Talk:DIY ethic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Punk music (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of punk rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Controversial plug for BTM! among others[edit]

This article reads like a plug for a lot of things. That isn't to say that BTM! is bad, to the contrary, hats off to them. But listing every DIY band/project/movement is either in OR out of scope, but to list only a handful and call that "DIY" is unrepresentative, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.5 (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversial plug for Apple[edit]

Please don't name a specific program, especially since that program is non-free software.Sunnan 19:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

DIY != Punk[edit]

For example, doing your taxes yourself is DIY, but nothing about it is Punk.

-- Aye, but your standard Punk WILL identify with the DIY ethic. Therefore, it is worth linking and/or mentioning in some capacity.

Yeah, a lot more people than punks and indies subscribe to this particular ethic, I think that it's worth noting this.

I can't agree more - I think the age bias of Wikipedians is showing here. The DIY ethic was (and to some extent remains) very strong in people who grew up during the Great Depression and WW2 eras. My 85 year old father is anything but "punk", but he does everything he can himself. The "point and write checks" atitude toward getting things done is a product of the Baby Boomers. Before that, DIY was the norm, not some new trend.63.161.86.254 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Combine with DIY Culture article[edit]

This article should be combined with the DIY Culture article.

As I posted on the DIY culture page: there is confusion between DIY Ethics and DIY Culture. DIY Culture is talking about the politics of the movement, while the DIY Ethics article is more about the making of things for yourself. They're just reversed! I am opposed to merging the two articles, since this is really more of a personal philosophy for most people than a political movement, and the politics really are seporate so they should have seporate articles. But I think they need to be more clearly and accurately defined, and linked. --TK

unrepresentative[edit]

It seems that neither this article nor the DIY culture article accurately represent the general DIY culture. At least in America (i'm sure that it's this way most everywhere though), there have always been people creating things themselves. They did so for different reasons: •to solve a common problem (inventers) •to make something more personalized, more functional, or attract attention (modding) •to avoid paying a price seen as too high •for self-improvement and/or learning purposes •an outlet for creativity •boredom

The list goes on. Though it seems that only recently the practice of doing something yourself that you would usually have others do for you (or not do at all) has become a named action and that the people who regularly do or make things themselves have come together and formed a community. This phenomenon might be a result of easier and more widespread communication due to the internet and/or because of the increase in standardization and (possible as a result of fear of lawsuits) an appearant lack of trust in the competency of most consumers by corperations and manufacturers. --Mirabile Dictu 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with DIY[edit]

it appears that an article already exists wich covers almost exactly what i am talking about: DIY. Since that article is more generalized and complete, i suggest that we merge both DIY ethic and DIY culture with DIY, or at least do some mentioning/linking in between all of them. --Mirabile Dictu 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Missing Examples[edit]

I can't believe there hasn't been ONE mention of GNU/Linux or any of the *BSD variants. Free/Open Source Software should be at the TOP of any polemic about Do It Yourself culture/ethic.

well there is now a link... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.159.54 (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging[edit]

DIY Culture article doesn't exist. Maybe it's merged in. In Talk:Do it yourself the last post by User:The Ungovernable Force says a seperate page for DIY Culture and DIY ethics. However I donot think that it should be mearged in Indie (music). They are worlds apart with some connection in between. However I feel that this article could do with a paragraph mentioning aspects of Indie (music) or some aspects of DIY ethic being mentioned in Indie (music). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauvik.Biswas (talkcontribs) (09:13, 22 September 2006)

DIY culture does exist as an article...Do it yourself discusses many things redundant to this article at the moment. The original intent from what I can tell was for "Do it yourself" to cover the standard do-it-yourself projects (using materials from the Home Depot the way they were intended), while this article was to cover the more youth-oriented culture, as in Make Magazine. DIY culture is (apparently) the name of a political movement, that has precious little to do with DIY projects. As far as indie music, no one appears to be proposing a merge. A sentence mentioning indie music here, and/or a sentence mentioning DIY ethic there are probably fine. Much more than that, and you should really find a verifiable reference. -Verdatum (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
You'll notice, Verdatum, that this comment is more than two years old. I just added the unsigned template 'cause I like completeness. The merge discussion is long dead. Though, to be honest, I feel something needs to be done, because we have three bad articles here, with little in the way of clear definitions or references. Just my two cents worth. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well damn. Misread my diff. Thanks much! -Verdatum (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And after a mere three additional years, we're down to two bad articles from three, as I've finally merged DIY culture here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Music distinction[edit]

