Hi,
The problem for users who see a long list of anon edits is that they don't know if they are perfectly OK edits that have been looked at by others and not thought to need correction (hence the absence of usernic edits) or if they simply have never been checked. All too often, faced with a massive list
In other words: an article last edited by an anon is ambiguous: either it hasn't been checked, or it has been checked and accepted. However, an article last edited by a user is equally bad: either it was checked and fixed (reverted), checked and improved further, or wasn't checked but improved in some other area (eg, typo, interwiki link etc). In other words, Wiki lacks a way of rating/checking articles/changes. I've often thought it would be good to be able to comment on changes in the history. Say an anon changes a population figure. I would like to flag it and say "can someone check this", while making some unrelated change. My unrelated change can easily bury their possibly malicious change....
Steve