Wikipedia Addiction, Addictive mechanism exploited by the Wikipedia Options

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Obviously it's inherent to the Wikipedia/MediaWiki platform to take advantage of emotionally/psychologically messed-up people, who are no doubt attracted to it because they're unable to gain the respect of other people (not to mention some form of authority over them) in real life... It's the only site that combines anonymity, high visibility, a non-automated rewards system, and the high valuation of phony expertise, at least to the degree it does.

To someone like this, Wikipedia is quite literally like crack or some other euphoria-inducing semi-addictive substance.

A question ... no answers. You have often discussed here "wiki-addiction" ... so, what are the addictive mechanism of the Wikipedia or what mechanism within the brain does the Wikipedia tap into?

They say the majority people who fall into an addictive traps never escape. Continued exposure to experiences involving compulsive attraction are said to produce over time neuroadaptations. Persistent neuroadaptations, literally changes in the hardwiring of the brain as I understand it, underlie aspects of addiction including repeated relapses.

I have often look at the potential social aspects of the Wikipedia, its cult-likeness (Stockholm Syndrome etc), but are there more fundamental biological hooks which it exploits?

I can see the addictive nature of the chemical rushes it provides whilst warring over turf and defending edits (adrenalin or whatever). I can imagine how it taps into all sorts of personal psychological projections. I understand that there are all sort of additional pleasure giving stimuli involved with eye and hand coordination of computers.

It a strange thing but part of the "great success" of the Wikipedia is surely that it taps in and exploits these things, including personality and psychological disorders.

Is that understood and questioned by the leadership? Should it come with a health warning?

[Eva Destruction]

[some stuff]

So what you're saying is, people are more likely to spend their free time doing things they enjoy than things they don't, and people who spend a lot of time doing something voluntarily are likely to do so because they find it fun?

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

[NotARepublican55]

[some stuff]

So what you're saying is, people are more likely to spend their free time doing things they enjoy than things they don't, and people who spend a lot of time doing something voluntarily are likely to do so because they find it fun?

Like smoking cigarettes?

The thing is, he has a point. I myself find online forums highly addictive - to an extent that goes way beyond "fun". I mean, I actually enjoy, say, watching a good move or listening to a good album way more than wasting hours each day on stupid forums - but I've had to set up my browser to block access to a lot of sites because I find them so addictive. On days where I've put off important stuff just to chat on forums, I feel really ashamed afterward. It feels satisfying at the time, but after I'm done I feel depressed once I realize how much time I wasted.

That's what I'd say the difference between an addiction is, and just doing something you enjoy. When I watch a movie, I never feel like I have to do it - I just do it because I want to. And I don't feel ashamed afterward either like I do when I waste the same amount of forum time that I would have if I watch a movie instead. The way I see it, addictions are involuntary compulsions that don't necessarily jive with someone's personality.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: Sun 21st February 2010, 3:40am

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Could this topic have its old topic title back, please?

Moderators, please, if you want to comment ... cannot you just post in the forum like everyone else instead of messing with the titles to suit yourself?

FYI, I have no idea what double meanings you are speaking about ... there was something specific to Wikipedia in the title.

It is easy enough to appear like an incoherent idiot whilst attempting to discuss the Wikipedia without moderator chopping topics in half, moving bits about and randomly changing titles.

Instructions on how to edit your /etc/hosts file to follow.

[The Joy]

Could this topic have its old topic title back, please?

Moderators, please, if you want to comment ... cannot you just post in the forum like everyone else instead of messing with the titles to suit yourself?

FYI, I have no idea what double meanings you are speaking about ... there was something specific to Wikipedia in the title.

It is easy enough to appear like an incoherent idiot whilst attempting to discuss the Wikipedia without moderator chopping topics in half, moving bits about and randomly changing titles.

Instructions on how to edit your /etc/hosts file to follow.

You'll have to talk to Jon. He's the forum moderator of the Meta Discussion forum. Maybe he can explain why he's changing things?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

You'll have to talk to Jon. He's the forum moderator of the Meta Discussion forum. Maybe he can explain why he's changing things?

That is twice now in short sequence. It does not make any sense.

Can I have them move out of here then?

[Jon Awbrey]

Could this topic have its old topic title back, please?

Moderators, please, if you want to comment … cannot you just post in the forum like everyone else instead of messing with the titles to suit yourself?

