The oldid. At the moment, I trust our long-term viability more than a 2014 web-archiving startup, even one with praiseworthy names attached ;-)
(Foolish question: can oldids be reconstituted from dumps?)
Andrew.
On 21 January 2015 at 00:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
phoebe ayers, 20/01/2015 23:42:
suggests relying on*us* for persistent identifier stability:
Hmm I'm not sure that's what it's written there.
However, relatedly, also today: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/26/cobweb «The footnote, a landmark in the history of civilization, took centuries to invent and to spread. It has taken mere years nearly to destroy. [...] The footnote problem, though, stands a good chance of being fixed. Last year, a tool called Perma.cc was launched.» I looked into perma.cc some time ago but I had never read such an emphatic supporter yet. (Their stats also seem rather flat lately.)
The two articles combined make me wonder: if I cite a Wikimedia projects page in a long-term document, should I link something like perma.cc or to the oldid? I prefer the oldid, because I think it's every website's responsibility to offer really permanent links. But if such a permalink/archival service was offered by a national library with the guarantees of legal deposit... then I wouldn't be sure.
Nemo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe