So, a few things.

1) There’s a difference between using an anonymous source and completely relying on them; this story would have been helped by the presence of at least one name. This obviously does not invalidate the story, but it does signal to me as a reader that I should proceed with caution.2) The reason you can, of course, get away with these anonymously-sourced attacks is that there are no allegations here that they guy has done anything that’s against the law (had there been, I’m sure you would have been much more circumspect with your anonymous sources). So what we’re left with is a story that says “several people that we talked to say this guy is a creep.” Which, OK! Good to know. But perhaps underwhelming. 3) More problematic is this: We’re presented with two full pages of anonymous people talking about what a jerk this guy is, and it’s not until halfway down page 3 that Mr. O’Donnell gets a chance to defend himself. Even then, it appears from the story that his primary chance to do so occurred in an ambush question at a lunch. While that’s a perfectly fine journalistic technique, this story at best reads as completely unfair to its subject. It appears that far more reporting time was spent collecting allegations than in seeking a response; certainly, far more space is devoted to detailing these charges than to allowing this supposed monster a chance to give his side of the story.

Mark Coatney’s take on the BetaBeat story on O’Donnell is terrific and worth reading.