Since almost every editor of note at Wikipedia eventually leaves under a cloud, and with a lot of accumulated stress, the question arises that "Wikipedia should carry a "health warning notice".

Apart from the physical damage one can sustain from too much computer work, including twisted spine, neck-ache, poor-eyesight, sub-optimum heart condition, and many more, there is also the danger of psychological damage from editing for long periods of time, such as 'OCD syndrome' and social isolation.

It's time for Wales and the Foundation to take responsibility, and present a "health warning" to to people who want to edit Wikipedia. If Jimbo does really care about his people, then he will do the 'right thing', and we should see the "health warning" up on-site pretty soon.

Those who leave at all, you mean; and you don't become "of note" without the kind of serious emotional investment that's going to mean you either don't leave at all or you leave in a stressful situation. But, then, the majority editors don't.



Did you just make up "OCD syndrome"? Is it in fact related to the real condition of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder other than having a similar-sounding name? Is this condition - and the idea that editing Wikipedia puts one at risk for it - actually accepted by any medical professionals?

It is unlikely that editing, on any level, "causes" OCD. It is more likely that the editing is a manifestation of the condition. Any activity that is repeated tens of thousands of times could be used in a maladaptive manner by a person suffering from OCD. Edit counts, barnstars, admin buttons don't help at all as they provide encouragement for the behavior. If a person is isolating herself, disrupting patterns of sleep/wakefulness or placing other undue emphasis that adversely impacts other activities of daily life it would be "accepted by medical professionals" whether it is counting sidewalk cracks, obsessive exercise, playing computer games or writing an encyclopedia.

Which is why I was questioning whether the similarly-named "OCD Syndrome" was an accepted term for a condition that is caused by behavior rather than having behavioral symptoms.

It's possible that my sarcasm, particularly in combining the two criticisms of GH's claim, could have been a bit less subtle than it was.

Working on the principle, "one doesn't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing, or a scientist to tell that water is 'wet' ". There is no doubt that some of the WP editors have OCD, or Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour signs. It's not a very dire diagnosis in itself, but gone unheeded it can damage the editor concerned. Just by way of precaution "OCD" is not the same condition as "OCD Personality", they are two separate conditions.

It is known that obsessive-compulsive behaviors can be induced by environment (e.g. pacing in a cage) - I wouldn't draw too much significance from its appearance in the DSM other than that its symptoms sometimes cooccur, and that someone somewhere is billing for it, in an environment where no diagnosis = no pathology = sale.

I cannot see any reason to rule out a priori the possibility that editing Wikipedia induces obsessive-compulsive repetition, and find much anecdotal evidence to suggest that it does.

Besides this, there are other warnings prospective volunteers deserve to be given, namely a big red label in bold 144-point font that Wikipedia's leadership reserves the right to arbitrarily breach its own written "policies" at will and without warning, and does not assume responsibility for any damages which volunteers might suffer as a result.

This is especially important, because a naïve volunteer will assume that Wikipedia's management has committed to upholding what on the surface look to be a contract binding management and volunteer contributors alike.

For example, the claim that personal attacks are not allowed can only encourage contributors to use their real names as screen names. If personal attacks are then allowed - even invited by the management - this amounts to defrauding volunteers of their labor under false pretenses, as well as exposing them to damage through depraved negligence or design.

I tried to add such a warning, and was blocked for a week for "disruption" by FT2 operating (prior to his promotion in the rigged 2007 election) as the IRC meatpuppet of the Arbitration Committee.

An honest and honorable person or organization gives his word and sticks to it. Wikipedia isn't, and doesn't.

What wikipedia engenders in some is more like an addiction than a compulsion. If someone is going to be overly dependent on the internet, that could happen on a lot of sites or games. (perhaps) So this may be a danger that's not specific to wikipedia.