Timeline for Reposting own content from or to the Super User Blog
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2012 at 5:04 | history | edited | James Mertz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 11 characters in body
|
| Jul 10, 2012 at 23:39 | history | edited | James Mertz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| May 6, 2011 at 7:59 | vote | accept | przemoc | ||
| May 5, 2011 at 8:36 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse Mod | The whole purpose of the blog is to put SU content in the spotlight, so some degree of reposting would be required, else we're just another HuffPo... | |
| May 4, 2011 at 21:25 | comment | added | przemoc | I am not sure whether reposting from online article/journals is that easy (but IANAL). In such cases CC BY-SA is usually not used, so it should require special care IMO. I very like underlined NEED to provide full attribution. It's often forgotten in internet (not saying particularly about StackExchange here). | |
| May 4, 2011 at 21:22 | comment | added | przemoc | @Kronos Just nitpicking, but try to not misspell my nick. It's not the first time I see it changed in exactly that way. It's not English nick, so don't try to read it in mind in English, because you'll fail. :) | |
| May 4, 2011 at 21:19 | comment | added | przemoc | You went further than I thought about reposting to SUB. I meant only reposting authors own content, like suggesting repost on SUB of text someone already have written. Reposting definitely requires author's consent (if repost submission is done by author it's obvious) and CC license (or proclaim of (1) releasing such text on SUB and implicitly agreeing on CC, (2) releasing such text w/ CC license therefore allowing using it on SUB). It's understandable when authors want to publish text on blog first and then submit to for SUB, and not the other way. | |
| May 4, 2011 at 21:16 | comment | added | James Mertz | @prxemoc no matter what you do, there will be people that just copy and paste and do nothing else. However, I believe that if we encourage a sense of attribution of where you got the material this is fine. If there's a link back to us, then updated content will eventually be viewed, and we get more attention which is ultimately the goal. | |
| May 4, 2011 at 21:09 | comment | added | przemoc | I laid on table discouraging of reposts from SUB by non-authors, because it's existing problem in internet. It's easy to copy-paste anything, it's hard to maintain it further and keep up-to-date. And I am not even mentioning reposters violating attribution part of the license... So while we cannot forbid such reposting, I would discourage it and add additional remark about updating it in case of changes in future, in this repost is "unavoidable". | |
| May 4, 2011 at 21:00 | history | edited | DMA57361Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed bullet points
|
| May 4, 2011 at 20:52 | comment | added | studiohack Mod | excellent answer! | |
| May 4, 2011 at 20:45 | history | answered | James Mertz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |