Jump to content

Talk:Digital media use and mental health/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Does anyone have a better word than biopsychosocial?

I suggest medical conditions, psychiatric conditions etc are all quite controversial on other wiki pages, what do we think? E.3 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... I'd like this discussed with members of the anthropology portal, as the reason I made this page is because medical citations are not allowed to be used on the social media addiction page when they do not mention social media addiction directly. I think this is worthy of discussion personally and would like a collaborative approach to this discussion --E.3 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This page was created as a near-copy of a previous version of Social media addiction, in an attempt to reinstate content that was considered problematic and removed by other editors. See Talk:Social media addiction for further details. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree thats exactly what happened. What I am attempting to do with this new article isn't to hijack, or ignore their edits, quite the converse actually. I'm trying to take them into account, meaning that we are not able to under our policies cite reputable sources if they do not use the specific terminology "social media addiction". I am creating this page because the issue is of high importance arguably, and this would allow editors to cite papers and other research when they do not use the specific english words "social media addiction". E.3 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Also please note that I didn't use the article creation process as I was unaware of it at the time, but I did suggest the page in an attempt to get consensus yesterday without comment, if that's of any value 03:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talk • contribs)

Linguistics again

Thanks once again for helping with WP SYN. So i've titled this Digital dependencies and global mental health. Can therefore sources be related to either. I've stopped asserting this is a well recognised condition to remove any appearance of SYN and stating what it is, unknown again and again and again. Does that make sense? E.3 (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also this is not a medical article, i've changed the infobox so that's clear. 06:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talk • contribs)
You cannot unilaterally declare an article as medical or not medical. If you are talking about medical topics -- addiction, ADHD etc. -- then this is medical content and is covered by WP:MEDRS. I have pruned the article of the more explicitly medical content if that is the intent of the article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes but I can suggest it. OK lets do medical parts of it over at the related pages, and sociology anthropology and potentially journalism when I get good sources on this one? What do we think? E.3 (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think theres consensus it cannot be merged for numerous reasons

Ill remove the tag if that's OK, its confusing people. E.3 (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No. You need to give people time -- at least a week -- to consider a proposal like this. Nor do I see any indication of consensus.
BTW, WP:MEDRS still applies to this article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
OK sure. Two users state shouldn't be merged. I am stating that of course WP:MEDRS applies, but I think the policy "Sources about health in the general news media should, in general, not be used to source content about health in Wikipedia articles but may be useful for "society and culture" content." both

1. allow this article to stay separate as it explores sociology and anthropology - society and culture. This means within its scope it is allowed to quote medical experts and media articles when they are reliable. E.3 (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would support either merging this article as proposed, deleting it, or a top-to-bottom re-write to focus on digital anthropology perspectives (with an appropriate name change). The phrase "digital dependencies" appears to be a neologism. The citation used for the opening sentence of the lede does not use it. A Google Scholar search for "digital dependencies" and "mental health" shows just 5 hits of limited value. This comes across as a content fork from Social media addiction. In the mean time, I will try to tidy this article up. Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes i've been asking for feedback on the title. I selected it because I consider it to be more neutral. We cannot agree on everything. I think that dependencies is used a lot in multiple sources, and when considering this from a sociological perspective as this article as it currently stands does, it cites that the term "addiction" has been questioned, and simply uses the second most common term as the title. E.3 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Other suggestions include "Mental health and digital media overuse correlations". The topic is huge and notable on its own as an anthropological sociological article. E.3 (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Any title involving "mental health" will likely focus on a psychiatry perspective. If you want something on a sociological perspective, it isn't going to have "mental health" in the title.
I suggest you slow down and plan more before editing. Use sandboxes. Go through the article for creation process. Get consensus on Talk pages earlier, rather than later. Bondegezou (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I've only ever made two articles and i didn't know what the AfC was until today, now I do, after I've made them. I've put the discussion of the linguistics right there what do you think? E.3 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
So I'm suggesting if even in the DSM the vote was so close, one of our articles should say dependence, one addiction. The medical one addiciton, the sociological anthropological one dependence. E.3 (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want a sociological/anthropological perspective, you need sociological/anthropological literature and there's no point citing DSM. If you want to discuss a medical literature, like DSM, then do that within a framework of an article on medical aspects, following our guidelines for medical articles, which focus on systematic reviews and published guidelines. But I don't see how the DSM vote, which was not about anything to do with digital, helps us here determine how this material should be covered across multiple articles. Bondegezou (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I consider it to be sociological and anthropological in itself that there are experts that say all of these notable things, hence why I quoted them here. They are reliable? E.3 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

also would be amazing if we had additions rather than always subtractions

I'm almost 99% sure its only me and the 2011 editor that has ever added text to the articles, its pretty difficult on my own E.3 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

