Yeah, clearly we don't agree. I take the "no stones unturned" approach to journalism. Well, here's the thing. I work at a ("traditional"; been publishing paper

Yeah, clearly we don't agree. I take the "no stones unturned" approach to journalism. Well, here's the thing. I work at a ("traditional"; been publishing papers since the 19th century) news organization and I actually have the word "journalist" in my job title (how that replaced "developer" is a story for another thread). I spend as much time working with reporters and editors these days as I spend working with coders (unfortunately, much of it in meetings, but such is life). So I've ended up with a lot of exposure to a a particular, I guess somewhat conservative, perspective on journalism, and that's what I'm applying when I think about how this story should be handled. So. Find out who it was and publish some information to give context? Sure, that's useful. Ruin the guy's future as well as current career by making sure his name's permanently associated with this? No; it doesn't help the story in any way to do that. But then, Gizmodo's obviously operating on a very different definition of "journalism" (more akin to the supermarket-checkout tabloids), and it's not one that I really approve of because it ends up putting the focus on the least relevant information in order to drive up the sensationalism and the pageviews.