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