So, here are some ways to attract help. (1) Go through an article for creation process. (2) Engage with other editors on the Talk page. (3) Seek help from places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. (4) Slow down and give other editors time to input.
Another good starting point would be to identify useful literature, particularly MEDRS-compliant literature. I will look for some. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I'm doing those things, and I've asked for help from all the places form the start, none yet forthcoming. Thankyou very much indeed. I wont make new articles without doing AfC, as I've said I didn't realise it existed until after creation of both E.3 (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's a more sociological perspective: Sutton (2017), "Disconnect to reconnect: The food/technology metaphor in digital detoxing" Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Here are 3 systematic reviews on Internet and smartphone 'addiction': Kuss & Lopez-Fernandez (2016), "Internet addiction and problematic Internet use: A systematic review of clinical research"; Steinbüchel et al. (2017), "Internet Addiction, Suicidality and Non-Suicidal Self-Harming Behavior - A Systematic Review"; Elhai et al. (2017), "Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology". Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I know there already is an internet addiction article that I'm not editing at all E.3 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
To clarify. the reason I think there should be separate articles 1. Social media is the women and girls thing. We have forever focused on the boys and men. This is because in mine and EU 2009 consensus opinion they have subtler ADHD symptoms, and they are more likely to be addicted to social media as we see. Opposite for boys. However, because we have such few evidence bases around "social media addiction" i'm presently virtually unable to cite anything there. Its a paradox. This article is because its all in a wider anthropological sociological framework. And on the medical articles, we do not want anthropological sociological stuff because of MEDRS. And we are not allowed to use consensus expert opinion. However I consider when so many experts say these things, its sociological in and of itself E.3 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Also those were already cited on social media addiction they got deleted. Its all linguistics, can we see yet? E.3 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Bondegezou The articles and quotes from the sociology page you mentioned (Sutton 2017) are fantastic. Can I please get your input as to where to insert them? I'll give you a day or so unless my impulsivity or hyperfocus kicks in. Thanks E.3 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Background

What is wrong with background. Some people dont know what the internet is so i'm trying to show what it is in a simple way, rather than the highly technical way on the relevant pages. Its notable that Guardian Media Group decided to put that on their front page in 2018. They are reputable. Nothing wrong with saying what social media and the internet are, about an article about social media and the internet. E.3 (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Marino Perez Alverez

Suggest direct quote

"The controversy cannot be resolved in empirical scientific terms, on the plane of facts, as if the facts spoke for themselves, which is where it now stands. A metascientific, philosophical assessment is required, with an ontological scope asking what ADHD is, and epistemological scope asking how science itself knows and molds what has ended up as the actual “ADHD.”" 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talk • contribs)

Medicine is in the scope of wikiproject Sociology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_sociology I do not currently understand what they mean by the term "purely" here. Thanks E.3 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the photo it is too artistic as it is currently not at a normal angle. I will ask from the commons to change it to an encyclopedic angle. Thanks File:Digitaldependence.jpeg E.3 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Did this myself and a proper wikigraphist will have a look at it if indicated E.3 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Education

should it be in this project? E.3 (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The title

I think the best title will be "Digital dependencies and their correlates" now. What do we think? E.3 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible alternate titles:
Digital media overuse phenomena
Complications of digital media use
Digital dependencies
Digital media dependencies
Digital dependencies and societal complications
Digital media complications

