Jump to content

Talk:Burning Man/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 19 2005 and October 17 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Burning Man/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Kit 21:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the links are getting a little out of hand -- we don't need links to somebody's random photo collection, most likely (or I'd put in a link to mine :). What do people think are essential links on this topic, other than obviously the main site? I do think we should have a link to images.burningman.com, the huge central image collection, since it is difficult to include images from the event on this page due to BM's restrictions on use of photography. It has 1000s of images and probably means we don't need to link to joe anonymous' pics page. Kit 04:58:02, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Since no one responded I went ahead and pared down the External links to a more manageable length. They do not need to include J. Random Burners gallery, but the packing list page is a good one. Remember, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a link repository. Kit 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, fine, here's a response ...

You're editing an article about an anarchist event, and then essentially talking about limiting the links put in to including maybe one to the "official" site, with the question left floating in the air as to whether or not there should be any others.

If one is going to cover an event, one should cover the event in the spirit in which it occurs, and if the article looks untidy, that's fine, because so is the event. It's a decentralized, largely unplanned, DIY mass happening, and if you take to ignoring the experience of "Joe anonymous", you're ignoring the heart and bulk of the event, in a way ironically at odds with the entire concept of Wikipedia itself. Who is Joe anonymous, that we should all want to see his gallery? Fine, who is Todfox or any other editor who has ever worked on Wikipedia, that our experience of anything should be filtered through his viewpoint? Almost the entire site is put together by people that nobody has ever heard of, so where is this sudden burst of elitism coming from? (comment by

Burning Man weighs in at about 35,000 participants each year, with a total number of participants ever attending coming to something like the population of Buffalo, New York. When you look at it in those terms, that link section, if anything, is looking shorter than it probably should be. Each year brings a different set of approaches and experiences, so one might do better to think of Burning Man as a larger city spread out across the time line than as a smaller city that has hung around for a number of years, the rate of replacement of places in BRC being what it is.User:65.182.172.111)

You have failed to provide justification for providing lots of links to random people's pages. Please review Wikipedia policy. It is not a matter of elitism -- in case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia has many similarities with an "anarchist" event, as as you say anyone can participate and shape it. However, Burning Man has policies despite its anarchistic leanings, and when those policies are violated things are brought back in line with policy (whether its your art car speeding/endangering pedestrians, on the playa or selling something). Similarly, despite Wikipedia's 'anyone can edit' and consensus based models, there are still policies which should be followed. I don't think it is elitist of me to seek to enforce policies set by collective agreement of the hundreds or thousands of wikipedia editors.
Another similarity between Wikipedia and Burning Man is that although it is in some ways "unplanned," in reality a lot of planning and organization go into its back end. The Burning Man organization, which has full time employees throughout the year, handles a plethora of business and legal issues. Hundreds or thousands of theme camps begin their planning months or years in advance of execution. Without this oversight, very little would get done. Likewise, it is the job of the editors and administrators of wikipedia to create the best, most authoritative, and most encyclopedic articles possible. Burning Man is a wild, hedonistic festival and as such its contents should be wild and hedonistic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and if it is to serve its visitors its articles need to be encyclopedic. Please remember the primary audience of this article is people who have never heard of this great event (yes, they still exist) or those looking for more info for their own prospective trips, and who would like the most useful and authoritative information possible (as much as such a thing is possible when it comes to BM!). This goes for the external links too -- an unwieldy collection of links does not serve the curious newbie well; what they need are links to sites with the most, clearest, and best information. Please draw your attention to Wikipedia's style guide on external links
If you will reread my original response, you will see that my request was for other people to suggest the sites they think should be listed here, and why. Rather than delete each other's work why don't we go through the list and discuss them. If you feel a site should go or stay please tell me why.
  • Official Burning Man Website -- the official site. I think we can agree this is a useful link. However I find it questionable that you chose to delete the link to http://images.burningman.com since this provides thousands of images of the event from hundreds of visitors. If this event is made up of all its visitors, I would argue this presents a better picture than a photo gallery from a single visitor.
  • Driving Directions - I admit I deleted this after too limited a look at the page, as it does have useful directions and resources on many area towns. However, this should perhaps be linked from the Wikitravel article rather than here. However, this link, Artist Resource for Fire, and *Reviews of Products Used at Burning Man all are linked from the same personal website, and can all be found on this page: http://www.arfarfarf.com/burningman/. Rather than 3 links to smaller articles on the same site, it makes far more sense to condense these down into a single link to that page. This is what I would propose to do in future revisions.
  • Wikitravel article on Black Rock City -- Another wikimedia project, with some great info. I would leave this.
  • Disorient This site appears to be down although I was able to visit it when I first visited the links on this page for editting. However, regardless of whether it comes up it is a link to an indivudal theme camp. I do not think links to individual theme camp homepages belong on this page unless they provide a great deal of resources for visitors or researchers of the event. There are thousands of camps every year, and it is not desirious to link to all their home pages here. If you feel differently please explain why we should link to this page.
  • Café Satan -- this is not even a theme camp page, but a proposal for a theme camp. This does not provide value to encyclopedia users.
  • Category at ODP -- a link repository. This is a good place random links to a Burner's homepage or photo gallery can go. Unlike wikipedia, which is an encylcopedia, this site is designed to hold and categorize many links on a topic. By providing a link to the ODP we give people the opportunity to find J. Random Burner's page if they want to do so.
  • MarXidad.com - Burning Man -- this site is really not useful to those who are interested in the event. It consists mostly of offsite links and forwarded humor about the event.
  • Burning Man Packing Lists -- very useful! Again, maybe this belongs more in the wikitravel article but I don't have a problem with it being here.
  • Tristan's Burning Man Photos and Pmatt's Burning Man Photos -- I would argue that your edits have made this page more elitist, by favoring the viewpoints of these two individuals (out of the thousands who have photographed BM) and removing a link to a gallery with hundreds of individuals viewpoints on it. The latter seems more anarchistic and in the spirit of the event, which belongs to no one person.
I look forward to your response. So that this is not an elitist decision made by just two people, I will invite some other Wikipedians to comment (including the other members of Category:Wikipedian Burners and the general populace of the site. Since we are both attendees of one of the greatest happenings of history, I trust that you and I can keep this civil. Please sign future posts with four tildes (~) so that we know who is writing the response. Happy Burning! Kit 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
p.s. good work expanding the Green Tortoise page beyond a stub! Kit 21:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I generally agree with the remarks expressed here on each of the external links. In general I think it's a bit absurd for anyone to just wander in and add their Burning Man photo gallery or theme camp website to the bottom of the page... after all, there are thousands out there, and this is Wikipedia, not ePlaya or Tribe. In general the quality of this page is declining, but this is getting ridiculous. I hope that if any new links are added, it is done so judiciously. Gecko 23:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


