[WikiEN-l] Quasi-vanity and quasi-advertising

[Ray Saintonge]

dpbsmith at verizon.net wrote:

>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.
>
It's a bit like asking Eric Bogle to sing Bob Dylan.

>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.
>
You can get anything you want at the Wiki Restaurant. :-)

>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."
>
Riight!  Who's to judge whether that applies.  Let's not make things 
more complicated than they need to be.

Ec