Talk:Michael Erlewine/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Request for comments

The subject of this biography, Michael Erlewine, has contacted me by e-mail about revising the article.

I have heard from more than one person trying to update my bio, which I (ignorantly I agree) originally tried to update myself.

The article as it stands is poorly written. It says that I "started a company that sold astrological software," for example.

My former company, Matrix Software, Inc. is one of the two oldest software companies still on the Internet, the other being Microsoft. I was also the first person to ever program astrology on microcomputers, and Matrix Sofware is the first astrology software company ever.

Since you verto any change, I am asking you as one professional to another, how do you propose that I can correct what is incomplete or not accurate. I understand you don't want puff pieces, and I accept that. But I would like to be treated more accurately than this.

What do you suggest. I have sent a note to have myself unblocked.

Dhartung:

Thanks for the note. I hope it is ok to spend a moment or two on philosophy here.

When it comes to online content, I have many years of experience, and have received major awards from Yahoo, etc. When I started with content, there was no WWW, only gopher sites, so that is where I started out. I had email in 1979, etc.

Perhaps the insight I brought to reviewing music and film (and content like this), back then, was this:

Up to that point, to use music as an example, the main guide was the “Rolling Stone Record Guide,” in which a handful of critics set themselves up as arbiters of good taste. Reading those early books is to find not so much about the music, as about how cool these reviewers were, and that we should listen to them. I am not trying to knock them. This is just how it was.

What I thought should be the case (and it has been adopted) is that why spend time comparing an artist like Bob Dylan to one like Englebert Humperdinck, as there is no accounting for people’s tastes and preferences, anyway. Instead, why not give up on comparing apples and oranges, and just show what we feel is the best music that either Dylan or Humperdinck ever did. This was our approach, and it was successful. And the whole world of music reviews now does this.

Taking that concept to Wikipedia suggests that you can’t measure my biography against Abe Lincoln’s in terms of number of words, like earlier encyclopedias have. What we want from every man or woman’s biography is an outline of what they did with their life.

You mention, and I am not offended, something along the lines that astrology is not that important in my career… or something. Over 60 million Americans use astrology in one form or another, and it was the basis for building AMG. Before my programming astrology and making it available on microcomputers, ALL astrologers were using log tables, and creating a chart could take up to an hour, which is no done in a hundredth of a second. This was no small deal, for astrologers.

When I left AMG, I was supervising 150 full-time editors and more than 500 free-lance writers, so this part of my biography is too short at this point. AMG has changed how popular culture is reviewed and presented, just as Wikipedia is now doing. Only we did it in the early 1990s.

And there is no mention of the 30 years or so of Buddhist philanthropic work I have done, restoring and publishing valuable Tibetan Buddhist texts, and so on.

In closing, my point is, and this is what I have learned: A work such as this need not be a dry, overly formal, piece of writing and research. Times have changed, as Wikipedia itself demonstrates. Our writing should be accurate, but it should also be interesting, even to the point of being entertaining in that: it could be fun to read. I admire the work that is being done here, and it follows my own approach, which I used to call convection data cleaning.

AMG bios and data were done the same way and in a conscious manner: we put up what we had, and the process of change, editing, additions, subtractions, gradually over time caused the material to take form and shape – a vast vortex. This approach challenged the linear approach that was in vogue when I started on this kind of data about 25 years ago. Linear meant you had to have your article researched and done, from A to Z, before you published.

I chose to ignore that and do just what is being done here: put up what we had, and allow the winds of change and inspiration (and energy) shape it. So we agree on that.

Back to my article:

We need to add the fact that it was the summer of 1965 that my brother and I started the Prime Movers band, because this was the time that the Grateful Dead (with whom I have played) also started, and marks the beginning of the new approach to music and the Hippie era. I am an acknowledged expert on the 1960s poster/music scene and devoted a whole site to it (ClassicPosters.com), which is now in transition to a new site.

The point from Jim Ambrose is accurate and a good one.

The rest is fine.

We need a little more on AMG, along the lines I wrote of above, because it marked a change in presenting the content of popular culture to the public. I am really a pioneer in this area of work.

I would like to mention my work in restoring and publishing Tibetan Buddhist material, if you approve. I could post a short paragraph.

