Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[nadwidny]

Well you have to be careful - you can't confuse not liking what they say with believing that their opinion on the subject is not relevant. Like them or loathe them, they are nonetheless well known figures in the diving world, and so their opinions do matter. You could make the same argument about the official position of PADI with respect to snorkels... don't have to agree with it, but it is relevant because of who they are.

Nonsense. Who they are makes their opinion on DIR worthless. Fame does not equal knowledge.

[Rhone Man]

Nonsense. Who they are makes their opinion on DIR worthless. Fame does not equal knowledge.

Not looking for an argument, but I don't think I would agree. No one pretends that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust are the product of deep expertise or learning, but the fact that he is well known and holds those views (and expresses them) is sufficiently noteworthy, and that is why they are included in the relevant article. Bret Gilliam is not exactly the President of a nation state, but then neither is a system of diving really comparable to a historical event like the Holocaust.

[TSandM]

I think it's quite acceptable to include opinions from both the pro and con camps, so long as the people who give them have some kind of standing. And those two, no matter what you might think of them or what they do or say, are at least not 30-day Fundies graduates

Rhone Man, thank you for working on this. I'm sufficiently confused about how a wiki works to be unable to do anything myself, but what I would like to see is a simple exposition of the system (which is really a pretty simple system) and then a pro section and a con section, with appropriate quotations and citations. That would have a logical flow to it, and would not have to descend to a level of detail where one discusses the importance of being able to clear a mask (which, in theory, is not handled differently by DIR divers than by any other instructors or training agency).

[nadwidny]

Not looking for an argument, but I don't think I would agree. No one pretends that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust are the product of deep expertise or learning, but the fact that he is well known and holds those views (and expresses them) is sufficiently noteworthy, and that is why they are included in the relevant article. Bret Gilliam is not exactly the President of a nation state, but then neither is a system of diving really comparable to a historical event like the Holocaust.

Well except for the fact you didn't actually use the word "Nazi" it's close enough to declare Godwin's Law. This thread is now officially done.

[lamont]

Not looking for an argument, but I don't think I would agree. No one pretends that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust are the product of deep expertise or learning, but the fact that he is well known and holds those views (and expresses them) is sufficiently noteworthy, and that is why they are included in the relevant article. Bret Gilliam is not exactly the President of a nation state, but then neither is a system of diving really comparable to a historical event like the Holocaust.

You've been infected with a mental disease common in our society that 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. That practice leads to intellectual idiocy like "opinions differ over shape of Earth". In Elyat's case he's produced an article on DIR that attacks a blatant stereotype of DIR. It is *not* encyclopedic to include information which is factually inaccurate.

[Rhone Man]

Thanks, Lamont. As I said, I didn't post the thread to start arguments - just looking for input and feedback. I think I posted a similar thread when we were rewriting the GUE article and we got a lot of useful stuff, so I was hoping for more of the same.

Thanks also, Lynne. I am not going to pretend I understand all of the Wikipedia protocols or far less that I agree with them all. They are pretty fiercely debated internally. But whilst anyone can read an article and tell if it is useful or clearly written, only a few people are capable of reading an article and spotting omissions or inaccuracies.

[NWGratefulDiver]

Well you have to be careful - you can't confuse not liking what they say with believing that their opinion on the subject is not relevant. Like them or loathe them, they are nonetheless well known figures in the diving world, and so their opinions do matter. You could make the same argument about the official position of PADI with respect to snorkels... don't have to agree with it, but it is relevant because of who they are.

Well ... to my concern it's like asking Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly for their opinion on Democrats ... what you're going to get is going to be incredibly biased.

Just because these two divers have some noteworth accomplishments doesn't mean they have any knowledge on this particular subject ... or that any knowledge they have is going to be accurate. Based on Ellyat's published article on the subject, I'd consider him to be a very biased and unreliable source ... Gilliam only somewhat less so.

It has been my experience that the people who have the strongest opinions about DIR actually know very little about it ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[boulderjohn]

Although it would not be appropriate for avowed opponents to take potshots, there is nothing wrong with objectively identifying disagreements about specific issues. For example, my DIR training and my TDI training differed on issues like END and using 80% for deco. In addition, I think the article must show that GUE and UTD do not agree 100%.

[danvolker]

Well you have to be careful - you can't confuse not liking what they say with believing that their opinion on the subject is not relevant. Like them or loathe them, they are nonetheless well known figures in the diving world, and so their opinions do matter. You could make the same argument about the official position of PADI with respect to snorkels... don't have to agree with it, but it is relevant because of who they are.

This is beginning to annoy me.....First, Gilliam was one of the people DIR was "aimed at", in that major training agencies and big named tech divers of the day, were doing things that WKPP saw as leading to rampant deaths in the 90's.
If you have a DIR explanation in Wikipedia, it is going to need to be a DIR explanation. This also means it is not a story on what GUE is doing now, except for the part of the DIR in Wiki that shows WHERE DIR is headed today and tommorow....As far as how DIR was begun, how it developed, why it developed, how it spread, this happened for a long time before there was any such thing as GUE.
It happened in a time when there were very different threats to divers ( and deep divers or cave divers) than we have to day, because of major CHANGES all the training agencies made in the late 90's and last 11 years. Many of these changes were implemented, because of the changes in diver thinking that DIR initiated ( my interpretation ) ....

You hear all the time about how bogus History is...that it is not so much about what actually happened, but rather, History is the way those in control, want History to be invented....to tie in with the view of the world they want. I hope none of you want to accept being part of just one more prostitution of History.

[lamont]

Thanks, Lamont. As I said, I didn't post the thread to start arguments - just looking for input and feedback. I think I posted a similar thread when we were rewriting the GUE article and we got a lot of useful stuff, so I was hoping for more of the same.

Thanks also, Lynne. I am not going to pretend I understand all of the Wikipedia protocols or far less that I agree with them all. They are pretty fiercely debated internally. But whilst anyone can read an article and tell if it is useful or clearly written, only a few people are capable of reading an article and spotting omissions or inaccuracies.

The problem is that if you don't listen to my arguments, then you're going to have a Wikipedia article full of inaccuracies, because you don't have the necessary background to know when someone has a valid opinion as opposed to someone who is spouting off nonsense who doesn't know anything. Just the fact that Ellyat has done some deep dives doesn't give him any useful knowledge of DIR, and his webpage on DIR is simply a list of misconceptions and stereotypes that lets him sleep well at night justified in his own way of diving, and he can give that webpage to his students in order to keep them away from the dreaded DIR boogeyman -- it has nothing to do with encyclopedic knowledge.

And if you can't see even that, then good luck in trying to keep the wikipedia article from degenerating into a marketing campaign for Z-systems and MX-90 rebreathers once someone associated with AG sees a profit angle in keeping it 'up-to-date'. Its going to be very hard to keep that discussion neutral and encyclopedic...