Talk:Video game addiction/Archive 1

Overall concern and todo list

This looks like a shoddy copy+paste from a right-wing anti-game article. User:SpawnOfEvil - 08:58, 25 July 2005

Added date for the overall concern remark. It was the 1st edit in the log [1]. It has remained stuck alone at the top ever since.:) sinneed (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on this article, including

*References
*Removal of weasle words
*Balanced views
              FlashNerdX (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please comment/help at #Reworded lead-insinneed (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Resource

Here is a link to a good new article on the topic - http://digg.com/d1ogdB It's got lots in it so I'm posting it here for everyone to take bits from :-)FlashNerdX (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Pal Singh Bagga"

Outside of this Wikipedia entry and articles citing this wikipedia entry, I can find no mention of this person. Does someone know of any article about this story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.194.223 (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It was added on May 2 by an anonymous editor using an IP address in India. I don't think there's any evidence it's not a hoax at this point, so removing it until there's a reliable source seems the best course. —KCinDC (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Possible Causes"

It doesn't explain the causes of addiction. More work definitely needs to be done on this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.155.119 (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Causes section is not only grammatically pathetic, but is inherently contradictory. Fix it. 142.179.73.188 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Citation Needed"

I honestly think people sometimes put the 'citation needed' markups just to be a-holes...I mean some of the things people put them after are just ridiculous. "The sky is purportedly blue in most areas of the Earth, and some even report it having clouds!" --NLUT

Fair enough, but if you're going to say it's a proposed form of psychological addiction, you might as well prove that someone's actually proposing it, etc. In your example, we're looking at common knowledge. Also, if you need proof, in most places looking up outdoors will prove the statement, so this is an easily verified statement too. In this example, we're looking at hearsay. -Caudax 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article is plainly and simply a dumb ass. 2*31=62 and 3*31=93. 93 and 61 DO NOT correspond with the 140 hours. So which is it, 140 hours or 62-93 hours. I mean seriously before you write something that other people are going to try and use to learn please please please do your damn math, especially if it is just simple multiplication and division.

Regarding the Stub template

I notice that I hadn't mentioned why I flagged it as a stub. The reasons for that are as follows:

• First, the only sections that seem to be worth keeping are In popular culture, See also, and External links. So we've effectively got a sufficient lack of content.
• Second, as per WP:Stub, "Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library." For evidence, see [2] and [3]. Front page of a search for "game addiction".

Before this goes back and forth, please discuss it here. -Caudax 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Infobox Hell

While there is some obvious aesthetic displeasure involved in this edit, I felt that it was necessary to include these templates. There is definitely good reason behind having an article like this, but right now it is suffering from too many flaws, among which are:

• Article is biased towards assuming that video game addiction simply exists in the way it handles the subject matter. It acknowledges there is debate, but, aside from that acknowledgement, ignores it altogether. This is regarding the neutrality issue.
• Article contains weasel words.
• A lot of this stuff comes from seemingly nowhere. This causes both problems with citations and original research.
• Article doesn't read like an article. It needs clean-up.

To be honest, the article's current state is basically horrible. -Caudax 00:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm going to see if I can redo this article in the next few weeks. Also, remember to put new topics at the bottom of the page. --Ubiq 05:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article still looks to me like it's got a lot of room to improve before it could be called unbiased.

For example we imply that "video game addiction" and "video game overuse" are the same thing. The wikipeadia article on addiction says "An addiction or dependence is a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity". And as far as I can reason, addiction would mean that it's an obvious thing to define and diagnose once the guidelines are laid out and proven. While overuse is a term that could mean anything. Is one cup of coffee a day overuse? Is ten? Is a hundred?

I'm also removing "According to the synthesis of research presented to the American Medical Association in June of 2007, those who overuse video games often find themselves more successful in conducting virtual relationships than real world relationships.[8] A 2004 study on internet addicts, which population includes online gamers, found four common indicators: (1) shyness, (2) lack of spiritual faith, (3) belief that others are controlling their lives, and (4) an elevated belief in chance as an influence on their lives.[19] as it's under the heading Possible causes which it doesn't seem relevant to. If someone wanted to reuse the scentence elsewhere then I would ask that they fix the misuse of "real world" I know it's a casual distinction term between the internet "world" and the planet earth but it's a term that is blatantly misleading and connotates (or is it connotes?) the fallacy that people on the internet aren't as real as the people that live next door to me.--ASA-IRULE 06:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Article needs some work

I think we both agree that this article definitely needs some work. I think it comes from a well-meaning point of view but I'm unsure whether it can be salvaged in current form. So much POV and un-encyclopedic style, my head hurts :)

I'm adding the pages needing attention tag, hope that helps somehow. Goodralph 07:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added {{disputed}} and {{POV}} tags to the article. Honestly, I don't think it can be salvaged at all, although that doesn't mean we should VfD it, as there ought to be an article on this subject. However, this article is a great example of exactly how not to write a good Wiki article, and beyond the actual quality of writing, I'm 99.9% sure that at least one of the images in the article is a copyright violation. Junjk 19:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

3/08/2005 I think the chalenge will be finding someone who uses the internet and has an interest in writing an article about not spending so much time on computers.

I just changed the summary of the article. The claim of an invasion of addiction seemed a bit radical. Reference to goblins, fireball and fragging are also not relevant to the issue, as they relate more to gamer culture than to the actual problem. The intro needs a lot of work, the story of little Joe, although entertaining, is clearly not encyclopedic. However, the school vs. game addiction topic is very relevant and should be expanded. More to come from me. Feel free to keep improving it. --Uberfrank 20:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

8/7/05

I seem to be the only one that recalls that Wikipedia is not the place for original theory. Much of this article is speculation, not fact, and the article fails to highlight that this is a new and highly disputed topic. Furthermore, information about game genres belongs in the game genre section, not here. I could go on - there shouldn't be sections that are 'Coming Soon,' there are parts that are clearly unecyclopedic, and there are even parts that insult the reader's intelligence - but suffice to say I'm deleting everything except a modified version of the opening paragraph.

If anyone reading this wishes to expand upon it, please, please do your research and cite the articles you're quoting; otherwise, we just have an argument and a series of outright accusations. --Bobquest3

Hmm I'm not fond of the article to be honest, quite a few of the points are conjectures at best, and deviate from the point of an encyclopedia, which is to provide factual/documented information in a scientific manner. PoVs do not belong in an encyclopedia unless in context (for example, a citing a PoV within a historical event). --Mendietta 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lamoxlamae 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried my best to clean up the article and make it more objective and less emotionally-swayed as well as to ephasize that Video Game Addiction is currently speculated with little research done into it as of yet. The area on "reported cases" has been completely removed as it was distracting and nearly-impossible to verify as actually being caused by gaming addiction and I added a section on possible symptoms of gaming addiction. The beginning has been restated to be clearer and less emotional as well.

The page, however, still could use a little more verification if anyone is up to finding out if any group has actually been researching video game addiction as an actual addiction! :)

Proposal to merge to Computer addiction

Looking at the two articles, it seems that there is a lot of overlap. The other article isn't very good either, and I think merging the two would be beneficial. Nifboy 04:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal. Video Games are played on numerous platforms, not necessarily just computers. Heyfoureyes 17:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but I understand where you're coming from. This article needs to be put in better wording, at the moment is just seems to be discussing addiction to online gaming such as MMORPG's. However I do think the articles Computer_addiction and Internet_addiction_disorder need to be merged, or sorted out somehow. --Code E 11:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as well. They're very similar in nature, but as we've seen, video game addiction sometimes leads to other problems, such as acts of violence like Counter-strike players attacking each other after playing each other at a cyber cafe or Korean MMORPG players dying due to self-neglect. There are some interesting end-results here, which I think warrant a seperate section. --Roy Laurie 22:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your other statements, acts of violence at a Counter-strike LAN can't quite suggest that the game playing itself caused or "lead to" the violent behavior. While seeing violence and/or participating in agressive games (football, rugby, soccer, etc.) can correlate with violent behavior, we should be careful not to imply causation, especially when saying something like "video game addiction sometimes leads to [acts of violence]", when in fact many addictions can "lead to" violence. --Ubiq 09:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Article is totally one sided. Makes it seem that playing the game is just an addiction when many other reasons lead to over playing a game one already likes. Like not being treated by your spouse as you would like. I am speaking from experiance

Have you considered mergeing all 3 into sections under the title Technology addiction or Computer and console addiction? or some other all round title. Small highly related articles spread out like this don't do much for the encyclopedia (remember to always view it from that point) as people searching for gaming addiction may well enter computer addiction. As a single article (but in subdivided sections) this would become a much stronger piece. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think theese articals have alot of overlap and changing the title to incorperate all of them would help an average person and make wickipidea more user-friendly. Bfissa 17:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Let's do it. --DanielCD 18:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the possible merging of the two articles as "Gaming Addiction" relates directly to the cause. Also the chemical reaction in the brain is the result of the title of the article and not that of "Computer Addiction". In my opinion there should be more on the article describing the public reaction, i.e. how the ones affected by it feel, and how the majority of people view those who are addicted. Also how the relation of deaths relate to the games themselves, whether they are violent, or encourage a sense of fictional settings as with the addiction. I also moved the section of "6year old harry burned his house down whilst his family was sleeping because they took his computer away from him after playin 24 hours space raders game". It lacks detail to any possible real event and could be vandalism, perhaps an attempt to direct a personal insult to someone. --Aeryck89 18:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with merging. Game addiction is a subset of computer addiction, but it has some unique attributes that do not apply to other types of computer addiction, and it is definitely significant enough to deserve its own article. Edrigu 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree due to the very fact that video game addiction is NOT solely a subset of Computer Addiction. If you look at Video Games you will see that it also includes Consoles and Arcade Machines and many other ways of playing video games other then computers. -- User:Lab_Dragon 16:11, 27 October 2006 (EST)

