No, I don't find it odd, for the reasons I explained.
I did not say an anonymous person cannot be an important source, I said that professional reporters, such as those that broadcast on huge networks like Fox or Clear Channel radio have a set of standards for how they do their reporting that make it almost impossible to report on Q.
Q is obviously an excellent source for people not bound by those rules, which is why you see tons of coverage him on single person blogs, you-tube channels, and public discussion forums, especially those that allow some level of anonymous or pseudo-nom commentary themselves (like Free Republic!).
The founders writing under pseudonyms were like the equivalent of Free Republic posters: that picked a handle and used it to push their vision and opinion, using the "boards" of the day, broadsheet newspapers. They were explicitly opinion pieces.
I am not an expert on the Federalist Papers, so I don't know if the editors knew who the gents were writing under those names in some or most cases.
Even today though many daily papers will allow people to comment anonymously or using pseudonyms on their articles (Though less and less).
But their editorial content? Not so much . If you are going to report that "Joesph Sixpack was drunk, and crashed his car" that is going to have to be an on-the-record comment, recorded by a reporter, almost always by a named source (the prosecutor).
The stuff Q is talking about isn't really an extended opinion piece like "why we should have more restrictive immigration". It's a long series of accusations.
I will also concede that the 1780s were a long time ago, and things like the press functioned quite different. Maybe the concept of "journalist" didn't even exist exactly at that time. The Missouri School of Journalism was the first J school in the world, and opened it's doors in 1908.
So, sure anonymous (unknown who they are) sources can be important sources, but they are not likely to be enough to get a story on Fox News or your favorite talk radio (unless it's an internet radio station).
So it's an very important case to watch, in my opinion.
Here is a link to the analysis done over at Conservative Treehouse: The Curious Case of James Wolfe Continues…
I also found it interesting that they indicted him for Lying to the FBI and not the bigger crime of leaking classified documents to the press, which they clearly have proof of.
I suspect foul play.