I think that it's everyone's duty to take reasonable steps to fix these problems. It's arguable whether the specific step in question would be reasonable and productive, but dismissing it because it's "not her job" is wrong imho.
* she didn't "name and shame", and so managed to suck a lot of the personal drama out of the story, making it less fun to discuss on a message board, and so now us nerds will bitch about that --- but from up on our high-horse, so as not to have to concede that we're looking for a soap opera to distract us from our unit tests and CSS tweaks.
* by not naming the person who did this, she interrupted the flow of first-principles logic (the one that goes from "distilled raw facts in her narrative" to "preferred conclusions"), and the crudded-up plinko machines our brains use to evaluate these stories therefore lead us to doubt her narrative instead of just accepting the painful conclusion that sometimes good faith requires us to stipulate things and accept incomplete information.