Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

[[Category:Wikipedia wp:vain
wp:vanitys|Conflict of interest]]

These vanity guidelines are intended to assist Wikipedia users in determining exactly what is and what is not to be considered vanity information within Wikipedia, which is not suitable copy material for Wikipedia article pages. Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author. Vanity information can sometimes present itself in the form of an entire Wikipedia article (a vanity article), or sometimes it can present itself more subtly in the form of various types of vanity information. Once any such article or individual edit within an article has clearly been identified as such, it is normally either reverted out of an article, or if an entire article, the article is then usually submitted for deletion.

The terms: vanity article and/or vanity information are amorphous constructs and it is therefore difficult to develop a concise list of criteria for the easy black-or-white diagnosis for these types of concerns. In most cases a vanity intent of the writer can be fairly easily deduced from the general tone or content of the article or information.

Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates. While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company; likewise, an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc. Articles on very little-known subjects are often of debatable value for our readers, so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent.

As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of importance is. Template:Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things

Examples of vanity information

Vanity information can come in many forms. It can come in the form of an entire article, or it can come in more subtle, but equally unencyclopedic advertising links, personal page links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other information that appears to be intended to lead readers away from the main topic of any article towards the promotion of personal or commercial interests. Such information usually detracts from the direct illumination of the central topic of any article. Usually the types of information that are found to be vanity information are the types of information that belong more properly on Wikipedia user pages.

Vanity articles: an example

Is Mr. Bloggs 'typical' or 'noteworthy'?

Joe Bloggs is a 33-year-old chef from New York, New York. His hobbies include baseball and poker, and he's currently single. His childhood dream was to become a cowboy, but now he dreams of being a novelist.

Looking more closely at Mr. Bloggs' activities

Nothing against Mr. Bloggs, but his personal activities just aren't highly noteworthy, nor useful for Wikipedia. These activities might appear to be the activities of a good, but rather typical individual. This list of activities doesn't include any especially noteworthy work he has done, and it does not explain why an article about him should exist in the first place. Even in the cases of decidedly famous people, these people's unrealized aspirations, thoughts, and hobbies are seldom included in Wikipedia, unless they are directly salient, and, more importantly, verifiable. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability prohibits the inclusion of things that are not verifiable from independent sources. With such stringent standards being applied to even decidedly famous people, they also apply to Mr. Bloggs and any edit or article that describes him.

Vanity edits: examples

In addition to vanity articles themselves, there are other certain types of edits within non-vanity articles that may be deemed as vanity edits. Vanity edits can include:

1. The insertion of links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites. (Also called commercial links.)
2. The insertion of links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. (Vanity links.)
3. The insertion of photographic materials that may appear to be unnecessarily promoting products or individuals which may not be the central topics of any given article. (Vanity photos.)
4. The insertion of any textual personal biographical information within an article which does not significantly add to the clarity or meaning of the article. (Vanity text edits.)

As Wikipedia aspires to be an online encyclopedia of quality, accuracy, and integrity, the best rule of thumb while determining whether or not any such edits may contain vanity materials, is to ask oneself, "Would this same type of material normally be found in a print encyclopedia?"

Does lack of fame make a vanity article?

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of articles, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.

The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.

Effectiveness of vanity articles

Vanity posters may post with the motive of increasing their own personal fame, or recognition of some group they are a part of. For this purpose, vanity articles are relatively ineffective. Most vanity articles receive few hits per month until nominated for deletion, and are possibly only seen by the user who nominates one. A vanity poster could theoretically increase traffic to his or her page by adding more links to it, and this is sometimes done — but it may risk earlier deletion of the page.

Unintended Consequences.

A word of caution. Before you write a vanity article on yourself, your group, or your company, remember that, once the article is created, you have no more right or ability to delete it than does any other editor. More than one user has created a vanity article, only to find that, in the normal course of research, other Wikipedia editors have found new material that presents the subject in a less-than-flattering light. Generally, such material will be added to the article, providing it is verifiably true and noteworthy — to the chagrin of the original creator. So, before you create a vanity article, you might want to ask yourself if there is anything publicly available in your past history or that of your group or company that you would not want included in the article — because such material will probably find its way into the article eventually.

Problems with vanity articles

The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors. Additionally, they are often "experimental" articles to which the author never returns. The quality of a Wikipedia article is often presumed to be proportional to the number of edits, so if an article is doomed to be a one-edit article, it should be deleted.