Todfox, if you want to turn this into a test of wills, then fine - you win. I'm not going to waste my whole day going back and forth with you. I would, however, point out that your interpretation of the rules is absurd and your approach more than a little disingenuous.

Burning Man, more than anything else, is about the individual camps and individual projects which are set up and run by the individuals burners, with a minimum of interference from BMORG - a point I've already made, even if you're going to turn a willfully deaf ear to it. To show that creative mess from a single point of view is to artificially impose an order upon the portrayal of the subject that would be absent from the subject in reality.

To demand, as you do, that I go though, link by link and tell you why I think this camp or that project sums up what Burning is all about - even in cases where I was not the submitter of that link, which is usually the case - is a way of sneaking a very debatable concept in through the back door, namely that this anarchist event should be portrayed through the eyes of a single, central, "official" organization. This would take unreasonably long, and that's really the point, isn't it Todd - procedural gameplaying as a debating technique.

I'm amused by your remark about my "deleting your work", given the fact that all I did was undo your deletion of the work of many others, when you wiped out most of that links section. As for your not getting your way somehow making this article less "encyclopedic" - does that word mean just whatever Todfox wants it to mean, or does its current meaning have anything to do with the meaning it has had down through the years. Grab a real dictionary - "encyclopedic" carries a connotation of completeness in converage, so restricting the reader to a single viewpoint on the event - that of BMORG - or even to just a select few viewpoints, would be to make the article less encyclopedic. It would also be to make a mockery of NPOV, because as we get to the question of which 'worthier' views of the event should be allowed in, we're left with the question of "who is Todfox, and what qualifies him to make that decision". Just by making it, you've engaged in POV.

So, do these policies apply for real, or do they only apply to those editors who don't belong to large enough cliques? User:65.182.172.111)

Getting multiple viewpoints is exactly the reason I would like to work with you and others on creating a good link section. However, since you have declined to do so I will go ahead and bring things back in line with wikipedia policy, as I see it. Kit 05:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
so here is what happened:
a new link, to Photo essay from a Burning Man first-timer's perspective was added, and after some deliberation I left it. What do other people think? Finally, i there a template for linking to Wikitravel or do you have to use an External link? Kit 06:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments added by User:65.182.172.111): 

     Translation: I refused to feed your ego in the way that you wanted it fed,
     so you decided to show me by redefining a well-known word ("encyclopedic")
     in a ludicrous way so that you could blow off the NPOV policy while pretending
     to be in compliance with it. I did not, for example, submit the link for Disorient
     which  is very much a live link.
     So why should I be called on to defend that particular link, and why should
     that link need my defense or approval, or yours, or any combination of these?

