Jump to content

Talk:Video game addiction: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Update IFS213-Hacking and Open Source Culture assignment details
Line 289: Line 289:


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:UndercoverSwitch|UndercoverSwitch]] ([[User talk:UndercoverSwitch|talk]]) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:UndercoverSwitch|UndercoverSwitch]] ([[User talk:UndercoverSwitch|talk]]) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)</span>

== Transfer of addiction patterns from alcohol/smoking to gaming ==

I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence of people who quit smoking or drinking and compensate by indulging in excessive gaming (functioning almost like a smoking patch). Has no one studied how this might be possible? It seems like strong evidence for a higher-level addictive pattern in the brain that is not specific to a substance but is just addicted to the process of immediate dopamine release. And there's also the question of whether such a strategy is at all advisable - gaming might be just feeding the addictive pattern, and eventually the individual will relapse to alcohol or nicotine again, because the structural problem in the brain has not improved. This also leads to the question of how gaming might be priming young people's brains for addiction to alcohol/smoking/drugs. [[Special:Contributions/86.63.168.150|86.63.168.150]] ([[User talk:86.63.168.150|talk]]) 21:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:44, 4 February 2024

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dhrunil9. Peer reviewers: EmilyNorwood.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarlonW2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JazmineQuintana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crazytoppp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits

Flyer 22 Edits Dear Flyer22. You recent cut some edits I'd worked on noting some issues with them. I did remove the one "controversial" you mentioned and I'm happy to make further edits you feel are necessary (you're always welcome to make them of course!). I would ask if you could make suggestions here then we can work out some compromises. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.5.126 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Research on the effects of violence in mass media#Latest edits. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I am joining the conversation there. I still think the new edits, which I certainly acknowledge are going to be imperfect, are a better place to make further revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.5.126 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BRD if you haven't already. The changes shift the article's POV, which needs to addressed and handled more openly. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding this edit, which I reverted. The changes contained too many WP:WEASEL words and other editorializing language. "...often been controversial..." would need a reliable, independent sources specifically saying that to avoid POV issues. WP:CSECTION is an essay which explains part of why this is a pitfall. The changes also hung a lot of content entirely on this letter, which is usable, but only with context and caveats. "As noted in a recent article by a large group of scholars" is not going to work at all. This is a bundle of WP:PEACOCKs, as it's using a single source to undermine multiple other sources far beyond due weight, while vaguely appealing to the authority of unnamed "scholars". It's helpful to keep in mind that pretty much every recent proposal in psychology, especially developmental psychology and addiction, has been described by someone as "controversial", so we really should be using more WP:SECONDARY sources to make these assessments. Attribution and context should be provided by those sources, as well, otherwise we risk WP:SYNTH. Addiction is a medical issue, so a review of WP:MEDRS couldn't hurt, either. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the specific feedback which helps a lot. I don't think the wording issues should be too difficult to fix. Neither should be getting more secondary sources if that's what appears to be lacking. I'll try to get to this soon, make some edits and see what folks think! Thanx again for making some specific comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.5.126 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Talk

I found about video game addiction in Wikipedia. The good thing is that they gave us good explanation of what is video game addiction. Also, they give us good statistics so we can believe them more. They also show us the references where they found out from. However, anyone can write in wikipedia so people should make sure if every sources and informations is true. Also, I want to know more about how people get addicted easily, not just knowing about treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.165 (talk • contribs)

Notable deaths

Shouldn't Brian Vigneault be mentioned? https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/24/father-dies-during-24-hour-video-game-marathon/21721198/ Gentleman wiki (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way the statement about Rebecca Colleen Christie is phrased makes it sound like it was the daughter who was playing World of Warcraft rather than the mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.210.96 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit out irrelevant information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction#China

I want to edit out

"Treatment for the patients, most of whom have been forced to attend by parents or government officials, include various forms of pain including shock therapy.[30][31] In August 2009, Deng Sanshan was reportedly beaten to death in a correctional facility for video game and Web addiction.[32]"

This is from 2007. I don't understand how a crime is releveant to addiction treatment. I think it has no relevance to the topic. Should I edit this out? Ogomemnon (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is under the notable deaths area and the circumstances showed the depth of the addiction so my opinion is to leave it in. - Pmedema (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence is not about the subject of the article, but about terminology

The first sentence of the article currently reads "Video game addiction is hypothesized to be an excessive or compulsive use of computer games or video games, which interferes with a person's everyday life."

