On 19/11/12 02:09, MZMcBride wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Providing a traditional URL shortener with traditional features would be useful, at least for some people, and would eliminate the need to use third-party URL shorteners internally, which have a commercial focus and unknown lifetime. If there was no integration with MW required, it would only take a couple of hours to set up.
Who's using third-party URL shorteners internally? A lot of services would be useful to at least some people (Wikimedians), but the cost of setting up _and maintaining_ such a service can't be overlooked, in my opinion. Yes, it would take a few hours to set up a URL shortening service (if that), but who's going to be responsible for fixing bugs in it, adding features, and doing general maintenance to the service for the indefinite future? There are already a number of Wikimedia services that struggle for limited resources. Before we add another, we must answer the maintenance question.
MZMcBride
If a Wikimedia URL shortening service was to be created, it would make sense to, at the very least, (a) make the shortened link to real link mappings part of the standard Mediwiki XML dumps, so that they can be preserved alongside the content to which they refer, for access by future archivists, and (b) participate in initiatives such as the Internet Archive's 301works.org to preserve these links entirely outside the Wikimedia universe.
Also, on a separate but related note, has anyone considered creating DOIs for individual wiki page revisions?
-- Neil