Providing authorship information on every visible page
A simple solution on en.wiki would be to provide authorship information to the reading community on every visible page.
A pop-up graphic showing the top 10 editors by text added could make quality assessment a bit easier. (This is currently available only to those initiates who know where to find it: view history > revision history statistics) .
The page I linked to above shows, for example, that a user named Sagecandor composed 98% of the text of the book review review of The Plot to Hack America. It also shows that the biggest removal of content was by a member of ArbCom who spends a lot of time reading off-wiki criticism of en.wiki corruption. A reader being able—at a glance—to see whether there was consensus on articles or if—rather—one account was largely responsible for the text (e.g. the promo of Taibi's Insane Clown President book or the BLP of Michael Caputo).
I noticed that IAC's Daily Beast was interested in that last article recently but failed to mention its principal author. If even elite Clintonite journalists can't figure out how to find authorship information on Wikipedia and end up looking foolish as a result, I can see why people might get frustrated with Wikipedia's poor transparency with regard to protected accounts. I see another IAC is interested in encouraging the WMF to comply with German law and give encyclopedia readers the tools to determine the degree of advertising a page contains. I do believe adding that pop-up graph would go a long way in terms of increasing Wikipedian transparency. What do you think, Doc? Katherine? inline? SashiRolls (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I built of mockup of the idea in 2014 which you can see here 
The text says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Contributors" with contributors linked to this tool. Authors are linked in the byline right were people would expect them to be. Discussion was here and here
We had the ability to turn this on for all medical article as a gadget for three months. Problem at that point in time was that the tool was unstable and I was unable to find any programmers to fix it. Would love to see this pushed forwards again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll look into that this WE. Thanks (again) for telling me about the fate of the previous initiative; it's really too bad there were technical problems. SashiRolls (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)