On 21 January 2015 at 00:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
2015-01-21 13:40 GMT+02:00 geni geni...@gmail.com:
On 21 January 2015 at 00:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
(sort of) related to this old thread... the DOI resolver site went
down today because they apparently forgot to renew the domain, and the
author of this blog post from CrossRef (who runs it) suggests relying
on *us* for persistent identifier stability:
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
Andy Mabbett, 30/12/2014 22:53:
Where 's the best on-wiki (Meta?) place to propose this?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfC looks ok *if* you have enough
information already. For instance, AFAIK DOI has a non-negligible cost
and Internet Archive uses ARK instead for this reason.
Information
Il giorno mer, 31/12/2014 alle 09.25 +0100, Federico Leva (Nemo) ha
scritto:
Andy Mabbett, 30/12/2014 22:53:
Where 's the best on-wiki (Meta?) place to propose this?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfC looks ok *if* you have enough
information already. For instance, AFAIK DOI has a
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
On 31 December 2014 at 10:10, Laurentius laurentius.w...@gmail.com wrote:
The WMF could be a DOI registrant
It looks quite expensive indeed:
Yes, that would seem to be prohibitive (and unreasonably so).
Pity.
Does ARK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archival_Resource_Key
have any
Digital object identifiers are an international standard for document
identification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier
The WMF could be a DOI registrant, and resolve DOIs in the form
10..Qn for Wikidata items, or, say, 10..en:609232908 for:
