For Wikipedia, apparently someone did their homework: the disclaimer under the edit box says "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under

For Wikipedia, apparently someone did their homework: the disclaimer under the edit box says "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." SO's insistence on non-obfuscated links doesn't make much sense to me, though. Users retain copyright to the content they submit to SO, so it's them, not SO, who say which attribution they would like. SO could require some sort of attribution to be sufficient (like Wikipedia does), but users are free to say that they accept any sort of attribution besides that, even one which does not credit SO at all.