Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[BluewaterSail]

I have seen an article written by GI3 on www.direxplorers.com which I think was his first public explanation of DIR. I have never been successful in searching their library, but they have a cycling display of articles on their home page, so everything pops up eventually. Maybe you will show a higher level of search skill and be able to find it. Or join the board and ask.

Linda

Actually, its on the Wikapedia article as reference #5. No need for search skills there.

 

[Peter Southwood]

Dan,
I tried downloading DIR3 several times with Realdownload, every time it crashed after a few hours at less than 1/4 way through. However I got a copy on DVD from a friend, so all is well on that front. I haven't had time to go through it completely yet, but I have noticed that some text comes up on the player to the effect that the three presenters are Bill Mee, Dan Volker and George Irvine. Is this correct? I recognise GI as the one to the right at the start, but dont know who is who of the others. It would be useful to know if I want to attribure a quote.
Someone added an edit to the WP article claiming that you are a strong advocate of surf mats/surf shuttle. Would you comment on this? Are they DIR recommended equipment? If so under what circumstances?

Something else that might be useful would be a formal and official DIR code of practice. I accept that it would be subject to change with time, but a document detailing what the current practice actually is would be useful to reduce confusion.

Regarding suggestions:
Where and why it was started, who was involved, major milestones on the timeline, how decisions were made and how the configuration developed, How the philosphy developed, and references, references, references. It is almost impossible to over-reference a history, particularly regarding who said what to whom. It might also be interesting to mention experiments that failed, as these provide insights into changes made to address those problems. Dont exclude anything at this stage. If something looks doubtful, put it in the unused references file, it may be useful later. Get input from as many people who were involved as possible. Keep it all, use that which looks useful. Ask all the contributors to supply references, preferably as attachments. Use appendices to provide references that are difficult for the public to access. Try to find time to eat, sleep and dive between edits.
Good luck,
Peter

 

[Peter Southwood]

I have to say that reading that article and the talk part has really opened my eyes wide on Wikipedia and how it is formed. Now that I know what goes on, I think I may choose a topic I don't know anything about either and start contributing.

Hi Boulderjohn,
This is not inherently such a dumb idea as it looks at face value. The people who know and accept that they don't know much about a topic are likely to be more careful about sourcing material and citing the sources than the people who think they know a lot about it but don't, as those have the tendency to write their opinions down as fact, and often don't know the difference between their opinions and fact. Even real experts have a tendency to assume things are common knowledge or universally accepted, and underreference their contributions.
The contributors who acknowledge the limits of their knowledge are also less likely to get into edit wars.

Dan,
Wikipedia policy in general is to concentrate on what things are, but what they are not is also a valid way of defining what they are. It is part of the context in which they exist, and helps define the boundaries. An article may grow with shifts in balance between what it is and what it isnt, depending on the interests of the current editors. Material which is easily citable tends to get more page space, because it is easier. Your proposed history could go a long way towards shifting the balance towards what DIR is.
Cheers,
Peter

 

[boulderjohn]

Hi Boulderjohn,
This is not inherently such a dumb idea as it looks at face value. The people who know and accept that they don't know much about a topic are likely to be more careful about sourcing material and citing the sources than the people who think they know a lot about it but don't, as those have the tendency to write their opinions down as fact, and often don't know the difference between their opinions and fact.

Sure. I found this example of citing sources on the talk page:

"Here is some other pretty good criticism: CDNN editorial (never heard of CDNN myself, but it comes high on the Google hits)."
​

I assume you don't see anything wrong with this, but I bet just about anyone reading this thread in this forum knows how very, very little credibility CDNN has among savvy divers. To give you an analogy, one of the most popular news sources in America is the National Enquirer. Intelligent researchers know better than to cite it as an authoritative source.

People who know what they are talking about can tell the difference between a credible source and a laughable source.

 

[DiverLaura]

you mean like this?

Evolution of DIR Principles | Global Underwater Explorers

OK, I know this will be controversial.

The historical information about DIR is certainly valuable. The difficult thing will be explaining the current state of DIR. It has been debated within this forum without a clear consensus. There is obviously a difference of opinion within the larger DIR community.

 

[boulderjohn]

you mean like this?

Evolution of DIR Principles | Global Underwater Explorers

I think you may have missed my point. There is a difference of opinion related to who speaks for DIR today and how it is defined. One of those voices is certainly GUE. Some (like Dan) wold argue that it should be the only authority. However, there is a dispute about this, and citing one side of the dispute without mentioning the other does not recognize the conflict of which I speak.

 

[Slamfire]

I remember at one point reading an interesting exchange between GI3 and AG where among other niceties, the former was banning the latter from using the DIR term in association with any training he was to impart. Since there was no trademarking of the acronym, we all know that did not happen. I agree with John when he asks that the UTD side of the story be also included. It will provide a more universal picture. Otherwise, instead of calling this article DIR, it would be more accurate to call it just the GUE article.

I think it would be good to show the different direction (for good or bad) that UTD is taking. I think mentions of the Z-Diving, MX-90, MX-Z, an other developments should be presented and then lead to the readers asking themselves "is this still DIR?" or "what is the future of DIR?", and "is it still the best way for me to dive?". I think that kind of introspective internal debates should be a core element of a truly "thinking diver".

I don't think anything good will come from taking the attitude the defenders-of-the-faith that are looking to incarcerate the heretics that go against the heliocentric approach.

Additionally, I also think more space should be given to the influence that DIR has had in the rest of the scuba world. Dan indirectly mentioned something along these lines when he said that other agencies are not as bad as they used to be. How come now we see that the long hose is nearly universally acceptable. Now even PADI has their own version of Fundies: PADI Foundations of Diving Distinctive Specialty | Ocean Quest Dive Centre - Scuba Diving Vancouver, BC - Experts in Scuba Training

I'll say it one more time, I have no GUE or UTD training. However, as my diving evolved and I did some research on how to do certain things, time and time again I found myself deciding that the most logical way to do these was the way DIR was proposing. When I decided I needed to be using doubles, rigging stages, or choosing a harness, they presented the most logical options.

By no means am I claiming I'm a DIR diver. I'm way too heretical to do it. But I can distinctly say their ideas have deeply influenced the way I dive and I think I'm a better diver because of that influence. Just like I have been influenced, I also think the entire diving world has been influenced. I think it would be good to note and chart this influence in the Wikipedia article.

 

[danvolker]

I remember at one point reading an interesting exchange between GI3 and AG where among other niceties, the former was banning the latter from using the DIR term in association with any training he was to impart. Since there was no trademarking of the acronym, we all know that did not happen. .

I would think most would agree that George is the one the "created" DIR...the "term" and style of diving now being discussed. You cite an exceptionally important point, that George actually told AG that he was NOT DIR in his training or ideas....
So why should WIKI decide they know more about "what is DIR", than the creator of DIR, George Irvine ?

 

[Slamfire]

Oh, and BTW, isn't GUE trying to distance itself from the DIR moniker lately? Then there should be no problem bringing other players into the article. Maybe the distancing efforts and their reasons should also be mentioned in the article.

 

[jago]

I would think most would agree that George is the one the "created" DIR...the "term" and style of diving now being discussed. You cite an exceptionally important point, that George actually told AG that he was NOT DIR in his training or ideas....
So why should WIKI decide they know more about "what is DIR", than the creator of DIR, George Irvine ?

I suggest "The original DIR concept has been invented by G.I. but some instructors have developped some forks (A.G. with Nauitec then UTD, Cédric Verdier with DIRrebreathers, Achim Schlöffel with ISE ...)" And of course a section for each main version of D.I.R.