Someone can be addicted to their computer without being addicted to games - IRC channels as an example. I disagree with merging the two articles. This article should actually be renamed to Digital game addiction, since Game addiction should encompass physical games as well (like football or rugby). --Mendietta 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree that the articles be merged. First, I should mention that I have studied this matter extensively over the past two years, and that of all the psychology related articles I've come across on Wikipedia, this one is one of the most disappointing. Secondly, there seem to be some misconceptions that need to be cleared up. Game addiction is not a subset of computer addiction. As someone already stated, games can be played on multiple platforms, including PC (usually online but not always) and console (sometimes online, but traditionally not online). The biggest problem that needs to be addressed is differentiation (and understanding what is different about each addiction). Any games played online are likely going to have extra aspects that can be addictive (socialization, competition). These are aspects that most (offline) games don't have, and why it has been suggested that online games (MMORPG games for example) have such a much higher addiction rate (because there is a higher psychological basis for addiction). The following is a suggestion as to how the articles be divided and written:

Online gaming addiction - would have sections for research on MMORPG, FPS, RTS, and other types of games. Would discuss psychological and physiological (chemical) aspects of the addiction. Since this is a relatively new addiction, it might be appropriate to include research on addiction rates and other relavant things (like history, however short). A good place to start for research is Nick Yee. Look up the Daedalus Project, as he's got piles of research on the matter. There are also other notable resources and if I get the time, I might try to add them in here (or maybe just create the article myself).

Gaming addiction (offline) - would mention the physiological aspects of the addiction (increases in NT levels like dopamine), discuss rates (which I doubt would be very high), and perhaps history. I couldn't see this article being very big, as offline gaming addiction hasn't been highly reported or researched.

Internet addiction - would include chat rooms, forums, social networking sites (Myspace, facebook), other websites like Wikipedia (wikipediaholics), and YouTube (I've noticed multiple people on there admitting to being "addicted", whether they really are or not). Focus would be on socialization as one of the main aspects of the addiction.

Computer addiction (offline) - I'm sure this hasn't been reported or researched much but it does exist. As to where to start or what would be included, I really don't know. In fact, it may not need to be written at all.

Again, these are just suggestions, but the main two to focus on are Online gaming addiction and Internet addiction, as they are much more common and researched. Additionally, I think it is important that those involved in the writing of these articles to have some prior, and in-depth knowledge of addiction in general. It boggles my mind how there would be an article for game addiction which lumps offline gaming and online gaming into one addiction. Especially when the underlying reasons for each addiction are fundamentally different. If I come back to this article in a month without seeing progress, I'm going to take it upon myself to rewrite these articles and make them much more informational and accurate than they are now. --Ubiq 09:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

consider computer and videogame addiction to be the same as technological addiction. although reasons for addiction and the symptoms may differ, both are primarly integrated of the same orgin. try generalizing any tecnological advancement in the video screen, (what i believe) the primary cause for addiction, to be technology addiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.206.144 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Possible Diagnosis Criteria"

It seems this section was simply copied and pasted from Internet addiction disorder with "internet" replaced with "game". What's with that? QRX 16:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats true. Even the quoted links are not matching the video game addiction. It´s completely wrong and I will remove the whole section.--84.162.73.136 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Template Overload

The templates for cleanup and the like are really growing on this article, do we really need 6 or 7? Is there any way to say the same thing with 1 template instead of 3? 58.108.235.216 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible causes?

Almost all test and research happened 11 years ago. Is that the only research there is on this topic?

I've just updated it with the most recent information I could find. It meant a lot of cutting, but most of what was there smacked of original research to me. There's certainly room for a lot of expansion if reputable current sources can be found. Moonriddengirl 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job of updating. Much of this comes down to how one defines "addiction." Within the medical community, "addiction" refers to a disease state, one that has been well described, well defined, and well characterized. Addiction is quite different from use. One can be addicted to alcohol, for instance, without needing to drink a great deal of alcohol; one might drink a great deal of alcohol and not be addicted. The quantity of use is not germane to whether someone has addiction.

So there are two issues here: use and addiction. If problems result from a certain degree of use of videogames, then that's a public health issue related to use. But that has nothing to do with the disease of addiction. It may well be that someone could have addiction to videogames, but that hasn't been demonstrated within the scientific literature. All we know for certain is that some people spend a significant amount of time playing videogames, just as people spend a significant amount of time watching football, working on their car, or knitting. Until we have clear science supporting the presence of a disease state related to this activity, we can't even begin to say that there's such a disease as "videogame addiction." Drgitlow 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

video game overuse, the term proposed by the AMA, seems like a much more accurate term to me, whether the APA decides to include it in the next DSM or not. Based on all the reading I've done today, it seems that a good bit of the motivation for it is financial, to give insurance companies incentive to pay for treatment for sufferers of poor impulse control. Not that I mean to sound unsympathetic to that. It's just a shame that big business becomes so involved in medical policy. Moonriddengirl 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "overuse" term was a successful bit of procedural change in the AMA House of Delegates the other day. The title change makes it clear that the report is addressing the potential harm that can result from excessive use of videogames, and that needs to be studied further. That seems reasonable to me too. Drgitlow 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Move

Why is this article at Game addiction instead of Video game addiction or something similar? Yonatan ^talk 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Video game addiction would be far more precise. Moonriddengirl 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this move hadn't been done, so I moved the page, and fixed the double redirects the move caused. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the On-Line Gamers Addiction help or whatever it's called is a front for a Christian conversion group. I'm fairly certain it should be removed with a prejudice. Of their "12 steps", at least four would fall under the tentative category of "Addict Yourself To Jesus Instead". Genocidealive (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to add additional Research

I wrote this article in reflection on the current trends in Video Game Addiction with a hypothesis in the decrease of sociability. The address to my article is http://www.associated[space added by User:tktktk to properly save the page]content.com/article/582943/a_study_into_social_functioning_in.html. Feel free to look it over and see if it's worth adding to the External Links section as opposing research, even though my sample of people is relatively much smaller than an actual full-on University study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psypho (talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

you have the following categories on page2: -playing alone -playing with friends and family What about the people who play online? That's overwhelmingly the majority, and they don't play alone, nor with friends or family.

how did you find out the personality of the subjects? You simply interviewed them? They are just people that entered into your store. They do not represent the "gamer" community.143.167.235.164 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Psypho, please note that blogs fail wp:EL. This would be wp:OR. Once you get a wp:RS to publish the work, then it could be used, possibly.sinneed (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the RuneScape picture and caption valid?

The second pic "Youth spending seemingly endless hours playing RuneScape". We can't see the game and it adds nothing to the article, for all we know it could be someone checking their email for the first time in a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashNerdX (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whats different to internet addiction?

I´m pretty unsure, whats the difference between internet addiction and video game addiction. Video game addiction has almost no research in the scientific community. Also, this article makes it unclear, if someone can become video game addiction from a game, that cant be played online?! Internet addiction at the other hand is under research and involves also the online game addiction. Someone here, who can me the difference more obvious to me?!--84.162.73.136 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that online gaming addiction is a subsection of both internet addiction and video game addiction (just biochemistry being a subsection of both biology and chemistry). generally videa game addiction is refered to offline games but (as far as I know)there is no clear definition of either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.93.3 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Advatages - disadvantages assessment

There are distinct advantages to regular enjoyment of entertainment s/w. Advantageous physiological changes in the average mind for regular USE (not addiciton) are well documented and even the sociological and psychological fields are using the MMORPG's as a "clinical" sandbox. The growing self awareness and oversight of what is actually fun and beneficial are not easily within the realm of most individuals however - much as being able to push one's self away from the table if one has a tendency to enjoy food and eating to the detriment of over all health.

As mentioned in other articles here there are the prevalent "hooks" that have various levels of interaction on the intrapersonal level. Much as someone may feel a deep awe and appreciation of a beautiful painting/picture/scene, the regular engagement can variously/sporatically be heightened and one of the variable exacerbating elements in the video game addictions, as it becomes more deeply associated with the over "postive" personal experience the individuals derives from any gaming session. This can extend to even the game's splash screens. As the personal addiction/disorder grows, even the act of thinking about powering on a PC may "excite" that person and they may or may not be fully aware of.

It is my contention that even the social interaction "hook" is currently highly underestimated. The feeling of 'connectedness' and perceptions of being 'world aware' and in tune, some of which is similar to internet browsing, can highten the feelings of everything from positive personal capability/capacities to self gratifications of exerting power and influence over people and their own environment in most modes of behavior, (anger and other negative dispersions, silly-abusive behavior, etc).

In examinations of current IT "valuations" [of our "Systems"], there is irrefutible evidence that the dimensions (immediacy, width and breadth, pervassiveness) of [IT] communications are poorly recognized from the multi-billion dollar systems to simple s/w utilities.

Indeed, even the challenges, going as far as to the levels of frustration invoked by the game play and or personal interactions throughout the session, may create the "hooks" enabling an uncontrollable desire for showing off, increased obsessive determinations, compulsions, etc.