I think I understand what this is trying to do - establishing from the get-go that the status of VGA as an addiction in the medical sense is in question. However, I don't think this is the way to do it. It states that "X is hypothesized to be Y", when what is really meant is that "Some use the TERM X to describe Y, while others believe the TERM X is incorrect". Wikipedia articles are about the things themselves, not about the terms used to describe them. Thus the first sentence should describe the concept, not discuss terminology.

I will try to write a modified version. NisJørgensen (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using 'refers' does precisely this though. It make the article about terminology rather than the thing itself. As it stands, the 'thing' this article is about is a hypothetical thing, just like Planet Nine is a hypothetical planet. I don't see a problem in introducing it as such. Sizeofint (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my interpretation the statement "X is hypothesized to be Y" means that X exists, and there is a hypothesis that it is equal to Y. My intention was to convey the message that Y exists, and that X is a controversial term used to refer to it. In this way, the article is about Y, and to some degree whether X is a correct term to describe it. This is, in my mind, a correct description of the current contents of the article. The reason that X is the title of the article - while Y would be more precise and neutral - is that it is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, even if the correctness of it is debated.
If we do want to make the article about the possible non-existent X (like Planet Nine), a better intro sentence would be "Video game addiction is a hypothetical <insert category here>, characterized by an excessive or compulsive use of computer games or video games, which interferes with a person's everyday life". The category should be chosen so as to be non-controversial - perhaps "Addictive Disorder".
I await more comments before I do any more editing NisJørgensen (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I will wait for more comments FOR A WHILE before I do any more editing. If I don't get any response, I'll try another edit. NisJørgensen (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to following the 'Planet Nine' intro. I think 'behavioral addiction' is probably the category to point to. Sizeofint (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous users - User:153.100.123.215 have removed the word "hypothetical" twice (it was reverted once by another anonymous. I have reinserted it, since it was reached by consensus here. NisJørgensen (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's been identified in the DSM-V and the upcoming WHO ICD, how can it be hypothetical? Shouldn't the first line simply say "Video game addiction is an excessive or compulsive use of computer games or video games, which interferes with a person's everyday life" or simply quote one of the medical definitions? JoeJJC (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not yet proven, and the WHO ICD is being challenged by both scientists and the industry. (also the ICD is still a draft, not finalized). It should remain "hypothetical" or some variant. --Masem (t) 18:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gaming Discorder

The discussion on the proposed merging is going on here: Talk:Gaming disorder Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Although the use of "video game addiction" is significantly prevalent, I think that "gaming disorder", having been recognised by the WHO ICD-11, is a more appropriate title. This also takes into account the concerns of some researchers of stigmatisation of heavy gamers. The APA also uses "internet gaming disorder" as we know. We reached a similar consensus on mobile phone overuse, however I think given the ICD-11 inclusion this has heavier weight to follow for the encyclopaedia. It may allow the article to be more medicalised as more standardised assessment and treatment models develop. --E.3 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably too soon per WP:NEO - the term is pretty much limited to the ICD and that's not going into effect until 2022. --Masem (t) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point. Per WP:MEDRS however, to counter
Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in some forms of monographs.
This, in my opinion, should prompt a rewrite of the lead. I'll put an idea for discussion in my sandbox here. --E.3 (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problems I see with the lead as it currently stands include
1. "Suggested by some" - this undermines the WP:DUE weight of the WHO's position
2. "For example, while some research has linked violent video games with increased aggressive behavior[10] other research has failed to find evidence for such links.[11][12]" - fails WP:MEDRS citing singular studies here, and aggressive behavior is overemphasised as a singular symptom.
3. The order of the lead appears to push a particular viewpoint, so I've attempted to neutralise it here. --E.3 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is against doing so at this time. (non-admin closure) Calidum 21:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Video game addiction → Gaming disorder – WHO position in ICD-11, developing into a medical article, to comply with WP:MEDRS. Addiction terminology not supprorted by APA (Internet gaming disorder), concerns around stigmatisation around heavy gamers. Controversial condition but being more standardised [E.3][chat2][me] 14:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: if you google social media addiction, google has reflected it in their suggested content to be problematic social media use as of my change over there a few days ago. Before they didn't have any content. Not that it matters for wiki, but they'll get to the page depending on whatever they are searching for. When Gaming disorder was approved by ICD-11, there was a massive spike in people finding the right page. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your search method seems flawed because you're not using quotes to distinguish the phrases. I find "video game addiction" together with the alternate form "gaming addiction" result in more results than "gaming disorder". -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No its even more apparent if you use quotation. The common name has changed, if you use quotations after 2017. "Video game addiction" - 1440 results, as opposed to "gaming disorder" - 3270 results. So gaming disorder is now the commonest name, and as per WP:MOVE The subject of the article has changed its name and the new name has come into majority use. --[E.3][chat2][me] 00:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst its controversial, so is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Given gaming disorder is now the most common name, since 2017, we should be using it. They did just approve it, but it has obviously been in the pipeline for a very long time. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the WP:COMMONNAME policy, "it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" - this is true as of 2017. "Video game addiction" - 1440 results, and "gaming disorder" - 3270 results.
Further policy is at WP:NAMECHANGES - "Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." ICD is the reliable source.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Careful_language - "The phrase psychologically addictive has so many conflicting definitions that it is essentially meaningless. Replace the term with something specific."
Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-judgmental descriptive titles - "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title.
I think with all these policies together the name should change. If you haven't heard of gaming disorder, that doesn't mean that its not the commonest name used in reliable sources as of 2015. --[E.3][chat2][me] 05:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major removals today per WP:MEDRS