Part of the reason this article is bad is because it doesn't seem to properly explain (or understand if you will) the distinction between the DIY Punk/Music subculture and some vague nebulous notion of "DIY Ethic" in the abstract. These things are related obviously but are not the same, and one is a coherently defined and sustained subculture that seems worthy of being a subject of it's own. The label of "DIY Punk" and discussion of the "DIY music scene" at the national (and world-wide) level are part of a well-defined subculture that combines a general DIY ethic with specific manifestations such as independent record labels, punk or "indie" bands who generally manage their own tours and releases (relative to their level of notoriety, i.e. Plan-it-X records choosing to only charge $5 for CDs and distribute through mail order despite ample opportunity to do otherwise), distribution of zines or other small press materials, and house shows/house venues. The subculture also has unique and identifiable aesthetics typically borrowed from the older DIY/anarchist punk tradition, 60s radical culture, leftist/anti-capitalist politics, emphasis on self-improvement/positive thinking etc. etc.

It seems wrong and confusing to try to meld this with some general notion of DIY ethic in the abstract. Obviously someone learning to do home improvements or fix their car for themselves can be said to be doing so with the same general "ethic" in mind of a band putting out their own CDs, or choosing to tour only at house venues, but one of these things is part of a wide-spread and well defined subculture and the other is not. There is a wealth of press coverage, printed/online materials and personal discussion of the "DIY music scene" but most people who choose to do repairs on their homes themselves to save money don't identify as part of a particular scene or subculture. I'll leave it up to the Wikipedia community whether or not this subculture passes notoriety standards but as an outsider (sorry I don't know how to do all the mark-up) and someone who considers themselves knowledgeable of the subculture this article seems to be mentioning in passing, this article seems muddled and poorly-researched. Those are just my two cents though, thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.82.233 (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OH and as another small addendum I believe this article should DEFINITELY NOT be merged with Indie music as they are distinct things: an indie label or band does not necessarily identify as nor would be considered "DIY" by members of the music subculture, though they are definitely related. The term "indie" now is typically used as a stylistic marker or to represent a particular musical aesthetic, either that or to provisionally distinguish between a label that is not a member of the RIAA (I.E. Merge and Kill Rock Stars are indie labels that would not typically (or accurately IMO) be referred to as "DIY"). "DIY" is almost never used as a stylistic marker and almost exclusively refers to a set of ethics and the subculture that identifies around them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.82.233 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a particular subculture within punk music which is a distinct entity not particularly closely affiliated to any broader sense of "do it yourself". The problem is that nobody with close knowledge of that subject has come along to write an article which follows Wikipedia's standards for content presentation and sourcing. Instead we get essays drawn from personal recollection and gradually expanded by well-meaning editors with disparate examples. The approach of content generation by simply throwing material out there and hoping for some of it to stick has failed in this area for several years; the only way that's proven to work is to start small and to de-merge when there is sufficient well-written and well-sourced material to warrant a new article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Indie design?[edit]

I found indie design while searching for something else, and it doesn't seem strong enough to stand on its own as an article. Searching for the phrase, it's usually only mentioned in passing, like in this 2008 NYT article; not many sources discuss "indie design" or "indie designers" in depth - I've only found this 2010 WSJ article and this 2011 Dwell post so far. Should it fit somewhere into this article instead? Or into a different article? Dreamyshade (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

links to the word "traveller"[edit]

I read the article and didn't know what "travellers" were. It appeared in two places, once the link went to a piece on "tourism", that didn't seem to fit. The second time the link went to "Irish travellers" , possible, but not sure. Since the "traveller" appears next to "rave", maybe what was intended was more like 'new age traveller' somebody want to look into this? Areader2 (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)posted by areader2, 04/04/2013