Some of the marked changes in physiology can see lack off hunger, tiredness, heightened awarenesses (but with a limited focus), such as a growing child who has had exempliary sleep patterns suddenly being able to stay up in "all nighters".

Some methods of normalizing this addiction/disorder should recognize that the effected individual may have greater requirements for: acceptance, self-esteem, challenges, social interaction that may not diminish over time. Controlling accessibilities, (types of games, amount of time), developing the individuals personal awarenesses, retargetting the utility [PC](projects to use the gaming device for other things), maturing of family attitudes of all members, group activities, employment, are all notions meant to help all in waking up to the realities. Please note that exppressions of anger (not seriousness), punitive measures, etc, are mostly likely to drive this addictive behavior in a more negative manner.

Games, just like tv, may develop the individual over time to a mechanical mode of behavior where social conventions are merely acted upon as if from a script and not really interactive, making awareness/diagnosis difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.41.52 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Article - aligning compulsive gaming to more profound issues.

This has surfaced in light of the Brandon Crisp case:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=907011

I feel that anything i would write would have far too much bias, so if anyone else feels that this article should be cited...feel free.McMundy (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reworded lead-in

I have reworked the lead-in. I note that the last sentence has no source cited. This should be OK, since virtually every press article I have seen lately refers to one or more MMORPGs as the object of abuse/overuse/addiction, and these will be (and already are) heavily cited.

Please edit madly. :) I did very little new work here, mainly reshaping what was already there. I *think* I have stayed to the sources as given, and apologize for any error.

The body of the article needs much work. This is a large subject, covered to my mind very lightly. As high speed Internet connections and fast computers capable of running highly immersive games and simulations become more and more common, I believe this problem will become very widespread. When there are 2 billion gamers, imagine how very very tempting the worlds the artists and developers will paint for them will be. *blink*

sinneed (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bringing the current 2nd para here for work. If no work, I'll put it back:

Most widely noted as objects of overuse are massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), such as World of Warcraft, RuneScape, and Lineage.

Excessive gaming may be associated with more general excessive computer or internet usage.

Please explain concerns, make changes. Will re-add Thursday if no interest.sinneed (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"virtually every press article I have seen lately refers to one or more MMORPGs as the object of abuse/overuse/addiction," dude, your generalising wildly. Your also approaching this in more of an evanjelical manner than an encyclopedic one. "When there are 2 billion gamers, imagine how very very tempting the worlds the artists and developers will paint for them will be. *blink*" is another good example of this. Keep it encyclopedic, keep the language neutral, keep the argument neutral, and remember that if MMO's are as bad as you make out then the article will clearly show this if those principles are followed.FlashNerdX (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, let's just leave it out, and see if someone puts something in in place of it? Thoughts?sinneed (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current intro works well so I think leaving it as it is and working on the content would be a good choice.FlashNerdX (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

_{I have hopefully addressed of the mindreading, intention divining, and borderline wp:personal attack above on the editor's talk page. Is there any comment on the content? I will reinsert it tomorrow if not.sinneed (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)}

Minor structure changes, some introductory OR removal.

This seems to me a rich area. Without turning the article into a list of media reports, I think there is more than enough governmental, partental, and press outcry over gaming overuse that there should be plenty of fodder to adequately frame the problem and its growth. I am going to add a note in the addiction section of some popular game articles pointing here, to try to generate some interest. sinneed (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Most widely noted...

"Most widely noted as objects of overuse are massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), such as World of Warcraft, RuneScape, and Lineage. Excessive gaming may be associated with more general excessive computer or internet usage." "Most widely noted..." actually, if you look at the press, they largely ignore any other forms of gaming and internet addiction these days.

The "may be associated with" prose is an attempt to avoid a big *see also* flag at the top.

Also, really, (OR and can't be included) IMO the press is distorting the facts... the reality is that it is Internet addiction... and the symptom is gaming. This is covered in *SOME* of the press, but we have to avoid wp:undue weight on this narrow, and often scholarly, view. The way I have addressed it in articles in the past is to find and cite a quote about "Many users describe MMO games a Internet chat rooms with graphics."

I think my signature on this section, and some content, was lost at some point...sinneed (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Addiction of Games on NCIS

Been a while since I have used Wiki code but wanted to add there was an episode of NCIS that focused on gaming addiction. Season 1 Episode 4 The Immortals TV.com link http://www.tv.com/ncis/the-immortals/episode/274457/summary.html?tag=ep_guide;ep_title;4 Mystikravyn (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed page move.

Since this has not been classified as an addiction, I propose to move the article over the existing redirect Video game overuse, then redirect Video game addiction to point there.

Thoughts?

sinneed (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the arguments against moving Internet addiction disorder to Internet overuse at Talk:Internet addiction disorder, I no longer think this is a good idea. This should be the home for, if nothing else, the argument about whether it is an addiction or not. I found the discussion there insightful.sinneed (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is certainly correct to add "The"...

The grammar was correct.

One might consider "Right-hander Tom Watts threw 3 strikeouts." It is correct to say "The right-hander Tom Watts threw 3 strikeouts."

It is also not required. sinneed (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

poll of 8-18-year-olds about whether or not they are addicted

While it is surely interesting, does it belong here? This isn't a survey of experts, it is asking children and young adults at random. It is like quoting a "man in the street" interview. I am going to make it clear what the poll was, but unless someone feels strongly that this belongs, I am going to cut it.sinneed (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for how long this is, but I have a few points that I want to make. I believe that, although they may possibly delude themselves, a survey of the people regarding certain issues involved with being addicted, such as the amount of playing time, is one good way to gather information. The "experts" will likely not really know those sorts of issues, apart from things like surveys that they themselves have read about! As for it being like quoting a "man in the street" interview, I disagree. There are several issues to consider with these surveys. First, there is the number of people surveyed. A few "man in the street" interviews can hardly encompass the range of possibilities, and especially have a large enough sample size, treated with appropriate statistics, to have any particular relevancy. Also, there is the issue of selection. Although having a totally random selection is the ideal goal, even the best polls will not be able to achieve that. However, if properly done, they can be quite close. There is a story, sorry that I don't have a reference for it, that really shows how important that is. I believe that it was sometime during the 1930's in the U.S. that a large magazine did a poll of its readers regarding who will be the next president. It had many thousands of responses that predicted a landslide for one person. However, a poll done by a professional outfit, of only about 1,000 respondents, predicted the victory of another person. On election day, it was the other person who won, with results fairly closely matching the second poll! The main reason that the first poll, despite its much larger size, was so far off was that it was far from random. Most of the magazine subscribers were fairly wealthy people whose voting intentions were considerably different from the much larger group of more average, relatively poor people. Since then, most professional political opinion polls, in various countries around the world, have been fairly close to the final election day results. Since this Harris poll was done professionally, as opposed to something like a student or other amateur, and it has a relatively large sample size (i.e., over a thousand youths), I believe that it has value and should be kept. Nonetheless, one thing that people need to be aware of is the possible errors and biases. However, there is no easy way to explain that, with one thing that I dislike is that so many published opinion polls give the +- percentage error 95 times out of a hundred. I believe that very few people really understand what they really mean by that (as someone with a master's degree in applied mathematics, although I am not a statistician, I believe that I am one of those few people), so it can be misleading to them. Please read the Methodology section of http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1196 if you have not yet done so regarding the issues involved and why publishing the +/- random error value is not a good idea. JoDOe (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• No need to be sorry for length but I don't see your statement of why this statement belongs. Here is the quote:

"In a 2007 Harris Interactive poll, 8.5% of 1,187 U.S. youths aged 8-18 said they had at some point felt "addicted" to video games"

