In recent days, the word of genealogy blogging has been abuzz with discussion of the damage done when copy on one web site is appropriated for use on another. I could provide a series of links for you to sample the conversation but have chosen not to do so for reasons that I trust will become apparent. At the same time, the "rules" and "practices" of SE are apparently being used to encourage just such offences.
In surveying a number of resources generally related to cemeteries, I noted one that struck me as being particularly related to a question posted in the early days of this community. It seemed to offer a rich array of resources that would complement and extend the suggestions originally provided.
I decided to add a new answer to the old question in the hope that it would (a) move the question up the active list to (b) attract new views (c) perhaps draw another answer and even (d) prompt someone to ask a new question. Within a few hours, it had done the first three and we live in hope of the last.
However within 12 hours, my new answer had been converted to a comment with the advice that I should include the essential parts of the answer here, and provide the link for reference. Set aside for the moment, that this was what I had done -- the essential part of the answer was that there was available a rich site with a broad range of information maintained by an acknowledged expert -- and let us assume that there were a paragraph or two on that site that was directly and specifically addressed to the question. Is it a required part of achieving a "good SE answer" that I take the intellectual property of another person and reproduce it (with attribution) to boost the content here?
Not only would that be a breach of statute law in several jurisdictions in which this website is published, it also would be unethical behaviour that every genealogist producing and distributing content should condemn.
It is one thing for SE to remove any answers that provide only a link to an external source of expertise. That would be a principled, if remarkably short-sighted, position. It is quite another to encourage, even to require, posters to "borrow" content from that external site in order to be permitted to include a link in the answer.