Any thoughts Diannaa, Bondegezou, dlthewave or any other editors? E.3 (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(From deletion discussion. The title is) the hardest bit of the article. E.3 (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Many of the titles suggested here seem uselessly vague to me. What would be the scope of an article entitled "digital media complications"? Technical issues such as the problem of long-term storage? Mental health of the users? Those two "complications" are completely unrelated, and it will be impossible to find reliable sources that discuss this huge scope of possible complications at once. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. The suggestions also indicate that even the original author doesn't have a clear idea of what the article is supposed to be about. Those titles describe different scopes, and content that might be argued to belong in an article of one of those titles would be off-topic for an article with another of those titles. At the deletion discussion, Jehochman seemed to be of the opinion that the article should be about the effects of digital media use on mental health, which would mean that "mental health" would be a central aspect of the topic and should be mentioned in the title.
I unfortunately do not understand the reference to linguistics unless it's supposed to mean "nobody knows what to call this". If that's the case, we have ... problems. Huon (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what to do for English. Its too hard, thats why i'm asking all options open but I agree with you it should keep mental health in the title to avoid useless packets of Information. My Vietnamese translations of the pages are currently getting likes on facebook vietnamese wiki page. They have an amazing word that somehow means "use" "misuse" or "mischief" E.3 (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Digital addict proposed merger

As I mention I am not married to any titles or any linguistics. The title digital dependencies is not a neoglosm, it is the second most common term used, and I discuss that "addiction" has come under question in the start of the article, the first sentence is sourced well. The discussion over there has been dormant for a few years. I will try to use my current understanding of WP:MEDRS and WP:SYNTH to assist that article by bringing its usable points over there. Any contributors that assist me most welcome, this page is getting much more attention around those policies, appropriately, than that one. Thankyou E.3 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to keep their wording intact, I'll only change it if we think it is WP:SYNTH, so that that editors wording remains intact and this remains collaborative E.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Rereading their article, that's most if not all of what I consider to be usable, any discussion welcome. Thanks E.3 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Medrs

Fails WP:MEDRS is subjective in this. E.3 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment from linguistics, psych and sociology

including digital media ADHD article E.3 (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't see how this could be done without synthesis. Does any of the sources relate ADHD to digital dependence as opposed to "frequent use", "prevalence" or just "digital media use"? Which one(s), specifically? Huon (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In order to have a proper RFC, we need a brief statement of the question. In other words, "Do the following sources show that ADHD relates to digital dependence?" Please confirm that is a good summary or suggest a better one. Then, at the top of this section place a {{rfc|sci}} template followed by that statement with your signature. Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

References

New review paper

... may be of use:

Stiglic & Viner, 2019. Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for that :) "screen time" is not dependencies, to avoid further deletion and edit conflicts I'll leave it as it stands for a few more days while the policy and linguistics requests for comment are open, as well as my posts on the POV noticeboard which are under discussion :) 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Other edits around screen time allowed both here and digital addict previously, so I just added it. Thanks that was a really important contribution, thankyou! Do you have any opinion about either RfC Bondegezou? -- E.3 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Non free material

Diannaa or any other editor, I have removed all of the excessively long quotes. Do we consider that its no longer has any non free material? Thanks for pointing it out. E.3 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Still many quotes are used, which means usage of non-free material. Template {{over-quotation}} could be an alternative to {{non-free}} after the non-free material has been appropriately dealt with. But presumably, the first mentioned template won't be needed as summarising/paraphrasing the non-free material would also get rid of the over-quotation issue and turn the text into more encyclopedic. --Treetear (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Untitled RfC

