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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

[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.

CUOC is actually raising a serious issue, so the snideness is misplaced. I think there may be some parallels here to gambling addiction, because like the casinos, WP is open round the clock, and if you stay at it long enough there is a chance you might temporarily "win" (even SlimVirgin has to sleep occasionally, so your revert might stick for a few hours,) although in the long run, you will definitely lose.

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't think the mechanism is exactly the same for other addictions. Neither classic narcotic model nor even the parallel risk taking mechanism like gambling fit the wiki model. But it is clear that people, or at least a sub-set of a certain type of persons, engage in editing and participation in wiki projects to an extent that disrupts their lives enough to make them concerned and uncomfortable. The number of people who when they finally decide to leave who don't simply walk away but take the extraordinary step of scrambling their account passwords is evidence of this, among other more disturbing evidence of specific cases.

I think some unusual motivational state, perhaps like that produced by OCD might be involved. I think that this state is what makes certain sub groups disproportionately attracted (persons with AS, OCD, NPD, identity confusion) might share the characteristic that makes "editing" (including the peculiar kind of social interaction involved) rewarding also makes it "addictive." Most non-Wikipedians would not find extensive participation to be rewarding, nor would they be disposed to become addicted.

[Lar]

This is an excellent topic. It's not a matter of whether WP is addictive, to certain folk at least, I think that's settled. It's a matter of why. I'd really like to know, if only for my own selfish reasons, in that if I ever decide to pack it in, I'm going to need to counter the addictive aspects and knowing why helps.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

This is an excellent topic. It's not a matter of whether WP is addictive ...

Thank you.

This was intended as a 'self-help' topic but obviously where I am leading to is the suggestion that part of the so-called "success" of the Wikipedia is that it exploits minors and addictive personalities. A duty of care issue.

It is a serious question and I know that there is something in it. Obviously, it could be a subset of factors to why computer or internet use in general is addictive to some and is psycho-physiological. At present, I cannot see much difference between drinking to oblivion and editing the Wikipedia to oblivion ... especially as the end result is basically as productive and lasting as urinating into sand.

There are numerous studies of "pathological computer use" that discuss functional impairment caused by internet use, e.g.

'A factor-analytic investigation of computer 'addiction' and engagement', Charlton J.P.
'Proposed Diagnostic Criteria of Internet Addiction for Adolescents', Ko, Chih-Hung
'Psychiatric features of individuals with problematic internet use', N.Shapira

One study at least links it directly to 'Axis I disorders', those are clinical disorders, including major mental disorders, and learning disorders. Another emphasizes primary psychiatric conditions related to impulse control problems ... that desperate itch to edit at 4 am in the morning or coffee break at work. One raises the issue of addiction via early childhood traumas and inherited psychological dispositions.

Another states clearly, "of all other addictions, Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) is said to be closest to pathological gambling"; to that I would add Wikipedia Addiction Disorder (WAD), where "throwing an edit" is as futile as "spinning the wheel" or "bidding against the house" is increasingly so.

From a study conducted by Kimberly S. Young, Psy.D. and published by the American Psychiatric Association involving nearly 500 heavy Internet users ...

Their behavior was compared to the clinical criteria used to classify pathological gambling as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV.

Using this criteria, eighty percent of the participants in the Young's study were classified as dependent Internet users ... They "exhibited significant addictive behavior patterns."

She concludes that, "the use of the internet can definitely disrupt one's academic, social, financial, and occupational life the same way other well-documented addictions like pathological gambling, eating disorders, and alcoholism can"

As quoted in an honors paper available to read, Internet Addiction Disorder: Causes, Symptoms,and Consequences'.

I have not invested the time to survey all the available material yet but most of other similar work I have previously I think misses out very simple primary nervous stimulations, the combination of eyes, finger tips and flashing lights; all elements used in creating "hypnotic anchors".

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 21st February 2010, 1:11am

[Milton Roe]

[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.

It's an old problem.

Tiger Woods has legions of beautiful women throw themselves at him, and he breaks down and partakes. Not near the 10,000 beauties claimed by Wilt the Stilt, it appears, but enough to fill a page. So now he has a sex-addition. And is in therapy. One presumes wifely-nightly prophylaxis against the psychiatric disease. A tough job.

What a world. I might as well claim Cherry Garcia addiction, because I keep buying the stuff even though I know it's not good for me, and in the middle of the night, I sometimes eat it. With milk. Perhaps I owe my many fans a heartfelt apology for my problem.

God knows what would happen to me if I had Wilt or Tiger's problem. I suspect I'd be trying to access the internet from a bottle at the Harvard Medical School.* But no. I've been saved from myself in that regard. Thank you Jesus.

All things considered, I think they should probably give Tiger a medal for self-restraint. It's not sin per se, it's the ratio of sin/temptation that is the correct figure-of-merit. In my book.

MR

*Credit to the Chairman of the Board for that one. He surely knew.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

From the related journal CyberPsychology & Behavior ... The Relationship Between Depression and Internet Addiction by Kimberley Young and Robert C Rogers.

Eva, is it "enjoyment" or psychological displacement ... a defense mechanism where the mind redistributes effects from situations felt to be harmful or unacceptable, i.e. work, real life, to a thing felt to be acceptable and secure, e.g. sustaining the Wikipedia myth?

I say myth because, like every other cult, the Wikipedia sells itself on the basis of an unreachable myth that always exists just around the next corner ... edit ... donation and, hence, keep people hooked for prolonged periods.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 21st February 2010, 1:59am

[Jon Awbrey]

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?

BTDT.

Read Naked Lunch.

It has nothing to do with euphoric rushes.
It has nothing to do with the need to win.

It has everything to do with blotting out pain.
It has everything to do with the need to lose.

Jon

[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?

[The Joy]

Mod Note: Moved to Bureaucracy from Meta. -The Joy

[GlassBeadGame]

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?

Tell me what title you want and I'll change it for you, within reason.

[Lar]

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

I agree. The subtopic makes no sense to me, sorry.

Tell me what title you want and I'll change it for you, within reason.

The original title and subtitle.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Meanwhile, as if this thread weren't over-moderated enough, I'm moving it to the general interest forum. "Bureaucracy" is for ArbCom-watching and other matters specific to the WP power structure.

[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

[Lar]

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.

That answer was less helpful than the average response from you. Which is an exceedingly low bar.

[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.