Talk:Digital object identifier

message: It would be great if the article could discuss the difference between DOIs and URNs, since at first glance they seem to do much the same thing. —Psychonaut 01:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference from URNs

message: Recently  asked a question under Privacy Protection about why DOI providers need to collect IP addresses and domain names for people looking up articles. While this may be a valid point, I think it needs to be neutrally phrased (per WP:NPOV). If we can quote someone as asking that question (and cite a reliable source for them asking it), it is clearly OK. I'm not sure if we can ask it directly. I suggest this section needs to be rephrased. EdJohnston 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless a published source has questioned their data collection practices, I don't see why we would get involved in it.  That would be WP:OR.  We would not normally publish the results of an email inquiry; we need the info to be in published form. EdJohnston 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a little strange to get particular about publised sources on this point, when so far the article cites no independent sources at all. (Not saying that shouldn't use published sources, but should start by demonstrating notability and providing outside sources for what is here.) Zodon (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy protection? 

message: There are some issues to consider before adopting or using the DOI:
* Neutrality of code issuing or resolving organization : code-issuing or resolution restrictions inherits the dangers of censorship. IDF-FAQ-#22
* Privacy issues : ownership, security, data retention, and future usage plans for its resolution server logs still unclear. DOI-Privacy-Statement
* Lack of recognition and adoption compared with ISBN, or even Amazon's ASIN.
* Additional point of failure: additional resolution mechanism means another potential point of failure.
* Identifiers are numeric, so more difficult for people to use than alphanumeric systems.
x6 ?TFXZ0auf 97.81.98.1 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages 

message: The article is more-or-less totally about the Digital Object Identifier, rather than the generic digital object identifier. 
"The uncapitalised term 'digital object identifier' may be used non-specifically to describe a number of varied technologies concerned with the identification of entities in a digital environment. The capitalised term 'Digital Object Identifier' refers to one specific system defined and managed by the International DOI Foundation...". Norman Paskin (2008). "Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System". p. 2.
The article should be moved to Digital Object Identifier, unless it is going to be expanded to cover digital object identifiers in general. I favour the move. Nurg (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Digital Object Identifier or digital object identifier 

message: Article says "metadata are persistent", but is this correct? Is it not the case that the metadata is not persistent, but the DOI is persistent, and that this is precisely the value of having a DOI? Nurg (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistence of metadata? 

message: Three flags were added to this article by user DGG in Jan 2010. As the contributor who has added most on this article over the last year, I would be happy to help work to solve these problems, with some guidance if necessary.  I have edited to remove these flags pending a response to the following queries:  
“1.  This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article; suggestions may be found on the talk page. (January 2010).”  Reviewing the talk page here, these comments are quite old and seem to relate to earlier versions of the article. I don't see any specific suggestions meriting this flag. I believe most of the issues/problems have been addressed in subsequent 2009 edits, but am happy to help fix any that remain.  Please help by drawing specific questions and issues to attention.  
“2. This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Computing or the Computing Portal may be able to help recruit one. (January 2010)”.  The article was mainly put together by updating earlier material and adding new material by the Managing Agent of the International DOI Foundation with input from the IDF which created the system and the DOI System users and registration agencies.  Consequently it has been authored by experts in the subject.  In what further way is it “in need of attention from an expert?”: please provide specific questions and issues to be fixed. 
“3. This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (January 2010)”.  I endeavoured (a) to follow the Wikipedia guidelines, which say that  Citations can be presented within articles in one of five ways, the first being “By placing the citation in a list at the end of an article….” and that Editors are free to use any method; (b) to provide a clear narrative, with links to the main sources.   If there are specific references where the link is not clear, please mention these specifically.  Thanks Npaskin (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan 2010 flag additions 

message: User David Eppstein observed “try another tag since the last batch was just reverted without any improvements”.  Whilst no changes to the article were made as a result of the earlier (Jan 2010) tags, a response was added to Discussion (see “Jan 2010 flag additions” above) explaining why, and requesting further specific suggestions for change.   Please respond with any further specific suggestions. 
The tag “technical” [“This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please improve this article to make it accessible to non-experts, without removing the technical details”] was added.  In response, I have added an introductory section with a brief non-technical overview, followed by a Business Week quote with a reference to the 2001 Business Week article on the DOI System.  I have, as requested, not removed any technical details.  Npaskin (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of the sort of problem that exists in the current article (still): the first sentence has the phrase "managed system". I have no idea what a managed system is supposed to mean. Undefined and confusing jargon is used like this throughout the article. It makes it very difficult to read. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb 2010 flag additions 

message: # Who pays a DOI assignment fee?  (author of a book, editor of a journal, librarian, company, what?)
# Who do they pay it to?  
# What is the order of magnitude of a DOI assignment fee? ($10, $1000, $1 million)
# What advantages will be enjoyed due to the paying of the fee?
# What are some examples of countries where the DOI system is actively used? (i.e. places where new publications are being put into the DOI system)
# What are the the DOI Registration Agencies for the United States, England, Canada, Germany and China?
# Do DOI references get resolved through a central computer? If so, where is it located?
EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And why do so many DOIs refer to paywalled articles in scholarly journals? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some questions this article could answer 