1.With a page title stating "digital media use and mental health" are we allowed to cite expert opinion as per MEDRS being a predominantly society and culture article? Is this statement by another editor valid? "when it comes to medicine related, high impact emerging phenomena, it can be unhelpful to adopt an overly strict application of MEDRS. At least in cases where most sources treat the phenomena as a social problem rather than strictly a medical condition." 2. Can we consider "overuse" "addiction" "dependence" as somewhat equivalent in the context of this title? Otherwise the article is only able to cite a third of the literature, making it non comprehensive. -- E.3 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I am interested to learn about the various impacts of digital media use on mental health. You could conceivably address all three in three sections in the article: Overuse, Addiction, Dependence. You may also want to address the impact of Moderate Use and Abstention. In each of the three or five sections you can cite whatever sources from sociology or medicine provide relevant answers or context. Think about what is most useful to the reader. You should not favor any one view. Present them all (but not fringe views) and let the reader make their own value judgment. Jehochman Talk 02:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • How exactly is an article about mental health "a predominantly society and culture article"? Last time I checked, health, including mental health, very much was a medical topic. I don't agree with FeydHuxtable' statement quoted above; quite the opposite, I'd argue that for "high impact emerging phenomena" we should be particularly careful to use the most high-quality sources. If the phenomenon is so new that no good sources exist, it may be too soon to write an encyclopedia article about it. Not having an article is better than having one that gives dubious information based on second-rate or questionable sources, particularly for medical topics and particularly for "high impact" topics.
Regarding overuse, addiction and dependence, do reliable sources treat those terms as interchangeable? Are there sources which say that overuse and addiction are one and the same? If only a third of the literature is about "overuse", "dependence" and "addiction" each (which to me seem like different issues; I might be dependent on a crutch without overusing it or being addicted to it, I might be addicted to nicotine without being dependent on it or engaging in overuse, and I might overuse alcohol without being dependent on or addicted to it), and they don't use those terms as equivalent, then neither should we. Huon (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You may not agree me Huon, but I agree with you. I only meant the quoted sentence in a limited sense, which isn't worth spelling out in detail as it's already common practice. The quote was part of a longer comment where my main point was that I didn't see any specific cases where other editors were miss applying MEDRS. @E.3. I don't advise quoting me if you're going to continue with these community discussions – it would be a mistake to assume that my words are typically as well received by the community as they are with your good self! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone all points of view here are all very very worthy of consideration for the article here. I tend to agree with @Jehochman: in regard to having the linguistics separate, but I worry about the readability of the article which is why I currently had it in the various disciplines trying to keep them separate, so each disciplines thoughts are considered when they all have their feet in the game. @Huon: I also tend to agree, but the article is of such high importance (in my opinion) that when the medical experts are saying these things in the media - Christiakis especially - I think it needs to be included, it is too late rather than too soon. As we see he's said this since 2010. @FeydHuxtable: thankyou for clarifying your quote and I am deferring to all editors especially your political advice I hope you noticed. Im trying not to comment unless I've thought it through. Thanks again everyone! --E.3 (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Huon: to try and give you an example of how I consider this article, if Contagion (film) became reality, there would almost certainly be a top importance rapidly edited and protected article about it on English Wiki, doing the best it can whilst considering the fifth pillar. It would be very controversial. This film is essentially medically accurate, if there was just slight changes in the virulence only of Nipah virus. Does that make sense? E.3 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry one of them not virulence I think its R0 anyway its just a metaphorical example, on how I think this article might evolve. I dont want to contribute to it anymore, its too stressful for me personally :) E.3 (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is about mental health -- it says so in its name -- so MEDRS clearly applies. It is not difficult to follow MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
uptodate is a reliable secondary source, and Francis Collins as an expert as they said in the reliable sources noticeboard? We currently dont discuss the only well designed prospective study on the issue - its the best evidence available. What's not MEDRS about that, in your opinion @Bondegezou:? E.3 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Also brain anatomy alterations being associated with social network site addiction. in Nature. Dont understand your rationale there. E.3 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is the second paragraph of MEDRS:

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials.

We should avoid primary studies. (They can be used, but there needs to be a good argument to do so.) There is plenty of pertinent material that does satisfy MEDRS, so I see no need to be going into the primary literature here. Bondegezou (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. But as we see the BMJ review you found everything is of low to moderate quality. So the rationale of using the secondary source of uptodate citing the primary source is because it is quite literally the only thing of high quality in regards to the levels of evidence. We dont agree about the levels worldwide but both measuring systems say this is the highest levels available. Me personally, I didn't trust any of it until the publication of that study. I didn't pay attention until that study because of the quality and the levels. @Bondegezou: E.3 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
To try and be a bit more clear @Bondegezou:, the BMJ Review of reviews comments that the reviews only have low quality. It doesn't comment on this study because it is reviewing reviews, not studies. I am suggesting under WP:MEDRS That we give this highest level "well designed prospective yada yada" study its due weight. But we neutralise it with WP:NPOV by citing what Francis Collins has said about it so that it is clear to any reader. There is good evidence, just it should not be over emphasised into something its not to avoid moral panic. E.3 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
An alternate secondary source is the EU 2019 consensus ADHD statement. But I am worried as I state in the past of overemphasising ADHD. I truly dont believe the whole world has ADHD, no one does, just that there is a bit of a lack of assessment around it. E.3 (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Also I think the study showing "brain anatomy alterations associated with social network site addiction" inclusion has a similar rationale. If we only use reviews, we only have low quality medical stuff on such an important issue. We just have to use a secondary source, and an expert to give that context. Its pretty huge if thats what they found. We don't over emphasise, it we give it its weight, and then use an expert or secondary source to make sure it complies with NPOV. E.3 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's four answers that all amount to "may I ignore MEDRS?", to which the answer remains "no". There is plenty of pertinent material that does satisfy MEDRS, so let's work with that. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: I hope you realised I now 100% agree with you. We have WP:MEDRS for a reason. So lets sort out screen time, mobile phone overuse, nomophobia, mobile phone overuse, electronic media and sleep, digital addict, and especially smartphone zombie - how does that page even exist? other than to be a gallery of people on their smartphones. I don't care on what page on whatever linguistics. Just that it's important for them all to follow WP:MEDRS. I think we do it on this page first, in the structure I'm trying to start, but this is far too important and far too hard for any one person. E.3 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Journalism