Happy to discuss any of these. Since this is becoming a medical article, it would be great to focus on reviews as per WP:MEDRS. Being recognised by the WHO in ICD-11 as Gaming disorder will allow for more detailed, nuanced, selective inclusion on wikipedia, both for this, internet addiction disorder, and how I have tried to do for problematic social media use. Many thanks for all contributors, who made a readable, important article in the absence of major guidance from the DSM or the WHO. :) --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted these removals for several reasons:
  • Gaming disorder has only just been added to the ICD, so there's going to be a lack of any articles that cover it in that sense for several years
  • Its addition to ICD was highly controversial with major academics also stressing it shouldn't be added yet. As such, I do not think we can consider it at this point a readily accepted medical theory that MEDRS overrides.
  • Unlike other medical coverage, because this overlaps with the video game industry, a lot of sources that will cover this are not going to come from MEDRS but from the industry press and mainstream media.
Basically, it is way too early to be treating this article with the same scrutiny as we'd expect for well-established disorders. We should be trying to add MEDRS compliant sources and if they replace the mainstream sources on discussing the history, debate, and public perception, good. And we should start removing non-MEDRS related studies to prove or disprove this. But outright removal of all content tied to MEDRS is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 04:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article makes a medical claim, it should have WP:MEDRS compliant content. I've managed to do this with digital media use and mental health, with reviews from Doc James and Casliber assisting. We can bring this emergent condition to good article status too, but at the moment it is overlong, and relies significantly on primary studies. Also the opinion of the gaming industry should be in a separate section, perhaps under controversies or history and terminology. Removal of medical claims is important unless they have a reliable, sencondary, review source. There are many. There is a plethora of expert opinion out there, but when we stick to reviews the article will become more useable to a wider audience, rather than cherry picking opinion. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not say more sources from MEDRS wouldn't hurt to improve it, but it only just got named to ICD and there's still debate on whether it is legitimate. I would not call this an article that is trying to establish medical claims yet, because of the novelty of the concept. There's also a better insight on how video game addiction can come from how games are made themselves. We should clearly work to transition towards MEDRS but I think at the cost of immediately scrubbing any non MEDRS at this point is not the right solution. Doing what can be done to isolate the medical claim coverage from non-medical claims can help, eg if we have a "Symptoms" section it probably will be MEDRS, whereas if we have an "Origins", that likely will be more using industry sources with some MEDRS to back it up. --Masem (t) 16:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a double standard IMHO, as this is exactly what was required to happen to social media addiction when I first made it. All non WP:MEDRS compliant content was removed by other editors, and then I built it back over there with more compliant literature. That is an even less recognised condition. Gaming disorder, or video game addiction, is not a novel concept, this is recognised by the WHO ICD-11, and has been discussed for over a decade. The non WP:MEDRS compliant medical claims should therefore be removed (i.e. singular studies removed, removing experts that don't have WP:DUE weight, removing assertions by vested interests, speculation and theories about feedback loops, etc) - these permeate the article as it stands. --[E.3][chat2][me] 18:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it