Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[gsk3]

Even before I got to the criticisms part (which I agree isn't particularly relevant), there was something off about the whole article. Most of the first half seems like it was written by someone who admired the WKPP and sees DIR as solely useful for that purpose. And the whole thing misses the mark--like many Wikipedia articles, it's a collection of facts rather than a comprehensive view that gives a sense of what the whole thing is about.

::Insert joke about elephant and three wise, blind men here::

 

[lamont]

I'm pretty sure I looked at this article something like a year ago and it was much better.

It kind of looks like it got attacked both by people trying to make it a parody, or some of the few GI3-wannabe's out there.

 

[mikemill]

From the talk page reason for not using a snorkel:

A snorkel is completely useless in an overhead environment

Should actually be

A snorkel is completely useless underwater

And I agree that the current page is a complete mess. It would be much better if it was edited in user space rather then try and build it up in the article itself.

 

[lamont]

The image was inserted in this revision: Doing It Right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The user Basilicofresco that made that edit really needs to get a black mark on their record for that one.

I would suggest reverting the entire article back to the revision prior to that and going from there -- then remove the DIW section and ban the idiot who keeps on adding that one back in.

 

[lamont]

and drop the section on "controvery and strokes" since the whole thing is clearly not balanced.

 

[Rhone Man]

Being familiar with DIR methodology isn't very reliable ... your views and perceptions are still going to be colored by your training and experience.

I'm familiar with DIR methodology, but my only DIR training is two attempts at Fundamentals (the second one successful) and a handful of workshops put on by GUE trained instructors. I wouldn't consider myself a very qualified resource.

A well-written Wiki page would include contributions from senior-level people who have been involved in DIR programs and projects for a number of years at a number of levels ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

No argument there, but unfortunately the way Wikipedia works is that any idiot can contribute, and most of them do. I have spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing articles on subjects I know nothing about like Haitian poets and Puerto Rican porn stars (OK, maybe just the Haitian poets).

But that is why on diving topics in particular I try to encourage outsiders with expertise. But that is also why it is so key to ensure that relevant sources get cited for major propositions.

Just for the record, I am not making any substantive contributions myself - I am just limiting my role to checking references and correcting grammar etc.

I really hate to say it, because I didn't help in any way, but I don't think it's a very well-written article at all. It's not very well organized and has very redundant parts, and like everything I've ever seen written about DIR diving by non-DIR divers, it's overly equipment-focused. In addition, almost as much space is given to criticisms and trying to find places where the system isn't applicable, as is given to describing the system. Is this appropriate for an informational article? (Honestly, trying to say that the requirements of DIR diving don't apply when one is solo diving is rather absurd, as one of THE most basic pillars of the system is diving as a team. To say that a holistic system doesn't work when you arbitrarily jettison a central part of it seems like a tautology to me.)

Also fair comment, but just as a reminder: it is in the middle of the rewrite, so it is necessarily a bit garbled and lacks flow etc. If you look on the talk page you can see the various aspects evolving. But I think your comments about being weak in substantive areas is more damning. I made the comment myself that it seems to latch too much onto specific points, like equipment, gas mixes and completely ignores others (like physical fitness). But the whole thing is a process - hopefully we'll get there in the end.

I actually also swapped some e-mails with JJ about the article and he promised to give us some references to online material we could cross refer to. He also mentioned he might take a look at the article himself and make some comments - hopefully he won't throw his hands up in horror.

Everyone has the same objective here - we want to try and produce a fairly comprehensive yet readable summary of the methodology and its development and application. The best Wikipedia articles are years in the making. Here we are just trying to fix a bad one. Unfortunately the quality benchmark for diving articles on Wikipedia is not that high at the moment (except for all the ones Gene Hobbs has been involved in) - look at the articles on "PADI" or "Technical diving" and you'll see what I mean. But we'll get there eventually.

 

[Scott L]

Heck, it could be the perfect diversion from watching the world-wide finacial system collapse. He mixes below 100' maybe falling out of vogue very soon. Does Wiki have a deep diving on air contribution as well?

 

[Rhone Man]

Heck, it could be the perfect diversion from watching the world-wide finacial system collapse. He mixes below 100' maybe falling out of vogue very soon. Does Wiki have a deep diving on air contribution as well?

Careful what you joke about:

Deep air/extended range diving

One of the more divisive subjects in technical diving concerns using compressed air as a breathing gas on dives below 130 feet (40 m).^[9] While mainstream training agencies still promote and teach such courses (TDI,^[10] IANTD and DSAT/PADI), a minority (NAUI Tec, GUE, UTD) argue that diving deeper on air is unacceptably risky, saying that helium mixes should be used for dives beyond a certain limit (100–130 feet (30–40 m), depending upon agency). Such courses used to be referred to as "deep air" courses, but are now commonly called "extended range" courses.

Deep air proponents base the proper depth limit of air diving upon the risk of oxygen toxicity. Accordingly, they view the limit as being the depth at which partial pressure of oxygen reaches 1.4 ATA, which occurs at about 186 feet (57 m). Helitrox/triox proponents argue that the defining risk should be nitrogen narcosis, and suggest that when the partial pressure of nitrogen reaches approximately 4.0 ATA, which occurs at about 130 feet (40 m), helium is necessary to offset the effects of the narcosis.^{[citation needed]} Both sides of the community tend to present self-supporting data. Divers trained and experienced in deep air diving report less problems with narcosis than those trained and experienced in mixed gas diving trimix/heliox, although scientific evidence does not show that a diver can train to overcome any measure of narcosis at a given depth, or become tolerant of it.^[11]

The Divers Alert Network does not formally reject deep air diving per se, but indicates the additional risks involved.^[12]

Technical diving - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'm not sure that Mark Ellyat and Bret Gilliam are what I'd consider objective references for an article on DIR ... :shocked2:

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Rhone Man]

I'm not sure that Mark Ellyat and Bret Gilliam are what I'd consider objective references for an article on DIR ... :shocked2:

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Well you have to be careful - you can't confuse not liking what they say with believing that their opinion on the subject is not relevant. Like them or loathe them, they are nonetheless well known figures in the diving world, and so their opinions do matter. You could make the same argument about the official position of PADI with respect to snorkels... don't have to agree with it, but it is relevant because of who they are.