I did in the original articles have a journalism section, which is still present in all other languages. I am trying to show how they are all connected. Any thought as to whether this is relevant? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/15/reuters-america-facebook-to-invest-300-million-to-help-local-news-survive.html E.3 (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is relevant to "digital media use and mental health". The CNBC piece has very little about digital media, less about digital media use, and nothing at all about mental health. I took a look at the old "journalism" section, too, and it also looked completely off-topic to me. Australia's regulatory efforts don't seem to be in any way connected to mental health. Huon (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Huon that this article shouldn't be a coatrack for general criticism of social media. Regardless of the title, mental health and journalism are two separate topics that shouldn't be combined. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with both im just trying to make sure that we say the good parts as well which we are as we currently stand E.3 (talk)

Big merger discussion

Consensus is against such merging. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

E.3 has tagged several articles as possibly requiring merger, but hasn't actually started a formal merger discussion. So I'm doing that here. We have the following:

Should these be merged?

Thanks for your help @Bondegezou:. To me, I think nomophobia is an issue for wiki dictionary. It does not need a separate article. mobile phone overuse duplicates the content of here in a less WP:MEDRS compliant way, so it can come here, as does digital addict. I suggest smartphone zombie is the article causing the most concern for me and I am yet to see a rational reason for its inclusion on English Wiki, I've brought its useable parts here. The rest we can discuss later.E.3 (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
and to reiterate one more time, I think social media addiction needs and MUST be separate because of womens health issues. it does not matter to me what we title it. It is a womens health issue, and we have problems on wiki with women's issues as we all know. E.3 (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I just WP:BOLD changed the title to social media overuse for that. Thousands of multilingual edits since my first ones in December 18 have proven to me that the word "addiction" is why we are having such charged discussions about this. E.3 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@E.3: Quite. But if we are having "highly charged discussions" on a subject, the way to avoid that is not, in fact, to avoid having a discussion. And when something is indeed "highly charged", then it probably indicates that a bold page move would be controversial and so should be discussed. ——SerialNumber54129 12:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I agree. Sometimes I am too wikidragon like. Sometimes things just need to be fixed. I consider a lot of this a women's rights issue. I do one or two bold things, then I wait for more consensus. This technique has attracted the attention to this article to make sure I sort out my OWN bias on the issue. We can't have English Wiki so incoherent on such an important issue, and we cannot have the appearance of gender bias. E.3 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have moved Social media addiction back to its original title. Let's reach some sort of consensus first. Bondegezou (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Lets do consensus on the lot of them, rather than just my contributions. I'm very very concerned about gender bias, but I'm much bolder than a lot of women. E.3 (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
and this article is now orphaned because you have decided to remove the link here. when it has had the most discussion of all related articles. and we allow a few media articles from years ago to call sufferers zombies. Can you follow my logic around this incoherence? E.3 (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
E.3, discussion here is focused on your edits as you both wrote this article and started this discussion. Those articles have problems, yes, but we are not discussing that here. The issue I see is with WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. In this article, per the first sentence, you try to prove that “digital media use has been complicated by digital media overuse”, there is inherently going to be an UNDUE problem if you start going through medical studies and surveys and deciding which to add and which to omit. A decent amount of these sources are primary, which adds to the issue. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Coherent merger discussion


