Since then, the move has been debated a number of times. One repeated criticism was that despite being cast as an experiment, it was not accompanied by any evaluation process or criteria for success, making it seem more a hasty reaction to the negative publicity surrounding Seigenthaler's article. And with the passage of time, it might appear that the change was ultimately destined to be permanent.

The prevailing view now seems to be that the restriction has run its course and is no longer desirable, if indeed it ever was, as the generally positive response to Maxwell's announcement on the English Wikipedia mailing list suggested. Some people have looked to the introduction of a MediaWiki feature for stable versions or flagged revisions as a step that would allow article creation to be reopened. However, like the similarly long-awaited universal login for all Wikimedia projects, progress in developing that feature remains unclear (a planned test on the German Wikipedia has yet to begin). The occasion did prompt some renewed debate about which version, stable or live, should be displayed as the default.

Addressing concerns about the validity of the previous experiment, Maxwell indicated plans to compile data during the one-month trial and called for volunteers to participate in a quality study. The strongest argument against the planned trial came from Todd Allen, who cited the abysmal success rate at Wikipedia:Articles for creation as evidence that very few of the additional contributions would prove worthwhile. Others countered that few unregistered contributors likely choose that option, preferring to actually register an account or work on existing articles instead. Discussion on the village pump, meanwhile, pointed to the large volume of new pages that get deleted even now, with several people arguing that it should not be opened up to even more people.

More of the criticism was directed not at the substance of the plan, but the nature of Maxwell's announcement. While he happens to be Wikimedia's Chief Research Officer (an unpaid volunteer position), Maxwell avoided saying that he acted in any official capacity. However, his confident tone and use of "we" in the announcement confused some people about who was behind the decision, and also brought complaints about failing to discuss the possibility beforehand. Board chair Florence Devouard said the experiment had not been ordered by the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating that she considered it purely a matter for the community to decide — although she expressed happiness about the decision. (The original experiment, at Wales's instigation, presumably falls under the powers he "reserves" as a project founder rather than his formal Wikimedia role at the time.)

In response, Maxwell argued that public discussion had already taken place earlier, and in fact his participation had helped disrupt "nearly unanimous" agreement to reverse the original experiment. In addition, he pointed out that no new information had come up since then, nor could it without a new experiment to see what unregistered article creation would produce. So after a discussion with Sue Gardner, Mike Godwin, and Kat Walsh, he had "decided to step up to move this forward."