Also, I see no point in saying I am the uncle of Stephen Thomas Erlewine. I am also the brother of Daniel Erlewine, “Guitar Player Magazine” columnist, and world-famous guitar maker and restorer, the father of Daisy May Erlewine, a well-known musician in the Midwest, and any number of other relatives. I would delete this.

If we are going to mention “my wife,” she should have a name.

I would like something like: “Today Erlewine lives in Big Rapids, Michigan, with his wife Margaret. They have four children. His most recent projects include AstroTree.com, an interactive social network for professionals in areas of alternative health and spirituality.

Also, may we add an external link:

“Michael Erlewine Biography

http://www.startypes.com/main_bio.html

Then I would be happy. That aside, perhaps you have a moment to tell me how someone like myself could be useful as an editor to Wikipedia.

I came to this article which was identified as a stub and attempted to improve it here, in accordance with Wikipedia style guidelines. (You can see I made few content changes.) Four times since then (1 2 3 4) the article has essentially been revised back to essentially Erlewine's official biography, and other editors (for the record, Deltabeignet, Morwen) have reverted on the basis of our autobiography and article ownership guidelines.

As I have a strong desire to be fair, but equally a strong desire to protect Wikipedia from including material which is promotional or one-sided, and I don't want to assert WP:OWNership myself, I'm going to include parts of the material most recently added and tag them as unreferenced, particularly the "first software" and "first software company on the internet" claims (potentially unverifiable). I'm also going to ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and WikiProject Astrology in determining what material is correct and notable in the context of a general encyclopedia.

Finally, I ask Mr. Erlewine to respect the limitations of WP:AUTO and bring up problems with the article on this Talk page. In particular, extraordinary claims like the "firsts" need sourcing to third-parties; the subject alone being the source introduces bias and undermines the apparent objectivity of the article (and by extension the entire Wikipedia). --Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is amazing to be to be forced into trying to defend a lifetime of work, for example. I would think that instead of assuming that what I communicate to you is wrong, why not assume it is right until proven wrong? Am I not innocent, until proven guilty? In other words, how about telling what facts you question and I will do my best to send you documentation. For example:

The reference to being the first person to program astrology and establish an astrological software company is an established fact. Please let me know what kind of proof you need:

Here is a listing in the “Directory of Eminent World Astrologers” about my founding the first astrological software company
Here is the email address of the current CEO of Matrix Software, Joe Jablonski, who can verify that I founded it and in what year. I no longer own the company, so I have not control over them. joejab@astrologysoftware.com
Here is an article on my work in Wired Magazine” from February 1994 by Gary Wolf, a well-known journalist at that time.
Here is an article on the band I founded, The Prime Movers done by music journalist Terry Jenkins
Here is a reference to an out-of-print book I published in 1979, that was the first book showing folks how to program on microcomputers. Some of the user comments say this.

Let’s take other of my claims and treat them fairly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlewine (talk • contribs) .

RfC response

The first of the four sources in the links above is a Mindspring customer home page. As such it doesn't satisfy the standard at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and can't be cited here. The Wired.com article and the Yahoo.com article should be fine. The Amazon.com page demonstrates the existence of an out-of-print book, but not its content. If an editor wants to reference the book itself then a normal line citation would be sufficient. Durova 14:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

Plase tell me how I advance, item by itme, my intent to properly have my own life document, if you won't allow me to do it. What is the next step, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlewine (talk • contribs) .

Mr. Erlewine, please be perfectly clear on this point. This is not your own life document, any more than the George W. Bush or Kim Jong Il articles are the "life documents" of their subjects. This is an general-interest encyclopedia article about an individual who has done some notable things. What things are "notable" is subjective, but it is reasonable for us to ask for reliable sources to be certain that claims included in an article are verifiable; in fact these are policies which editors are required to follow. We don't just take your word for it because you have a conflict of interest -- obviously you would like to put your own life history in the best possible light. This has nothing to do with you personally, so please don't take it that way. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC response from WikiProject Astrology

Someone asked that a member from our project come over to help sort out what is going on here, so I decided to stop by. I'm not sure exactly what points about his astrological career are under dispute at this point, so it might be helpful for me to see some sort of list or something. I am personally aware of Mr. Erlewine's reputation in the astrological community, but I thought that it might be better to point out that he was singled out and recognized by one of the more respectable history books on the history of astrology written in the past couple of decades. James Holden wrote in his 1996 book A History of Horoscopic Astrology

