Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[lamont]

Uhm, so I threw out my $0.02 in the whole DIW flamewar. I nuked the silly "DIR Diver" photo at the top of the page. I started to wade through all the discussion, but honestly after 15 minutes, it get so navel gazing that I just have to go eat dinner and get some work done.

 

[danvolker]

Rhone man.....not quite sure how you can say you have no DIR divers responding....and so far, you have ignored my suggestions, and I was one of the handful of DIR divers that brought DIR diving to existance on rec.scuba and the aquanaut lists, as well as the first several DIR Demos....
Is there some reason my comments are being ignored for this?

 

[Peter Southwood]

Hi all,
If you don't like the Wikipedia article, or feel it is biased or incomplete, you are welcome to improve it. If you do, please note that you will be expected to cite your sources and maintain a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit provided they follow the general rules, which are laid out in somewhat Byzantine complexity at Wikipedia for all to see who can find them.
In a nutshell, If it has not been written somewhere it can't be used, no matter how true it may be. Internet discussion is evidence only that something has been discussed on the internet, and of the opinions stated there. An official website can be cited for the official opinion of the website owners, Third party peer reviewed sources are considered most reliable, but as far as I know there are none relating to DIR, which makes the article difficult to balance as all that is available are conflicting points of view and official, thus not neutral, policy of GUE. The same goes for training manuals. They are acceptable as policy, but not as truth.
If you feel that parts of the article are not encyclopeadic you are free to make this claim on the discussion page. Well reasoned explanation of why you think the information is not encyclopaedic will allow people to take your point seriously.
If you don't like something, please explain your point on the discussion page and dont just delete the text, that is considered unfriendly. If you have a better way to say something and have a source to cite, go right ahead and change the text, but bear in mind that someone else may do the same later. Also remember that you may not use copyright material on Wikipedia, you must use your own words to explain what you have to say, unless making a direct and relevant quote, in which case this must be stated. It may look unfriendly, but the system works quite well.
It is also possible to ask someone who is an established editor to edit for you, provided you supply the information and references. This editor should verify your references to make sure the information provided is accurate. This is not an aspersion on your veracity, just good practice.
I am prepared to do this on request, or if you prefer a more frequent poster on Scubaboard, Rhone Man has been editing on Wikipedia for some time and knows his way around too.
He might also be prepared to help out in this way.
Alternatively, if anyone has a good reliable reference that they think will help improve the article, please feel free to mail it to me or post it somewhere and send me the url. Note that to be considered reliable it must be verifiably attributable to an identified person or the official policy of an organisation.
Cheers,
Peter.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'd recommend getting some pictures that actually show what a DIR diver looks like. The photos currently included in the article ... particularly the first one ... are not at all representative of the subject. There are literally thousands of pictures of DIR divers out there that aren't shown hanging onto something. Anyone who purports to knowing enough about the subject to participate in this article should know that one of the essential skills taught in DIR is how to manage your buoyancy.

This is what a DIR trained diver looks like ... there are lots of way better pictures out there, but, well ... it'll give you some idea what to look for.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[jago]

If someone is linked with GUE leaders, it would be interesting to suggest them to put pics on this page Equipment Configuration | Global Underwater Explorers under a free licence so they could be integrated in Wikipedia.

 

[Warren_L]

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

The issue here isn't the style of gear configuration (DIR vs. non-DIR). The issue is with diver error, which can happen regardless of style of gear configuration. Because the diver died while using an RB-80 clone and suggesting that his death would have been "avoided" had he been using a non-DIR configuration (ie. with a ppO2 monitor) is simply a big stretch. I will grant you that having a ppO2 monitor may provide some sort of benefit, however, it is still no assurance that that would have been 100% effective in preventing that tragedy. There may have been many other factors that came into play such that a ppO2 monitor may have had little to no effect on the final outcome. That particular assumption that his death would be avoided would have assumed that the ppO2 monitor was functioning properly, and that he noticed it in time, and was able to react appropriately, and in an appropriate timeframe. It is possible that these assumptions could have held true, but it is a far cry to say that his death would have been avoided. Far too many assumptions to make that particular statement. Diver error is not exclusive to any particular style of gear or diving style.

 

[ucfdiver]

The issue here isn't the style of gear configuration (DIR vs. non-DIR). The issue is with diver error, which can happen regardless of style of gear configuration. Because the diver died while using an RB-80 clone and suggesting that his death would have been "avoided" had he been using a non-DIR configuration (ie. with a ppO2 monitor) is simply a big stretch. I will grant you that having a ppO2 monitor may provide some sort of benefit, however, it is still no assurance that that would have been 100% effective in preventing that tragedy. There may have been many other factors that came into play such that a ppO2 monitor may have had little to no effect on the final outcome. That particular assumption that his death would be avoided would have assumed that the ppO2 monitor was functioning properly, and that he noticed it in time, and was able to react appropriately, and in an appropriate timeframe. It is possible that these assumptions could have held true, but it is a far cry to say that his death would have been avoided. Far too many assumptions to make that particular statement. Diver error is not exclusive to any particular style of gear or diving style.

To really test the cell you need to run a 1.6ppo2 underwater, or else it could be current limited. The RB80 has no real easy way to do this, and therefore we don't know that a hyperoxic gas would read higher than 1.0 (the most you can test for on the surface).

 

[danvolker]

Hi all,
If you don't like the Wikipedia article, or feel it is biased or incomplete, you are welcome to improve it. If you do, please note that you will be expected to cite your sources and maintain a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit provided they follow the general rules, which are laid out in somewhat Byzantine complexity at Wikipedia for all to see who can find them.
In a nutshell, If it has not been written somewhere it can't be used, no matter how true it may be.

In the beginning, there was the DIR 1 video, then the DIR 2 video, then DIR 3 videos... DIR 1 and 2 were how most divers learned about DIR up until GUE was formed...So is there a problem with quoting elements of "published" videos like the DIR series?

 

[randytay]

Guys, I got an idea. Why dont we start a topic call "Stroke" in Wikipedia and have the DIR guys write an Critism and Controversy page? Only then we can have a truly "fair and balanced" view, no? :mooner:

 

[nadwidny]

To really test the cell you need to run a 1.6ppo2 underwater, or else it could be current limited. The RB80 has no real easy way to do this, and therefore we don't know that a hyperoxic gas would read higher than 1.0 (the most you can test for on the surface).

This is getting way off the topic but you are not quite right. There are cell checkers that enables one to check their cells up to 2.0 ppO2 on the surface. I use mine regularly to check my cells because spiking a breathing gas while underwater doesn't make much sense to me. What if the cell is limited at 1.6 and you're unknowingly spiking to 2.0 or higher?