Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[MXGratefulDiver]

By the way, the last cave-diving death in France would be avoided if the diver used a non-DIR equipment. So don't consider there is one system which is the best. In a particular situation, there is one systeml which is more appropriate.

The last cave-diving death in France that I can find was Eric Establie, in October of 2010. According to the information I read, he was trapped by a landslide.

If this is not the person you are referring to, please clarify ... if it was Eric, please explain how using non-DIR equipment would've prevented his death.

According to one of the articles I read, he was using a rebreather ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Rhone Man]

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).

Thanks as ever, Lynne. I find it kind of interesting though. If you look back to my OP and the brief exchange I had with Bob, the request was broadly: we are trying to rewrite the article on DIR, but we don't seem have any DIR divers involved - it's an open source project, and we'd love some people more familiar with DIR to comment and chip in. That is then followed with about 8 pages (so far) of rancour about who-said-what and what kind of third party comment should be included (all on SB - I haven't seen any new editor comments on the talk page on Wiki). But in all those 8 pages only one post that I can find offers any kind of substantive comments on the article in progress: this one of yours.

It is a fascinating social experiment that people seem largely unconcerned about the accuracy what is actually said in the article about DIR, but very very concerned about whether opinions which are critical of DIR should be included. Like you, I think the article is far too equipment focused. Strange though that no one else has commented on that.

 

[TSandM]

I'd be happy to comment and chip in, but I have no idea whatsoever how the writing of a wiki article is done.

 

[MRTdiver]

I'd be happy to comment and chip in, but I have no idea whatsoever how the writing of a wiki article is done.

Lynne one of the easiest things to do would be to hit the delete button.

But seriously. The DIR - Criticisms and Controversies is best left out. I mean dropped out in its entirety. This is because an article on DIR should be about DIR, NOT how or why people are against it. Opposition & diverse opinions - that’s easy. Because those set against DIR can really be summed up in the common statement; “I just do what works best for me.” I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this sediment. And this mentality is easily the Overwhelming Majority. That is why the whole section should be dropped.

This is the kind of material under the Criticisms section. And you can sense the tone of opposition in the phase “in the exact words.”

In the exact words of Casey McKinlay, Project Director for the Woodville Karst Plain Project - "I recognize the WKPP for numerous reasons has never been popular with many segments of the diving community.

Really? In Casey’s “exact” words, like he made some sad confession of guilt. This verbiage is indicative of those set against the DIR system. It is not at all positive and does nothing but incite negativity.

Would you say this is an accurate statement? From the Wiki DIR article:

The UK's Cave Diving Group, the longest operative cave diving society in the world. state that because the British cave and sump systems are significantly different in nature than those of the WKPP the practises and configurations of the kit need to be quite different also.

Really? Are you actually going to say that the WKPP doesn’t have to deal with significant amount of silt on a regular basis. And guess what, DIR is bigger than WKPP, and in every part of the world, diving in harsh conditions every day.

And…

British caves and sumps are often so murky and/or narrow that divers can be concussed unless wearing a helmet.

Hummm, DIR practitioners must be dropping like flies cause all the head butting they incur. False
And this statement comes to mind:

... neutral and unbiased opinions must necessarily give a voice to nonsense perspectives and thereby promotes debate between sanity and insanity. You don't have to give equal airtime to nonsense.

What I’m saying is that there are many senseless, false statements in the whole “DIR – Criticisms and Controversies” section that it’s best to be dropped out. Why give airtime to "nonsense". And perhaps I'll end here, as it was best described by Lynne (highlights mine):

... 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...

