On 10/27/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
That's a matter of wording. GM proposed this using the language of statement (an effective technique to get things done). Ultimately, if enough are/were opposed to the proposal, it wouldn't be carried out.
Agree, it's refreshing really. I haven't seen anyone think this is actually a bad idea, and many people have raised the opinion that anon restrictions were detrimental since they were implemented. Are we seriously upset now because someone is taking some initiative? Having data before a discussion is never a bad thing, and it's not like one month of anon creation will destroy Wikipedia in any event. We'll probably get thousands of good new articles (and lots of crap of course, but hey).