Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[jago]

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

I don't believe that. But in the perception section, all the points of view must be described, so those 2 guys (and any opponent ) will be able to contribute.

EDIT : TSandMe, would-you, please be my lawyer ?

With the appropriate date, it is possible to find old newsgroups messages on websites (and so put a link in the wiki page).

 

[danvolker]

I don't believe that. But in the perception section, all the points of view must be described, so those 2 guys (and any opponent ) will be able to contribute.

EDIT : TSandMe, would-you, please be my lawyer ?

With the appropriate date, it is possible to find old newsgroups messages on websites (and so put a link in the wiki page).

The stuff on aquanaut.com ( tech lists and cavers) is still there....George is typically under K.Irvine or Trey
Rec.scuba was on some archive for a time...don't know as of now if it still is...

 

[Rainer]

Absolute bollocks. An encyclopedic entry does NOT need to consider all points of view on a topic. It simply needs to explain the topic itself. Leave gossip and POV opinions to the dive forums.

I don't believe that. But in the perception section, all the points of view must be described, so those 2 guys (and any opponent ) will be able to contribute.

EDIT : TSandMe, would-you, please be my lawyer ?

With the appropriate date, it is possible to find old newsgroups messages on websites (and so put a link in the wiki page).

 

[PfcAJ]

 

[jago]

Absolute bollocks. An encyclopedic entry does NOT need to consider all points of view on a topic. It simply needs to explain the topic itself. Leave gossip and POV opinions to the dive forums.

You are wrong. Doing-It-Right is not a neutral name. So if you just explain DIR diving, you take position. If you want to keep this article unbiased, you have to consider the cons. Moreover, DIR opponents seem more able IMHO to explain limits and weakness of DIR diving than yours.

By the way, many classic and non-american encyclopedics contain some debates. Be careful of ethnocentrism.

 

[Rainer]

Have you actually contributed to Wikipedia? You seem quite ignorant of how it works. If you want to make a page about "DIR controversies" that's fine, but it really has no relevance to a page that doesn't even currently cover "DIR" accurately.

An encyclopedic entry should only deal with controversy if that's something truly relevant to the topic. I'm sorry to say, that standard just isn't met here.

You are wrong. Doing-It-Right is not a neutral name. So if you just explain DIR diving, you take position. If you want to keep this article unbiased, you have to consider the cons. Moreover, DIR opponents seem more able IMHO to explain limits and weakness of DIR diving than yours.

By the way, many classic and non-american encyclopedics contain some debates. Be careful of ethnocentrism.

 

[danvolker]

You are wrong. Doing-It-Right is not a neutral name. So if you just explain DIR diving, you take position. If you want to keep this article unbiased, you have to consider the cons. Moreover, DIR opponents seem more able IMHO to explain limits and weakness of DIR diving than yours.

By the way, many classic and non-american encyclopedics contain some debates. Be careful of ethnocentrism.

In the mid nineties, the guys you want to trot in for their "better explanation of DIR weaknesses), were often responsible for practices which led to deep diver deaths....Because it became so apparent those ideas were wrong, most of these bad practices ended or changed. Things like deep air, every man for himself, mixing heavy steel doubles and stages with thick wetsuits on deep dives...these are the type of things the DIR detractors "fought for". The more people that died, the more traction DIR got..
Today it is no longer us against them, because there are few agencies teaching really unsafe diving behaviors today....this was NOT true in the 90's....
Give the Gilliams and Mount's a voice on what DIR was in the 90's, they will never admit their complicity in the bad thinking that killed people back then....Incidents like the "Divers supply Triple Death Tragedy"....or, the Jane Orenstein Student tech diver death--also seen on rec.scuba as " Murder on the IANTD Express"....Incredibly stupid teaching behaviors clearly led to a huge opportunity for deaths to occur...and they did....
So you want the guys responsible for the bad teaching ideas, or personal preference nonsense, to be able to "re-invent" history with their ideas on what the limitations of DIR were back then?
Really ?

 

[jago]

Have you actually contributed to Wikipedia?

In several languages, but Americans seem to have a very ... uncommon style, very idiosyncratic.

If you want to make a page about "DIR controversies" that's fine, but it really has no relevance to a page that doesn't even currently cover "DIR" accurately.

On some subjects like the Fourier transform or the maxwell equations, there is no need to show controversies, but it's different here. D.I.R. is polemic, that's a fact, like the darwinism. Could-you honestly describe the darwinism without any explanation of the creationism* ?

An encyclopedic entry should only deal with controversy if that's something truly relevant to the topic.

Please, feel fre to explain me how you can write an impartial "D.I.R. diving" article and ignore all the critics. "Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself". J. K. Rowling

* "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire

 

[Rainer]

On some subjects like theFourier transform or the maxwell equations, there is no need to show controversies, but it's different here. D.I.R. is polemic, that's a fact, like the darwinism. Could-you honestly describe the darwinism without any explanation of the creationism* ?

Epic FAIL. Here's the Wiki article on Darwinism: Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia How much of that article is dedicated to controversies and creationism? Exactly.

 

[jago]

So you want the guys responsible for the bad teaching ideas, or personal preference nonsense, to be able to "re-invent" history with their ideas on what the limitations of DIR were back then?
Really ?

No. But everyone has the right to argue. There isn't any perfect system. Everyone can teach useful things to everyone.

In a trial, the defense can debate.