These are the ones that I would like to consider discussion around merging. In the case of social media addiction someone else put that merger discussion up, so I'll leave that. In the case of smartphone zombie that page may deserve to be separate if my contributions are kept and its title is reconsidered. I have never suggested that this be merged with internet addiction disorder and video game addiction, and gaming disorder have never been suggested to move here officially. computer addiction has longstanding issues that can be sorted out another month. I'll clarify by deleting what I originally proposed to be mergable, and removing the ones that are likely causing confusion.
The reasons are:
1. The first four are duplicated content, this page is more WP:MEDRS compliant and I aim for it to mother social media addiction, gaming disorder and internet addiction disorder.
2. Nomophobia whilst important at the time of its creation, I suggest is more appropriate content for this page, and then for that terminology which is falling out of use to go to wiki dictionary. E.3 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

E.3, stop. Wait for other people to input on discussions. Do not add and remove merge tags on a whim. Do not make major edits to these articles until you have established consensus.
The first four articles you list do not appear to me to be the same, nor does this article appear more WP:MEDRS compliant. The idea to have this article as a 'mother' to others requires discussion and a consensus to be reached before you make any major edits along those lines. It appears a bad idea to me because it's a something and something article, so it's about the intersection of two issues and thus does not cover broader issues. Nomophobia also appears to be distinct and to warrant an article, not just a Wiktionary entry. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not doing any of those things. E.3 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
You proposed smartphone zombie be merged here and then, 30 hours later, removed the merge tag. WP:MERGE recommends at least a week be given for a merge discussion. 30 hours is not waiting for other people to input. I suggest you look at WP:NODEADLINE. Bondegezou (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No one supported the merge or the deletion and I cleaned it up somewhat. E.3 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Tired of deletions. E.3 (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
E.3. The bad faith suggestions you're making about another editor are utter nonsense. If you carry on like this you're going to get a long block, regardless of the validity of some of your other points. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
You won't ever discover if some people support a merge suggestion you make if you don't leave it up for a reasonable amount of time. This means a week, not 30 hours. Wikipedia is a collaborative entity, and that sometimes means waiting for other people to input. If you want complete control over what you write, write a blog or a website. Here, you have to accept that other people may not agree with your views and may be working on different schedules.
Also, if you don't want material to be repeatedly deleted, try to understand why it was deleted in the first place. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no bad faith here.E.3 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further reading

I am unclear how the works by O'Riordan, Sunstein and Kleinman are relevant. WP:Further reading says that:

"A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article. Works that are not entirely about the subject of the article should have notes that identify the relevant part of the work (e.g., "Chapter 7").

"Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject, and to works whose contents are entirely about the subject of the article, rather than only partly."

Is that the case with these three works? Bondegezou (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

E.3, you've removed those books, but now added a different array of books, most of which again do not appear to meet the criteria expected. Could you discuss? Bondegezou (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No semi retiring from wikipedia I don't get it and probably never will E.3 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Most of them are Daniel Miller's colleagues and projects trying to contextualise the whole issue to different societies and cultures. E.3 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

captions

I changed the image captions in this article. The previous text was unsatisfying: as mere descriptive text of things depicted in the image, they were more suited to alternative text for images, not captions themselves. Per WP:CAPTION, captions should convey the relevance to the topic and not state the obvious. Extraneous info like the location of a photo orTher date of upload is unwarranted: as essentially stock photographs, such meta data adds nothing to the topic of Digital media use and mental health. Feel free to tweak the captions to more accurately reflect the article, but please don't revert to such sterile captions as "An image uploaded to the internet in 2018 entitled "Boy Mobile Phone Addiction". --Animalparty! (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that your captions are more appropriate. I removed the photo captioned "Digital media use may increase feelings of loneliness" because the caption was unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the article, and there's no indication that the photo relates to mental health. The other stock photos raise similar concerns, since they're just random photos of people using phones and may be creating a false impression of what these mental health issues actually look like. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
We can use images to convey an action, emotion, or theme, even if that particular element is not actually in the image (or the people therein). A random photo of a person yelling can illustrate Anger, whether or not that person is truly angry or merely acting. It is entirely appropriate to use an image of a person using digital media in an article about digital media. We need not claim the person(s) depicted in any image suffer from any mental health issues, nor base decisions on the possibility of a small minority of readers misinterpreting as such. If privacy concerns arise, faces can perhaps be cropped, but I think that is a last resort. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_media_use_and_mental_health/Archive_1&oldid=1010263265"