> The WMF could be a DOI registrant

It looks quite expensive indeed:

My experience is that to create a DOI you need to provide a basic level of metadata for each item rather than simply registering a target URL - I'm not sure how curated this needs to be, and it can probably be autogenerated, but there might be problems scaling it and doing it on demand. There is also a short delay before they become active at the central registry. (I've certainly seen cases where a publisher has issued a DOI then announced it to the world before CrossRef are able to resolve it, and it takes a day or two before the DOI works...) As a result, I don't think we could generate these on the fly and use a URL-shortener type approach - there might be problems with generating that many of them, and they would not reliably work at the moment they're generated. Andrew. On 30 December 2014 at 21:53, Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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.

phoebe ayers, 20/01/2015 23:42: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The oldid. At the moment, I trust our long-term viability more than a 2014 web-archiving startup, even one with praiseworthy names attached ;-)