> would you consider it problematic to learn about, say, a philosopher, preacher, guru, etc. who was cited by a bunch of people like Sam Altman, Paul Graham, e

> would you consider it problematic to learn about, say, a philosopher, preacher, guru, etc. who was cited by a bunch of people like Sam Altman, Paul Graham, etc.? Potentially, yes. What does the biographic information add to the story? If this hypothetical philosopher were influencing people under a pseudonym, then their real identity is important only if it somehow interacts with their influence. Maybe there's a conflict of interest; maybe there's some sort of fraud (i.e. it'd be remarkable of Alexander were not in fact a psychiatrist); maybe the person is otherwise independently notable in a surprising way. The Times article was written from the perspective that Alexander's blog is harmful, dangerous, or risky because of its message. That perspective is neither strengthened nor weakened by hearing irrelevant details about the messenger, so in a publication always short on column-inches I'd think that the balance of convenience is in preserving the pseudonymity.