If it were about playing time, I would agree. It is not. It is about addiction. Youths answering the question about whether or not they felt addicted is not useful. They don't know what addiction is. If there is more data that should be used instead of the opinion of children about addiction per se, I would be happy to see it. I hear people talking about being addicted to quilting, their favorite soap opera, etc. While cute, it is just a popular bit in society today, to claim to be addicted to everything from shoes to the mocha latte special at the corner coffee mart.sinneed (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• All that being said, I agree there is useful data there, and I think it needs more coverage...just not THIS coverage. I also note that the number is wrong, the 8.5% is MUCH lower than the number for those who reported feeling addicted. The 8.5% is the "patholigical" conclusion, the "felt addicted" was 23%.:) I suspect it was wounded in an edit war.sinneed (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Sinneed, I agree that youth's subjective responses regarding whether or not they "feel" addicted may not be very accurate. Also, thank you for pointing out the mistake in the comment, and for enhancing the text here. Although the poll article does not say what criteria it used for deciding who is "pathological or clinically 'addicted' to playing video games", I strongly suspect that an important component for it is the amount of playing time. Since you agree that how much time spent playing is a valid thing to report on in regards to the survey, I have added that information back with a direct quote. JoDOe (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I chopped the erroneous 8.5% and did not replace it with the correct 23% number, and added the reported playtime numbers.
  As you mentioned, these are certainly useful. I confess that I am dubious of these play numbers. I suspect (rather strongly) that they understate the problem, because averages skew numbers with a great deal of scatter very strangely.
  Since there are no responses lower than 0, the *HUGE* outliers can skew the numbers upward.
  On the other hand, a very large number of responses close to 0, can "hide" the outliers. For example, if there is a 10% block that plays 100 hours, and everyone else plays 10, the average is 19...and the 10 at 100 are masked, and the 90 that are "normal" (that is, like most everyone else) look "strange" compared to the average. I wish more studies gave the median and outliers...it gives such a clear picture of how badly scattered the data is. In this case we know the data is scattered... some play very little, some play very much indeed.sinneed (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that having additional information about the data, such as the median, outliers, standard deviation, etc., would help give a more accurate summary of the data. Also, thank you, Sinneed, for making that wording change to what I added in. It makes the meaning more clear. JoDOe (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not to start a mutual admiration society, but indeed, thank you for your edits. I find it hard to care a great deal about an article no one else is willing to edit, and I can't do my best (however bad that may be) thinking without someone else's viewpoints to agree with or contrast to.sinneed (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are welcome for my edits. Although I think that we, along with most other people, usually agree, we can usually reach an agreeable decision in case of any disagreements by rationally discussing issues here. Nonetheless, I suspect that I will still disagree with you on a few occasions, possibly even quite strongly. JoDOe (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, Disagreement. :) If you have time and interest, please drop by my user page, I have a bit there about disagreement.sinneed (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the 23% feeling addicted number. After looking at the poll results and thinking about youth some more, I wonder if we should add the 23% who felt addicted. Even though they don't know what "addicted" means, it would seem to indicate to me that at some point they felt "trapped" by the games. I am waffling. The wording would be a pain, I think. :) I live for a challenge. sinneed (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that mentioning the 23% feeling addicted result would be a good idea, but only if it is explained properly in a clear and concise manner. If you choose to do this, I wish you good luck! JoDOe (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'll probably put the wording here on the talk page and let it gell a bit. The play time numbers were easy. I don't think this will be. I think it is going to be hard to avoid being misleading without giving it grossly undue weight in the article.sinneed (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Online

This was an online poll. It was not a professionally administered poll. *Anyone* from anywhere in the Internetverse could have answered these questions. I don't think this affects the usefulness of the data, it just may not quite mean what we think. And I remain convinced that playtimes run far higher than these results show.sinneed (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just because it is online does not mean that it was not professionally administered to the extent that it reasonably could be. I agree that it is possible that anybody, in theory, could have answered the questions. Nonetheless, Harris Interactive is a fairly large, well known and, I believe, respected organization. I suspect that they have ways of checking on and/or largely limiting the respondents to those that they are seeking (e.g., by providing the survey questions only in a restricted online location where people of the target age group tend to be, checking on some of them at random by calling them, etc.). They have a reputation to uphold and, thus, they will likely take at least a few precautions to try to make sure that their data is as reasonably reliable as they can. Nonetheless, I agree that the "online" aspect of the poll is an important consideration and, thus, I have added that adjective to this article here. JoDOe (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Comittee report

"CSAPH Report 12-A-07" at http://psychcentral.com/blog/images/csaph12a07.pdf is "REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH"
It is cited by
http://web.archive.org/web/20080131140453/http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/06/22/hscout605801.html - titled - "Video Game Overuse May Be an Addiction: Experts"
and the Forbes.com piece explains that more than 2 hours per day of game play is the "video game overuse" used here in the article. The council said "heavy video game playing" will be considered "video game overuse" (page 4) and that "1 to 2 hours" of "screen time" per day is the maximum healthy amount (page 7) (by the way I need to quit my job at once), and that "heavy game use" will be "those who play more than 2 hours per day"(page 2).

So.
If I spend 2 hours per day eating, clearly I am overusing food. *blink* OK, OK, food is needful.
If I spend over 2 hours per day chatting with friends, that is talking overuse. *blink*

I am going to change the article to what the council says the study shows, and change the wording to make it clear the council says that, not the survey.sinneed (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

HAR! The document cited by the Council is
http://web.archive.org/web/20080325220544/http://www.theesa.com/files/2005EssentialFacts.pdf
and it *DOES NOT HAVE* the 2hour+ per day information at all. It does have the average gaming time of "6.8 hours per week". Interestingly, this means that the average gamer barely passes under the 1 hour per day screen-time number. Perhaps the ESA gave them the raw data, but if so they should have cited that, rather than the "Essential Facts" document.sinneed (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Large cut of unsourced opinion attributed to Dr. Michael Brody

I cut all this:

, opines that the addiction to computer games can be caused by psychological problems such as antisocial personality disorder, depression, and phobias such as social phobia. He believes that many addicts want a way to escape reality and then find that they can create a whole new persona on an online game and live their life through their new online personality. Through this they can start to like fantasy life more than reality due to newfound friends and power, and thus, refuse to be drawn away from it. Dr. Brody sees the problem in computer game addiction and believes it needs to be treated on the same level as a drug addiction. However, there is much controversy over video game addiction being diagnosed as a "disease" since, in some cases, it is much easier to treat than a drug addiction. According to him, computer and video game addiction is a disease.

It is unsourced, and seems to conflict with his statements in the 2007 press release. There is also a lot of what appears to be damage, perhaps from an edit war? It will need some sourcing if readded, please.sinneed (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage and gaming-related deaths

I want to move the deaths up, and make them chronological rather than by-country. Obections or concerns?sinneed (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Evercrack" image has been removed, at least for now

For about a week now, the "Evercrack" image has not been available. Was this done on purpose? If so, I am curious as to why. Also, are there any plans to replace it with something else, e.g., a similar image? If this was not done on purpose, are there any plans to restore the image? JoDOe (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a warning up about it. I am afraid I did not note the editor who flagged the image. The reason it got the axe is that it was a mod of a copyrighted image. I was always rather amazed that it stayed up. The fair use rationale was something like "this has been floating around the Internet a long time." I was sorry to see it go, it was very neat. Just very not legal.sinneed (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the deletion log here.

sinneed (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Report the concern don't comment on it

I removed an adverse comment on Deborah Taylor Tate's position. In the context of a section on "Government Concern" it is not appropriate to editorialise on her position, just report it. Isn't it funny how the commentary is uniformly pro-gamer and anti-concern? Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, our inclusion of her comment is pro gamer. *blink* O wait. (That was sarcasm.)
"adverse comment" - There is no comment on what she said. "just report it" - There is only a report of her silence, with sources.sinneed (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There were lots of things she didn't say but you choose to report that. There were lots of things other people said or didn't say too. The choice is editorialising. It clearly has the effect of undermining her position by suggesting that it might not be based on research, and that's an adverse comment. It's a statement about her statement and that makes it an adverse comment on her position. QED Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"The choice is editorialising." - no.

"It's a statement about her statement" - yes.
"that makes it an adverse comment on her position." - no.
"QED"-no.
If this were true, the encyclopedia could never contain anything...because clearly we aren't going to include everything said...thus anything in the encyclopedia would be editorialising. sinneed (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

1. What I said was that undermining her position makes it an adverse comment. I didn't say, and do not think, that every comment is adverse, so let's not get sidetracked.

2. While it is clearly true that we aren't going to include everything said, it's even more true that we aren't going to include everything that people didn't say. So that argument cuts both ways.

3. Let me give some examples of what I mean. Suppose that I choose to add the clause ", but he didn't state whether he was taking medication when he said it" after a quote. That would very likely be true, but would significantly affect the reader's reaction to the statement. Or, ", but he didn't say whether he was a giant weasel or not". Or ", but he didn't deny also being Adolf Hitler". Or ", but he didn't give sources for what he said". These might all be true, but choosing to make one of those comments has the effect, intended or otherwise, of weakening the statement being reported.

4. Commenting on a source by advancing a proposition not contained in that source is precisely what editorialising is. Let's look at what the original reliable source might say:

A. "Smith said in a speech I believe X but don't have the figures to support X"

B. "Smith said in a speech I believe X but her speech contained no figures to support X"

C. "Smith said in a speech I believe X". [The report of the speech in the source contains no figures to support X].

In case A we can say "Smith stated that she believes X but has no figures to support it". In case B we can say "Smith stated that she believed X but gave no figures to support it". In case C we can say only "Smith stated that she believed X". I maintain that to add ", but gave no figures to support it" in case C is editorialising, and that the case we are in here is case C. In fact, it's also synthesis. Thompson Is Right (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Already addressed. Not synthesis: report of verifiable content. The content is silence. Easily refuted if there is something other than silence. Her speech is there, voila, we see her silence.sinneed (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Most quotes from speeches are from people who have expertise in what they are talking about and/or they are discussing something that does (e.g., a study). However, that is not the case here, with it only being reported due to Deborah Tate's prominence. As such, not saying anything about her statement would, IMHO, give undue weight to it. However, we should just simply state that without too much elaboration, or we risk giving undue weight to this fact or appear to be editorializing, even if the content is from another source. As such, I propose simplifying the statement to just "However, she did not identify any source to validate the statement" or, if really necessary, with ", nor identify its position in relation to other causes" after it. JoDOe (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• We have had it in both those forms previously... I don't remember the objections. I don't really see how giving the leading causes can be undue weight. These are the perennial 3 leaders. Her statement, as I previously noted, could mean that it was reason 999,999,999 and it would still be in the top 1 billion. As she worded it, it means nothing at all. Number one is almost always "no dinero", just for example. It seems to me someone put in a sarcastic "comparison to" and I replaced it with the real top 3. I do agree that wp:undue would be a valid reason to chop this... if consensus is that it applies. But the claim that this is wp:synthesis is not. sinneed (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Expanding a bit: she chose to talk about a "top" reason people drop out of college... but she did not choose to talk about the top reasons. Noting that she claimed this was "a top" reason... but then didn't talk about the top reasons... is not editorializing, it is not synthesis, and I can't see how it can be undue weight right off hand.sinneed (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wielded the editorial hatchet... leaving the citations in will let interested readers see the top reasons, her full remarks, some press about the remarks.sinneed (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• I also went in and "softened" the wording a bit...this was a speech to a bunch of lawyers, not a formal presentation on gaming, there really isn't any reason she would cite sources.sinneed (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the case of Brandon Crisp applicable under the "Deaths" section?