     The real question is "does the NPOV policy mean anything". If viewpoints are
     going to start vanishing from the coverage the moment those who have reported
     them go off and do something other than engage in revert wars, the answer to
     this question is going to be "no".

       An event of this size, with as many camps and projects as it has, and
       you claim that - was ity even a dozen links - is excessive. Remarkable.
       But Tod, at the risk of being seen quoting Rush Limbaugh, words mean
       things, and the word "random" is no exception. None of these links
       were "random". A coin toss is random; these links were put in because
       somebody took a look at them and found them interesting and somehow
       informative about the event.

       How one is supposed to rigorously prove that a link is either of these
       things is a mystery; on what basis was this discussion of your supposed
       to proceed? It's a judgement call, Todd; it's like trying to discuss why
       you like a particular food, or why you prefer one band over another. This
       is why the NPOV policy does not allow you to do what you just did - 
       the very choice you're making is a form of POV; is it appropriate in a
       wiki for the reader's experience to be filtered through the subjective
       judgment calls of one person, or even of two or three?

Answer from Disorient:
In the first sentence of the Theme Camp section of the Burning Man site Harley K. DuBois writes: "Theme camps are the interactive core of Burning Man." As one of the largest camp at Burning Man since 2001 (one of our founding members has been going to the event since 1993), Disorient feels that a link to the Disorient site is valuable to the Burning Man article on Wikipedia. Please note that the Disorient site uses wiki technology as well. Thank you. The Eye, Architect of Disorient. (User:69.200.87.58)

User:65.182.172.111, wikipedia has standards of conduct and common courtesy.

Your increasing rudeness is not becoming of a wikipedia editor and I would prefer if we could keep this civil, please do no continue to insult me on these pages as I have been very careful not to attack you

despite our obvious disagreements. In an attempt to reach consensus on changes, I have made the following changes:

PLease refrain from adding your comments in the middle of my comments as you did before.


Please continue to discuss changes here (such as your insistence that we retain Disorient) rather than simply reverting my changes. Please be aware there are wikipedia policy limits on the number of legal reverts that can be made (see Wikipedia:Three revert rule). Kit 19:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I put back the link to my Burning Man site because I think it adds a point of view that really isn't available elsewhere. Not everyone reads the article--some just go straight to the links to find out what Burning Man is about. It's not true that my site "offers no info about the event" and how would anyone know that it's not useful to anyone interested in the event. I think that the list of quotations on my site and the humour, both on my site and links to the Onion articles, capture an inkling of the Burning Man experience that the article (or even the hand-drawn map that was accepted as a valid link) doesn't convey. There's no substitute to going to the event but a quick summary of what people think about it can be useful. I do get a lot of refferals from this site and people googling for Burning Man info, so I know that people go there.
MarXidad 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm very suspicious of the vanity inherent in adding a link to one's own site. If it's really worthwhile, someone else will eventually add the link. I've written plenty of worthwhile stuff elsewhere on the Internet, outside of Wikipedia. The only place I link to any of it is from my user page. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel. The policy on Wikipedia:External links states explicitly, "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged." Your site consists of one personal essay, 3 links to other sites, and a bit of forwarded humor about BMan. This does not suggest to me a reason to link to your own site. In my opinion, if you link to your own site you should have a really compelling reason to do so -- your site should be one of the best sources of information on a particular topic on the Internet, and that simply isn't true here. Kit 07:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(The following comments were left for me by the anonymous editor I am in a dispute with, at the time operating from IP address 65.182.172.91. In keeping with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines I am moving the comments to the end of the page for clarity. In keeping with Wikipedia:Civility I am removing his personal attacks on me as they do not add anything to either this discussion or the settling of the dispute in question Kit 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)): 


     Comment from Todfox's opposition:

     Tod, I think you know full well that when somebody reverts a page, as
     I did to get back the links that you took out, that all edits that came
     after the version one reverts to, come undone. While you're clearly trying
     to affect a civil tone, to do something as blatantly dishonest as
     pretending that I deliberately took that link out is extremely
     uncivil as an action, no matter what you try to pretend your tone is.

      Comment from opposition: Agreed, at least tentatively. Good observation. 

     See remarks above. Wipe out a bunch of links, insert       one of your own, and when somebody     
     reverts the page to get back what you  took out, gripe about the link >he< deleted.

     That's like putting your morning newspaper next to your neighbor's sprinkler,
     and then complaining that he sprayed water all over your newspaper. 
     What you're trying to do is prevail on a questionable action by setting
     me up.

     Comment: And what would you call a dogged attempt to create the illusion
     that I was doing something that in fact I was not doing? Were you under
     the impression that trying to set somebody up was a friendly act?

