Context :

As I just hit the evil reputation, 666 (don't worry it's already over), I eventually did something bad here : copy-paste content, forgot to mention the source and got caught by the author, ooops !

Well, StackExchange content is under cc-by-sa license allowing me to remix that content with conditions.

This is an already discussed topic but, as I understood it, the blog post was more aimed at attributions while doing external reuse of the content. In that case it's fair to cite (or not to remove) author's name and original url while copying whole answers.

In my case I just copied 2 lines of another answer because I noticed it could improve mine. Original author isn't cited, AskUbuntu obviously is. I voted up the reused content.

I don't want to piss off users, especially those with a high reputation ;-) because they like to be cited and I did not. Moreover I know for sure that people are happy to see they contributed to something even if it is anonymously (because in my point of view, that's how and why free software works).

I usually link to external content but for small excerpts it isn't clear to me how I could do a full attribution without losing conciseness. I'd better not use external content if it makes my answers less clear.

Question(s) :

1. Is it fair to just reuse content if it stays in StackExchange without worrying for attributions because I already "paid" the other one with my (anonymous) vote ?
2. Is something like I reuse content ¹ a nice solution ?
3. Now that I wrote all this crap, wouldn't it be better to just tell the user and clear answers of any internal attributions if I think the attribution itself does not add so much value to my answer. I think he will agree in most cases if asked.
4. Imagine my remixed answer is again reused. From a more general point of view, how should the many-contributors-situation be handled ? It does not seems too obvious : Share-Alike without Attribution topic.