The question of which ones of the list philosophers will 'balk at' is quite different from the question of 'what would work' i.e. what would improve the content. Answer: none of them. They are all eminently sensible and desirable. On citation I can remember getting this drummed into me as part of my elementary philosophical training some years ago.
Now: why haven't they worked?
Peter
To avoid any confusion here, my point was that:
1. None of the items on this list http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000... would be balked at by philosophers. Philosophers already address most of these basic principles in their own work.
2. Equally, none of them, singly or collectively, would in my view address the problem of why philosophy is such a problem in Wikipedia. Philosophers already address most of these basic principles in their own work, and they apply them on Wikipedia. They haven't worked. Philosophy is worse now than in 2005 (2007at the latest).