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.