(Thanks to Flickr photographer Thomas Hawk for this incredible Twitter image.)

Does anyone know what is the proper way to cite a Twitter reference? Or should we be asking how do you catch a moonbeam in your hand? (I think that is a Rogers and Hammerstein reference, a rather schmatzy rendition of phaeochromocytoma). HASTAC pal Steve Burnett (thereminist extraordinaire) poses this question and it makes me wonder if anyone out there has an answer but also wonder (a la "Maria") if there is a need to have a citation style for texts that well may evaporate? I am writing an article on humanistic aspects of technology for a handbook published by Oxford University Press---and they won't even let us use url's as citations since, they argue, their books will be around lots longer than one can predict that websites will persist. Or maybe we should start rethinking citation practices as ARCHIVAL practices: that is, the url's may eventually lead us to internet dead ends, but they show the tracks that once were in the water (or what was once the water). Thus: the moonbeam in the hand. Maybe you can't catch 'em, but you can document where they once were and what they looked like when they used to reside there.

Any one else have any thoughts to share on this ephemeral topic?