[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.

[Semiapies]

It's possible to be truly unidentified and uncelebrated. It's not possible to do so while maintaining a specific identity, especially after it becomes well-known. That he maintained this identity well after it gained celebrity wasn't exactly forced on him.

[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.