message: The 1st para states "naming a document by its DOI provides a more stable mechanism than URLs for linking to online content", and cited http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_30/b3742032.htm. What this ref actually says is "Assuming the publishers do their job of maintaining the databases, these centralized references, unlike current Web links, should never become outdated or broken." However publishers do not always keep the databases up to date, so the assumption and the conclusion are incorrect, and do not adequately support Wikipedia's statement. Nurg (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note: more stable is very far from the same thing as perfectly stable. Your objection would make sense if the lede said that DOIs were infallable, but all it says is that they're not as bad as URLs. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More stable than URLs 

message: What is the official pronunciation of the acronym? Do-ee, doy, D-O-I? Gareth Jones (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: I disagree that "DOI names" is actually clearer than "Nomenclature" because the section talks about how the Digital Object Identifier system names objects, where as "DOI names" is ambiguous and somewhat contradictory as a reader would understand the that the system has several names for itself.174.3.125.23 (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that the section talks about strings that within the DOI system are called "DOI names", and explains clearly what a DOI name is, so that section title is simple and makes sense. "Nomenclature" is an unnecessarily sesquipedalian circumlocution that contravenes WP:TECHNICAL — by using longer and more obscure words than necessary it makes the article harder to understand. Not to mind that by hinting at the Nomenklatura it brings to mind all the bureaucracy and tendentiousness of the old Soviet Union. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree with you here.  "DOI name" is a term, but a system of terminology is nomenclature.  I feel the quality of the article is improved, also encyclopedically, with this section name.174.3.125.23 (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section heading from "DOI names" to "Nomenclature" 

message: The DOI system offers persistent, semantically-interoperable resolution to related current data and is best suited to material that will be used in services outside the direct control of the issuing assigner (e.g., public citation or managing content of value).
This is hardly grade eight reading level.  Plus it persists in confusing the DOI Foundation's aspirational definition with its reality on the ground (no org. ever overpromised and underdelivered). 
One could begin by writing "A fully maintained DOI system offers ..." and then move on to tackle "interoperable resolution to related current data" which could be a phrase lifted straight out of a techno-babble satire pastiche. — MaxEnt 21:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose remains difficult 

message: I don't know if this is going anywhere, but see also the Draft:Entity Registry System  ★NealMcB★ (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entity Registry System (ERS) 

message: While I'm very much in favour of the idea of DOI resolvers that prefer
open access versions of articles over
paywalled/free-registration-required version, the URL https: slash
slash oadoi.org has a quite risky javascript requirement. I've
replaced the less than and greater than symbols by LT and GT
to avoid triggering off any automatic mediawiki filters. Right now
the bottom of the http response I got includes:
 LT!-- our actual app --GT
 LTscript type="text/javascript" src="/static/ti.js"GTLT/scriptGT
 
 LTscript src="//localhost:35720/livereload.js"GTLT/scriptGT
 LT/bodyGT
which looks quite risky - requiring a javascript script to
be installed on the user's local machine...  I'm not sure if we should
show this URL directly...
Boud (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this risky? Person54 (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: requiring a javascript script to be installed on the user's local machine is asking for malware.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: if we started removing links on Wikipedia to pages on other sites which include javascript, we wouldn't have many links left.  Javascript is ubiquitous and the days when people disabled Javascript in their browsers or objected to pages with Javascript are ancient history.   In this specific case, if you are objecting to livereload.js being loaded from localhost, it is probably the open source developer tool available at https://github.com/livereload/livereload-js.  This is a system which allows edits by a developer to HTML files, CSS stylesheets, etc on his or her personal development system ("localhost")  to be reflected "live" (i.e. immediately) on the page without a manual reload in the browser.  It uses Web Sockets, and is a developer convenience. Probably someone involved in creating the page in question forgot (or didn't bother) to remove some development-time code.  The only people affected by this would be other developers who were already running a livereload-js server of their own on their local systems, and it would be harmless because developer A's livereload-js server wouldn't know anything about this HTML page from developer B, the developer of the page in question. Only developer B himself would have a livereload server that would do anything with this page.  Anyway, if you aren't a developer and you have some server you don't know about and not under your control running on port 35720 of your local system, serving up malware javascript files when you load random pages on the internet into your browser, your system was already compromised before you ever clicked on a reference link in this Wikipedia article. Person54 (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  oadoi dot org = risky URL? 

message: contentdirections.com going out of business and abandoning https://dx.doi.org/10.2277 might be worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AManWithNoPlan (talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find sources for contentdirections commercializing doi registration  but not to their leaving the market. Do you have any? Without sources we cannot mention it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  https://dx.doi.org/10.2277 has been blocked from adding new ones. Also, they seem to all fail to resolve since they all point to the contentdirections.com website. It looks like they have changed names, rather than being bankrupt.  https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-sidman-39110b https://www.buzzfile.com/business/Linkstorm-212-792-1847_no:4506533 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  contentdirections.com 

message: There's currently a requested move at Talk:DOI#Requested move 24 June 2023 to move one of the dabed articles to the base name as the primary topic. Thought I'd advertise it here to see if anyone wants to chime in given that there's probably not many people watching the dab page itself. Candidates seem to be United States Department of the Interior, Digital object identifier or these two being equivalent, so I'm advertising it at both talk pages though if someone else can name another one I might copy it over there as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary topic of DOI