    Comment: "User: 65.182.172.111" hasn't intentionally deleted that link even
    once, much less persisted in doing so. Todfox is, however, persisting in throwing
    the same bit of mud in the apparent hope that it will stick if he throws it
    enough times. I have no objection to the image gallery at burningman.com
    being linked to from this article. I think it makes an excellent addition, and
    am surprised that it wasn't one of the first pages linked to.



    Comment from opposition: Tod, I'll insert those remarks where I damned well
    please. Maybe I'd better
    break the news to you. A rule doesn't become a rule just because you
    try to say it is.

    My remarks are inserted next to the comments of yours they come in response
    to. When you, for example, try to mislead the reader about my actions, that's
    where my response has to be. You've written a small novel up there, one
    that taxes the attention span of most of those who'll just be skimming this
    page, and if I don't challenge those remarks swiftly on the page, I won't
    have an open minded and attentive reader by the time he gets down to my rebuttal.

    Which is really the intention, isn't it? So, no, I have solidly good
    reasons to not follow this rule that you just made up.    
    Honestly, Tod, in real life, unless you draw a weapon on me, I'm a nice guy.
    I'd just not a doormat and yes, there's a difference.

    But perhaps we've merely gotten off on the wrong foot, and things have started
    to escalate. I'd like it if that would be the case, because one can always
    choose to de-escalate. Just don't try to play me, Tod. I don't like that.
I do think we've gotten off to the wrong foot, so let me first off apologize for assuming you maliciously deleted my link to the images.burningman.com gallery. It is clear to me now that in reverting my changes you unintentionally deleted the one link I added along with the ones I deleted. Wikipedia guidelines (Wikipedia:Assume good faith) suggest this is not what I should have done and I am sorry for that.
I would like to continue this discussion with you, but I would politely request that you read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if you have not done so, or review them if it has been a while. The former insists quite clearly that a polite tone be used during Talk page discussions and especially in disputes, and explains why personal attacks are not allowed. Since you have stated your desire to 'de-escalate' things, I am assuming these were things you said merely in the heat of the moment and as such I have deleted them, in keeping with the guidelines on that page. Please try not to resort to comments about my character or personal attacks in the future as I think it is unbecoming behavior for both a fellow wikipedia editor and a fellow Burner.
Likewise, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines quite clearly states that replies should go on the bottom of the talk page, after the last discussion. I am enforcing this here for clarity, not to irritate or "play" you -- because you inserted your comments directly in the middle of mine, I did not realize that you had replied at all -- MarXidad replied after you, so my watchlist on this page showed only his reply and it was not until I reviewed the whole page did I notice you had once again replied to me. As I hope you can see, there is real potential for confusion here and would ask you to post comments on the bottom of the page.
In order to facilitate dispute resolution (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) on this matter, would you be willing to try to settle this via a survey (Wikipedia:Survey guidelines) or, failing that, mediation (see Wikipedia:Mediation)? Kit 21:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
To add more, you will note I have not re-deleted MarXidad's link. I won't edit the Links section until we can settle this via either a survey, mediation, or other forms of dispute resolution. I would ask you do the same to prevent further edit warring. Kit 21:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
In response to what was said above, I think that "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged" refers to self-promoting links. My link isn't for self-promotion. I can make my pages seem less self-promotional but I don't think I should have to. Also, not all worthwhile pages are eventually linked to by someone other than the author, and linking to someone's site that isn't your own doesn't necessarily make it worthwhile. And I don't think that a site has to be one of the best sources of information on a particular topic on the Internet in order to be linked to, whether it be by the author or someone else. I think that if a site is relevant, can possibly be of some value to someone, and doesn't have content that is the same or very similar to the other links (or links from linked pages), it should be included in the external links section.
MarXidad 01:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I did find some of the links on your page worthwhile, for what it's worth. I enjoyed reading Sterling's Wired article (I think I had seen it before but it was good to be reminded of it, fun to see ways the event has changed and stayed the same both in the 9 years since he wrote that). Anyway thanks for keeping this Civil even though we disagree. Kit 04:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


This is user:here I arrived here independently from a note at the village pump. My opinion in short, the external links list should be kept to a minimum.

  • Marxidad, why don't you find someone else's page to add... yours is, well, yours. All content on this page could be written into main article if warrented (sterling's article etc.) This link should go away.
  • Disorient, no. Although a theme camp section should be further developed, I don't believe we should list theme camps with the rest of the external links. A different list at least, though fine leaving it alone until further rewrite efforts. As an aside, your conduct leaves something to be desired, what gives?
  • arfarfarf, no too. Unimpressed with resources on arfarfarf, all available on main site / survival guide pages.
  • euroburners would be nice to include somewhere (regional or links)

Thanks Todfox/Kit for the effort to solicit comment. I'll keep an eye here and see if I can lend a hand with a big picture re-org. Here 06:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burning_Man/Archive_2&oldid=95750141"