Just curious

November 21, 2002 10:56 PM

Just curious: I posted Wanda Hudak's phone number in a thread regarding her vile "25-cent bullet" comment; now it is gone.

As a public official, I do believe that she should be accountable for her official statements. Is posting a number which is a matter of public record a violation of MeFi etiquette and/or policy? Apologies, of course, if it is. I will respect the community/mathowie's wishes...but I will continue to think posting it was, and remains, valid.
posted by adamgreenfield to Etiquette/Policy at 10:56 PM (36 comments total)

my guess is that it smells a bit too much like a negative political ad campaign tactic
posted by yonderboy at 11:45 PM on November 21, 2002

I have been involved in online discussion forums since 1985, and in most cases, publicizing such information as phone numbers, snail mail addresses and email addresses for the reason you did has always been considered bad online etiquette. If anyone is interested enough in contacting a public figure, they will take the time to discover such information on their own.

Naturally, exceptions abound and the higher up the political ladder, the less abominable the offense, but generally speaking, bombarding a county official with phone calls from around the world is not going to help a situation.
posted by mischief at 12:59 AM on November 22, 2002

Someone emailed me to point out you posted her home phone number, asking everyone to call her and complain to her. Regardless of how public a figure she is, that's a bit far over the line and comes pretty close to harrasement. If you don't agree with her positions, write her an email or send a typed letter. Calling someone to argue with is a bit too much, and asking thousands of people to do the same sounds pretty severe.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:12 AM on November 22, 2002

I neglected to indicate that I was speaking of numbers and addresses of the person's public office. Private numbers and addresses should never be posted.
posted by mischief at 1:58 AM on November 22, 2002

I have been involved in online discussion forums since 1985

And here I had you pegged as an over-excited teenager. Well, fuck me. Shows how perceptive I am.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:07 AM on November 22, 2002

Adam, think of it this way: suppose an address, a phone number, or email address were posted on Metafilter, with the suggestion that mefites use this information to express their displeasure with somebody, and suppose that many members did indeed respond, and that as a consequence this was reported as news. Suddenly Metafilter is an entity with a specific point of view, perhaps even an agenda, and furthermore it is now considered an "active" entity that might weigh in on any number of issues.

How many people would be comfortable with that? I wouldn't. There is a diversity of opinion here, and most of it gets expressed thread by thread. If a news story links to a mefi thread, that's fine because all the differing points of view are fairly represented within the thread. On the other hand, if it is reporting that "Metafilter has made its voice heard" by its actions regarding some issue or the other, that would be a completely different matter... and a scenario that would make me deeply uneasy.
posted by taz at 2:54 AM on November 22, 2002

Is posting a number which is a matter of public record a violation of MeFi etiquette and/or policy?

Post your number on MeFi man, if there's nothing wrong about that.
We'll call you to express our appreciation to your tactics
posted by matteo at 4:01 AM on November 22, 2002

616-364-9162.
i'll be out until around 1pm EST (10am PST) but home after that. love to hear from y'all.
posted by quonsar at 4:22 AM on November 22, 2002

why do some people think that once someone becomes a politician they no longer need be treated with the kind of regard you'd give any other person?

imagine having your phone ringing several times an hour with angry people picking arguments. from all over the world - day and night.

my phone number is a "matter of public record" - you can get it from my cv or via the dns registration info - but the two times someone has called me out of the blue have been pretty freaky.

this person is a politican. it's a job. if you want to contact them about their job, go through the usual channels. if someone called me about work in the middle of the night i'd be rather annoyed.

or maybe that's the whole point. despite all the posturing about this being reasonable behaviour, the aim is just to annoy someone you disagree with....
posted by andrew cooke at 4:32 AM on November 22, 2002

why do some people think that once someone becomes a politician they no longer need be treated with the kind of regard you'd give any other person?
duh.
posted by quonsar at 5:11 AM on November 22, 2002

i disagree that politician is a job. a politician is a severe psychological aberration akin to sociopath.
posted by quonsar at 5:13 AM on November 22, 2002

Anyone else think quonsar has been drinking? Pal, I swear I am calling you if I ever get snowed in at an airport up there.
posted by planetkyoto at 5:39 AM on November 22, 2002

suppose an address, a phone number, or email address were posted on Metafilter, with the suggestion that mefites use this information to express their displeasure with somebody

Guess you weren't around for that 123hosting.com fiasco...
posted by crunchland at 6:09 AM on November 22, 2002

sorry... 123cheaphosting.com and here.
posted by crunchland at 6:12 AM on November 22, 2002

"As a public official, I do believe that she should be accountable for her official statements."

Sure. Maybe. But that isn't what you're doing by posting her number at Metafilter. All that does is incite a mob. When you unleash the dogs here (or any other big on-line forum) things get nasty. Is that really what you want? You endorse having hundreds of uninformed trouble makers calling her to tell her that she's lesbian pond scum and should be shot in the head? Or were you actually thinking people might be responsible and take her to task in a well reasoned and civil manner? Right. Whatever.

Really. You wanted harassment. Just admit it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:36 AM on November 22, 2002

Adam, what would be the response if I posted your whois info to this thread? I would probably get struck down just as you did. I always get think this type of this is inherently childish, and it really just what y6 says, incite a mob.
posted by mkelley at 7:02 AM on November 22, 2002

er..." and it really just what y6 says, incite a mob." should be

and it really just does what y6 says, incite a mob.
posted by mkelley at 7:08 AM on November 22, 2002

Politicians' phone numbers have been posted on MetaFilter before and the practice was debated here.

