[pol]

What a mean-spirited thing to do to someone who just wanted to stay anonymous. It makes me sad and angry.

If this is the reason _why decided to pick up and leave, I understand it. We have his code, it will live on. Perhaps he will return in another guise.

[KVFinn]

>>What a mean-spirited thing to do to someone who just wanted to stay anonymous. If this is the reason _why decided to pick up and leave, I understand it.

If that's why he quit though it's going to have the opposite effect. I doubt more than a handful of people cared to look into _why's identity before today. I've read the guide, watched his talks, and read probably 80% of his blog articles, and I never knew his identity was some kind of secret. But with the disappearance it's now on everyone's mind.

There's a name for this effect but I can't think of it. It often comes up when somebody sues somebody else to remove some bit of information. The suit becomes a news story, and suddenly where 10 people might have known the information, the info is on the daily news as they cover the suit.

[cpach]

That would be the Streisand effect: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Streisand_eff...

[gjm11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect .

[projecktzero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Striesand_effect

[ekyuri]

>>But with the disappearance it's now on everyone's mind.

Yeah I totally agree with you!!

[imbaczek]

mean-spirited? he gave the internet a challenge and somebody took it up, that's all.

oh, and it doesn't have to be his real name, too.

[scott_s]

By using a pseudonym, he implied he'd rather not be known by his given name. Telling the world his real then goes against his wishes. It is, at the very least, rude.

That someone outed him is inevitable. But that doesn't excuse the act.

[Semiapies]

Rude, I'd agree. No more, though - we're certainly not talking about exposing where Salman Rushdie's sleeping tonight. How rude, even, is an open question. This doesn't exactly rise to the level of pestering J. D. Salinger at his house.

Trying to be anonymous is one thing. Trying to remain anonymous while writing books and blogs and making public appearances, all under one common identity, is downright quixotic and just a bit presumptuous. Simply saying his preference was to be anonymous doesn't really create much of an obligation upon the rest of the world. You can't actively be a public figure and avoid being public.

[scott_s]

I actually agree with all of that, but it still requires one person to say "I want to out him!" And that person is being rude.

[Semiapies]

I agree. I'm just not sure how rude.

When there's a picture of you in your Wikipedia article from a public event you chose to speak at, you've made yourself just a "Hey, I know that guy!" away from being outed. At that point, I don't think you can claim it's a major affront when someone puts public information together to identify you.

I think the "who is why the lucky stiff" blog is odd and a bit dickish, but I'm not appalled.

I'm also skeptical of that purported outing as the cause of all this; this is one story I think that a bunch of people chatting and commenting are precisely the least well-suited way to work out the truth.

[eli]

For what it's worth, Why actively campaigned at one point to have his wikipedia page deleted.

Say what you will, but I'm pretty sure he was genuine in his effort not to be identified or celebrated.

[ahoyhere]

Except that this enigma was something just about everyone treasured about him. He's a Ruby community treasure, our slightly twisted crown jewels. And the reason nobody tried harder before, or if they did they kept quiet, was out of respect for that cherishing.

He has always seemed a bit delicate, and that's why the rest of us always treated him gently. And he repaid us ten-fold with his quirky gifts.

This is like the rape of a beloved children's character. Not just learning that the Easter Bunny isn't real, but learning it when a drunken cop knocks out the kindly old man in the bunny costume, rips its furry head off, and pisses in it.

It's Just Not Done.

Just because the door is open, doesn't mean you have to walk through it. Adults consider the wider impact of their actions, rather than doing something just because "it's a challenge."

[Semiapies]

Personally, I like _why, "Jonathan Gillette", or whomever he actually is, because of his humor, talent, and kindly style.

As to the rest, it might be best not to assume we know what's going on in this situation.

[benjaminbooth]

As a long-time Rubyist and admirer of _why, I completely agree with this.

The whole thing saddens me. I wonder how _why could ever repeat such a public endeavor, even under a new guise.

[petercooper]

"Outing" is when you publish private information about someone. In this case the e-mail headers were both in public space. Highlighting something that's already public is not the same as breaking someone's confidentiality.

[astine]

Did he literally put out a challenge or do you actually see a person's privacy as a game?

[moe]

The wikipedia page shows an image of him apparently giving a public speech. If his privacy was so precious to him I don't think he would do things like that. Hence I would say this was just a little game - and he lost.

[astine]

If his privacy was so precious to him I don't think he would do things like that.

But you don't know, and neither do I. It looks like someone played this game, and we lost.

[watt]

privacy must be respected, and actually should be enforced by everybody, including you. meaning: even if you know him, you should pretend that he is anonymous person, disconnecting the _why persona from the real-life person.

for example, if you know him, and you hire him, you still should ignore the on-line _why persona, because for privacy purposes, it is separate, anonymous entity, and you should not connect it to real person. that's what privacy should be.

[moe]

I honestly don't get the futz about this.

Also the whole "if you hire him you're obliged to ignore any other identities you know about" is just completely out of this world.

Again: If he valued his privacy so much then why did he appear in public? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[Vitamin]

Uggh. If privacy must be protected by civic order it's already a lost cause. All these good people standing up for privacy--it only serves to increase the market value of violations.

Honestly, I think it's better to throw out the notion of digital privacy entirely and start pushing the notion of universal visibility, and accountability. Once everyone is naked, we'll stop obsessing over the naughty bits.

[csallen]

The anonymity and lack of personal accountability provided by the internet rarely have good effects. What's interesting is how fervently people fight to protect this anonymity, even though it doesn't really exist when we interact with strangers in the real world.

I'm not saying that online privacy is worthless of course, just noting that it is quite unique.

[adambyrtek]

Privacy is not the same as anonymity.

[judofyr]

Apparently, giving a public speech didn't reveal his identify, so why shouldn't he "do things like that"?

[Adam503]

a public speech where? a programming language conference. No disrespect intended to anyone here, but making a presentation at the technical conference does not make one either a public figure.

[Keyframe]

I don't know why are you downvoting him - HACKERS of all people should understand the nature of challenges - be them called for or not.

[eli]

Even if I accept that explanation, posting the information online is no challenge. That's just being a jerk.

[lil_cain]

Not every challenge is meant to be taken up.

Respect for people's wishes is important too. It's quite clear that _why didn't want people to know who he is. Fair enough, if you wanted to work that out. I don't think you should, but I could understand it. Telling the world? That's trying to wave your E-penis at the cost of one of the ruby world's best contributors.

[apotheon]

I don't think it was mean-spirited. I do, however, think it's a crying shame.