is so less recognized, with only the academically-debatable ICD inclusion being the first recognized acknowledgement of it, is why we should not be jumping the gun at forcing MEDRS. From the coverage of the passage of the ICD aspect, we know many experts doubt this, so we should wait for some time to pass to make sure that the ICD made the right call and others agree with that before saying "This is a MEDRS topic, MEDRS sources only". There is a large amount of fluff in here that is not-MEDRS and has been just added to dump any study claimed to be about video game addiction in here, that I agree can be removed, but we should not be treating this as "everyone agrees its a medical condition" case yet, just because of being added to ICD. --Masem (t) 19:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who would you like to recognise the condition then before it is a medical condition for encyclopaedic purposes? DSM-6 isn't gonna come any time soon. There won't be universal agreement by all experts, there's disagreement with many psychiatric conditions. Just the encyclopaedia's policy uses WHO as guidance to make good articles. This is clearly discussed in the lead, together with the controversy. Perhaps we can fork the article to "controversies and theories about video game addiction" or something if this content is to remain in the encyclopaedia, but I strongly feel that this article should follow WP:MEDRS for all medical claims. --[E.3][chat2][me] 19:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue where there are medical claims that MEDRS is stuck to. That's correct, and I agree there's a bit of content in this article that is seemingly a random collection of past studies without rhyme or reason that may fail MEDRS. Those should be sifted through and trimmed down.
  • But I have strong concern with the removals of other content that is not directly related to medical claims that was removed my revert diff for quick ref). While I am not concerned with what stays or goes under the "Public concern and formal study" main header (eg before "General critiques on addiction research"), the other stuff lower down in that section is actually non-medical facets about how this has been covered and become a matter of parental concern , among other points, which you will likely never get from MEDRS sourcing. Feel free to tackle the medical claims to keep to MEDRS, that's fine, but not everything in this article is a medical claim that is under MEDRS, is my point. In time, as more study comes from gaming disorder, we may be able to use more MEDRS sourcing for the non-medical claims, but that's not going to happen for a while since it only has just been officially defined. --Masem (t) 19:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So to be clear, at this stage we agree to remove everything previously removed other than "Parental concerns" and "Governmental concerns"? "General critiques on addiction research" I think I understand the writer's point but I think could be better worded but I did keep a lot of that in. Physical health concerns - that's a single study, are you wanting that included? We don't list deaths routinely for other psychiatric conditions.
Also is there a reason you removed the link to digital media use and mental health in the lead - the intention of that article is to give the associated articles is broader viewpoint, particularly that in the related conditions its unclear how much is a manifestation of underlying mental disorders as opposed to new entities, and is the only related that's GA with peer review ongoing. --[E.3][chat2][me] 20:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found lots of MEDRS quality sources, not all the highest (because there is a lack of RCT studies and of consistent definitions and methodologies), but still there are lots of reviews and systematic reviews, summarizing most of what was written in the entry. I have edited the entry accordingly, I hope it's all good now --Signimu (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New references to add to the page in the upcoming week