Michael Erlewine (b. 1941) is a pioneer in astrological software. He is the head of the astrological software house, Matrix, in Michigan. He has also written a computer programming manual for astrological software Manual of Computer Programming for Astrologers (Tempe, Az.: A.F.A., Inc., 1980), with Margaret Erlewine a valuable fixed star catalogue Astrophysical Directions (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Heart Center, 1977), and a book (with ephemeris) on heliocentric astrology The Sun is Shining: Helio 1653-2050. In addition, Erlewine offers training sessions and occaisional seminars at his bussiness headquarters, where ha has established The Heart Center Astrological Library to serve as an information source for the entire astrological community. His company also publishes an astrological periodical.

James Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, American Federation of Astrologers, Tempe, AZ, 1996. ISBN 0-86690-463-8 pg. 224.

--Chris Brennan 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is obviously a citeable source. To clarify, this is not really a dispute about the subject's astrological career (of which I know exactly nothing) as much as it is a dispute about autobiographical editing and being skeptical about inclusion of claims from a primary source. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. I would tend to agree about the issues behind autobiographical editing, although on the other hand I think that it could be quite valuable for the actual subject of the biography to have some input or to be able to provide some information about their life. I'm sure that most of the historians on this site wish that we had that for most of the biographies that we have here. Would it be possible to simply ask Mr. Erlewine to write out what he thinks would be an acceptable biography for himself here on the talk page, and then for us to proceed in editing and discussing what should be in it from there? Perhaps the main guideline should just be that most of the information should be sourced somehow? I would just like to see some sort of compromise here that would satisfy all sides. --Chris Brennan 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume that this edit pretty accurately represents his view of what information should be included. I am not opposed to additions, but unless Mr. Erlewine is ready to accept that wording and inclusion are up to editorial consensus we're not going to get anywhere. Further context of which you are probably unaware is that he's been given advice at his talk page by other editors, and (what looks like) use of sockpuppets has hurt his case. I think we've made progress toward a mutual understanding by the comments below. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From Michael Erlewine:

Thanks Chris. I am afraid I am just on a learning curve here. I want to abide by the rules and I understand biographies. I have supervised hundreds of thousands of them, as I was the founder of AMG (All-Music Guide, and others).

I would like to Vet each fact to your satisfaction. I apoligize if I was somewhat cavalier at the beginning, but whover wrote the beginning blurb on me was, to my mind, likewise, and I was probably irritated.

I have received all kinds of major awards in astrology on as an Internet pioneer of content just like this, and as an archivist of popular culture. I could give you many personal references, but one thing I am learning here is that we all assume a lot about ourselves and seldome have to prove it. Interesting.

How can we continue here. I have careers in astrology, online content, and as a musician (traveled with Bob Dylan, etc.). All I want is to lay out what I have done and get back to my regular work.

Also, I am an expert in a number of fields, and am not averse to helping out as you folks are. I could spot bogus stuff in music, film, astrology, Buddhism, and other fields.

Let me know how to procede, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlewine (talk • contribs) .

From Michael Erlewine:

Further comment. This problem of “primary sources” is something I am familiar with, and it is interesting. Here we have someone who knows very little about me who offhand wrote a few lines summarizing my life, and went of somewhere else. He says he took the information from Allmusic.com, but the information there, which I did not write, has been there for years, under my name. He picked out what interested him.

Another example is “He started a company that sold astrology software.” This is true, but a is offhand, and very incomplete. What kind of source is that?

In cases like myself, where the person is not really famous, but still cares about their reputation and life’s work, they hate to see it trivialized. To say that the original writer is an acceptable source and the primary subject is not, by default, is questionable logic. This assumes we are guilty, until proven innocent.

There must be a more civil and fair way to go about this, and I see this as a major problem with Wikipedia. There probably are few people on the planet who care as much about presenting information to the people, so to speak, than myself. All-Music Guide, All-Game Guide, All-Movie Guide, ClassicPosters.com, and other databases point this out. When I owned those companies, there was never even a single ad or item for sale, that is how much I cared about that kind of thing.

Then, who has the time to help countless thousands of folks like me? I commend all of you editors for tackling what appears as a huge task, and I have done the same for the subjects quoted above: music, film, etc. I am old enough to be retired, and perhaps you can recruit me in the odd hours I have to spare.

