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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
