Re^2: Anonymous Monk

I certainly accept the fundamental principle that different people like different things. That's not the gist of my inquiry. My question is an earnest and specific one about the rationale of the administrators of PerlMonks: Why did they implement a generic user named Anonymous Monk?

I'm asking the question because it seems incongruous to me. OK, I guess this means I'm also expressing a point of view, but I'm nonetheless asking a sincere question for the genuine purpose of knowing the answer. I'm not trolling.

Comment on Re^2: Anonymous Monk

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Anonymous Monk by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jan 19, 2011 at 01:43 UTC
My question is an earnest and specific one about the rationale of the administrators of PerlMonks: Why did they implement a generic user named Anonymous Monk? The original site design took a lot of code ideas and community guidance from Slashdot. Anonymous Monk is very similar to Slashdot's Anonymous Coward.	[reply]
Re^4: Anonymous Monk by Jim (Curate) on Jan 19, 2011 at 17:00 UTC
Wow! Thank you, chromatic, for this important historical fact. It lends a lot both to understanding PerlMonks' Anonymous Monk user and to this discussion and debate. Googling Anonymous Coward leads one to the Wikipedia article Anonymous Coward and to other informative resources. (I'm reading and enjoying your book. Thanks for it!)	[reply]