David Gerard wrote:

I'm really not convinced that signing articles is an in-demand idea, let alone a good one.

Don't worry, if anybody tries to push it you can always threaten to lift the ban on Gzornenplatz (uh, I mean Wik), who spent some time following [[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] around removing all of his signatures that he put in non-displaying comments.

I agree that there's not much call for signing articles on a collaborative project when a detailed history function is available. Wikipedia is not a vanity press. The only thing that could justify it is when it's a way of taking responsibility for the content (as opposed to credit). For example, that's why I've adopted a practice of having signed articles on The Wikipedia Signpost, since it's effectively original reporting. But for encyclopedia articles, having an author take responsibility would be a pathetic stand-in for what we really need, which is more and better references so that information can properly be traced to its source. Plus we have a well-warranted policy against allowing original research in the encyclopedia.

--Michael Snow