Note that the "Deaths" section is for those deaths that are "directly related to excessive and/or compulsive playing of video games". The case of Brandon Crisp is definitely tragic. However, him dying by falling from a tree long after running away due to a dispute that involved his excessive playing of video games and other aspects (e.g., falling grades) is not, IMHO, directly related and, thus, should be removed from there. JoDOe (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it belongs. To me, this is the core of the dispute about video gaming. Is it a problem, a symptom of a problem, or just part of life? There is tragedy in everything. Of course, I am the editor who added it, so clearly I thought it belonged, so I am not sure how much value I can add to the discussion. ;) The death article I cited specifically talks about how his death had brought the game discussion to the attention of a great many people in the region, and the argument of "did the gaming cause this, or was it a normal part of teen life". I am not rabidly opposed to dropping it. But I do think it belongs.sinneed (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowly paragraph removal

It needs to be rewritten and the importance of citing reliable sources (in this case, any at all) is very important. Since the portion is not sourced and not well written I removed it. I don't mind a revert if it can be correctly handled. The paragraph mentions a few things but 3 stick out: the mention of this snowly girl, the 'brief' mention of another player in world of warcraft (labled as a wow addict even), and the bit about chinese measures. This entire bit seems to have been written by one person so with some revision maybe it can be added back! Seareever (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Large POV addition, removed.

There seem to be some good sources and excellent work there. Unfortunately, it is *ALL* from the point of view that video game overuse is indeed video game addiction. This will not do. The information needs to be presented without the PoV, or it will need to stay out.

For example, the issue is not that there is no TERM "video game addiction", it is that there is no diagnosis of "video game addiction". Certainly there are those who argue that video game overuse is addiction. There are also those who argue that it is not... that the diagnosis is whatever problem, if any, that leads to the overuse.

sinneed (talk) 12:4, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism, and large amounts of cited information should not be removed because it is under dispute, a rewrite tagging is more appropriate here.

There is a topic, or a concept, or an idea, or set of behaviors that people are calling "video game addiction." The question isn't whether or not it's "real." The question is, and the one you are right to bring up, is whether or not it's real in that a group (or groups) of mental health professionals believe it's viable and significant diagnosis. Certainly a section on the status of it's "diagnoisability" or recognition by credible associations within medicine, psychology is necessary. But, this article isn't on the plausibility of video game addiction (although something like that would make an interesting article) as the heading at the top of the article indicates, it should be based on reliable sources that are researching the topic of video game addiction, which is exactly what was added. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that has already been done. Please see the article.sinneed (talk)

You asked for me to expand on my edit summary, and I did. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed most of the OR and POV addition from the article, I think, and killed the flags I added. I have also integrated some very nice sources the author provided. However, as I made a very large number of edits, I am confident I am damaged something... I found some errors I made and fixed them already. I would ask that those who have an interest in the article give it a read, and possibly look at the new sources not yet integrated into the article. They were used as citations in the large block of text, but the content did not seem to appear in the cited source. They do seem to have interesting content.sinneed (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A huge and rambling addition.

A new editor has joined us and made a huge addition of POV, straight nonsense, and OR. I have repaired the structural damage, corrected the damage to the lead, and flagged the remainder. Much of this is a POV version of information already in the article, and none of it seems to be new. I killed it, but an experienced editor has reverted that without fixing or flagging any of the problems. As we have already been through this before, I just don't have the strength to do it again. Hopefully someone else will.

I note that "video game addiction" is generally defined by using the symptoms for "gambling addiction" (see internet addiction) so the specious observation that its symptoms are the virtually the same is especially humorous. No, they *ARE* the same for both of these proposed (nope, just proposed) diagnoses.

sinneed (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Painful analysis *sigh* - the 1st chunk under possible disorder.

"Studies have shown that certain people are more susceptible to developing addiction to video games than others." OR - there are studies that show differences in game play based on age, gender, wealth, etc... there are variations among those who have some of the symptoms proposed to indicate "video game addiction".

"When playing video games, as the player progresses through the game, certain rewards are made available." True, like, say, playing dominoes. You play, you get points, you get to win rounds, or games, maybe even all the pennies.

"These awards stimulate certain parts of the brain that causes an excitement." Thus, we play games. Dogs chase their tails, cats bat at hanging strings.

"Studies have shown that men are more prone to experience this than women." Sortof, and already included. See the studies section.

"This same sort of brain activity can be found in individuals suffering from gambling addictions." No, there is not yet "gambling addiction" - and yes, "gambling" is "gaming", though usually "gambling" specifies gaming for real reward.

"Many experts claim these two addictions, even though video game addiction is not an official medical diagnosis, go hand in hand." "Case studies have revealed a strong indication that gambling addiction and video game addiction both have the same symptoms." They share the same diagnosis. The proposed definitions for "video game addiction" and "gambling addiction" are the same, but one refers to gaming for money/real prizes, the other to video games. Is this not adequately covered.

"Studies have proved that gambling addiction can increase the production of dopamine in the brain and this same effect has been reported in video game addiction." Repititious. sinneed (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This all needs to go. The sources may be worth adding to the existing sections.

Sarcasm and martyrdom are not arguments against article content. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoring a large new addition without checking the sources (which would reveal quickly that much was fiction) is not generally an excellent editing tactic.- sinneed (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of content.

"Individuals who are considered addicted to video games show intense addiction symptoms when restricted from gaming. Gambling addiction studies suggest that addiction to gambling can increase dopamine. Video game addiction falls into this same category. Symptoms such as shaking and insomnia are common."

was covered by this citation:

Salaam, Muhammad, Sitgraves, Chad, Young, Luther, Young, Nenha. “The Internet and video games: Addictions or innocent escape?” New York Amsterdam News; 08/06/98, Vol. 89 Issue 32, p18, 1/2p

The cited article is an article about how psychologist Bob Kubey argues that children could become addicted to video games or the Internet. If it includes the above, I would ask for a quote. The article is available for a fee at EBSCOhost

Since other content in this same large edit were not in the cited articles, I am cutting this to talk. sinneed (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A pair of sources

Griffiths, Mark D. (Apr, 2008). ""Videogame Addiction: Further Thoughts and Observations."". 6 (2). International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction: 182–185. Retrieved May 8, 2009. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

A response to:

Wood, Richard T. A. (April 2008). "Problems with the Concept of Video Game "Addiction": Some Case Study Examples". 6 (2). International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction: 169–178. Retrieved May 8, 2009. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

in that same issue.

sinneed (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Online Funeral

If I remember right, there was a person who played a MMORPG a lot (I can't remember the name; WoW, maybe?) , and he eventually died of exhaustion. Then, a whole bunch of people got together and held a big funeral, and there was a huge turnout.

I think I read about it in a Guinness Book of World Records, under "Largest Online Funeral." If anybody has more information on the incident, and cite it, I think it should be added. ★ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ★ 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow yes, something like that seems to have happened. (It was a Chinese girl known as 'Snowly'.) Here are some sources [4] [5] [6] [7], but I'm too lazy to add them to the article right now; maybe someone else can do it. (There's also this mentioning some other incidents that might be relevant.) Shreevatsa (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like rumors to me... game sites quoting one another. Are there any wp:RS? Or am I missing something? The online funeral would need to stay out, trivia. The xinhuanet source is attributed to this]. It, in turn, has no attribution at all... no police, no family, official reaction. Very dubious. - sinneed (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Xinhuanet is reliable enough. The CRI.cn post (also posted at Yahoo news), mention that "Reporters tried to contact his family, but his family and friends have kept their mouths shut on this" ("his" should probably be "her"; Google translate). It's also apparently mentioned in Guinness book of records 2007, but I don't know. If "various generally-reliable sources report that a girl died" is the best we can say, it's still worth saying. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree... because excited blogosphere-dwellers quote one another alll day long. Weak press organs quote the bloggers and Wikipedia... and even WE don't cite Wikipedia, it isn't wp:RS. Why is it worth saying? If the press (the ones with addresses one can find to go yell at them if they are wrong) doesn't care enough to print it, Wikipedia does not. Only if wp:RS say it does Wikipedia "want" to say it as well. I can't agree about the "his"/"her" thing... a girl character might well be a 42-year-old unemployed male. I suspect a simple hoax that got out of hand. The Chinese official press organs are voluble about gaming deaths, as China considers this an important social issue. Why would they be silent? The US press loves to wring its collective hands about the "dire threat" of gaming deaths (ah, the State of Fear). Why would they be silent? Very dubious.- sinneed (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gamerwidow.com

I see this in the See Also section, but I have added it in the EL section as well. I don't think this is wp:undue, and I don't see it as repetition... the article is different from the site.- sinneed (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Largish chunk of new text. Cut here for possible sourcing and inclusion.

