It is still completely unclear to me if Wikipedia counts as a publisher (which is looks like it is but it says it isn't).
I'm not sure it's really relevant. The WMF claims to be whatever is required for Section 230 (or whatever it is) protection, although I'm not at all convinced it actually qualifies (although I think there may now be case law saying it does).
Still though I really don't think the "Is Wikipedia a single GFDL work or a collection of GFDL works?" is relevant since as far as I can possibly see the current set up already complies in good faith with all the licenses, at least for as long as Wikipedia itself exists online.
It's only relevant to your suggestion to include one long list of names. Wikipedia includes separate lists for each article, I would suggest you do the same.
Your argument about "reasonable definition" I don't buy. 95% of authors only give pseudo-names, which are often real name of other people whom they are not. The identification of most of the authors requires their user page as well, or to refer to "the user who used the pseudonym of John Smith on Wikipedia" in which case the references are back to Wikipedia and we might as well send everything there.
I think it is reasonable to assume that someone contributing to Wikipedia under a pseudonym is happy to be credited under that pseudonym.
It is a reasonable definition these days to tell people where they can find the information they require online.
Not when one of the major purposes of the DVD is that it can be used when you don't have internet access. (The other major purpose being that it's specially selected and checked for UK school children.)
Countless instruction manuals and safety notices do this now. We say there are authors who deserve credit and where to find them. I think thats better than pretending a list of names and IPs means much to anyone.
It's means what
For transparency ref comments on "censoring" we could give the URL to the exact version number of the article we used, as an article history.
I don't see much point in that, myself.
Beyond this I don't think further effort increases the compliance. But I repeat my comment I am serious about wanting feelgood for contributers. Perhaps there is a way of doing this sensibly.
I think just including a list of names (and maybe IP addresses - there is an argument that contributing anonymously waives your right to attribution) for each article would vastly improve compliance, would make contributors happy and would not be a significant amount of work. You can provide a direct link to the Wikipedia history page so people can get the full information, simply as a courtesy, as well.