Might be, but in general the attitude and laws surrounding ownership of code (and most anything else) is very different in Norway, and I would assume Sweden. Here anything you make is explicitly yours and you have full ownership over it, even if you made it on company time. I've talked to several larger IT firms in Norway about this and they all have said that it would be suicide to force their employees to sign away their rights to personal and side projects, but that it would also more or less be impossible to enforce.
You want reproducibility, the results will be affected a lot by your data source, real citations enable tools like google scholar. Why not cite? I see only drawbacks in continuing with the footnote/no citation trend.
> What is this TWO KILOMETRE long secret city unearthed by melting ice in Antarctica?
> A TWO kilometre long series of 22 sinister-looking structures have been revealed by thawing ice in Antarctica - prompting claims the installation is a World War 3 fall out shelter for the global elite or even a landing pad for incoming aliens.
'Discovered' on Google Earth. My bet is on simple data processing artifacts.
You could just use any free kind of canary instead, access to traps is easy to notice without any need for a complex external dependency or wasting big amounts of money.
> So what if a story or bit of information has to be retracted by law?
Then the news agency issues a retraction. It's already the case that the Internet will not forget, whether via the Internet Archive or http://www.newsdiffs.org/ .
In much the same way data can be retracted from printed copies of newspapers that already have widely circulated copies in both personal and institutional/library hands: by publishing a subsequent retraction later in the chain, like any other change.
Sure. But in the days of it systems and digitalization less and less is being printed. It’s also quite difficult to find and access these printed copies someone might have stored somewhere.