FYI, I have no idea what double meanings you are speaking about … there was something specific to Wikipedia in the title.

It is easy enough to appear like an incoherent idiot whilst attempting to discuss the Wikipedia without moderator chopping topics in half, moving bits about and randomly changing titles.

Instructions on how to edit your /etc/hosts file to follow.

You'll have to talk to Jon. He's the forum moderator of the Meta Discussion forum. Maybe he can explain why he's changing things?

That is twice now in short sequence. It does not make any sense.

Can I have them move out of here then?

Dear Overly Excited About Conspiracies,

It is clear you do not grasp the sense of the operative "Meta" in the Forum title, so I tried to nudge it back that way just a little. The whole topic of Addictive Mechanisms is a very old one hereabouts, but Wikipediots are not known for doing their homework before shooting off their mouths, so join Da Club.

Jon Awbrey

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The thing is, he has a point. I myself find online forums highly addictive - to an extent that goes way beyond "fun" ... On days where I've put off important stuff just to chat on forums, I feel really ashamed afterward. It feels satisfying at the time, but after I'm done I feel depressed once I realize how much time I wasted.

I empathize with what you are talking about. I know what you mean. There must be something in it that acts as a hook just as nicotine does in cigarettes.

I am trying to understand it ... any references to similar discussion welcome..

The whole topic of Addictive Mechanisms is a very old one hereabouts, but Wikipediots are not known for doing their homework before shooting off their mouths

Jon Awbrey

I did a topic title search before I posted and nothing came up.

'That' the Wikipedia or internet is addictive is not being questioned ... the question is, "what precisely are the mechanisms of that addictiveness", and it has not been answered. Indeed, I do not know if it has been fully answered anywhere yet.

I do not know about you Jon, but in an instance like this, I compose titles to be helpful so that others can find them via search engines and the on forum search engine. Obviously, many individuals reaching this forum are suffering from such an addiction, or vulnerability to such an addiction.

• Being 'told to stop', punished or ridiculed for it really does not help them. Recognising the symptoms and understand why might.

I have never typed out of my way to call you an idiot, nor modified your posts so as to make then more incoherent.

[Jon Awbrey]

I did a topic title search before I posted and nothing came up.

18 pages of posts that mention addiction.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Can we take that addiction down to the level of chemistry and psychology?

We have spoken about the problems of the Wikipedia's hard corn pornography obsession etc, those too are addictive elements to some.

I think I am more concerned at the exploitation of addictive mechanisms, and its last effect on young personalities, than I am about "nudie pictures" ... except where children are concerned.

I remember, for example, when I was watching Caspian blue ... at one point they were editing over 16 hours a day 7 days a week. Others know of other cases. That is surely beyond the point of a "pleasurable hobby".

18 pages of posts that mention addiction.

Attention to detail, please, Jon. I wrote "topic search" I posted it in your meta forum because I intended to be a revision, a meta discussion, of previous disparate threads embedded into other topics. Something that was easy to find for others.

In short, the aim was to create useful 'help file' of other resources both here and elsewhere.

Only here do you have 'experts' focusing on the Wikipedia experience.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Tue 23rd February 2010, 4:48am

[CharlotteWebb]

Attention to detail, please, Jon. I wrote "topic search" I posted it in your meta forum because I intended to be a revision, a meta discussion, of previous disparate threads embedded into other topics. Something that was easy to find for others.

I've got a hunch that's not the house definition of "meta-discussion".

[Jon Awbrey]

Attention to detail, please, Jon. I wrote "topic search" I posted it in your meta forum because I intended to be a revision, a meta discussion, of previous disparate threads embedded into other topics. Something that was easy to find for others.

I've got a hunch that's not the house definition of "meta-discussion".

The prefix "meta" is one that I personally try to avoid, because it tends to get mis-used and over-used in many contexts, but it seemed to be the functor that came to many people's minds, so I have tried to get used to it.

On the other hand, a lot of threads got lumped into the Meta*Discussion Forum when it was first created, and a few even now, simply so that I could clean up their digressions and apply a more disciplined style of discourse to them.

The main problem with C↑/C's primer on the theme of addiction was that he started out saying all the things that people who "just now thought" of an idea always say about it and he showed no signs of trying to deal with previous discussions on the subject. That was a bit too reminiscent of Wikipediot Ways for my taste.

Jon Awbrey