One must take into account that as traditional media choices have multiplied over the years (radio-television-cable)our ability to find 'programs of interest' has not; and many 'gamers' since the creation of MMORPG's are trading one media for another. Instead of a fictional or factual story told by someone else, today's 'gamers' trade 'traditional media time' to invest in creation of unique online characters to play in a virtual media world with million's of others, adding a worldwide social interaction non-existant in other media. Many disabled or injured MMORPG players get satisfaction at being able to help someone else, and others who have a 'bad day' use the game as a healthy release television media cannot provide. Any media can be overused, but the APA won't make that a disorder because to do so would also apply to those addicted to other media.

While this is very interesting, it is a short essay, rather than encyclopedic content. Wikipedia needs work that is from wp:reliable sources rather than wp:original research. While the world needs much more of the second, Wikipedia holds almost entirely the 1st. - sinneed (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Viet Nam murder - who said it...

Well, no, the Police didn't. The website did. I have found a couple of other sources, but they seem identical.

I don't feel strongly about the new wording, but if restored, please drop the youth's name...wp:BLP and this is weakly sourced indeed, and an accusation only.- sinneed (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All appear to be picked-up copies of what appears to be a wire service article from "Sapa-DPA".- sinneed (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also... I won't revert it if restored... but I will kill the name(s) of the living.- sinneed (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead wording

"Instances have been reported in which users play compulsively, isolating themselves from, or from other forms of, social contact and focusing almost entirely on in-game achievements rather than broader life events."

was changed to

"Instances have been reported in which users play compulsively, isolating themselves from other forms of social contact and focusing almost entirely on in-game achievements rather than broader life events."

However, some don't accept game contact as social contact at all, as it is "sensorially limited" (among other arguments)... it involves only limited sight and limited activity... not the full range of interaction... again among other arguments. Thus the rather cumbersome (but not "malformed") "from, or from other forms of," usage. While it is a bit elliptical, it is valid... IMO.- sinneed (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That said, if another editor feels strongly about this, I don't. I do think the current version is better for the lead... but it isn't very pretty.- sinneed (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

boredom

I find it cute that absolutely no mention of 'boredom' is made in the article. To clarify what I mean, fellow gamers, try to spend a week or month without playing video games. Feel the boredom? - SridharRatnakumar (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

wp:talk - Doesn't belong here. Idly...11 million WoW players...6 billion humans. For the massive majority of the humans in the world, the answer is "no".- sinneed (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding a new external link - gamingdetox.com

Hello,

I recently stopped playing video games, after being addicted for the past 5 years. I changed my life completely around by looking at different websites and reading other people opinions. I recently built a new website which is aimed to help other people addicted to video games or gambling in general. I want the world to know that there is life out there in the real world. By talking and sharing stories we can help each other fight this new addiction. Please add : gamingaddiction.com to the external links. It is a completely legit website with no profits whatsover, devoted only to fighting this form of addiction. Thank you so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albcom (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It fails both the guidelines for external links and is a conflict of interest. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you enter a website on the wiki, how did the websites below get in there?

• The Daedalus Project
• Video-game-addiction.net
• Gamerwidow.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albcom (talk • contribs) 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

External links proposed

• Video-game-addiction.net

I don't have a strong objection to this site, nor a strong reason for it to be included. It appears to have some decent portal features. I see no evidence of wp:notability in the news. I propose to leave it out.- Sinneed 14:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Gamerwidow.com

This site has strong wp:notability over years in the press. I know of no objection to the site. I propose inclusion of this site, based on that notability and content.- Sinneed 14:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• gamingdetox.com

I oppose the inclusion of this link. Its information is from WP. there is no evidence of wp:notability in the news. No clear value of content. wp:NOT a list of links. wp:COI - once the site has adequate notability, someone not linked to it will add it, possibly.- Sinneed 14:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason gamingdetox.com should be there

My goal with that website is to have a public discussion within the gaming community, share their stories of why they quit, need to quit or do not see why they would need to quit. It is to discuss what the video games can do and learn from each other in the process. The site is being heavily hit and it has been there for 1 week. I am spending money in advertising in google and other affiliates to promote the site. The website is to raise awareness that there is a problem with video game addiction, that this problem is real. It is going to be community driven heavily moderated if users go to extremes. More information will be added and research is going to be done. As i said this is still in the early stages, and it completely non-commercial, just to help people out there who need some place to discuss their thoughts. Please include this link, you can monitor the website, or i will remove it myself if stops being beneficial at some point.

Thanks a lot!!!

207.140.171.5 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. And when you have achieved the goals of adding content, perhaps someone will add it, with an explanation. Above, you have explained why adding the site will be good for the site and in your opinion good for its viewers. WP:NOT a list of links seems to apply. Please read wp:External links. It explains why we add sites to WP. Someday, this site may fill some of those roles. It does not seem to do so today.- Sinneed 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The missing 2005 ESA study

The part about the 2005 ESA study, although likely to be true, should be removed altogether. The cited article (now dead) only has this to say: "The ESA survey also found that video game overuse was most prevalent among the approximately 9 percent of video game users who play against others online in Internet-based 'massive multiplayer online role playing games.'" http://web.archive.org/web/20080131140453/http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/06/22/hscout605801.html

No mention about an extra 2 hours.

Now, when you go to the actual source (also dead, we will use archive.org again)... It doesn't mention anything at all about overuse being more prevalent among MMORPG players. http://web.archive.org/web/20061230185506/http://www.theesa.com/files/2005EssentialFacts.pdf 76.10.134.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

You might review. The section is not about the study, it is about the report. The report referred to the study... but the study doesn't seem to back it up.- Sinneed 14:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources About Video Game Addiction

I recently wrote a paper that covered video game addiction and found a few articles that may help this one.

This article: [8] states an extreme case of a South Korean man dying from exhaustion, due to being so engrossed in playing the video game, StarCraft.

Another article that I found helpful: [9]. Talks about MMORPGS and how when gamers are addicted they often neglect their families or other social activities. They stop going to work or school in order to get more game time.

I realize that both these articles are from the BBC News, which might seemed bias, but I thought they might be helpful. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsxlove (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC is a generally wp:reliable source. All humans have bias, we just strive for neutrality. Best we can do. :)- Sinneed 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture.

Unless there is an objection, I am going to axe all of them that don't have sources linking them to video game addiction. Any concerns?- Sinneed 03:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The latest addition to that section, i.e., the one regarding the Phineas and Ferb episode called "Gaming the System", does not appear to have anything directly to do with video game addiction. Unless somebody can expand on that to indicate how it involves addiction issues, it should be removed. JoDOe (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Legend of Mir 3 date inconsistency

The Legend of Mir 3 is, according to it's wikipedia page, released in 1st July 2009. However, in this article, under the category "Deaths" it is stated: In March 2005, the BBC reported a murder in Shanghai, when Qiu Chengwei fatally stabbed fellow player Zhu Caoyuan, who had sold on eBay a "dragon sabre" sword he had been lent in a Legend of Mir 3 game,[61] and was given a suspended death sentence. 89.155.237.91 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

pop culture

Applied editorial hatchet. I chopped each in its own edit for easy recovery if I cut someone's favorite tree down.- Sinneed 05:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the STNG episode "The Game", the stated reason that Sineed used to remove it is that "the game physically modifies its victims... no clear relation". However, although somebody added that statement about being physically addicted, I have seen that episode twice and I don't recall any mention of that. I should have noticed and removed that part before. For example, the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) says that "it addicts people who play it by stimulating the pleasure centers of their brains when they successfully complete each level". As for how to undo its effects, Data "frees the rest of the crew from their mind-controlled state by flashing pulses of light in their faces from a handheld lamp". Neither of these relate to any type of physical addiction. If there was a physical component to it, for example, then flashing pulses of light should be insufficient to void it. The one new element compared to a regular video game addiction, that I don't believe that anybody has yet done but somebody may unfortunately discover a way to do it in the future, is to control that addiction for their own purposes. Nonetheless, I believe that this part is appropriate to add back (but with the "physical" part removed) since it does deal with video game addiction. JoDOe (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly, JoDOe, just cleaning house. No objection to restore.- Sinneed 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt feedback, Sinneed. I have restored that section but, as I stated in my comment, I removed mention of the types of addiction, including about the incorrect one of it being physical. JoDOe (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose to drop... these seem rather trivial

• In iCarly episode "iStage an Intervention", Spencer becomes addicted to a game called Pak-Rat (a parody of Pac-Man), forcing Carly to take extreme measures to get him to stop.
• In Suite Life of Zack and Cody episode "Tiptonline", Zack and Mr. Moseby are addicted to an MMORPG.
• In Pure Pwnage, Jeremy becomes addicted to World of Warcraft and plays it continuously for 6 days before passing out and being taken to a mental hospital. He explains his character in the game to a psychologist, who appears to believe that Jeremy is psychotic.

I am also dubious of:

• In The Big Bang Theory episode "The Barbarian Sublimation", Penny becomes addicted to Age of Conan

Sorry if I am bashing anyone's favorite game, but AoC? ?!!! Seriously? Sounds like an advert to me. (yeah yeah POV OR, but this is a talk page)

Any support for keeping any of these?- Sinneed 15:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

- I apologize if I am stating the obvious, but I believe that the "In popular culture" section should contain references to episodes that deal with video game addiction in some significant fashion, i.e., not just as a side reference. For example, I have now twice seen the STNG episode "The Game" where video game addiction is a central aspect of the plot of aliens trying to take control of the Enterprise. However, I have not seen any of the episodes mentioned above so I am not sure of how significant any of them actually are in regards to dealing with video game addiction. JoDOe (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Trivia tag at the article top

I expect to remove this unless there is a reason it needs to be there.- Sinneed 13:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is fairly recent addition to the "Possible symptoms" section valid?

