Are answers that merely quote an existing answer on EL&U acceptable?

Question

If somebody asks a question that is similar to a question asked on EL&U, for which the same answer applies to both the questions, is it acceptable to quote the EL&U answer, and use only that as answer?

Generally speaking, I find that not acceptable, as:

• The answer should be tailored for the audience of the site
• Who answers doesn't make any effort to write the answer

It would be more acceptable to link the EL&U questions when the ELL question has a more limited scope. In that case, the link to the EL&U question could be given to provide more information about the topic, as to say "I provided you the information you asked, but there is more that you should know, and this is the link to a question where you can read them."

Answer 1

I think your parameters for referring to ELU are right on target. I would only add:

• The ELU answer should be linked to, both in order to give appropriate credit to the original respondent and to encourage cross-site traffic with StackExchange, and

• The ELU answer must be paraphrased or quoted, for the same reason as any other answer referring to an offsite link: because circumstances (such as deletion, or departure of the respondent) may cause the ELU answer to disappear.

Answer 2

I have answered several questions in this manner recently, so let me explain myself.

The problem is about a good/bad answer to a certainly bad question.

• If an answer can be found by a simple search query at ELU (e.g. 2,260 hits like here), it is no longer a "real, practical question". It indicates no research effort by the asker, "asking just for sake of reaping some low-hanging rep points". Hence, the question must be closed as either NRAQ or offtopic.
• If a question has nothing to do about English Language Learners, e.g., native English speakers also can ask it (especially if they have already asked it at ELU during the years of its existence, and the question is open), it's an offtopic / belongs to ELU.
• When a question is already here, any answer (including an answer that cites ELL) is a good/bad answer to a certainly bad question. Indeed, if an asked has failed to search for "the more", someone else has to do it. And I agree, some answers at ELU are full of terminology, so the answerer must either adopt an existing one or find another, more suitable, one. This is an effort.

You are right, however: bad, easy-to-answer questions require less effort. The worst ones, NRAQ's or obvious duplicates, require almost zero effort.

Preventing bad questions and cross-dupes being asked, the whole problem of "answers that merely quote an existing answer" will be dramatically reduced.

What I see now is exactly what I was afraid of:
ELL is rapidly sinking into a clone of ELU. A worse clone.

---

To avoid it, we must meticulously check the questions for their conformance and burn with fire those asked just for sake of asking:

1. Is the answer to the question obvious to a native speaker? No → offtopic / belongs to ELU;
2. Is the answer can be found for another ELL question, regardless of the subject of another question? Yes → duplicate;
3. Is the question has been already asked elsewhere, and can be googled by a simple query? Yes →
   1. Is it, e.g., request for a dictionary article? Yes → NRAQ
      • except a special context where the meaning is unclear; A context must be given within a question;
   2. Is it a third-party site? Yes → Valid question, own answer is OK and encouraged;
   3. Is it ELU, and the answer at ELU clear for a language learner? Yes → offtopic / belongs to ELU;
   4. No → A valid question.

In any case, when anything relevant can be easily found, a question must contain relevant links to indicate a research effort and it must mention what the asker did not understand from the existing answers.