by ted » Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:10 am
To be fair, the article mentions Rall once, in the middle of a list of several other names, but with no indication of the nature or extent of his contributions to cable theory. This cannot simply be attributed to lack of historical knowledge, because the article mentions the accomplishments of several earlier investigators, most of whom are now almost forgotten, and none of whom did nearly as much work on cable theory as Rall did.
I doubt that the omission is malicious; most likely it reflects the ignorance of the author. Editorial review does not guarantee completeness or even-handedness, but somehow I think the article would have been different if Wikipedia had effective editorial review.