Thanks for reading this. What’s next? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlewine (talk • contribs) .

I welcome your enthusiasm for the project and second your comparison of our project to AMG. The earliest version of this article seems like a decent stub as far as that goes. It doesn't say anything about your astrology career, which seems to be something you value highly. When Morwen reverted your first overwrite of this article with your official bio, s/he salvaged key points and expanded the article. As long as you understand that it's much better from an ethical and "political" standpoint for you to be discussing changes here on the Talk page, that's a big step forward. Overwriting existing articles with an unwikified and promotional biography is simply not the way to win people over. I think we're past that now, which is good.

My view of "He started a company that sold astrology software." is that it's a summary of what, to most people, is a less notable stretch of your career. That happens all the time -- obviously, even though it represents a big chunk of your life, it isn't necessarily something that needs to be handled in detail. We don't spend as much space on President Bush's Arbusto years even though they're about the same as his time in office. For myself, with no knowledge of the world of astrology, I wouldn't know where to begin, really. The information that Chris Brennan has found helps considerably, as it would no longer sound like a hobby business or that you're exaggerating your importance.

As for "This assumes we are guilty, until proven innocent", well, the Wikipedia rule of thumb might be stated as "all facts are guilty until proven". The burden of proof, especially for biographies, needs to be on the editors trying to include something. Since this literally happens all the time, every day it can lead to people being brusque with editors, and is particularly offputting to article subjects such as yourself. But as Wikipedia has become more visible our standards for biographies of living persons have become much more strict. I am much happier, let me emphasize, that we are engaging here and not reverting back and forth. Consensus always works better when people participate in it, you might say.

My view of Wikipedia is that every article is always a work in progress, especially for something that is not fixed by history. Thus, there is never such a thing as a finished article. If there were I wouldn't have any reason to contribute! But returning to your questions, of course we welcome expansion, but the inherent conflict of interest involved in someone writing about themselves is very much a double-edged sword. The information may be more accurate, and certainly may reflect the subject's view of themselves, but it may be inaccurate or biased by the same token and in many cases may not weigh, in other editors' view, as having equal notability.

Now, I have taken the extra step (again, I'm trying to be generous) of looking up a few things. I found corroboration that you and Bob Dylan hitch-hiked together in 1961 in the Iggy Pop bio Gimme Danger, so that no longer looks like a suspicious name-check to me (and believe me, many many people would like to puff up their biographies with all the references to famous people they've met, so suspicion on our part is natural). I'm still unclear on how we could verify the "first two companies on the internet" claim, which is a bit vague. First TCP/IP connection? First website? What is this claiming, specifically? --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've incorporated some of the older text, I'm still not getting a few things. I would prefer not to include text like "Erlewine's interests in cosmic and spiritual affairs led him to explore and develop new and original astrological techniques and approaches including local space relocation, heliocentric analysis, deep-space astrology, the burn rate" as that is meaningless to a general audience, and I'm not sure we cover any of those topics at Wikipedia anyway (so that we could wikilink to an explanation). I also don't understand the signicance of the ACT "open forums" or (more familiarly) panel discussions, in that what distinguished them from any other panel discussions a conference on astrology might have? --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'm really hoping this is where someone like Chris Brennan can help out. Is this significant? Is there a way we can explain it that doesn't fall into jargon? Maybe we can summarize the key points, instead of listing every technical fillip? I'm not the one to be able to do that. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My main area of interest in astrology is studying the history of the subject and tracing the development of certain techniques and philosophical components within the various traditions. So, from my own perspective I would consider those references to specific technical innovations to be important, just as it is important to at least list what theories or innovations certain scientistis contributed to their respective fields within their biographies. From what I understand Mr. Elewine is known as an innovator within the astrological community partially due to his work with those specific techniques and it does partially define his reputation in that field, so it is probably necessary to mention them. Unfortunately I don't know how we can get rid of the technical jargon and those references will probably need to be wikied and either sent to a current article, or a new one explaining the techniques referred to will have to be created. Perhaps Mr. Erlewine would be kind enough to put some work into those articles himself given his expertise. I just read his new draft of the article below and it seemed pretty good though. Nice and concise. Does anyone else have any issues with it at this point? --Chris Brennan 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)