First, there's the issue of copyright. While we cannot be guardians against copyright violations (as I understand it, if we make a habit of removing content for being in violation of a license, then we may be held responsible if we then fail to do so in one instance), we (the community and moderators) do have some latitude in deleting dubious content, so content that may be violating a license will be held to particularly high standards. Here, the license is a Creative Commons license that allows copying (the same as on Stack Exchange, as a matter of fact), so verbatim (or not) quoting with attribution is legal.

Second, there's the issue of plagiarism. Content copied without attribution will be deleted on sight. Here, attribution was given, so everything is fine.

Then we get to the next issue: is the answer valuable? I think so; it doesn't answer the question completely, but it's a very good start. Who posted the answer is immaterial: we judge posts by their content, not by their author.

Finally, the crux of the matter: the question. The reproach I've seen against the question is that it's covered by a general reference. I disagree: no one has come up with such a general reference. The answer from the Star Wars Wikia only covers one half of the question, and it is not of impeachable accuracy and completeness (see also What sites should be considered general references?, What are standard internet reference sites for SF?).

As for the fact that the asker answered his own question, this is not a problem. In fact, it's OK to ask and answer your own question; it says so right in the FAQ of all Stack Exchange sites. As it happens, the asker found an answer after posting his question; it is good that he contributes back, and a self-answer is encouraged in such a case.

If you don't think the asker did enough research before posting the question, downvote it. I see no reason to close the question.

Question reopened, and case closed. (If only!)

First, there's the issue of copyright. While we cannot be guardians against copyright violations (as I understand it, if we make a habit of removing content for being in violation of a license, then we may be held responsible if we then fail to do so in one instance), we (the community and moderators) do have some latitude in deleting dubious content, so content that may be violating a license will be held to particularly high standards. Here, the license is a Creative Commons license that allows copying (the same as on Stack Exchange, as a matter of fact), so verbatim (or not) quoting with attribution is legal.

Second, there's the issue of plagiarism. Content copied without attribution will be deleted on sight. Here, attribution was given, so everything is fine.

Then we get to the next issue: is the answer valuable? I think so; it doesn't answer the question completely, but it's a very good start. Who posted the answer is immaterial: we judge posts by their content, not by their author.

Finally, the crux of the matter: the question. The reproach I've seen against the question is that it's covered by a general reference. I disagree: no one has come up with such a general reference. The answer from the Star Wars Wikia only covers one half of the question, and it is not of impeachable accuracy and completeness (see also What sites should be considered general references?, What are standard internet reference sites for SF?).

As for the fact that the asker answered his own question, this is not a problem. In fact, it's OK to ask and answer your own question; it says so right in the FAQ of all Stack Exchange sites. As it happens, the asker found an answer after posting his question; it is good that he contributes back, and a self-answer is encouraged in such a case.

If you don't think the asker did enough research before posting the question, downvote it. I see no reason to close the question.

Question reopened, and case closed. (If only!)

First, there's the issue of copyright. While we cannot be guardians against copyright violations (as I understand it, if we make a habit of removing content for being in violation of a license, then we may be held responsible if we then fail to do so in one instance), we (the community and moderators) do have some latitude in deleting dubious content, so content that may be violating a license will be held to particularly high standards. Here, the license is a Creative Commons license that allows copying (the same as on Stack Exchange, as a matter of fact), so verbatim (or not) quoting with attribution is legal.

Second, there's the issue of plagiarism. Content copied without attribution will be deleted on sight. Here, attribution was given, so everything is fine.

Then we get to the next issue: is the answer valuable? I think so; it doesn't answer the question completely, but it's a very good start. Who posted the answer is immaterial: we judge posts by their content, not by their author.

Finally, the crux of the matter: the question. The reproach I've seen against the question is that it's covered by a general reference. I disagree: no one has come up with such a general reference. The answer from the Star Wars Wikia only covers one half of the question, and it is not of impeachable accuracy and completeness (see also http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/q/689, http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/q/403).

As for the fact that the asker answered his own question, this is not a problem. In fact, it's OK to ask and answer your own question; it says so right in the FAQ of all Stack Exchange sites. As it happens, the asker found an answer after posting his question; it is good that he contributes back, and a self-answer is encouraged in such a case.

If you don't think the asker did enough research before posting the question, downvote it. I see no reason to close the question.

Question reopened, and case closed. (If only!)

First, there's the issue of copyright. While we cannot be guardians against copyright violations (as I understand it, if we make a habit of removing content for being in violation of a license, then we may be held responsible if we then fail to do so in one instance), we (the community and moderators) do have some latitude in deleting dubious content, so content that may be violating a license will be held to particularly high standards. Here, the license is a Creative Commons license that allows copying (the same as on Stack Exchange, as a matter of fact), so verbatim (or not) quoting with attribution is legal.

Second, there's the issue of plagiarism. Content copied without attribution will be deleted on sight. Here, attribution was given, so everything is fine.

Then we get to the next issue: is the answer valuable? I think so; it doesn't answer the question completely, but it's a very good start. Who posted the answer is immaterial: we judge posts by their content, not by their author.

Finally, the crux of the matter: the question. The reproach I've seen against the question is that it's covered by a general reference. I disagree: no one has come up with such a general reference. The answer from the Star Wars Wikia only covers one half of the question, and it is not of impeachable accuracy and completeness (see also What sites should be considered general references?, What are standard internet reference sites for SF?).

As for the fact that the asker answered his own question, this is not a problem. In fact, it's OK to ask and answer your own question; it says so right in the FAQ of all Stack Exchange sites. As it happens, the asker found an answer after posting his question; it is good that he contributes back, and a self-answer is encouraged in such a case.

If you don't think the asker did enough research before posting the question, downvote it. I see no reason to close the question.

Question reopened, and case closed. (If only!)