What, really?

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.

Not just w.o.m. anecdotes, multiple police investigations that went nowhere

http://www.google.com/search?q=harvey+weinstein+abuse&dcr=0&...

Does not help fix anything by keeping the person anonymous

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?