 

[jago]

The last cave-diving death in France that I can find was Eric Establie, in October of 2010. According to the information I read, he was trapped by a landslide. If this is not the person you are referring to, please clarify ... if it was Eric, please explain how using non-DIR equipment would've prevented his death. According to one of the articles I read, he was using a rebreather ... ... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Yes Éric was using a CCR but I was thinking to an other death (09/23/2011). The diver was using a RB80-clone "Tres Presidentes SCR" and useda wrong gaz (O2 according to many rumors, depth was close to 100 ft). A PpO2 display would warn him. www.plongeesout.com • Afficher le sujet - st sauveur

 

[jago]

I think France pretty much gets terrorized by any country that wants to attack it. And since WWII they have become so helpless they might as well turn their military into a service core, that helps with the demands of whoever plans on dominating them in any given month

Of course. Tha'ts why US troops have replaced Brits in Helmland and not French in Kapisa, why you C.I. doctrine is just a refreshment of the writtings of Gallula.

- What is your involvement in this article?

I haven't any involvement.

- What is your background and exposure to DIR?

Small but I never pretend faire autorité.

- Why would someone with your obvious bias against DIR want to involve himself in writing an article on the topic?

I have not bias against D.I.R., on fench-speaking forums, I defend american dive-styles. I just don't want to read D.I.R. is the ultimate way of dive. It is one or the more appropriate way of dive in many (but not all, especially multi-siphons) sites.

The article ... in its current state ... is poorly written and clearly biased. It is evident that the people writing it have no actual experience with the topic.

I don't disagree. It seems, IMHO, to be a description of the appeareance of D.I.R. diving by a béotien, not the real nature, and the holistic dimension should probably more developped.

Have a good day.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Thanks as ever, Lynne. I find it kind of interesting though. If you look back to my OP and the brief exchange I had with Bob, the request was broadly: we are trying to rewrite the article on DIR, but we don't seem have any DIR divers involved - it's an open source project, and we'd love some people more familiar with DIR to comment and chip in. That is then followed with about 8 pages (so far) of rancour about who-said-what and what kind of third party comment should be included (all on SB - I haven't seen any new editor comments on the talk page on Wiki). But in all those 8 pages only one post that I can find offers any kind of substantive comments on the article in progress: this one of yours.

It is a fascinating social experiment that people seem largely unconcerned about the accuracy what is actually said in the article about DIR, but very very concerned about whether opinions which are critical of DIR should be included. Like you, I think the article is far too equipment focused. Strange though that no one else has commented on that.

I think what you're seeing is the reality of DIR divers ... that they mostly just want to go diving, and don't much care what other people think.

When I read the article, it reminded me of the majority of threads right here in this forum ... threads dominated not by DIR solutions(although that's what the forums's supposed to be about), but rather by objections to DIR by people who have an agenda against it. That's why the most authoratitive DIR members so rarely post here anymore.

I think when anyone truly knowledgeable in DIR reads the article, their first impulse isn't to to get involved ... it's to say "why bother" ... debunking stereotypes on the internet is an exercise in futility ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[LiteHedded]

I think what you're seeing is the reality of DIR divers ... that they mostly just want to go diving, and don't much care what other people think.

When I read the article, it reminded me of the majority of threads right here in this forum ... threads dominated not by DIR solutions(although that's what the forums's supposed to be about), but rather by objections to DIR by people who have an agenda against it. That's why the most authoratitive DIR members so rarely post here anymore.

I think when anyone truly knowledgeable in DIR reads the article, their first impulse isn't to to get involved ... it's to say "why bother" ... debunking stereotypes on the internet is an exercise in futility ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Because real DIR divers are just like other divers. Not bogeymen. Go figure

 

[MRTdiver]

I think when anyone truly knowledgeable in DIR reads the article, their first impulse isn't to to get involved ... it's to say "why bother" ... debunking stereotypes on the internet is an exercise in futility ...

Yes, much misunderstanding, as JJ said...

Because DIR’s insistence on standardization is frequently misunderstood, it sometimes becomes a source of tension among divers. This is because some see the insistence on uniformity as an indictment of practices that do not abide by DIR principles. However, there is nothing essentially hostile or critical about DIR; in its most basic form, it is ultimately pragmatic, promoting the concept of uniformity within and among teams of divers.

 

[Rhone Man]

I think what you're seeing is the reality of DIR divers ... that they mostly just want to go diving, and don't much care what other people think.

Yes, I think the insouciance comes shining through. Good diving all.