I don't think we should post people's home or office information; if the contact information is public record, someone who wants to reach a politician should be able to find their contact info.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:15 AM on November 22, 2002

kirkaracha, the difference being that in the case you cite, it was the office phone number, and even then it was controversial. Here, it's the home number, isn't it?
posted by mcwetboy at 7:35 AM on November 22, 2002

it's always disturbed me how phone numbers and addresses are posted on metafilter. normally, it's in reference to some "troll" or other person who fits the description of "bad guy", and normally is culled from publically available record such as their DNS information. nevertheless, it's always bugged me, and i've thought less of the people who've done it.
posted by moz at 8:31 AM on November 22, 2002

[Politicians' phone numbers have been posted on MetaFilter...]

I was waiting for that! Never did get any BS about it though.
posted by revbrian at 8:40 AM on November 22, 2002

I have a largish collection of bona fide Metafilter members' private cellphone numbers for sale, cheap. Wait, sorry, wrong thread.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:55 AM on November 22, 2002

Posting phone numbers is bad. I'm glad it was taken off. And diehard activists can always use The Detroit Free Press's technique: "Ralsky agreed to this interview and the tour of his operation only if I promised not to print the address of his new home, which I found in Oakland County real estate records."
posted by gsteff at 9:12 AM on November 22, 2002

pegged as an over-excited teenager

Ha! Just an old libertarian, formerly an objectivist and now tending toward anarchist. ;-P
posted by mischief at 9:25 AM on November 22, 2002

Anyone else think quonsar has been drinking?
pretty much non-stop right up through 1986! then i discovered drugs!

I am calling you if I ever get snowed in at an airport up there.
you got my number! but hey, we ain't got just any old airport up here. we got the one and only Gerald R. Ford International Airport! be careful not to trip while deplaning, and watch out for flying golf balls!
posted by quonsar at 11:19 AM on November 22, 2002

I *heart* you, quonsar.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:28 AM on November 22, 2002

As a public official, I do believe that she should be accountable for her official statements

Definitely agree, but unfortunately, the vast majority of us are not the public she's accountable to - she's chairwoman of a county (Broome - pop. 200,000) committee that overseas that county's SSD. I'm not sure what number you shared (it's unclear to me), but both are inappropriate in my eyes - sharing her personal number is just rude, an invitation to harass; sharing her office number is just an invitation to waste a distant county's limited resources.

That said, after hearing some of the stories from my Court Advocate sister (she assists the battered in court proceedings, basically), I don't necessarily disagree with her '25 cent bullet' solution for abusive boyfriends. Of course, this essentially ends any serious political career for her...
posted by Doktor at 11:40 AM on November 22, 2002

It's Matt's decision, of course, but I disagree with his call. Public means public, period, and the more accountable ALL public people are, the better off we all are. Don't think phone calls are effective or appropriate? Just look at how television networks can be swayed by 300 calls out of millions of viewers.

But people are going to be wrestling with the concept of what privacy means in the 21st century for many years to come. Clearly, most people haven't a clue at this point, tending to defend the wrong bits and give up the essentials.
posted by rushmc at 4:35 PM on November 22, 2002

But rushmc, what good is a call from San Francisco going to do? That's not her constituency, and from the sound of the article, the people in her district are plenty riled up about it. Those are the people who should be calling, and those are the callers who should be heard. I'd be willing to wager that 99.9% of MetaFilter aren't in her district, can't vote for or against her, so what good could come out of calling her- especially at home?
posted by headspace at 8:57 PM on November 22, 2002

I wouldn't call her at home, any more than I would call any politician at home (or judge or CEO or doctor), but I wouldn't hesitate to call her at the office on a matter related to her job. Seems like a no-brainer. I don't agree that actions that public officials take in our country are only of concern to members of their local constituency...seems like sticking one's head in the sand to me and letting small idiocies grow to large ones (see: Katherine Harris, Florida). People outside her district may not be able to vote her out, but they certainly are entitled to express their opinions. If enough do, maybe her constituents will take notice of the issue (and I'm speaking generally here, not to this specific case).
posted by rushmc at 9:28 PM on November 22, 2002

Cool Google feature that is related to the matter at hand. Many are not aware that if you google a person's name, city/town & state, if they are listed in public directories, their address and phone number will appear at the top of the search results. Try it on Wanda Hudak, Endicott NY. These listings also link to Yahoo and Mapquest maps.

It's a handy research tool to know about.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:55 PM on November 22, 2002

Well, that was kind of the issue here, rushmc. It was her home phone number, not her office number, and I think you're making a sweeping stroke. Katherine Harris' position on that particular local matter had a national impact; Wanda Hudak's position only has an impact within her constituency. Considering we got the news FROM her constituency, I think they're probably aware of the problem.
posted by headspace at 11:03 PM on November 22, 2002

people are going to be wrestling with the concept of what privacy means in the 21st century

Especially since Georgia Republican Bob Barr will be consulting for the ACLU on privacy, surveillance and security issues.
posted by mischief at 12:41 AM on November 23, 2002

people are going to be wrestling with the concept of what privacy means in the 21st century

Not privately...
posted by Opus Dark at 1:18 AM on November 23, 2002

oh jeez.

Me, incite a mob? No way. I just found that commentary so beyond the pale regardless of politics that I thought people who have lived through similar situations might like to share their feelings with Ms. Hudak.

I don't think it was "childish" or irresponsible, but apparently many of you disagree. Chalk it up to experience - and I've been posting online since 1991, and I never saw anyone call this kind of thing as far out of bounds as MeFites seem to believe it is.

BTW, my number is (81) 090.4200.8453. If you still want to debate the point (I don't, but maybe the conversation will go somewhere innaresting), feel free to call anytime.

Cheers.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:12 AM on November 23, 2002

Aren't you ever going to pick up the phone? Adam, it's meeee! I won't be IGNORED, Adam!

*boils Adam's bunny*
posted by RJ Reynolds at 10:24 AM on November 23, 2002