Talk:Problematic social media use/Archive 1

Discussion of merging with social media

I believe this page should be separate. The social media page requires a lot of comprehension and understanding, as well as scrolling through, to get to the relevant information on social media addiction. This is not controversial anymore, as per the editor of JAMA Paediatrics. I am not good at editing Wikipedia, but I feel quite strongly about this, to give accurate, neutral information to those who are least able to see. All views opposing welcome, please let me know. E.3 (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

?Feature article review

@FAR coordinators: I was hoping this article could be reviewed for consideration for feedback for further edits for featured article consideration. E.3 (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it will pass because it's short (the infobox is longer than the article). On a side note, the lead image does not really relate to the subject matter and the large number of footnotes could be bundled per WP:CITEBUNDLE. If nominated, it should go to WP:FAC not WP:FAR. DrKay (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am overciting to address potential readers cognitive bias about the current neuroscience. It does not refer to opposing points of view that have been debunked in consensus. It is short and succinct, because it is intended for reading worldwide, often by those who do not have good access to good health care in lower income countries. The citations of the book and the Canadian guidelines may offer those without access to medications or specialists some ability to work things out on their own. I consider it to be a unique article in this regard. What do we think? E.3 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally folks improve an article to Good Article status first, then Featured article. Looking at Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria are good places to start. I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• e.g. the lead should be a summary of the whole article. All material in the lead should be in the rest of the article and expanded. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

• this study is a primary source. Wording in the article should reflect that (i.e. "A 2013 Korean study found that..."). Also, the paper is more relevant to Internet addiction disorder than to this page really.

• There is no definition of what social media addiction is. If there is no consensus, why not? The article does not mention any figures around this at all. Here might be a place to start looking.

Anyway, lots to do before it comes close to anything GA or FA - I reckon it needs to be double the size before thinking about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Great thanks for all the comments. Will continue to work on it. It is difficult. I am following the editor of JAMA paediatrics lead, some of the things are unpublished that he told us at the CADDRA conference so it will be most difficult. The science does not know everything at all, just observes the problems. I am trying to show the problems as they are, reinterpreting into simple language with citations for people worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• @E.3: I would agree that this page has some issues. Beyond what Cas Liber pointed to I think that you're clearly pushing a particular view, eg with the former first sentence taking a clear stance on the severity of the problem. This is clearly a real thing, with real impact, but given what you admit is incomplete science here, I think there is a more neutral way for this article to be written. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49:- thanks. This is current consensus, it is not my opinion. I can't really prove this without overciting again. Scientific papers and opinions are all over JAMA paediatrics, Neurology, Nature Neuroscience, JAMA psychiatry, psychology, anthropology, everywhere. They just aren't connected completely, because they are working on it. I'm trying to show what consensus is in a simple way. That the social media addiction crisis is extreme. E.3 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@E.3: Then I would suggest you find someone who is a best source (e.g. a peer reviewed and high quality, like JAMA) and quote them rather than saying it in Wikipedia's voice. You cite facts from reliable sources about the severity and rate of addiction and then paraphrase that factually but neutrally in Wikipedia's voice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Being enthusiastic and knowledgeable can be a disadvantage when editing Wikipedia. With the best will in the world, you have an opinion that the subject is very important and that will always come through in the writing. One more reason to let the article develop over time, and more importantly to let it be developed by other editors without taking offence. Even without knowing the subject, other editors can refine the language, help with the article structure, etc. The quality and completeness should improve and at some point it may be worth proposing it for good or featured article status. Best to do it that way round, not to clutter up the review processes with a new article in the hope that you'll get some useful feedback. Lithopsian (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I wont put it up for review yet. This is changing day by day, and I have just put two items of news from December in the front page. I hope that this makes the article more neutral and involves more Wikipedians to work on this with me. I note that this is still marked as low importance in psychology. E.3 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, you might want to look at this old version of the page in 2011 before it was redirected for another take on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for GAN review

