Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Welcome to the Power Users community on Codidact!

Power Users is a Q&A site for questions about the usage of computer software and hardware. We are still a small site and would like to grow, so please consider joining our community. We are looking forward to your questions and answers; they are the building blocks of a repository of knowledge we are building together.

Comments on How to handle crossposts

Parent

How to handle crossposts

+5
−0

How do we want to handle cross-posts, e.g. posts which are completely copied verbatim from other sites?

A couple of approaches I could think of:

  1. IF they fulfil the original site's license requirements they are fine. Otherwise they should be deleted.

  2. IF they fulfil the original site's license requirements AND link to each other on BOTH sites, they are fine. Otherwise they should be deleted. This should ensure that no time of users is wasted, who otherwise might spend their free time to work on a solution for an already solved problem or can't find the solution if they have the same problem.

  3. Delete them, so they don't hurt the site's rating in search engines

  4. Edit them so they will fulfil the original site's license requirements about giving credit etc.

  5. Any other suggestions?

(roughly 50 % of the questions posted up to now would be affected)

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

There is some guidance in the help center for [referencing and quoting](https://powerusers.codidact.c... (1 comment)
Post
+2
−4

This isn't really a license issue.

You are assuming that the post was written elsewhere first, then copied here. However, since the same user posted all of them, we should assume that user wrote the post once locally, then copied that to all the sites. In any case, it's the user's IP, and the user is free to copy it to wherever they like.

The only time this would not apply is if users have agreed on another site that anything posted there belongs to the site only, and the original author has given up all rights. That is probably not the case. Even then, its the user posting here that is violating someone else's copyright, not us.

The real question is what our policy should be towards a user posting the same question at essentially the same time in other places because of what it means to this site and the volunteers that might answer, not because of IP concerns.

Personally, I think that's rather an obnoxious thing to do because it's abusing the free help of the volunteers on all the sites. Multiple people across the internet may spend time writing answers, without the benefit of seeing what others have already written. The answers are then scattered about, with only the original asker benefitting from them all.

I propose our policy be

  • Questions first posted here aren't allowed to be posted elsewhere for some time limit (3 days?).
  • When a question here is later posted elsewhere, the question here must be updated with a link to the duplicate. This includes any additional future duplicates.
  • Questions first posted elsewhere may be posted here only after some time limit (3 days?).
  • Questions here that are copies of elsewhere must include a clear statement to that effect, and links to any copies of the same questions elsewhere.

Violation of these rules is a serious abuse of this site and the volunteers here. The first offence results in account suspension of a few days, and the second offence a couple of weeks. By the third offence, the account is simply deleted.


Can we really assume that they are originally written by the same individual? They are posted on other sites by many different accounts and they never react to any comment asking if they are the same user.

That's a good point I hadn't considered. That does make the license more relevant. I figured one user was just trying to maximize their chance for a quick answer. I don't know why another user would copy posts between sites, but I suppose we can't be sure it is a single user when they won't say so. The timestamps on the various copies might provide a clue.

I'm not sure what to do in the case of users we can't tell are the same. The safe thing would be to delete the post altogether. Others than the original author shouldn't be copying posts from elsewhere, and certainly shouldn't be doing it without attribution.

It would be more work, and I don't think it's worth it, but we could delete a duplicate post only if it was posted later than another one out there. If the other way around, we send a message to the other site demanding attribution or removal of the post. Again though, I don't think getting into this level of detail makes sense.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

2 comment threads

The effect as i see it of the proposed policy (4 comments)
Can we really assume that they are originally written by the same individual? The are posted on other... (1 comment)
The effect as i see it of the proposed policy
elgonzo‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

A user being forced or encourage by some "exclusivity clause" to keep their question posted solely and exclusively on codidact for a defined amount of time before reaching out to other sites reads to me like a warning to potential askers: "Better think whether you want to post on codidact or rather on other Q&A sites". In my honest opinion, such a proposed policy would be disastrous for codidact communities introducing such policies, considering codidact's popularity and reach compared to that of some other Q&A sites -- and if the ban hammer is swung based on such a policy, i fear it would be the final death knell for those codidact communities, imo...

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

@elgonzo: So what do you suggest, allow anyone to post all over the internet and have the volunteers in all those places duplicate effort?

elgonzo‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

I suggest to let people ask questions regardless of whatever else they are doing on the web. A site that presents itself as a place for people to ask their questions should not claim some monopoly over the questions asked.

If you truly and sincerely worry about people asking all across the internet on different sites and have volunteers in those places duplicate effort, shouldn't be the ideal solution to have just one single place to ask? How about we start with baby steps towards this ideal and shut down codidact, so those askers have less places to go to and ask the same question and thus can cause only less duplicating of volunteerr efforts?

I am not being facetious here. If the concern is unnecessary duplication and wasted effort, the solution is really avoiding to have multiple Q&A places for the same type of communities, areas of expertise or domains. Because, as long as you have duplicated Q&A sites, you will have duplication of questions, answers and effort...

elgonzo‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

I further suggest, that if people cross-post without references/links to the other cross-posts should be reminded to include such references/links. Only if the user exhibits a pattern of repeatedly ignoring such reminders, the user should be disciplined. (Which i think is more or less the 2nd and 4th point of the policy you suggested.)

But the 1st and 3rd point of your policy... It beggars belief seing advocating for an exclusivity clause for questions asked on a codidact community.

On the other hand, the policy of (i paraphrase) "if you have just posted your Q somewhere else already, don't bother with codidact for the next 3 days" is really a nice way of trying to force people to choose between SomewhereElse and Codidact, or telling them to just stay away from codidact in case they already asked elsewhere. For some strange reason, I am not confident at all that forcing or encouraging to make a choice based on such a policy would favour codidact in any way... ;-P