Weinstein had anecdotes floating around by word of mouth for decades. Maybe if some of those had been collected anonymously in a public forum, action would have been taken sooner.
The author describes outing him at a later occasion.
That means the person is not kept anonymous, his name is simply not included in this article.
Now, I think that omitting his name makes the article better, because it removes a distraction.
On the whole i think that whether or not his name should be mentioned depends on whether or not his behavior has changed -- with some bias in favor of not mentioning him, because... well people should be allowed to learn and improve themselves?