On December 5, user 86.168.222.210 added some text to the "Possible symptoms" section that used existing references. At that time, I did not check on that and nobody made any changes to it. However, on December 30, user 86.144.206.21 removed a portion of it, without any explanation. I thought that it was valid, so I put it back. However, I then decided to confirm this by checking on the 2 references provided for that text. This fairly recent addition was not in the first one, but the second one, at http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2006.9956?journalCode=cpb, provides only an abstract to a full article that I need to subscribe to see. Does anybody have a copy of that article or otherwise know whether or not that text that 86.168.222.210 added is valid or not? Thanks, in advance, for any help or opinions about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoDOe (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think its reasonable to have such a section, but as one who does work in this field, I can say that no one agrees on what the symptoms are. Some (like Griffiths, who is certainly a valid source) kind of drift to comparing the symptoms to problematic gaming whereas others have been very critical of this view (see Barnett and Coulson, which I just added to an above section...there's another guy too, but I'd have to look him up). I think any section on possible symptoms would have to reflect these debates in order to be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.232 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Found the guy I was looking for, Richard Wood...just added his cite, and Barnett and Coulson for balance. Also removed the comments about withdrawal from Black Ops which was silly and there's no research to back that up. Otherwise thought I think it's better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.232 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding that recent cite from Barnett and Coulson, the provided link is only to their article summary. That does not mention anything about what is stated in this Wikipedia article. I would appreciate it if somebody who has access would provide the exact text from which that statement was made. Thanks. JoDOe (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Introduction needs to be rewritten

Here is the first sentence in the article.

"Video game addiction, or more broadly video game overuse, refers to so-called excessive or compulsive use of computer and video games that interferes with so-called "normal life.""

The use of the quotation marks and the words "so-called" suggest POV issues. 98.174.219.212 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"In-built burn-out mechanisms"?

Frankly, I have a hard time accepting claims reported by Tarinth that MMOs have in-built mechanisms for burning players out. This makes no sense from a business standpoint and represents solely the opinion, expressed in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek tone, of some blogger of debatable notability and credentials. Even if the blog's author were right (and serious) about his hypotheses, he admits these "mechanisms" would simply prompt migration to other MMOs as opposed to an abandonment of online gaming, which sheds further doubts on the relevance of these ideas as they pertain to a gaming or MMO addiction.

Just my $0,02. Thoughts? 80.174.9.85 (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

The Daedalus Project, http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/ in external links -- what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.141.78.42 (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Poorly written

This whole page, dedicated to interesting information, is very poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.22 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Outdate information

A section of outdated information including claims of physical addiction (as someone involved in the research field I struggle to think of many scholars who take such claims seriously) was returned despite having been cut long ago. These claims and cites don't really reflect current thinking on this issue. Please do not return them without discussing here first. Perhaps there is some material worth returning, but it would have to be written with less POV 69.91.76.238 (talk)MV Guy —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

Notable deaths

Globally, there have been deaths caused directly by drinking water. There have also been deaths of water drinkers and/or others related to drinking water.

China

In 2007, it was reported that Xu Yan died in Jinzhou after drinking water every day for over 2 weeks during the Lunar New Year holiday. Later 2007 reports indicated that a 30-year-old man died in Guangzhou after drinking water for three days.

The suicide of a young Chinese boy in the Tianjin municipality has highlighted once more the growing dangers of water addiction, when those responsible do not understand or notice the risks of unhealthy water drinking. Xiao Yi was thirteen when he threw himself from the top of a twenty-four story tower block in his home town, leaving notes that spoke of his addiction and his hope of being reunited with other water drinkers in heaven. The suicide notes were written through the eyes of a person drinking water, so reports the China Daily, and stated that he hoped to meet three water drinking friends in the after life. His parents, who had noticed with growing concern his affliction, weren't mentioned in the letters.

In March 2005, the BBC reported a murder in Shanghai, when Qiu Chengwei fatally stabbed fellow water drinker Zhu Caoyuan, who had sold on eBay three liters of water he had been lent in a pub, and was given a suspended death sentence.

Taiwan

In February 2012, a man in New Taipei, Taiwan, was found dead near a sink. That sink was the place where he had been drinking water compulsively for many years. In July 2012, an 18-year-old man identified by surname Chuang died after drinking three glasses of water in a coffee and water shop in Tainan, Taiwan. Both cases were reported as death by cardiac arrest.

South Korea

In 2005, Seungseob Lee (Hangul: 이승섭) visited a water cafe in the city of Taegu and drank water every day, for fifty days. He went into cardiac arrest, and died at a local hospital. A friend reported: "...he was a water addict. We all knew about it. He couldn't stop himself." About six weeks before his death, his girlfriend, also an avid water drinker, broke up with him, in addition to his being fired from his job.

Vietnam

An Earthtimes.org article reported in 2007 that police arrested a 13-year-old boy accused of murdering and robbing an 81-year-old woman. A local policeman was quoted as saying that the boy "...confessed that he needed money to drink water and decided to kill and rob..." the victim. The article further related a police report that the murder by strangling netted the thief 100,000 Vietnamese dong (US$6.20).

United States

In November 2001 Shawn Woolley committed suicide due to the popular drink H2OH!. Shawn’s mother said the suicide was due to a rejection or betrayal of a fellow waterdrinker Shawn called "iluvyou".

Ohio teen Daniel Petric shot his parents, killing his mother, after they took away his special drinking water in October 2007. In a sentencing hearing after the teen was found guilty of aggravated murder, the judge said, "I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents they would be dead forever." On 16 June 2009, Petric was sentenced to 23 years to life in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:y_news:80f2a3f04cc8d15b98c69b987d807345/Ohio-teen-who-killed-over-video-game-gets-23-years-AP|title=Ohio teen who killed over water gets 23 years|last=SHEERAN|first=THOMAS J.|date=16 June 2009|agency=Associated Press|accessdate=2009-06-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nowpublic.com/world/daniel-petric-halo-3-killer-gets-23-years-life-murder|title=http://www.nowpublic.com/world/daniel-petric-halo-3-killer-gets-23-years-life-murder|last=Yerman|first=Jordan|date=16 June 2009|publisher=NowPublic|accessdate=2010-05-25}}</ref>

In Jacksonville, Florida, Alexandra Tobias pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for shaking her baby to death. She told investigators that the baby boy's crying had interrupted her while she was drinking water. She was sentenced in December 2010.

In November 2010 in South Philadelphia, Kendall Anderson, 16, killed his mother for taking away his special drinking water by hitting her 20 times with a claw hammer while she slept.

201.86.196.103 (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Council on Science and Public Health Report on describing "gaming overuse" as more than two hours a day...

"In its report, the Council used this two-hour-per-day limit to define "gaming overuse", citing the American Academy of Pediatrics guideline of no more than one to two hours per day of "screen time".[16]"

I'm not making this connection anywhere in the source. The report does not seem to define "gaming overuse" in terms of simple playtime over two hours. It seems a slight jump has been made in extrapolating this statement. More than two hours per day is used to define "heavy game use", but "video game overuse" is defined in terms of excessive game playing wherein other aspects of players' lives become dysfunctional and patterns of behavior most similar to pathological gambling emerge--there is no strict time limit to describe "overuse".

Here are the relevant passages from it:

The ESA survey found that 75% of heads of households played video games, while 35% of gamers were under age 18 years.4 Additionally, 9.1% of gamers play within the persistent multiplayer gaming universe or MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role playing game). For this report, heavy game use will be defined as those who play more than 2 hours per day.6,7

and

Psychosocial Effects: Internet addiction and video game addiction are perhaps the most widely recognized negative psychosocial terms associated with gaming. Although not an actual Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV classification, the term Internet addiction has been used to describe the phenomenon of Internet and video game overuse, or excessive time spent using these media. This term seems to have been coined in the 1990s when researchers were attempting to describe a constellation of behaviors observed in persons using the Internet to such an extent that it began to cause other aspects of their lives to become dysfunctional.39 The DSM-IV disorder most similar to the pattern of behaviors observed with overuse of video games is pathological gambling.40 Presumably, the more colloquial term addiction was derived from the similarities to gambling addiction. For this report, this pattern of heavy video game playing is referred to as “video game overuse.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.181.198 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs updating since inclusion of Internet Gaming Disorder in DSM 5

Hi all,

Sorry I can't do more at the moment, but the page really needs updating. I will try to get back to it ASAP but in the meantime if someone else can update the discussion of the proposed criteria, etc. please do.

Thanks,

Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcarras (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.nowpublic.com/world/daniel-petric-halo-3-killer-gets-23-years-life-murder

  Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Biased structuration of the article

The retorical structure of the article is biased: All conclusions on scientific literature ends up with concluding that there is not sufficient evidence, and video game addiction is (probably) just a symptom of an underlying illness. This kind of argumentation is the same as chemical industries uses when they defend use of polluting chemical. The problem is that one only very raraly gets absolutely firm evidence on psychic diseases. Thus, this kind of argumentation will always entail rejection of the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.197.127 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Addiction is a problem - but, scapegoating video games on every account is ludicrous

Truth helps us deal with things and solve problems. Irrational and laghable scapegoating won't help us see things clearly and solve the problem. It's best if we make and keep a session on the article that explains the popular scapegoating of video games.

