[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
Platonides at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 23:59:19 UTC 2009
Sam Johnston wrote:
> You're right, which is another great reason *not* to link to the history
> page URLs (which are as ugly as sin) but to the article directly (which is
> *significantly* more useful for the reusers' users). While I find it very
> hard to believe Wikipedia will cease to exist, the same can't necessarily be
> said for PHP and ugly GET requests are already a dying breed... If we do
> eventually find a sensible way to identify primary authors then we can
> always promote them to the article page, or a separate info/credits page
> (which could include other metadata like creation date, edit and editor
> counts, etc.).
> On the other hand if we *must* have a separate link then perhaps appending
> '/info', '/credit' or similar to the article URL would be a better choice.
> Alternatively we could set up something like a purl partial redirect or even
> run our own short link service (eg http://wikipedia.org/x9fd) which would
> reliably point at a specific version and survive moves etc.
> There are plenty of solutions - we just need to work out which one works
> best and offends the least people.
The way to go would be using wikipedia.org/history/article
The software already allows doing that (it's not configured on WMF sites).
More information about the foundation-l