Return to Question

http://superuser.com/posts/663103/revisions Edit #3 (as of currently) is the edit I proposed, but the edit was not credited to me, but to someone else. I don't mind horribly, because it was only 2 reputation, and the question is still improved through the (my) edit. But something seems "off" about how it happened.

[edit] Things to consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

[edit-mk2] If this isn't an issue, then maybe the community is less credible than it should be, since true sources of thought are lacking the credit they deserve.

https://superuser.com/posts/663103/revisions Edit #3 (as of currently) is the edit I proposed, but the edit was not credited to me, but to someone else. I don't mind horribly, because it was only 2 reputation, and the question is still improved through the (my) edit. But something seems "off" about how it happened.

[edit] Things to consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

[edit-mk2] If this isn't an issue, then maybe the community is less credible than it should be, since true sources of thought are lacking the credit they deserve.

http://superuser.com/posts/663103/revisions Edit #3 (as of currently) is the edit I proposed, but the edit was not credited to me, but to someone else. I don't mind horribly, because it was only 2 reputation, and the question is still improved through the (my) edit. But something seems "off" about how it happened.

http://superuser.com/posts/663103/revisions Edit #3 (as of currently) is the edit I proposed, but the edit was not credited to me, but to someone else. I don't mind horribly, because it was only 2 reputation, and the question is still improved through the (my) edit. But something seems "off" about how it happened.

[edit] Things to consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

[edit-mk2] If this isn't an issue, then maybe the community is less credible than it should be, since true sources of thought are lacking the credit they deserve.