I'm not sure that what I said above was particularly clear, so I feel like I should rephrase it. If you already understand this and are including links to the places where you find the articles, that's already the solution and I don't mean to pile on! But maybe others who see this will appreciate a clearer explanation.
Whatever sources you're systematically drawing on, each deserves acknowledging. By "systematically" I just mean that when people randomly pass around one-off links to random articles, there's no need to be particularly scrupulous about provenance, but when they're building projects on other platforms, that's different, and then there is such a need. Otherwise the balance between giving and taking is out of whack.
The "taking", in this case, is using HN (and other aggregators) as a source of links to interesting stories; this needs to be balanced by some "giving", and on the web, the well-established way to do that is to link back to the place you found it. That way, good things can flow in both directions: your readers get interesting things to read, but they also get to know about a community they might like, and the community has a chance to gain new readers who might enjoy it.
If you don't do that, then the claim you're implicitly making is that you scoured the entire web looking for those articles, rather than drawing them from other aggregators that already did that. That woudl be false and misleading—it's "taking" too much, in the above sense. What you're actually doing, which is looking at existing aggregators to find good content that got overlooked there, is (a) genuine work and (b) a wonderful contribution—and that's the work and contribution that you deserve and should take credit for. I don't mean to criticize that or minimize it! The existence of many good articles that get overlooked shows how much it's needed. It's simply that each contribution needs its proper acknowledgment.
