There was a non-sequitor here. You said:

You seem to have equated "attributable to a person" as signal and "non-attributable" as noise. Is that really so? We see lots of "signal" coming from Anonymonks. You can argue that the quality/quantity of this signal is diminished without the ability to attribute it to an author, but that doesn't make it "just noise".

Further, even that consideration isn't compelling. There are three good reasons to keep anonymous monks around that you haven't considered:

1. Just because no evident reason to be anonymous is apparent now, it doesn't mean it cannot exist (this is called negative evidence).
2. It is likely that removing anonymous monks would cause some monks to leave the site entirely (e.g. Tilly has indicated that he would). (Loss of current signal)
3. Many current monks have used anonymity as part of the "learning" process to the monastary. Making this change would likely reduce the number of future members (Loss of future signal)

So overall, I don't quite see why you think anonymity is so damaging to the signal-to-noise ratio of the site.