Talk:DIY ethic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DIY ethic redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lostxxjustina.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial plug for BTM! among others

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)[reply]

Controversial plug for Apple

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

DIY != Punk

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)[reply]

Definitely agree I'm not sure how the examples in the section were punk specific. Lots of bands start out in garages or bedrooms or involve making your own CDs, etc. Nothing in there was exclusively or really specifically punk. Rs180216 (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combine with DIY Culture article

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

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)[reply]

Merge with DIY

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)[reply]

Missing Examples

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)[reply]

Merging

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 (talk • contribs) (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)[reply]

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well damn. Misread my diff. Thanks much! -Verdatum (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), thank you for the merge (from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DIY_culture&diff=next&oldid=461095516 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DIY_ethic&type=revision&diff=461918614&oldid=461095527 ).

However, I don't understand why all that content from the old "DIY culture" article seems to be missing from today's version of the "DIY ethic" article. --DavidCary (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because virtually none of it was sourced (see WP:VERIFY), and wherever it was sourced, it was not an encyclopedic summary (see WP:NOTESSAY). ilil (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music distinction

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge Indie design?

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)[reply]

links to the word "traveller"

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[reply]

DIY Music Origin is 70s Punk?

I am sure that DIY activities of music (self-production, self-distribution, self-promotion, and the whole network around such activities) can date back to much earlier times than the 70s, and does not limit to just punk. However, the fact that DIY music became a dedicated term and is so strongly tied up with 70s' punk movement is interesting and led me into thinking why. My guess is that punk did not create a DIY mode for music, but took it as a symbol, a core value, a flag, and that's why the two have been so widely connected since. But, I'm not an expert and these are just my speculations without direct evidence. I'd love to hear what other people who knows more about it thinks.

Also, it is necessary to point out the similarities and distinctions between DIY and indie. If DIY is more tied up with punk in the 70s, indie feels like a term to me that can be used on undefined or multiple genres, and appeared only after the 80s. Of course there is a spirit that they both share - independency. Again, looking forward to people with more expertise in this subject. 50.179.176.17 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)LouiseLiu[reply]

I agree that DIY music has always existed. It could only be said, maybe, that in the '70s, the music industry discovered that punk bands could reach the same level of popularity and success as a pop singer. Thus giving the impression of a DIY "movement".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Forward

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am editing this page as part of a WikiEdu project.

From analyzing the content on this page, a large portion of it appears to be dedicated to Punk Culture. It seems to be marking a time before Maker Culture and paying homage to Punks. If this is so, then some of this information may need to be placed in different articles.

If anyone has any suggestions or comments on how to make this article cohesive I will be working on edits in this sandbox here Lostxxjustina (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page with punk aesthetic and culture in mind since that's where most of the information was leading the reader. I added a punk music subsection so that others can follow in it's place. I also removed the US section of the Worldwide heading because that information didn't belong there. I moved it to this sandbox to be placed in other maker culture article that may be better suited. Lostxxjustina (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

I am proposing that this article be merged into both Maker culture and Punk subculture to have the best placement of information. I think that both articles are a decent size and are able to insert the information that is in the DIY Ethic article. As the page is laid out, it seems as if this information isn’t so much linked to the philosophy behind DIY Ethic, so much as to what happened during this punk era of the 70’s. A lot of this information seems to be outdated and sections can be moved and transitioned into Maker culture and Punk subculture. There seems to be a shift in what constitutes as DIY Ethic and the punk ideology attached to it into what most DIY creators work on now. These new creations are mostly technological and improving older inventions and traditional arts and crafts. The section is am proposing to move into Maker culture is the Worldwide section which would be beneficial as to give a short history into how we as a society have reached this Maker culture that surrounds technology, especially since the article doesn’t have a history section. The Internet subsection would be the most beneficial because it covers the emergence of the Internet and the effect it’s had on creators. The sections that I am proposing to be blended into Punk subculture are Punk culture, music, and skateboarding and bicycling. I think that information is best suited here because there are already sections that already existing. For instance, Riot Grrrl, is talked about in both pages. It seems like the DIY Ethic information is trying to be about the mindset, but is essentially repeating what the Punk Subculture page is already saying. Lostxxjustina (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Merge to |Maker culture |discuss=Talk:Maker_culture#Merger Proposal |date=April 2019}}
{{Merge to |Punk subculture |discuss=Talk:Punk_subculture#Merger proposal |date=April 2019}}

{{Merge to}} should be placed on the article pages, not on talk pages. There can only be one primary topic; it's impossible to redirect this article to both Maker culture and Punk subculture. This proposal in a way implies that this is a somewhat ambiguous (amorphous) topic, which should discuss its relation to both of the other topics. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia gives guidance on copying this content to other articles; it's OK to copy relevant content to both of the other articles (and that content can stay here as well). – wbm1058 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]