thank you - i was at that party it was a great one!! and i agree, lets keep on keeping on...

I'm on the excom for Kiwiburn and have alerted all our local folks to spread the word, and posted here and on the regionals forum on ePlaya but the formmail link for general regional info seems to not work for me...

I beg to differ. Regionals, while being an offshoot of BMan, each have their own unique definitions. Just because something is a portion of a larger entity, doesn't mean it doesn't have it's own distinct characteristic, thus entitling it to its' own wiki entry. Besides, a link to each regional page is already listed as a footnote on the BM page.

It seams to me Realkyhick has a problem with the BMorg.

If individual events are not "notable and verifiable" then yes, they should just be linked from the main list of BM regionals, but many of the pages flagged for deletion are for significant and verifiable events - in several cases they simply have no external links to secondary sources. I'm alerting people who may be involved and can add to the information available.

Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, and does not allow advertising/propaganda. As such, it's very useful to Burners - the principles are upheld but allow information about individual regionals to reach a much wider audience, and with some authority. This resource should be available to people in as much as it is useful - and when people are obviously making a mass deletion then you have to ask why - and a look at the deleter's wikipedia user page will speak volumes. This is clearly a personal attack, being made simply because it can be.

R:
> Your regionals should be a foot note on Burningmans Wikipedia page.
> The term "regional" implies that its is a portion of a larger entity.

Regional events are actually unique entities rather than an actual portion of the original entity.

But I think that you're certainly right with Decompression and Recompression. These are just other smaller events thrown by the Burningman Org, and should be listed on the Burningman (BMORG) page.

Though even portions of something major can have their own wiki pages. California is just a part of the USA, but it certainly has it's own page. What is the criteria to determine if something is "notable"?

In general though, isn't there are a guideline that people shouldn't write their own wikipedia entries?

_Who_ created all of these regional pages? Were they created by 3rd parties with an interest to inform? Or were they created by the organizers of these events to inform, but also to promote their events? (serious questions)

Agree with R. Wikipedia is not for **promoting** events or movements. Each regional should have its own independent web site, and links from the main Burning Man Wikipedia page. Tribe is for promoting your events, not Wikipedia.

I'm inclined to agree. Wikipedia isn't an events board. Information about regionals could just as easily be included in the main Burning Man web page.

Hehe.


Also, there were two more regionals flagged which weren't with the main bulk of entries: Myschievia and Frostburn.

Yeah, every fucking block party & bake sale should promote its own Wikipedia entry.

It's aggravating, especially to the people who took the trouble to create the info. I kinda wish for minimal info and PR about Burning Man (in BRC), but I imagine Wiki has and will retain a full listing on that, as well they should. As for the regionals, it's probably a good thing if more people learn about them and spread the word. But I doubt if many people learn about these events on Wikipedia anyway. I'm undecided as to whether or not it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to list such events as the regionals. On the other hand, it's not like it's harmful in any way for the listings to exist.

Little side note...I was an early dot-commer (but without the IPO wealth). When we were selling webserver software in 1996, and the possibilities were so wide open and yet to be explored, I suggested that it could lead to the world's largest, most accessible encyclopedia. Wouldn't it be cool, I thought, to have it be a system where individuals could add to it. But then I thought "Nah, 'cause people would add incorrect info, either on purpose or as pranks." I kind of forgot about it, but thought that maybe the existing encyclopedia publishing companies would eventually do something online. Thankfully, the good folks at Wikipedia were more creative and energetic than me. Ah well, time for me go watch another Gilligan's Island re-run and then take a nap.

Mrs. O'Leary's cowshed is a favorite.

seems wikiP has a festival standard of 5 years and 15,000 people or a significant historical origin.

looks like concensus is getting wierd and going towards classification of events as those that are popular, and those that are not.....

update on my part of the post....

for the link likers:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...#InterFuse

