I'd also like to point out that Stack Overflow's database is available to the public under the creative commons license. Quora's database is not.
• not if the original contributor ticked 'not for reproduction'
• no modifications
• pledge to remove an author's name, or update or delete content to match Quora, upon receiving a request
I can understand what motivates such conditions; I recall writing similar ones into a homemade license a decade ago. But they do prevent the easy and wide reuse a standard/CC license allows.
(Quora also has this perplexing statement: "[C]rawling the Service is permissible in accordance with these Terms, but scraping the Service without the prior consent of Quora except as permitted by these Terms is expressly prohibited." In common parlance, 'crawling' and 'scraping' overlap so much as to be nearly synonyms. So this statement makes these terms, like many others on the net, seem engineered to be vague enough that Quora can object to anything they don't like after-the-fact.)
That movement disappeared once SO started making the DB available for download.
What's untrue about it? While SO had a CC policy since the early days, the actual CC database, which was the subject of my post, was made available well over a year later, coinciding with a outpouring of foolish developers claiming that they could recreate the site on the weekend. I recall the timing simply because it was interesting seeing how that momentum disappeared.