User:Habj/green burial stuff

I have come across something on the wiki that I do not really know how to handle, and where. I write my observations here, in the hope of making it easier for others to decide how to act. I write this in my user space, simply because I see no other reasonable place to put it. Do feel free to copy parts or all of this text to other places, if you want to comment. If so, if is fine to add a link to that discussion below, if you want to do that. I do not want anyone to feel I have written this in my user space so they can not respond. Still, I do think actual discussion, if there will be such, should take place someplace else.

I should learn to be more brief. I know.

Autobiography?

For some time, I've had my eyes on a user whose purpose for being on Wikipedia seems to be marketing of himself and his business. I first came across User:Earthartist on a number of pages he created, with various names for the same topic: cemeteries and burial with environmental concern. Some of these pages were not actually created by him, but by User:XM4527965. The user Earthartist expanded these articles, including an article about himself, Mike Salisbury - that this was himself, is pretty obvious if you compare User:Earthartist with his presentation on his business page [1].

XM4527965 only did eight edits, all on December 30th 2005, but the contribs Special:Contributions/XM4527965 are pretty similar to those of Earthartist's Special:Contributions/Earthartist. The main focus is eco-cemeteries and Mike Salisbury, including a page "Earthartist", now deleted [2] defined as a phrase that was popularised by Mike Salisbury. The user Earthartist also edited pages on municipality election where Mike Salisbury was a candidate, and later got elected, plus two edits on speedgolf [3] [4] adding a link to his company's web page. Actually, only one of his edits [5] seems unrelated to his business.

When the Mike Salisbury page was nominated on Articles for Deletion, I nominated the Earthartist page. Both were deleted, although very few people had taken interest in these discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthartist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury).

When these articles had been deleted, the user Earthartist pretty much disappeared from Wikipedia. A couple of months later, User:Eulogy4Afriend recreated the Mike Salisbury article. His editing pattern Special:Contributions/Eulogy4Afriend is similar to Earthartists and XM4527965's, but also different. This user created articles not only on Mike Salisbury but on a small group of people from this Natural Burial movement. The style is a lot less POV. He also went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review to ask for help to improve his articles, something users not previously familiar with the project hardly ever does. These three users might or might not be the same IRL individual. Maybe a checkuser should be performed? Anyway, are articles on English Wikipedia deleted for the sole reason of being created by its subject, or is that actually irrelevant to the existance of the article (although creating articles about oneself is frowned upon)?

Notability?

Eulogy4Afriend also created articles about Mary Woodsen, Billy Campbell (doctor), and Joe Sehee. Are they and Mike Salisbury notable enough for an article on Wikipedia? I honestly can't say. The articles declare these people as leading figures in the "natural burial movement". I wonder, what is this movement really? Besides Mr. Salisburys business, there are several organisations focused on natural burials, linked in the articles. The Natural Burial Association website says "our members are individuals, corporations, non-profits, and all others dedicated to providing natural burials in Canada". Maybe the largest bases if this association are the different corporations in the business? We can discuss notability of the people who has become the subjects, mentioning if they have been interviewed in the press or in TV, but to be able to prove notability a personally think a definition of what this "natural burial movement" really is. For instance, there are associations aiming at preservation of old steam boats but I doubt that one can say that there is a "steamboat preservation movement". Maybe we should instead talk of an "natural burial trend" - if there is a such. How big is the phenomenon, up to date? Unless this is shown, I personally find it difficult to prove these people notable.

The obvious use of Wikipedia as a way of marketing his business performed by Mr. Salisbury/the user Earthartist makes me highly irritated. It provokes a knee jerk reaction in me, wanting to have pretty much everything on the subject removed from Wikipedia. That might be an overreaction. OTOH, we do want to fight people using Wikipedia as advertising space.

---

• They have to go to AfD, I'd say. The answer, inasmuch as there is one, is to cover the industry but not the individual practitioners. Whether it's well written advertising copy or not, this is piggybacking on Wikipedia's lofty Alexa rank to increase page rank boosting. In other words, money is at stake for the "artists" of the ads, and, if they are not generating independent press as individuals rather than as practitioners of a business, then we have absolutely no reason for having a biography, which is what a nominal article should be. No doubt we should have an article on NorTel telecoms, but the current president of the company is just a dude doing a job. If he makes a splash as a person, he is treated as a person. The same is true, only in an amplified form, for any smaller company. You can try a speedy deletion tag (A7, A7 bio, and A7 corp), and someone might pull the trigger. Certainly there are bigger issues to deal with, but there are always bigger issues to deal with. We have to deal with issues when they cross our transem anyway, IMO. Geogre 17:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Don't Bite !

I agree with the concerns regarding self promotion, maintaining NPOV, people using Wikipedia as advertising space...

The contributions you reference (mine) are an attempt in good faith to create and improve articles.

1. I am a newbie
2. I am trying to improve.

As such I have submitted my contributions (as you mention) for peer review and even listed myself as “up for adoption”

The standard that I use when making contributions is to ask myself, “would this information be helpful to someone doing research on this topic?” I am currently researching is the emerging trend / movement / development of natural burial in North America. Given the press coverage regarding the contributions of certain individuals to this issue (Just Google - Tyler Cassidy, Billie Campbell, Mike Salisbury, Joe Sehee, and you will see what I mean) I felt that they fit the criteria for inclusion. Yes, I know, others disagreed.

People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. Perhaps merging the biographical information to the main article was the best course of action in the end.

Nevertheless I find THIS discussion seems more intent on discouraging participation rather than improving the accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality of these submissions.

Two very important Wikipedia Policies should be noted:

• Please, do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on CONTENT, not on the CONTRIBUTOR. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

• Assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing.

Eulogy4Afriend 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)