In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the User namespace rather than deleted.

Finally, some articles that seem to be "vanity" articles contain embarrassing (and possibly false) details about the subject's life and may not be written by the subject of the article. These articles should be speedily deleted, as they may contain libelous material or violate copyrights owned by the subject.

Another danger is inherent in autobiographical articles. Users might write articles pertaining to their own work. While the authors of such articles might not consider them "vanity" articles, they are in violation of the soft policy against writing articles on one's own accomplishments.

Policy regarding vanity articles

Vanity articles that make no plausible claim of notability are usually deleted shortly after creation. Those that offer some claim of notability, however remote, are usually sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Deletion of the article normally ensues, although sometimes it may be moved to the user's user-page. Even famous Wikipedians have had articles about them judged to be vanity articles and deleted.

If you judge an article to be a vanity article, and thus prone to the problems associated with such articles, you should request its deletion.

The user who created the article is most often a new, or newer user. If there is nothing particularly offensive about the page, please be kind to the newbie. Suggestion: before beginning any deletion procedures on a vanity article, it is sometimes found that by simply politely informing the creator of the article that this appears to be a vanity article, and by pointing him or her to this page first, that the author him or her self will sometimes easily agree to the deletion him or herself, thus saving much waste of time and energy on the parts of all concerned parties.

During any debates regarding vanity articles that are listed at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author (often presumed to be the same person) and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from future contributions. Remember to please always assume good faith.

Usually, vanity articles are not re-created after being deleted. It is believed that the majority of vanity article creators forget about their vanity articles and do not revisit at all; this is evident in that they rarely defend the article during the deletion debate.

Vain vs. encyclopedic

The word vain derives from the Latin word vanus meaning: empty. Within the context of an encyclopedia, this might be understood to mean, "empty of the ongoing, wide-ranging interest of many", but within these guidelines it is meant to signify "empty of any interest to anyone". The best way to increase the level of one's wide ranging interest to others is to first actually do something of interest itself, then wait for someone else who has a neutral interest in what you have done to write about it. Attempting to raise this type of interest in one's self or in one's associates via Wikipedia is putting the cart before the horse.

Since we are all inherently biased towards ourselves, it is usually best to await the day when someone whom we have never met, might choose to write such an article about ourselves, thus proving beyond a doubt that such a neutral interest does indeed exist. The popular radio humorist, Garrison Keillor has a theory that "everyone has a story to tell", and this may very well be true. Still, Wikipedia is not meant to be the place where all stories get told. Some stories are best told to only a few, and others are meant to be told to many, but the number of people who might hear one's story in no way alters the value of the story itself. This certain value is in fact something that only the storyteller him or herself will ever know in reality.

The word encyclopedia derives from Greek and generally means, "a well rounded education". As Wikipedia is, or at least aspires to be, an encyclopedia, it strives to contain only material that it is reasonable to believe that others, outside of any given Wiki editor's regular personal sphere of contacts and associates, might want to know, thus making it qualify as a more "well rounded" type of material.

Wikipedia is not, therefore, a forum for advertising or a vanity press. For these purposes, it is probably not even effective: while Wikipedia's articles on famous topics are heavily trafficked, those on obscure topics are not. However, a seeming vanity article with much information should not be put on the VfD page because it may end up being encyclopedic. Such articles should be managed by an administrator.

"Who's Who" directories

"Who's Who" directories and registries should be viewed critically as evidence of notability. These registries' criteria for listing are, as a rule, overinclusive and may be nonexistent -- some are vanity publishers and offer listing for a fee. The mere inclusion of a person in such a publication is therefore not sufficient to guarantee notability.

Citing oneself

If you wish Wikipedia to cite your own reliably published work, please bear in mind the neutral point of view and no original research policies. When citing yourself could be interpreted as POV-pushing, it is advisable not to cite your own work without discussion. On the talk page of the article in question you can propose your work and ask other editors their opinion about including a citation of it. See also WP:NOR#Citing oneself.

Where vanity is allowed

Signed-in users may use their user page(s) to publish short autobiographies, or for just about any purpose they wish, within the bounds of good taste and compatible with the purpose of working on the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:User page. If you wish to write about yourself without working on the encyclopedia, consider starting a website or a blog instead. Wikipedia is not a free webhost.

See also

• Wikipedia:Autobiography
• Vanity