A somewhat sad conversation last night

[boulderjohn]

The major problem with the wiki thread is that it is poorly referenced. While it is fine to reference JJ as to "what" DIR is, referencing him as to "why" DIR is gets a bit self-serving and circular; and does not meet wiki reference guidelines.

If you read the thread referenced above, you will see the problem with the Wiki guidelines. They pretty much prevented anyone who knows anything about it from participating. A representative from Wiki participated in the thread and saw that as a strength, since they would have to rely on sources rather than their own beliefs. The DIR article at that time as simply terrible--it was clearly written by people who knew little about it, and what little they knew they did not like. During the thread we looked at the Wiki PADI site as well, and it was even worse. Looking behind the scenes on the discussion pages showed that the people who were writing knew little about diving, let alone PADI.

What we saw in both articles were people who were seeking sources whose credibility they did not understand, and they tended to find articles written by people who were critical, which became the focus of the articles.

 

[BDSC]

Is the George Irvine guy still alive? I don't think I had ever heard of him or if I had I forgot.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

since I don't know all of the DIR guidelines, there are probably a lot that I don't follow. But to name a few:

my backup light has a switch, and I use it because it was cheaper although this one I will change when I start cave diving.

If you're not in a cave, who cares? What matters is reliability ... a backup light HAS to work when you need it. And since any piece of equipment can potentially fail, that's why you carry more than one.

I will dive with unsafe divers, and help them if necessary

What's your definition of unsafe? Mine has more to do with attitude than anything else. I'll dive with people at all skill and training levels ... as will a great many of my DIR trained friends. They'll tend to choose very conservative dive sites if they don't know you, or if you're an inexperienced diver.

Who I WON'T dive with are people who have a cavalier attitude about dive safety ... whether it's ego driven or just due to some old-fashioned notions of self-sufficiency (e.g. "my gas is my gas"). It's not that I care how they dive, particularly ... it's that I care who I choose to dive with. If I want to plan and execute a dive as though I were solo diving, I'll dive solo.

Skills are trainable. Ignorance is fixable. Ego and attitude are problems I just don't want to have to deal with.

if my hands are preoccupied with something, like writing on my slate, I will hang my camera off of my d-ring and it hangs about 2 feet

What's wrong with that? As long as it's not dragging through silt or banging into things I don't see the problem here. And if it's a camera, you really don't want to be treating it like that anyway. If you need your hands for something else, you need them ... what else would you do with your camera?

I use a computer (and it has integrated wireless pressure guage)

There's a big difference between using a computer and relying on one. As long as you have a good idea of what the computer's telling you, why it's telling you, and what you'd do about it if it stopped telling you, I don't see a problem here.

Now ... those may not be "DIR" answers ... but I really don't know too many DIR-trained divers who would see them as a problem ... not for recreational diving, anyway ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Thalassamania]

If you read the thread referenced above, you will see the problem with the Wiki guidelines. They pretty much prevented anyone who knows anything about it from participating. A representative from Wiki participated in the thread and saw that as a strength, since they would have to rely on sources rather than their own beliefs. The DIR article at that time as simply terrible--it was clearly written by people who knew little about it, and what little they knew they did not like. During the thread we looked at the Wiki PADI site as well, and it was even worse. Looking behind the scenes on the discussion pages showed that the people who were writing knew little about diving, let alone PADI.

What we saw in both articles were people who were seeking sources whose credibility they did not understand, and they tended to find articles written by people who were critical, which became the focus of the articles.

That is the way it appeared to me.

I've been trying to help out there with a few of the diving related entries and I too find the referencing requirements a bit much, since they want things that are self-evident to be referenced, and they seem to assume that gray literature or self published web stuff is OK (I know this is against the rules, but it makes it through, especially into the DIR and PADI entries).

Additionally there is no way to "reference by affidavit" (e.g., I was there and saw it, heard it, etc.) or reference by "attribution and personal communication." Yet, a reference to an agency text (which, when you really get right down to it is no more authoritative than something self-published through a vanity press) is acceptable while you or I citing: "(Pyle, 1992, Personal Communication)" is not.

 

[Hawkwood]

My goodness Bob, thanks. There are so many good comments in that post (#373).

Bill

 

[gypsyjim]

That is the way it appeared to me.

I've been trying to help out there with a few of the diving related entries and I too find the referencing requirements a bit much, since they want things that are self-evident to be referenced, and they seem to assume that gray literature or self published web stuff is OK (I know this is against the rules, but it makes it through, especially into the DIR and PADI entries).

Additionally there is no way to "reference by affidavit" (e.g., I was there and saw it, heard it, etc.) or reference by "attribution and personal communication." Yet, a reference to an agency text (which, when you really get right down to it is no more authoritative than something self-published through a vanity press) is acceptable while you or I citing: "(Pyle, 1992, Personal Communication)" is not.

You mean wiki is not gospel? You have just ruined my day.

, just in case that is not overly apparent

 

[Thalassamania]

You mean wiki is not gospel? You have just ruined my day.

, just in case that is not overly apparent

Actually I find wiki a great source in most cases, far more often good "gospel" than not.

 

[gcbryan]

I think the whole DIR vs non-DIR issue is moot. If you don't like someone that's an individual thing. Nice people and jerks come in all colors and sizes.

You may be a Democrat and not like Republican ideals but in general we get along with others by not talking about politics, religion and other divisive subjects when they don't match our viewpoints. We still generally get along with the individuals.

It's no different with DIR. There are some people (DIR) that I don't care for, there are some I do care for and there are some that are nice individuals but that are just annoying to be around.

The same can be said for any group of people. I think perhaps there are more "exacting" personally types attracted to DIR and if you're not that type it might be more annoying to be around that but that's not an absolute and in any event it applies equally to areas outside of DIR.

As I mentioned earlier it's kind of a non-issue for me in the same way that someone's political affiliation is a non-event for me...unless they talk about it non-stop that is

As the immortal philosopher Rodney King once said "can't we just all get along"

 

[gypsyjim]

Actually I find wiki a great source in most cases, far more often good "gospel" than not.

Both have some questionable entries and are subject to errors in interpretation.

 

[TSandM]

Gray, glad to see you here! I hope I'm not one of those people who talks about it all the time . . . I've sure enjoyed diving with YOU in the past!