See, that's the interesting point that a lot of armchair lawyers don't actually know. Copyright, in fact, entitles you to use other peoples work. Copyright literally means "Right to Copy." but there are rules attached to that, the main ones being accreditation and ownership. For me, you can quote someone's work all day long so long as it is clear that's what you are doing with fully-functioning links to where that source material is located and who it belongs to. I'm not in the slightest receptive to the argument "We'll in other countries it's acceptable to....." The vast majority abide by the "No plagiarism" stance, and so should everyone else.
If someone (Maybe yourself) releases a post made up of purely Hyperlinks to whatever, let's say News Stories for argument's sake, I would call that low quality because basically, all the author has done is copy those links from an RSS Reader and pasted them into the post. I'm not sure even commenting on those feeds within the post is of any great value either? It kind of reminds me of those scumbags on Youtube who do those "Reaction to....." videos whereby they take someone else's Youtube video and just act like a dick while watching it, pretending they've never seen it before.
So I would have to say this is probably a low-quality post which leaves it up to the community to decide if it is of value or not by the power of voting. I wouldn't say it was plagiarism as you've given the sources, which in turn means this post does not fall under Hivewatchers (Self-appointed) remit IMO. It's a community matter.