Hi James,
first of all, congrats for proving this to be possible. As it has already been said it is an achievement nothing short of great.
2014-10-04 15:47 GMT+02:00 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
I agree all Wikipedia articles are sort of peer reviewed. When I speak about GA/FA I refer to it as Wikipedia's semi-formal peer review process.
With respect to authorship, the 5th to 10th contributors by number of editors were contacted and asked if they wished to be listed as an author. All of them declined feeling that they had not contributed sufficiently to justify being listed.
You mean by number of edits? (I do not understand what you mean with "by number of editors"). I think this is a reasonable criteria. (We may discuss on the results, i.e. everybody declined, so Wikipedian!)
Anyway I would like to suggest other metrics that could be used as a measure of paternity of the article, e.g. bytes added or removed[1], I would point you to Dario Taraborelli and the analytics teams for other ideas.
It also worth pointing out for the readers of this thread that there is not a single version of the article [[Dengue Fever]] that is identical to the article published (see [[Talk:Dengue fever]] here[2]), although I would like to be pointed to one (or a set of) closest version(s). (Finding automatically close versions would be super interesting).
Thanks.
Cristian
[1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADengue_fever&diff=6280...