In addition I would not publish on a message board numbers for any public, private, NGO, pizza parlor, massage parlor, etc etc etc or otherwise entity. I didn’t mean to confuse you.
So where does the slippery slope end? Can we not link to a web site with phone numbers on it because it might encourage prank calls? Or not mention the name of an organization because someone might search for the name, find a phone number, and make prank phone calls?
I respect that this is your honest opinion but there is nothing rational about it. When someone posts a phone number on a public web site for the purposes of making it easy for people to contact them, reposting that phone number here is fair game. End of story. And it’s a good thing there are no rules against doing so, because that would be absolutely senseless.
The moderation in this case was an overabundance of caution about what could be interpreted as a potential call to action at a glance, and I respect the moderators choosing to default to the safer assumption. But I’d hate to see a rule on a message board fighting ignorance to disallow the reposting of public phone numbers. Fortunately, that isn’t what this thread is about.
If the phone numbers are publicly available, then unknowns who may toy or fuck with that knowledge already have access to it. This message board isn’t changing that.
This strikes me as the equivalent of nobody referring to the American president by name, because if people learn who he is here that may lead to political instability, riots, or some larger civil war.
We can talk about him, but generically so. If we drill down specifics, it’s doxxing and all sorts of mayhem may result.
It doesn’t matter even if this is publicly available information. Sure, people can google the president’s name, but the Dope isn’t going to facilitate this kind of knowledge. You just never know what somebody may do with it
The other perspective is that the board is made of people who live in the real world, and so may have reason to make reference to things that actually exist in “meat space”. As long as somebody isn’t disclosing private information (not a name, or something you can find by googling), it’s not a big deal.
ETA: I didn’t mean to link back to @Justin_Bailey . I had deleted an earlier comment I decided wasn’t germane to the discussion.
Do they?
Let’s say you want to know the number to the Chicago reader, rather than type it out 1800xxxoooo I’ll put it in a private message. I don’t think they’d want you to post their public business number on every public message board you frequent. Or maybe they wouldn’t care?
I dont think that that is in of itself the issue. If you listed a help line for a problem, that is one thing. But in this particular case, it could be considered a “call to action”, because the OP- wrongfully- said a book was being banned, which is a sore spot for SDMBers. That could have led to quite a few SDMBers calling angrily asking why the book was banned. And that was the wrong person anyhow.
AFAIK there is no rule, it was on a case by case basis and this was a good call.
Yes.
This isn’t complicated,
If it’s publicly available, then posting it here isn’t “providing access to it”. It’s already accessible. Via the same mechanism by which these posts are publicly available: the internet
If somebody posts a link to an SDMB post somewhere else on the internet, then the person who posted the SDMB post wasn’t doxxed, even if they never expected their post to end up somewhere other than the SDMB.
Not complicated at all.
Later.
If an entity puts out a press release, then it is plagiarism or copyright infringement to reproduce its contents? No, because the entire purpose of a press release is to make the information generally available to the public. If contact information is included, as it normally is, then the expectation is that contact will be made and steps are taken to deal with contacts.
Government websites work the same way. The contact information that is placed on them is there with not just the expectation that it will be used, but to encourage their widespread use.
Can this information be misused? Any information can be misused if someone is determined to do so. Some information is more susceptible to misuse and and can result in higher damages if misused and therefore may need more protection.
But contact information on a public government website does not fall into that category. It should be spread as widely as possible and people encouraged to make contact, on matters large and small. The potential for harm is infinitesimal compared to the potential for good.
However, in this case, the info was incorrect, and also there was absolutely no reason to contact them.
That is totally irrelevant to the general point. People can make mistakes without invalidating the very idea of good advice.
Not true. The post in question said that it was the contact information for the Wolfner Library, which is where one is directed by various sources when one looks for the State Librarian. But I did point out that this seemed odd, and suggested that while it might not be the place with the answer, they could almost certainly direct the caller to the right place.
Does anyone have a response to this?
But totally relevant to the point the Mod made. So, sure -IN GENERAL- it is okay to post public info from a govt website. But there can be exceptions, and this was one of them. No one has ever said “you should never, ever post public govt website info”..
Since other posters made it clear that the book was not banned- why? And since other poster, thinking that the book was banned could make angry calls- then why not send it as a PM? You only wanted ONE person to use that info, right?
No Mod has tried to say that one tiny note in an edge case was making a new rule. Obviously it wasnt. So, all the posts complaining about the “new rule” are pointless.
If you’re not reading the thread, not much point in responding.
Yeah, old guy forgot one post, But it wasn’t by a Mod, now was it? Has any Mod even hinted this is a new rule to be followed in all cases? Or rather that it was a one time ruling one an edge case?
No policy was made and no one in charge ever said don’t ever publish any phone number. It was a judgement call and many disagree, but it was no policy.
I’m not sure I made the right call, but there is no reason at all to reverse it. No warnings were issued. No policy was created.
the correct action at that point then would be to respond to the post in question and point out the misinformation, not to entirely remove the post itself. As someone mentioned upthread, if we are going to start removing posts on this website with incorrect information, we’re going to need a LOT more moderators.
The answer to the open question is that it’s okay to post official published contact info that addresses a poster’s question, but in this particular case, the post was ambiguous as to intent and the contact info wasn’t relevant. So it was moderated with a note (not a warning).
Please remember most notes are just that. We can look them up, but they’re not recorded like warnings. Generally they mean very little unless a pattern occurs and of course there was no pattern here.
I was informed that with this, the thread should be closed.
Thank you.