Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[lamont]

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'.

Basically I think you need to take the work you initially did to create a reasonably NPOV and referenced article in order to justify the presence of the DIR page and rewind the page back to a much earlier revision that only has that. That's going to require political wikipedia wrangling, though, and I know I don't know enough about that culture to be able to defend it, and to be able to keep people from continually defacing it with political opinions.

 

[jago]

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)

I disagree. The title of this article is "Doing It Right", not "Doing It Right explained by GUE's people and fans" or "Why Doing It Right is so cool / proefficient / secure ...". It must include all the opinions, which are based on truths (and prove it) and mention opinions which are based on lies (and prove it). The goal of wikipedia is not to convince people, it's to permitt people to make their own opinion, freely. Otherwise it's a censorship.
Do GUE / UTD / ISE / NauiTec instructors ask you to trust them or do they prove / show the soundness of their advice ?

 

[danvolker]

How about this.....I will write up my recollection of how we initially spread DIR on rec.scuba and Aquanaut, also some of the key incodents that led George Irvine to ask me and a few other friends to push DIR on the net.....I can detail the predominant agency positions of the day, and then the typical diving practices for deep divers and for recreational divers....much of this is not really DIR so much as it is a look back into how things were in 1996, 97, 98 and so on. By 2000 or 2001, the wiki story of DIR is no longer the story of DIR in the 90's, it is the creation of GUE to teach DIR diving, and the big effort to make DIR kinder and gentler in all internet discussions--more in line with the manerisms of JJ, as opposed to the Hulk Hogan personna that George had utilized for the initial guerilla marketing of a big idea that was totally contrary to the large media budgets and behaviors of the major training agencies.
And ultimately it becomes the story of how GUE is promoting DIR Diving today.

As it happens, I am just about to begin a big new project that involves many GUE guys, including Errol and JJ, along with Robert Carmichael who is the person repsonsible for our inclusion in this huge project....this project being the "Race to the Bottom of the Sea" ... Nation & World | Race to the bottom of the sea in high-tech submarines | Seattle Times Newspaper

Sandra and I are doing the underwater video and stills for a large early phase of this, so I should have plenty of time and access to key GUE players in this history and present view, and they can assist in the re-telling of the early days of DIR as well.

p.s.
RexxS, what was the rec.scuba name you used in the old days?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I disagree. The title of this article is "Doing It Right", not "Doing It Right explained by GUE's people and fans" or "Why Doing It Right is so cool / proefficient / secure ...". It must include all the opinions, which are based on truths (and prove it) and mention opinions which are based on lies (and prove it). The goal of wikipedia is not to convince people, it's to permitt people to make their own opinion, freely. Otherwise it's a censorship.
Do GUE / UTD / ISE / NauiTec instructors ask you to trust them or do they prove / show the soundness of their advice ?

Have you read any of Ellyat or Gilliam's published commentary on DIR?

That is, of course, what would be referenced.

Both of those gentlemen are accomplished divers who have a great deal of background behind them. But based on what I've read from them, either they lack a fundamental knowledge of DIR or they have an axe to grind. Neither is what I would consider a credible resource on the topic.

... and FWIW, if I wanted to learn about a TDI course, I wouldn't ask a GUE instructor ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[jago]

Have you read any of Ellyat or Gilliam's published commentary on DIR?

No and it doesn't matter. If you write an article about the history of the astronomy, you have to speak about geocentrism. In a wiki article every point of view must be present. Of course, you can (and have to) indicate why some of them are erroneous or based on questionable or controversial assumptions. It's like a trial, the prosecution, the plaintiff and the defense can present their arguments.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

No and it doesn't matter. If you write an article about the history of the astronomy, you have to speak about geocentrism. In a wiki article every point of view must be present. Of course, you can (and have to) indicate why some of them are erroneous or based on questionable or controversial assumptions. It's like a trial, the prosecution, the plaintiff and the defense can present their arguments.

But it does matter ... if the prosecution is based on bullsh!t, it's a complete waste of time.

If you haven't read any of their published material, then you're speaking through ignorance ... just like they are. Why would anyone want to cite ignorant people ... or involve them in the process of creating the article?

Different points of view are all well and good ... if they are based on factual information rather than opinion and slander. Surely there are more cogent sources out there to provide balanced perspectives ... Steve Lewis, for example ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[danvolker]

No and it doesn't matter. If you write an article about the history of the astronomy, you have to speak about geocentrism. In a wiki article every point of view must be present. Of course, you can (and have to) indicate why some of them are erroneous or based on questionable or controversial assumptions. It's like a trial, the prosecution, the plaintiff and the defense can present their arguments.

The article is suppossed to be about DIR. Neither Ellyat or Gilliam wanted anything to do with DIR. Niether had any hand in developing the thinking or gear configurations, or team ideas of the WKPP. In terms of the history of DIR back in the 90's, they were ICONIC to DIR, in terms of what not to be like...This is far from justification for including their thoughts beyond the DIR explanation of what it was about their diving styles, which was inappropriate for the DIR system.
If you want to do an entirely separate wiki "article" on what Gilliam or Ellyat considered essential in "their" Deep Diving, then fine...but it is a "different" article than a DIR article.


It sounds like you want to do a huge article on the alternatives to DIR...again, a different article....

I always thought CaveDiver of SB had done a good job with his DIR explanation as a sticky in SB.

 

[jago]

But it does matter ... if the prosecution is based on bullsh!t, it's a complete waste of time.

If you haven't read any of their published material, then you're speaking through ignorance ... just like they are. Why would anyone want to cite ignorant people ... or involve them in the process of creating the article?

You definitely not understand. I didn't suggest Ellyat or Gilliam's published commentaries would be useful to describe DIR diving, but they will for sure be required to neutrally describe DIR diving perception. That said, I acknowledge that the non-underpinned opinions are not intended to supply the factual parts of an article

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You definitely not understand. I didn't suggest Ellyat or Gilliam's published commentaries would be useful to describe DIR diving, but they will for sure be required to neutrally describe DIR diving perception. That said, I acknowledge that the non-underpinned opinions are not intended to supply the factual parts of an article

... if you believe that Ellyat or Gilliam are capable of "neutrally describing DIR diving perception", you are kidding yourself.

Sounds to me like the creators of this article just want to produce another hit piece ... how cliche ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TSandM]

I don't think he is suggesting that Ellyat and Gilliam are neutral; I think he's saying that, if you are going to write about the public perception of DIR diving, including the naysayers is part of providing a neutral picture of that perception.

I don't have a problem with an article that starts with a description of what the system IS, goes to the history of how it came to be that way, and ends with a section on various opinions of the system, so long as some care is taken to include both the pros and cons. But any inclusion of opinions from folks like Ellyat and Gilliam ought to be tempered with some reference to the discord or rancor between them as individuals and folks like GI3, or the vitriol has no context. I don't know how possible it is to link to or cite old rec.scuba discussions and that sort of thing . . . so I think it might not be possible to render those opinions in their true setting.

Why not just provide an informational article about what the system IS? Then people intrigued with it could do their own searches for opinions as to whether it's God's gift to diving, or Devil's spawn (to quote a SB thread title).