. Such information probably belongs in the respective solutions.
    – VLAZ
    Nov 10, 2021 at 16:29
  • That is if the performance thing is even accurately describable. A time complexity or similar estimation of "work done" is comparable. But benchmarks might not be. Benchmark answers can be seen often enough in the JS tag for longstanding questions and, so far, I have never seen one that isn't terrible and worthless. It's harsh, I know, but different environments might have different optimisation. Data and context also often play a role but are omitted.
    – VLAZ
    Nov 10, 2021 at 16:29
  • 1
    The biggest problem with meta-answers is that they require to be changed as soon as other answers are changed. Or they are inaccurate. If a meta answer talks about solution A and B but a solution C is posted, it's not incomplete. Or if solution B changes, it's inaccurate. If solution A is deleted for whatever reason, then it's also inaccurate. Any change to the other answers could impact the meta-answer that discusses them.
    – VLAZ
    Nov 10, 2021 at 16:32
  • 1
    @MisterMiyagi I edited to hopefully clarify. I mean the types of commands where everyone who needs to do X has to use the same command, maybe the flags can be in a different order if there are any. Basic commands like ls -la. But yes, it sometimes commands should be attributed. (This is another meta discussion I think.)
    – Laurel
    Nov 10, 2021 at 17:57
2

I've read How to reference material written by others and other Meta questions on the matter, but I think what makes this tricky/unclear is the source of the content is not only internal to Stack Overflow but internal to the question. Therefore, do the usual attribution rules still apply, or is it enough to say "This content comes from somewhere on this page" and leave it to the reader to determine where and from whom?

I will side-step this question because yes, I agree it gets tricky. Instead, I will re-phrase your question in a way that I think makes it more practical and clearer to answer and I believe the answer still applies to the original formulation:

Is an answer which references other answers to the same question improved by having a link to said answers or is it hindered by not having a link to them?

To this, I think the answer is in favour of supplying attribution. Because it is indeed an improvement to be able to easily track down the original source. Presumably, because it contains further information. It is also less useful if you are unable to (easily) track down the source and get the required context.


There is a situation where supplying attribution or not has a net neutral effect. That is when the two answers cover the same territory. Thus referring from one to the other offers no benefit. I would argue that in that case one of the two is unnecessary. While it might be context-dependent which one, I would tend to say that the later answer that refers to an earlier one is redundant by not offering anything new. Also, the ability to post a later answer and render an earlier "obsolete" by repeating it just also leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


So far I have been trying to answer generically about attributing answers. Not about "summary answers". If you read the previous paragraph, you would probably get the impression that I might dislike them if they are just repeating information already available. Which would be correct - I do not think they are.

I feel justifying the existence of summary answers is an XY problem. The reason why they are useful is that there is no other way to provide a "table of content" for a Q&A. If a summary answer is deemed appropriate, this is ultimately leveraging the Q&A mechanism (the A part of it) to artificially supply a feature the Q&A mechanism needs.

2
  • 1
    My thought as far as giving the reader an easy way to find the content they're looking for among answers for a mix of different environments and utilities is for that author to have taken those nice, convenient headers and instead edited them into the would-be source answers. I don't know if even that would have been appropriate, but that's another question entirely. Nov 10, 2021 at 10:33
  • 1
    @LanceU.Matthews I agree. I think there is a lot to be desired when it comes to actually maintaining the existing Q&As on the site. The tools SE gives us are quite lacking in some respects. For example, a question with many answers would likely benefit from something that can give an overview. I know other sites (e.g., Code Golf) also find use of such things. A related problem is lack of uniformity in posts. So, even if you just scroll through the answers, the various styles of writing would make it hard to get an accurate general idea. Thus making a summary/table of contents more desirable.
    – VLAZ
    Nov 10, 2021 at 10:39
0

This is a difficult one.

On the one hand, there is a valid argument to be made that this "answer" is nothing of the sort, merely plagiarism of existing valid answers (especially since it lacks attribution) and as such, is nothing more than a cynical attempt at farming reputation. Its duplication of existing answers doesn't add anything to the site, apart from now having two answers that need to be edited if one of the approaches shown turns out to be incorrect.

On the other, there's an equally valid argument to be made that this answer, in and of itself, is more useful than many of the others due to its conciseness. One of my greatest frustrations with Stack Overflow is Googling a problem I'm having, finding an SO question that appears to address that problem... and seeing that there are a dozen or more answers, of various age and provenance, and knowing that I'll have to read, and possibly try, each one individually to figure out which one actually solves my problem.

Really, this question is a lead-in to a far larger discussion around what Stack Overflow is, and perhaps what it should be. Right now it's a relatively disorganised and poorly-curated collection of questions (many duplicate and poor quality) and answers (many duplicate and poor quality), whereas what it should perhaps be aspiring towards: a Wikipedia-like model whereby there is one canonical, high-quality question on a topic, with one canonical, high-quality answer that anyone can add to as necessary. The second approach would allow people to find the information they need quickly, and also help with the problem of old, but highly-rated answers becoming incorrect over time.

The drawback is that it would nuke the whole reputation system. But honestly, I don't know if that even is a drawback; the rep system was a good idea initially, but more and more it's just being abused (we've even had "people" buying and selling rep, FFS). My opinion - and this is likely to be a contentious one - is that reputation serves as a good hook to initially encourage people to use a platform, but is terrible at encouraging retention on said platform - particularly in retaining the kind of people who that platform would best benefit from. Whereas the Wikipedia model of "hard work is its own reward" effectively ensures you only ever get those good people to start with.

The "summary" answer being discussed here is more along the lines of the Wikipedia model, and so probably should be removed for that reason. But I can understand and appreciate the intent of writing such an answer (assuming it isn't just to farm rep) - and the relatively young age of said answer, coupled with the number of upvotes it has, indicates that many do find it more useful than the other discrete answers.

And ultimately, isn't that what Stack Overflow should be about - providing content that's useful to the people using it?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/412968/what-level-of-attribution-is-required-for-summary-answers/413032
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-40
162355
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:Z26EWG5BEWWFMASCHL3X6D7SQV4WUL4H
<urn:uuid:17b9f92f-8950-40c8-97c8-6c3937bc19d9>
2022-09-25T02:18:56Z
151.101.129.69
text/html
sha1:KHTXZFILG4XDUJQDZI5QNTWOTTWXROCI
<urn:uuid:b2d0f87c-49fc-40c0-9619-216ba4c12c68>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/412968/what-level-of-attribution-is-required-for-summary-answers/413032
response
<urn:uuid:e5b748d7-a55a-41aa-bbb2-5515909cb074>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September/October 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-70
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/