Buono, F. D., Moore, B. A., Printz, D. M., Lloyd, D. P., Cutter, C. J., & Sprong, M. E. (2017). Video game addiction: Duration of play and impulsivity. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,171. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.08.093

Haghbin, M., Shaterian, F., Hosseinzadeh, D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). A brief report on the relationship between self-control, video game addiction and academic achievement in normal and ADHD students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions,2(4), 239-243. doi:10.1556/jba.2.2013.4.7

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Internet Gaming Addiction: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,10(2), 278-296. doi:10.1007/s11469-011-9318-5

Lo, S., Wang, C., & Fang, W. (2005). Physical Interpersonal Relationships and Social Anxiety among Online Game Players. CyberPsychology & Behavior,8(1), 15-20. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.15

Loton, D., Borkoles, E., Lubman, D., & Polman, R. (2015). Video Game Addiction, Engagement and Symptoms of Stress, Depression and Anxiety: The Mediating Role of Coping. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,14(4), 565-578. doi:10.1007/s11469-015-9578-6

Rooij, A. J., Schoenmakers, T. M., & Mheen, D. V. (2017). Clinical validation of the C-VAT 2.0 assessment tool for gaming disorder: A sensitivity analysis of the proposed DSM-5 criteria and the clinical characteristics of young patients with ‘video game addiction’. Addictive Behaviors,64, 269-274. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.10.018

Weinstein, A. M. (2010). Computer and Video Game Addiction—A Comparison between Game Users and Non-Game Users. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,36(5), 268-276. doi:10.3109/00952990.2010.491879

Wittek, C. T., Finserås, T. R., Pallesen, S., Mentzoni, R. A., Hanss, D., Griffiths, M. D., & Molde, H. (2015). Prevalence and Predictors of Video Game Addiction: A Study Based on a National Representative Sample of Gamers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,14(5), 672-686. doi:10.1007/s11469-015-9592-8

Hi all. As part of my class, I have been tasked with trying to improve a Wikipedia topic page that I found interesting. I have gathered some references and will be looking to add to the page next week. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia so please feel free to comment if I am doing anything wrong!

TinyBluePenguin (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the sources you provided and added those that were of MEDRS quality, thanks! --Signimu (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to other addictions

This might be a bit off-topic, but why does video game addiction receive so much more attention and has a so much bigger article than television addiction, for example? Why aren't even there articles about other existing vices such as book addiction or cinema addiction? Perhaps society tends to consider those habits as "healthy" while judging gaming as the opposite for some reason. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 03:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed high quality sources and for the moment there is only an accepted link with other interactive medias such as internet or computer (and maybe social media but did not have the time to dig further). So far, I have found nothing about television addiction, and the lack of interactivity may certainly be a big factor for discriminating these disorders (since interactivity most likely does influence and produce different negative effects - arguably it's more addictive for instance). I have edited the entry accordingly. --Signimu (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Access to source

There is an interesting clinical systematic review but I don't have access to: doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1047. If someone else has access, could you please either send it to me by email or expand the article with the info inside? Thanks very much in advance! --Signimu (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source PMID 29502753 should be further exploited, particularly for the neurobiological part, but it covers widely the whole topic. Please feel free to give it a try, thanks! --Signimu (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can use doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1758H and doi:10.1080/01612840.2018.1548855? --Signimu (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers source

There is an excellent systematic review (the only systematic review BTW I think) on the neurobiological correlates of internet gaming disorder: PMID 29867599. I know that Frontiers sources are generally badly regarded on Wikipedia, so I won't add it without a feedback from other editors, but I would strongly encourage adding it, as the content of this source is undoubtedly for me of high quality, in addition to providing information we don't have in other sources (which are at best literature reviews) on this specific aspect of the topic. --Signimu (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Evercrack" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Evercrack. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sex differences

Hello Oxford_pictionary, what you wrote is very interesting and this should be digged further, but the sources you provided right now aren't fit for the article, as it counters meta-analyses and reviews concluding on a bigger impact on men than women (it's not to say that women are not vulnerable to addictive gaming disorder, it's just that it's more prevalent in men). So per WP:MEDRS, the sources provided are not enough to be included. I have reverted your edit[1]. If you can find reviews in reliable sources (please check the journal is not in WP:CRAPWATCH), then please feel free to add back your content. I may myself try to dig deeper to find some sources when I'll have some time. You may find sources by looking up what reviews cite the papers you tried to use, this may yield higher quality reviews. For reference, here is the content you tried to add:

Some scholars have also suggested the need for more research into sex differences and gaming addiction, pointing out that female gaming has been understudied.[1] A recent study found that gaming addiction is equally prevalent in men and women,[2] while another found that women are more vulnerable to internet gaming disorder than men.[3]

