Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[TSandM]

I don't really understand what Wikipedia wants in articles on controversial topics. Describing what DIR diving is and where it came from is pretty straightforward, unless or until you want to get into the schismatic things of UTD and whether the Z-system is DIR or not . . .

If you want to include in an article that the system is espoused by certain individuals with the following credentials/accomplishments (citation) and derided by a second set of individuals with the following credentials/accomplishments (citation) that seems reasonable as a presentation of pro and con arguments to me. It is not that I either accept the validity of the critical opinions or approve of their originators -- but if you want to include opinions pro and con, you include them, with the information to help a reader decide whether those opinions are valid or not.

Otherwise, a purely informational article about what DIR is should be quite straightforward.

 

[PfcAJ]

Describing what DIR diving is and where it came from is pretty straightforward

That. Just do that. Trying to make a wikipedia article into a summary of every stupid DIR e-debate is silly and does nothing. Its even worse when you include 'arguments' from people who don't even understand what DIR is.

Its like arguing obstetrics with a proponent of the stork theory...

 

[LiteHedded]

am i the only one that doesn't care about this silly wikipedia article and what these people write in it?

rhone man, how did you find out it's undergoing a major rewrite? who's doing it and why?

 

[Rhone Man]

I don't really understand what Wikipedia wants in articles on controversial topics. Describing what DIR diving is and where it came from is pretty straightforward, unless or until you want to get into the schismatic things of UTD and whether the Z-system is DIR or not . . .

This is an old problem - see for example articles on abortion, creationism or George W. Bush. If there are competing schools of thought, the article should try to balance both. If one school of thought is only held by idiots, then it is often sufficient to mention that school of thought, but it doesn't have to get equal air time. Although I appreciate that much of the concern expressed in this forum is about how much time is given to the views of Ellyatt, Gilliam, etc. Realistically - those views are going to get mentioned in some way. But the key is to ensure that they are kept in context. Realistically it is only 2/3rds of the way down that mention of criticisms of DIR and the "strokes" controversy is raised. I'd accept that there still appears to be too much stress on those aspects at the moment, but it is a collaborative project and we'll see where we get to.

I also accept your second point that it is hard to know how much detail is relevant before it just becomes grindingly dull.

That. Just do that. Trying to make a wikipedia article into a summary of every stupid DIR e-debate is silly and does nothing. Its even worse when you include 'arguments' from people who don't even understand what DIR is.

Its like arguing obstetrics with a proponent of the stork theory...

As I indicated in my reply to Lynne, this is an old problem. See the article on Evolution. The key is trying to strike the right balance on minority opinions - not over inflating them, and not pretending they don't exist.

Personally I think the "strokes controversy" is a relevant part of DIR history. I think a good parallel is in the early 1990s when all the major diving agencies argued Nitrox was unsafe, until NAUI broke ranks. Now, on the Nitrox page, Wikipedia has a small but sensible paragraph referring back to the controversy during that period, much as I am sure most of the agencies would prefer to now forget that it ever happened.

am i the only one that doesn't care about this silly wikipedia article and what these people write in it?

rhone man, how did you find out it's undergoing a major rewrite? who's doing it and why?

Not caring is perfectly OK - it is a voluntary project, no one is being coerced. I am one of those guys who likes working on public knowledge projects, so I enjoy this sort of editing. But my wife also thinks it is all utterly pointless.

On Wikipedia people volunteer for Project teams, and one of the teams I am on is WikiProject Scuba. The suggestion was made on the Project page: "the DIR article is awful; let's dedicate some time to trying to improve and rewrite it", and so off we went. The guys who are taking the lead (I only know them by their usernames) are Userbsouthwood (who is a technical diver of unknown experience from South Africa), User:RexxS (who is a British diving instructor - he is a national instructor, which is quite a big deal in the UK) and User:Anthony Appleyard (I know nothing about his diving background, but he is a senior administrator on Wikipedia). And then there are lots of grunts like me who are just chipping in where they can. Unfortunately User:Gene_Hobbs (who I think is known to many on SB, and who has made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia in the past) appears to be no longer involved in the project.

 

[ucfdiver]

Gene Hobbs actually knows what he's talking about...which wouldn't mesh well with the rest of that team.

 

[Rhone Man]

Gene Hobbs actually knows what he's talking about...which wouldn't mesh well with the rest of that team.

Gene was a hugely valued member of the team. Unfortunately after a personal tragedy he seems to have largely withdrawn from a number of free source public projects. He is greatly missed.

 

[MarkHerm]

Hm, in the team that you describe there seems to be no DIR diver at all, right? At least no long term or senior DIR diver or instructor. That seems a little unfortunate for this project and the goal it is striving for ("improve quality").
Still, overall I believe Wikipedia to be extremly valuable, so I applaud you guys for getting involved by spending your time!

 

[RexxS]

Gene was a hugely valued member of the team. Unfortunately after a personal tragedy he seems to have largely withdrawn from a number of free source public projects. He is greatly missed.

Hello, everyone. First, thanks to Ucfdiver for his ringing endorsement I hope to be able to work in a team with some of the folks mentioned to improve the Wikipedia article. By the way, I'm in regular touch with Gene and he's not withdrawing, but has shifted his balance of spare time toward enjoying fatherhood, and I'm sure all of you would want to wish Beccy and Gene all the best in that endeavour. I'm sure he'll be back and willing to get stuck in as soon as he finds a little more time.

To try to respond to some of this thread, the value of Wikipedia is that, more often than not, it is the top Google hit for any subject, and (apart from some unrelated music videos) it is top for "Doing It Right". The greatest strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it; and this also its greatest weakness. At present, we have had a zealous newcomer who wants to present every possible criticism, although 99% of it can't be traced to any reliable source. Politeness requires me to give him a chance to provide sources, but I will be going through the article removing the unsourced material, along with the stuff which is speculative or synthesised from poor quality sources. I have an early paper edition of fundamentals and the 2006 version as a pdf to use as references, and I have been a keen observer of the evolution of DIR ever since I was a regular participant in the NED days from the early 1990s onwards (Hi Dan Volker, btw - I remember you from the lists and newsgroups).

Nevertheless, I don't have the training and resources many of you folks have, so anyone who has the time to look at the Wikipedia article: Doing It Right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would be welcomed (by some of us at least) to set right any inaccuracies or misconceptions. If you're able to quote a source that supports your point, it makes it a hundred times more likely that any such change will 'stick'.

I look forward to reviving some old acquaintanceships here, as well as making new ones.

 

[LiteHedded]

any complainers wanna step up to the plate? otherwise it's pointless to even discuss it imo

 

[RTodd]

..... The suggestion was made on the Project page: "the DIR article is awful; let's dedicate some time to trying to improve and rewrite it", and so off we went. The guys who are taking the lead (I only know them by their usernames) are .... and User:Anthony Appleyard (I know nothing about his diving background, but he is a senior administrator on Wikipedia). ....

I think Appleyard was the subject of one of George's best lines ever - the shaving with a cheese grater one. Anyone from the techdiver list remember?