Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[jago]

In the beginning, there was the DIR 1 video, then the DIR 2 video, then DIR 3 videos... DIR 1 and 2 were how most divers learned about DIR up until GUE was formed...So is there a problem with quoting elements of "published" videos like the DIR series?

All multimedia objects must be under a free licence to be integrated in the body of the article. Otherwise, it is only possible to put a link to these ressources (in the external links sections).

 

[jago]

To really test the cell you need to run a 1.6ppo2 underwater, or else it could be current limited. The RB80 has no real easy way to do this, and therefore we don't know that a hyperoxic gas would read higher than 1.0 (the most you can test for on the surface).

To "validate" a change of mix in a PaSCR, you don't need a cell which can measure hich PpO2.

 

[ucfdiver]

To "validate" a change of mix in a PaSCR, you don't need a cell which can measure hich PpO2.

Assuming current limited at 1.2, you might not see much change between 18/45 at 190 and pure o2, or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?

This is getting way off the topic but you are not quite right. There are cell checkers that enables one to check their cells up to 2.0 ppO2 on the surface. I use mine regularly to check my cells because spiking a breathing gas while underwater doesn't make much sense to me. What if the cell is limited at 1.6 and you're unknowingly spiking to 2.0 or higher?

Not 100% sure, I have a limited knowledge of CCR/pSCR as they provide little value to the dives I do. From my understanding of the RB80, you should see a decent drop on 120/70ft deco gases, so a 1.5 ppo2 on those should be normal.

 

[nadwidny]

Not 100% sure, I have a limited knowledge of CCR/pSCR as they provide little value to the dives I do. From my understanding of the RB80, you should see a decent drop on 120/70ft deco gases, so a 1.5 ppo2 on those should be normal.

You do realize that a "know where to place the cotton" applies to your post?

 

[Peter Southwood]

Hi Bob (Gratefuil Diver),
I would be quite happy to load a few good photos onto Wikimedia commons, and link them to the article, but I dont have any of my own. If you or someone else is willing to donate photos that they have the rights to, and will also provide a copyright release for CC-by 3.0 or other Wikimedia acceptable licence, you can either upload them yourself or email them to me and I will upload them for you. I quite agree the current photo is not ideal, but there is no better available that I know of. This is really easy to sort out if you have suitable photos.
Cheers,
Peter

 

[Peter Southwood]

If someone is linked with GUE leaders, it would be interesting to suggest them to put pics on this page Equipment Configuration | Global Underwater Explorers under a free licence so they could be integrated in Wikipedia.

Good idea, that would make the pics officially sanctioned by GUE.
Cheers,
Peter

 

[Peter Southwood]

In the beginning, there was the DIR 1 video, then the DIR 2 video, then DIR 3 videos... DIR 1 and 2 were how most divers learned about DIR up until GUE was formed...So is there a problem with quoting elements of "published" videos like the DIR series?

Hi Danvolker,
It can be done if the videos can be referenced by the public, and there is some form of identification of who says what, and whose opinion something is. The problem with referencing from a video is that is a lot more work than from print, and relatively difficult to verify. Also I dont have the videos, so someone else would have to do it.
What specifically do the videos contain that could be usefully used in the article?
Cheers,
Peter

 

[Peter Southwood]

Guys, I got an idea. Why dont we start a topic call "Stroke" in Wikipedia and have the DIR guys write an Critism and Controversy page? Only then we can have a truly "fair and balanced" view, no? :mooner:

Hi Randytay,
You could do that if you can show evidence of notability and apply a neutral point of view. It would be useful if you could also provide a verifiable origin of the term. You would also have to disambiguate, as there are several meanings depending on context, but that is a minor technicality.
Cheers,
Peter

 

[danvolker]

Hi Danvolker,
It can be done if the videos can be referenced by the public, and there is some form of identification of who says what, and whose opinion something is. The problem with referencing from a video is that is a lot more work than from print, and relatively difficult to verify. Also I dont have the videos, so someone else would have to do it.
What specifically do the videos contain that could be usefully used in the article?
Cheers,
Peter

Hi Peter,
In the period from 97 to 2001, the primary "educational" material, or complete showing and discussion of all that DIR was, was distributed via the DIR 1 video first, and then the followup video DIR 2.
They included gear configuration and gear choice information to an extreme degree, the reasons for much of this, and a great deal about how DIR divers make choices during dives, and about the concept of team as per DIR mindset...This was the way the WKPP dived, and if a person could join the WKPP, then they may still watch these, but they would be "mentored" in to the DIR system, meaning the material in the videos would have been covered by their mentors.
These videos were and are a complete record of how DIR was explained, and how you could become DIR, back in the 90's.
The DIR 3 video, was a version of the other 2 preceeding videos, aimed not at cave and tech divers ( as 1 and 2 were), but at the recreational diving community. It was and is freely available....If you visit South Florida Dive Journal > Videos you will see the DIR 3 available for free streaming ( or download if you have Real Player and the free Real Downloader which I would recommend for ease in watching).
DIR 3 can represent to WIKI the proper gear configuration of DIR, the gear choices, and much of the mindset....The primary speaker is George Irvine, the guy who made DIR the way the WKPP dived, and the guy that propelled the WKPP to many world records in deep cave, with zero deaths ( while in the same timeline, many cave and tech deaths were occurring with alarming frequency, for much less severe diving).
While the delivery style of George Irvine upset many divers, his style was brilliantly effective in getting the DIR message out in direct opposition to competing ideologies which WKPP believed were beyond dangerous, to the point of gross negligence. The competing ideologies came from training agencies with real advertising budgets, and to compete with the media and content using traditional strategies, could easily have cost millions in media expenditures....Irvine managed a major counter-campain of how divers should dive, this being DIR, with no dollar cost at all. The vast majority of the issues he complained about in behaviors and standards in the main training agencies, which were argued intensely at the time, are NOW essentially standards for most of these same agencies now....
Put another way, George could not say 99% of what he said back around 98 today--the attacks and warnings, because those areas of contention have largely been modified by the agencies to the point that they are not far from DIR positions, and George could not have found any entertaining or useful arguements with they being this close to his positions

Feel free to use DIR 3 for anything you want. While we could ask JJ for free use of DIR 1 and 2, I believe the thinking in GUE now, is that it is infinitely better to have people learn DIR via GUE materials...and further, the original DIR videos were used in a time when the rest of the world's training agencies were doing things very wrong, and antagonistic to DIR ideas---Since this is very much NOT THE CASE today, the entire atmosphere of the DIR videos is less appropriate for teaching. Today, you would not need to lecture about the stupidity of diving air solo to 300 feet, for a "personal best", using heavy steel tanks, bungi wings and thick wetsuits in 60 degree water.....But in 1997, you WOUKD have to, if you want those listening to change their behaviors and intents.

 

[rlynch]

There is a wealth of info on the early days of DIR, trey, WKPP to be found archived (took about 5 minutes of searching to come up with the archives that dan mentioned)

WKPP from rec.scuba

Jablonski on rec.scuba

Aquanauts cave - key word Trey


Aquanauts techdiver - Trey

should be fairly easy to rewrite the wikipedia entry to reflect the true history and get rid of most of the mis-informed personal viewpoints.
No reason for it to stand as is...


I'm a wikipedia author as well (nothing to it really, anyone can become one, and meeting the guidelines for articles is realitively easy). It will open a can of worms given the open source nature of wikipedia however.