To prove my point:

Water addiction is the use of H²O and soft drinks. There are studies that prove that 99% of criminals and mentally unstable people drink water. Studies are being done also on dangerous psychotic murder cases, as it was found that a high percentage of the murderers drank water at least 24 hours before having the psychotic breakdown and killing ther victims.

This is pure non-sense because their is no explaining mechanism between criminality and water drinking. This is trivial scientific method. Statistical correlation is insufficient for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.197.127 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful line in article

Hello fair wikipedians, please forgive if this isn't the proper place for this.

I would like to bring to your attention this phrase from the article.

"At a Computer Addiction Services[72] center in Richmond, British Columbia, excessive gaming accounts for 80% of one youth counselor's caseload.[74]"

Now the problem I have with this is that a place called "Computer Addiction Services" will certainly only deal with "Computer Addiction" cases regardless of how many cases total they have. People who think "Computer Addiction" is a thing will seek services from a place with "Computer Addiction" in the banner name. To say that 80% of their business is related to what the business does is not informative and in fact bordering on tautological. This phrase was added to reinforce the idea that "Computer Addiction" is a thing that exists which I do not believe it does.

I believe that resistance to change (even disgust toward change) is the common thread behind " computer addiction, video game addiction, internet addiction disorder, and television addiction" and other fictitious ailment, that is simply my opinion, if not appropriate to state please delete.

good bye wiki pedia at domn dot net 216.246.230.142 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.nowpublic.com/world/daniel-petric-halo-3-killer-gets-23-years-life-murder

  Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Offline 23:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The wikipedia page on video game addiction is untrustworthy and unethical

The entire rhetorical structure of the page is condensed in this quote:

pathological gaming behaviors were more likely the product of underlying mental health problems rather than the inverse.

The page simply collects text fragments that supports the following extreme prejudice: What looks like addiction is nothing but symptoms of a mental disorder that has nothing to do with video games. It seems unthinkable that people with certian mental disorders could have their disorder worsened by extensive video gaming.

There is no attempt to pay respect to texts that seriously consider that video game addiction may be a reality. For instance, "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)", writes:

The Internet is now an integral, even inescapable, part of many people’s daily lives; they

turn to it to send messages, read news, conduct business, and much more. But recent

scientific reports have begun to focus on the preoccupation some people develop with

certain aspects of the Internet, particularly online games. The “gamers” play

compulsively, to the exclusion of other interests, and their persistent and recurrent

online activity results in clinically significant impairment or distress. People with this

condition endanger their academic or job functioning because of the amount of time

they spend playing. They experience symptoms of withdrawal when pulled away from

gaming.

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Internet%20Gaming%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is now accepting video game addiction, or rather internet gaming disorder, as a specific mental disorder:

For the first time, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5) introduces :non-substance addictions as psychiatric diagnoses. The aims of this paper are to (i) present the main :controversies surrounding the decision to include internet gaming disorder, but not internet addiction more :globally, as a non-substance addiction in the research appendix of the DSM-5, and (ii) discuss the meaning :behind the DSM-5 criteria for internet gaming disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24456155

What this scientific article does is clearly the opposite of what the wikipedia page does: It says that sufficient confirmative evidence is abundant to verify that there is a disorder. The wikipage carefully collects text fragments that should cast doubt over the existence of the disorder. This is not a sound scientific method because it is always possible to collect what looks like counter-evidence.

Actually, this is quite serious because - if it is true that internet gaming addiction exists - it may be destructive for helping addicts that one may find 'authoritative evidence' of the non-existence of the disorder. In short, there is a serious ethical problem with the wikipedia webpage of video game addiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjerke (talk • contribs) 07:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Principles for balancing the page

The page on video game addiction should be balanced and make it clear that video game addiction is a disputed issue. On the one hand, there are now a diagnosis of internet gaming disorder, which implies that to some extent internet gaming may effectuate addiction (else there would be no reason for defining a specific diagnosis). However, the diagnosis does not clarify the extent to which video game addiction is determined by other mental health issues.

The page should also have a clearer structure. In particulare, the subsection "Public concern and formal study" must be rewritten so that scientific works, media accounts, government publications and organisational publications should clearly be distinguised - that is not mixed and treated on equal footing.

It is important that concerned friends and relatives of a gaming addict could be helped by reading this wikipediapage: They should be told that there is a diagnosis, taht is, internet gaming disorder is as a specific mental disorder. But, the extent to which internet gaming in itself is addictive is uncertain. That is, the possible addicting effect of video gaming should not be ignored, nor should other mental reasons for the addictive behaviour be ignored.

The page should also contribute to a better understanding of the addiction phenomenon in its complexity.

Two improvements

1. The subsection called "possible symptoms" is moved to the first subsection, which now is called: "Diagnosis and symptoms". The reason is that diagnosis and symptoms cannot be separated.
2. I have added "and in January 2014 a diagnosis of internet gaming disorder was included." to the preface.

The biased account is now changed in subsection 1 on disorder

In order to neutralise the bias of the subsection, I have done two things:

1. I have removed all biasing words, making the section non-polemic, so that it is in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality requirement Examples. Instead of "Possible disorder" the section is called "Internet gaming disorder". I have removed: "However this is not a view which is generally accepted among all scholars." Instead of "Griffiths believes" I have written: "Griffiths proposed" in order not to cast undocumented doubt on Griffiths' work.
2. I have added content and quotes from APA's decision on defining a diagnosis for internet gaming disorder.

Source for possible inclusion in the press section

• Nguyen, Katherine (January 28, 2007). "Video game addiction all too real: 'World of Warcraft,' the popular computer game, harbors a dark side among its players: the classic symptoms related to addiction". The Orange County Register. Retrieved 2009-05-09.

Additional Notable Death addition

• Stewart, Christopher S. (January 13, 2010). "Obsessed with the Internet: A Tale from China". WIRED Magazine. Retrieved 2010-04-22. {{cite web}}: Text "Magazine" ignored (help)

Symptoms needs to add more information and sources on how Video games can lead or be tied to depression. Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) in teenagers; and how they stack up to other non-addicted teenagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjerke (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Video game addiction

Cyberbot II has detected links on Video game addiction which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.nowpublic.com/world/daniel-petric-halo-3-killer-gets-23-years-life-murder

  Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 07:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The text is wrong about the inclusion of internet gaming addiction - NO, it is not

I am new on Wikipedia, but the text is wrong: internet gaming disorder is not included as a diagnosis. It is included as something that we should research more: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Internet%20Gaming%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

That paper is outdated. It is from May 2013. The diagnosis decision is from January 2014.

Description of decision A quote from this paper:

The DSM-5 Workgroup reviewed the literature on
non-substance addictive behaviors, including gambling,
internet gaming, internet use generally, work, shopping
and exercise. They voted to move gambling disorder to the
substance-related and addictive disorders section in
DSM-5 because of its overlap with substance use disor-
ders in terms of etiology, biology, comorbidity and treat-
ment [5]. In terms of the other putative non-substance
addictions, the DSM-5 Workgroup voted to include only
one other condition—internet gaming disorder.

This decision was based upon the large number of
studies of this condition and the severity of its conse-
quences. .... Because of the distinguishing features and increased risks
of clinically significant problems associated with gaming
in particular, the Workgroup recommended the inclusion
of only internet gaming disorder in Section 3 of the
DSM-5.

With the exception of gambling and internet gaming,
the DSM-5 Workgroup concluded that research on other
behavioral addictions was relatively limited, the adverse
consequences were less well documented or less reflective
of clinically significant impairment or the behavior
pattern was not well aligned with substance use disor-
ders. Therefore, no other non-substance addictions are
included in DSM-5.

Comment from psychiatrist

When I researched it on the internet I could find no source citing that internet gaming disorder is an actual accepted DSM 5 diagnosis. Please revise this. No, on this point revision is not needed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.233.44 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 

Further: Wikipedia itself states that it is NOT included in DSM 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_addiction_disorder#Disputed_disorder:_DSM

Then, this is wrong as well. It is included.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.233.44 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 

Internet gaming disorder diagnosis

"For the first time, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5) introduces non-substance addictions as psychiatric diagnoses."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24456155 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjerke (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Insufficient Evidence

There's insufficient evidence to include it as a mental disorder? I suffer from it. Believe me. It is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.158.1.165 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Video game addiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://us.tomsgames.com/us/2006/08/08/world_of_warcraft_players_addicted/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.themanitoban.com/2006-2007/0328/121.World.of.warcrack.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110817125220/http://screen.oxfordjournals.org:80/content/29/2/52.extract to http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/2/52.extract

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Video games technically can't be "addictive"

Addiction refers to the altering of brain chemistry. Video games do not do this. The article does not take this into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.6.14 (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Psychological dependence. When an immersive activity is a "new normal", separating from it is just like from addictive substances Surreal Madrid (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Video game addiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070410040008/http://danielhaggard.com:80/24/the-computer-game-affliction-how-they-addict-you/ to http://danielhaggard.com/24/the-computer-game-affliction-how-they-addict-you/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711072033/http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/710/710909p1.html to http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/710/710909p1.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090320090055/http://www.gamespot.com:80/news/2005/09/12/news_6132357.html to http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/12/news_6132357.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)