Thank you for your contribution and your patience. --Signimu (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Oxford_pictionary, please also check my tutorial on medical content editing, you may find it useful and it can save you time --Signimu (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Oxford_pictionary, I've looked to find reviews citing the papers you provided, for the 2 first there are none published in reliable journals (too new I guess), but the last one is cited by this excellent meta-analysis paper[4]. I will add it to the article. Note however that this meta-analysis concludes that there is an effect of gender, with male being more affected, although it clarifies that the effect size is small and there are other interaction parameters such as economic factors. Thank you for suggesting these papers! --Signimu (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mark D. Griffiths, Olatz Lopez-Fernandez, A. Jess Williams, and Daria J. Kuss (10 July 2019). "Female Gaming, Gaming Addiction, and the Role of Women Within Gaming Culture: A Narrative Literature Review". Front Psychiatry. 10. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00454. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. ^ Lopez-Fernandez, Olatz (December, 2018). "Generalised Versus Specific Internet Use-Related Addiction Problems: A Mixed Methods Study on Internet, Gaming, and Social Networking Behaviours". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 15 (12). doi:10.3390/ijerph15122913. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  3. ^ Zilianga Wang, Yanbob Hu, Huia Zheng, Kaic Yuan, Xiaoxiad Du, and Guanghengae Dong (30 January 2019). "Females are more vulnerable to Internet gaming disorder than males: Evidence from cortical thickness abnormalities". Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. 283. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2018.11.001. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Su, Wenliang; Han, Xiaoli; Jin, Cheng; Yan, Yan; Potenza, Marc N. (October 2019). "Are males more likely to be addicted to the internet than females? A meta-analysis involving 34 global jurisdictions". Computers in Human Behavior (Meta-analysis). 99: 86–100. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.021.

Response to Request for DSM-5 Expansion

According to DSM-5, "Internet gaming disorder is a pattern of excessive and prolonged Internet gaming that results in a cluster of cognitive and behavioral symptoms, including progressive loss of control over gaming, tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms, analogous to the symptoms of substance use disorders. As with substance-related disorders, individuals with Internet gaming disorder continue to sit at a computer and engage in gaming activities despite neglect of other activities. They typically devout 8-10 hours or more per day to this activity and at least 30 hours per week".

Insert? Charles Juvon (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Internet gaming disorder"? What about offline games?

If one is addicted to a purely offline game with no Internet connectivity, is that excluded from the disorder? Equinox ◑ 20:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among us

A amazing game. A popular game. BABABOUY.

"Video games" as the "cause" in the infobox is improper

Stating that the "cause" for Video game addiction are "video games" seems a bit misleading and over-simplifying. I'm removing the line altogether since it does not add any value. It's like saying "sex" or "food" is the "cause" for sex- and food addiction. It implies that these phenomena in themselves are the culprit when it is likely to be other factors that decide whether one develops addiction or not. Whilst it may be "correct" in some sense to write that video games are the cause, it does not clarify anything but rather introduces the risk for misinterpretation/misleading Sigvid (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i'd like to do a quick question

where is: the addiction to read books, the addiction to watch movies, the addiction to watch tv series, the addiction to use RC cars, the addiction to fly drones, the addiction to draw, the addiction to walk, the addiction to take photos, the addiction to watch images, the addiction to write and the addiction to add addictions to the addictions list of acts one doesn't like pages? 79.157.5.123 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction to video games is a notable topic because some believe to exist. If there were concerns about addiction to those others, you would have to show those to be notable to have an article on it. --Masem (t) 21:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XXcP, JuggleY (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JuggleY.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OneGoodNut, Fy2072 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by OneGoodNut (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Deep Vein Thrombosis to the list of complications

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition characterised by a blood clot in a vein deep in the body. A common cause of DVT is prolonged sitting, hence why it's common for people to experience the condition on aeroplanes. I was thinking this would be fair to add to the list of complications because when gaming, you're likely to be sitting down for a long period of time, especially if you're doing it over a long period of time.

If we add this to the list of conditions, should probably write in brackets: "Due to prolonged sitting" . What do you people think.

In the meantime, here's a case study of someone playing video games nonstop for three days and an hour straight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY-k_YVkRKs 121.200.5.14 (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: IFS213-Hacking and Open Source Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2023 and 19 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bashi12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AshTheProtogen.

— Assignment last updated by UndercoverSwitch (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of addiction patterns from alcohol/smoking to gaming

I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence of people who quit smoking or drinking and compensate by indulging in excessive gaming (functioning almost like a smoking patch). Has no one studied how this might be possible? It seems like strong evidence for a higher-level addictive pattern in the brain that is not specific to a substance but is just addicted to the process of immediate dopamine release. And there's also the question of whether such a strategy is at all advisable - gaming might be just feeding the addictive pattern, and eventually the individual will relapse to alcohol or nicotine again, because the structural problem in the brain has not improved. This also leads to the question of how gaming might be priming young people's brains for addiction to alcohol/smoking/drugs. 86.63.168.150 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_game_addiction&oldid=1203431352"