One of the characteristics of being a fan is that one has a sort of illusory personal connection to the object of one's admiration. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that I were a fan of Arlo Guthrie. I would feel almost as if Arlo Guthrie were a close friend. Now, suppose I were to insert an fawning article on his latest album, "Live in Sydney," pointing out the neutral and objectively true encyclopedic fact that it's terrific and everyone should buy one or two copies. Hypothetically. For only twenty-seven hypothetical U. S. dollars. I don't get a cut of the profits, and I'm not hired by Rising Son Records to promote this album, so I can say truthfully that it is not advertising. But, it sort of is. Because even though I don't get _money_ out of the deal, I do get the warm fuzzy feeling that I'm helping my close friend Arlo. (Even though he's not really my friend). And that I'm validating my fandom by increasing the number of fans. So, it's deliberate _promotion._ It's not vanity, because Arlo Guthrie didn't write the article himself. But, it sort of is, because a close friend of Arlo wrote the article. Or, someone who has the illusion of being a close friend of Arlo wrote the article. Of course, wanting to "help" or promote the topic area on which one is writing is probably the commonest motivation for writing articles for Wikipedia, and up to a point it's legitimate. I'd like to redefine "vanity" as meaning "an imbalanced mix of motives in which serving the needs of the contributor outweights serving the needs of the reader."