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

(Foolish question: can oldids be reconstituted from dumps?)


On 21 January 2015 at 00:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) <> wrote:
> 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:
> «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 was launched.»
> I looked into 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 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:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

- Andrew Gray

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to