^To elaborate, I think the experiment shows that anarchists think that democracy suck, and that anarchists will try to undermine democracy whenever it is in play. Democracy, while slow, lets players go through demanding situations with a lot better ease than anarchy does, as the latter only works in a setting when you can afford to make a hundred mistakes for every thing you get right and have all the time in the world to do so. Still, the mob prefer anarchy, because it lets them execute commands that go against the wants and needs of the many.
The most interesting thing to note, however, is the human tendency to blame everything that goes wrong on dicks trying to ruin the collective effort of hundreds of otherwise well-coordinated gentlemen. In reality, it's the lag that causes many people to misinterpret what really is going on. A command that might look like a helpful nudge in the right direction, will be executed long after it is given, and might end up sending the character flying over a ledge. Likewise, whenever a menu is opened, people try to help selecting the right option, but the storm of button presses ends up making the entire process totally random. Still, if you ask the average viewer what the reason for failure is, most will assume malicious intent. Trolling is not a big problem. Minsunderstandings or random happenstance usually is.
Either way, the popularity of the experiment shows that democracy or anarchy, while strictly inefficient, is a lot more enjoyed by everyone than dictatorship is. When everybody participates, much fun is produced (and art, religion and social commentary). A solitary let's play would never attract this kind of attention, despite that it would probably have beaten the game thrice in this time span.
Speaking of "let's play", this has to be the most literal usage of the term ever.