On 10/03/2014 06:58 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
It’s great to see that this article has been formally
reviewed, although it is disappointing to see how short the author list for the formal
article is here, given how many people have actually contributed to the article over the
years.
In the corresponding blog post/editorial, you see them struggle with
that very problem and fail to find a solution that is entirely
satisfactory; they chose to do the "obvious" thing and credit directly
the people who have participated in the review process /itself/, and
link to the Wikipedia history page for the detail.
It's not perfect, but it's a surprisingly difficult problem to solve
given how radically different the editing traditions are (something they
go into details about themselves).
-- Marc