Comment: (from Realkyhick) That has to be the most long-winded AfD argument I have ever seen in nearly three years of editing. It's so long-winded, in fact, that it is terribly ineffective. But moreover, lyriclees is twisting my words to the point that he is engaging in outright falsehood. To say that my recognition that my recognition that Interfuse is "the most profound argument for continuation of the Interfuse entry" is patently absurd, and blatantly wrong. I recognize the status as a regional Burning Man event because the article says it is, and for no other reason at all. But that doesn't make it notable! More to the point, there are no reliable, INDEPENDENT sources that indicate whether or not the event meets notability standards. The official web site does not count, because its content is controlled by the event organizers, who may or may not provide accurate information about the event. Some guy named "Zay" is not a reliable source, more multiple reasons. The Burning Man project site is not an independent, reliable source, because it is affiliated with this event. To say that each regional Burn event should have its own entry because each letter of the alphabet is different and, ergo, each regional Burn is different — well, I'm trying to be polite here, but that make absolutely, positively no sense whatsoever. I take considerable umbrage as this editor's suggestion that I re-read "Five Pillars." As someone who has spent way too much time over the past 2½ years-plus writing, editing and policing Wikipedia, I'm bloody sure I have a very good idea of what Wikipedia is and isn't. It isn't a listing of non-notable subjects. Interfuse simply does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, no matter what "Zay" says. If a newspaper or magazine that has no connection with Burning Man recognized this event with some sort of coverage (more than a trivial "coming events" announcement that any event can get), I woule be inclined to change my opinion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: (from Bry9000) Please be nice to the newcomers. So he wrote a lot and used one ineffective argument among all his other points; big deal.
You write that the page doesn't have verifiable sources, but then you spend half your post above trying to disqualify certain sources. By those standards, a great deal of material on WP would be disqualified. A better conclusion is to let the largest regional Burning Man events have their own pages, merge the smaller ones, and give editors and fans a chance to find more independent sources.
Several editors have argued emphatically that certain regional Burning Man events that claim a *small* attendance should be considered non-notable on the basis of attendance numbers alone. This is apparently not such an event; it claims 700 participants and is thus not "non-notable" by those same standards. Merge the smallest ones; keep this and other large ones. Bry9000 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: (from lyriclees) It seems that Realkyhick fancied themself slighted or insulted because I, a reader/user posted my "talk" that questioned their long standing (2.5 years) experience, much like the question posed about the legitimacy of fledgling Regionals. I requested that the pillars be re-read because Realkyhick assumes as stated above, the right to "police" Wikipedia entries. Call me old fashioned, but I think that information should always remain free from personal bias and from biased enforcers. In the pillars it calls for neutrality in editing. That is why I often referr to the information in Wikipedia.

The discussion has gone from what is notable based on content of information, to notable based on attendance records, and thus classification of actual independent events as entries, to classification as popular and unpopular events. The events are actually for the participants, just as the information in this forum is for the reader/user.

And once again a point that I tried to make, has been proven by Realkyhick's own response. What one might call indepth and expressive, might seem "long winded" to another. If it be deemed too long to read, it can of course be seen by the unfamiliar as ineffective. The entries should be left as they are, separate and simple, and as a user I'd ask that the editor that brought the entries into question should be sanctioned in what ever way that this site handles the issue.

To give a few "chosen" regionals their own pages "especially" for demonstrating record attendance based on last years numbers again goes against the principals that the events are based on, and would only be decided as an appropriate thing to do by people who don't really know what they are talking about. The regional events are held based partially on geograhpy, hence the "Regional" title, not a need to gain local recognition or publication, something that's begining to look like a foreign concept here.

A collation of regional events posted on the Burning Man Project entry page, each leading to their own page would show more neutrailty than a few chosen regionals garnering their own pages, (ie Finches and Darwin's Finches) but then that would go against the nature of the event which is to have the main event and the regionals stand alone on their own. Burners tend to call that self reliance.

It is also pertinent at this point to direct any reader back to the Burning Man Project contacts for clarification about media involvment at any event and the need for participants to feel free, and to express themselves as such. It also allows each participant to not have to defend their view of the experience when bombarded with the perceptionally biased views published in a locally syndicated journal that prints most often what's fit to increase circulation. Unless a event has been experienced I don't expect any reader to "understand". That is why the events are posted as they are: so that if the entry sounds so interesting that personal research is deemed necessary, then specific event attendance information, called an "invitation", can be found using the links provided.

Information not only about the rigorous process to be come a regional, but the ideals behind the regional events is posted on the Burning Man Project website. I directed readers there for information clarification. If the assumption stands that all information on the internet is an "unreliable" source, and that of course only "mass produced publications" are legitimate, fine, but then then some reasearch into propoganda might also come in handy.

So unless this forum is advocating that every participant or "fan" become "deviants" of the event process simply to satisfy a purposeful lack of local independent sources that report on the events, I suggest that no one hold their breath for a "chance to find" more "independent" sources. If the media attends as participants, not as "writers with an agenda" then they might just create a piece that clarifies how notable the regional events actually are.

And FYI, he's a she, but you'll have to take my word for it.

lyriclees