Anarchism means 'without rulers' not 'without rules'. If you really want to grade licenses on how anarchist they are, the GPL is obviously more conducive to a world without rulers than BSD-style licenses.
For a semi anarchist society on a large scale, check out Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. This was anarchism in the original sense of the word though, and not in the recent US sense of the word (US liberterians/anarcho-capitalists seems to long for a return to something akin to feudalism rather than freedom in my opinion).
This continuous lowering of the "delete or not" bar should be pretty obvious to anybody who has followed Wikipedia for some time.
I used to be of the opinion that it was justified, but has realised lately that it has become a tool for political censorship. Some of the editing cliques have become very adept at suppressing unwanted views with dubious, but to many persuasive, application of the verifiability and notability policies.
I have seen this happen on several subjects, but as it has been over a year since I actively participated and followed Wikipedia internals, I cannot immediately give you a particular example.
My observation of this abuse of policy has been as a bystander by the way. I've never actively edited any articles on these subjects.
Typical subjects where there most certainly are well organized and ideologically motivated editorial cliques include US foreign policy, anything to do with Israel, Turkey and its history, anything relating to Islam etc.
Abuse of the notability policy is just one, but very effective, tool for censoring and controlling the content though.
Even the default IE8 on my stock Windows 7 Enterprise appears to be unique. In that case it's the browser plugins which identifies it (1 in 1277688). My installed plugins are nothing out of the ordinary: Java, Flash and WindowsMediaplayer.
Sample size seems to be a significant issue here. I'm one of two people on the site that had my user agent (1 in 638851), and while it's rare, sure, there are obviously a lot more than two people in the world running chromium x64 opensuse. Looking at the data it seems like most of the responses are bog standard for my particular software install, so it's basically saying I'm unique because:
* user-agent
* time zone
* screen size
Surely my TZ=EST and screen=1366x768x24 can't be too helpful in a large sample size.
And once chromium updates yet again, I think I'll be lost to the EFF test. It'll still see me as unique, but I'll be a different "unique" than the last time.
It does seem like browsers could easily cut back on user-agent details to the benefit of their customers privacy and security. Is it really necessary to tell every website I visit that I'm x64 instead of i386 just in case I'm not smart enough to know which download now button to click? It's probably most useful to malware domains for determining which version of the latest flash 0-day to push to me. And are we sure we need the exact build number of every browser? Most revisions of chrome aren't changing anything in the rendering behavior.
For a semi anarchist society on a large scale, check out Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. This was anarchism in the original sense of the word though, and not in the recent US sense of the word (US liberterians/anarcho-capitalists seems to long for a return to something akin to feudalism rather than freedom in my opinion).