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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's an old problem.

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

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

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

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

MR

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

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

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

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

BTDT.

Read Naked Lunch.

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

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

Jon

Like smoking cigarettes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I have them move out of here then?

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

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

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



The original title and subtitle.

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

Dear Overly Excited About Conspiracies,

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

Jon Awbrey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 pages of posts that mention addiction.

Ahh, the memories!

I should say, though, that the post (of mine) that appears at the top of this thread was not originally meant to refer to someone with an addictive personality per se. The person in question may have such a personality, in fact some of his actions strongly suggest it, but that's somewhat beyond what the evidence tells us in his particular case.

What I meant was that there are people in this world who, often for no fault of their own, are hopelessly depressed, miserable, lonely, bored, angry, paranoid, and/or perilously unable to cope with the outside world and what it represents. Some of these folks become "internet addicts" simply because it gives them something to do, but in cases where the person also feels superior to others in some way - and this is most likely to be a feeling of intellectual superiority, but not necessarily - Wikipedia is like a super-powerful magnet. The Wikipedians themselves don't deliberately recruit these people, and in many cases would rather they didn't exist, but the fact remains that Wikipedia, by its very nature, is an attractant for such people.

One of the factors I mentioned was a "non-automated rewards system." Recently we had the subject of Yahoo!Answers come up here, which as many of you know has an automated scoring system. In effect, they're admitting the whole thing is a game and treating it as such, and effectively removing the need for human intervention in the promotion process. (But wait - "Yahoo! Answers recognizes your level achievements with our special brand of thank you's!" )

The result is that Yahoo!Answers probably does not attract "messed-up" folks the way Wikipedia does - since those folks aren't really interested in the kind of ego-reinforcement and personal validation that comes from a computer; they want it from real people, only they don't want to have to actually be with those people physically, or even know who they are. When they get that ego-reinforcement (in the form of barnstars or "thank you" messages, or the ultimate - a successful RfA), it's not euphoric in the sense that a stimulant-type drug is, but it amounts to the same psychological reward that such a substance gives people.

Mind you, I'm not trying to say this is common. Most WP admins probably see the "Support" votes in their RfA, followed by the new "buttons" in their UI, have a little fist-pump or two, and that's the end of it. But if you've got nothing else going on in your life that allows you to feel respected or cared about by other people, that fist-pump becomes a grand exultation, a whole new purpose in life. And it's around such people that cults are formed, because nobody is more loyal to the cult than the person who has only that, and nothing else, to lose.

So... I see a lot of bizarre characters... but leaving Jimbo aside for a moment, who else has the biggest 'cult of personality' in Wikipedia?

Wikipedia isn't a "cult of personality" at all, not even for Jimbo Wales (though there are several WP'ers who do idolize him). It's more of a LifeSpring or "est"-style cult, meaning it isn't really a cult in the quasi-religious sense, but has many of the same recruitment objectives and retention techniques, along with the group consciousness, "single mad belief," etc.

I'd have to say that if someone actually got to the point of being personally idolized, even to the limited extent that Jimbo is, the rest of them would figure out some way of tearing that person down to size fairly quickly.

I suppose that brown-nosing an admin or using your tools to protect a long-time verbally abusive 'vested contributor' or gathering a clique around one vocal member doesn't really count... because one personality is not powerful enough to severely warp Wikipedia... it's more a Team Douchebag effort...

What's addicting to me about Wikipedia is the drama. It's a mixture of MMORPG thrills and gladiator-spectator rush. Just hang around the administrator boards or the "trouble-maker" talk pages (i.e. Giano, Malleus, etc.) and you can get your fill of soap operas.

All men have a dark side. We know we shouldn't enjoy violence and war, but deep down we do. Wikipedia certainly can be a place to get your share of violence without all the nasty blood and getting dirty yourself (physically, that is). As far as many are concerned, you're yelling at screenname, not a person. It takes a lot of discipline and empathy for most to realize you're hurting another person on the other side of the screen. Many never get that far.

I guess you can call "drama vampirism?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Da capo … al fine …

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

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

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

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

Jon Awbrey

Congratulations for filling this topic full of useless crap and making it unattractive to follow. As I said Jon ...

... and to make it all easy to find for other via Google and a related topic title.

One of the key elements of addiction is that "most people with addictions who present for help have other psychiatric problems as well". This is called comorbidity.

In this model, Wiki-addiction is a mask or distraction from other, greater, perhaps untreated problems. The addiction could be based on its value as an 'impermanent release' from other more stressful symptoms and situations.

Source: here.

Many people who work in offices, or have desk jobs in general, seem to be using Facebook more and more while they're supposed to be working, to the point that it has been necessary to put aggressive blocks to the application to avoid excessive time wasting. The same probably goes for Wikipedia.