Originally, when I joined the site, I was under the impression that users users are supposed to indicate the sources of their answer. That is, if a given answer makes use of something developed in another answer, this should be acknowledged. In fact, the discussion under this thread appears to indicate that many users think so, too.
However, more recently I got more and more messages that essentially said
even if an answer is copied, it can still be a great answer.
So, according to this logic, there is no point in acknowledging the posts one got the inspirations from.
However, even more recently Joseph Wright wrote
However, when it comes to questions about the content of answers, life can become more difficult. Straight-up copy-pasting is easy to address, but where there are questions about the overlap of ideas, it can become more difficult.
This statement only makes sense if it is not irrelevant where the information came from.
And I got a private moderator message (concerning some sock puppets) saying
They've been clever enough to 'reference' the sources in each case, which might mean they don't get flagged.
Again, such a statement only makes sense if there is a notion of giving credit to others.
The purpose of this is only to clarify what the standards are.
- Literally copying code seems not to be OK. Is that right?
- If you rename a macro in a code from another answer, do you have to mention the original code?
- If you copy the strategy of another post, do you have to mention it?
In case there is a certain form of expected behavior, I'd like to know what the consequences are if one does not meet these expectations.
Of course, I understand that sometimes it is hard to prove that someone "adapted" things from others. This question is not about ways to prove misbehavior (if there is any), it is more about what the general consensus is.