I have attempted to be as neutral as possible whilst writing this article, and have shared my photo on the commons. I can put up a higher resoulution if recommended. Request any review from any editor as to whether this may yet constitute a good article. Thankyou very much E.3 (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Any assistance with adding subtopics as I havent yet been able to work this out appreciated. I am suggesting the subtopics of Culture, sociology and psychology · Education · Economics and business · Law · Magazines and print journalism · Politics and government. E.3 (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sub-topics? Do you mean categories? Or do you want to add more sections in the body of the article? Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean categories. Thanks E.3 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, perhaps you mean for the GAN? Lithopsian (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the GAN I just put under culture. It should also have some categories as well I suspect. Thanks! E.3 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Other language wikipedias =

Considering, as the editor of JAMA paediatrics that this is a global crisis and epidemic, I have started translation of this wikipedia on my own. So far, I have 1. Been published on German wikipedia, and they are considering that my google and bing translates there are indeed terrible. I am requesting their assistance to translate them to German. 2. Been published again with a terrible auto translate on Swedish, Icelandic, Portuguese and Spanish wikipedias. The Swedes have deleted, probably appropriately, the Portuguese whilst initially considering it may be Brazilian spam, have allowed the article to be considered under their wiki's guidelines for deletion. I'm not quite clear what happened on Spanish wikipedia yet. Noting that the French require human translation on their wiki, I have requested the services of Translate.com to assist. 3. Noting that the Russians speedily deleted the page, again probably appropriately, I have employed a Russian translator via Smartlation.com as this is indeed a very difficult language. I used Smartlation.com to translate the document to Arabic and Chinese at far lower cost and I thank them for this. These human translations are being considered in detail as we speak. I intend for the other wikipedias to, using their languge, edit as much as appropriate and reinterpret into their cultural contexts. 4. I thank all wikipedia editors of all Wikis I have interacted in for clarifying their rules. Since I last edited wikipedia, it is indeed a network of complicated rules, as referred to on the TED talk "The Divided Brain" by Dr Iain McGilchrist, an esteemed psychiatrist from the UK, which inspired a lot of my writings. 5. Please continue to clarify, edit and change as appropriate, this is the intention of using wikipedia. As my citations note, things are changing day by day. 6. I very specifically wish to make clear that I consider the diagnoses of "cell phone addiction" "internet addiction" "gaming disorder" and "social media addiction" to be separate. The "social media addiction" concept directly affects women and girls far greater than boys and men, and unfortunately they die at a far higher rate because of this. This is continually proven in the nation of Canada. E.3 (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Request conflict of interest edit

I would like to ask any senior wikipedian to consider citing this press release for Westpac NZ which is mentioned above. I am unclear whether this "cross promotion" of this citation is anywhere at all in your guidelines, and please advise when you are able. E.3 (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: Citation to this press release stating that Westpac NZ do not social media advertise. www.what5words.club Explanation of issue: Sole owner of a low cost mental health awareness campaign which has been quite successful but not financially as yet. References supporting change: I appear to be the only person reporting on these few issues at present, but I consider it relevant information. As we can see this is all rapidly developing E.3 (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply 15-DEC-2018

  Clarification needed  

• It is not known what changes are requested to be made. Specifically, the directive to place a "citation to this press release" does not indicate where the citation is to be placed. Please state your desired changes in the form of "Change x to y using z".

Change x to y using z

x	A verbatim description of the old text to be removed from the article (if any)
y	A verbatim description of the new text to be added to the article (if any)
z	A reference which verifies the requested change

Example edit request:

Please change:

• The Sun's diameter is 25 miles. (This is x)

to read as:

• The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles. (This is y)

using as a reference:

• Sjöblad, Tristan (2018). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. (This is z)

When ready to proceed, please alter the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no.
Regards,  Spintendo  14:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply December 16

Please note I copied and pasted from above for clarification in a previous edit.

Example edit request:

Please change under "Technology:

• It was reported that Westpac New Zealand do not advertise on social media. (This is x)

to read as:

• It was reported that Westpac New Zealand do not advertise on social media. (This is y)

using as a reference:

• Chisholm, Peter. "What5words Tapui Limited - Promoting change already". p. 1. (This is z)

E.3 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply 16-DEC-2018

  Edit request declined  

1. It is unclear how WestPac New Zealand's not advertising on social media is to be viewed as a viable strategy for countering the effects of social media addiction in individuals who don't use their bank.
2. The notion that for New Zealanders afflicted with social media addiction, the sole strategy designed to deliver them from the pain of their dependency has been devised not by an institution concerned with mental health, but by one whose domain covers the area of finance, is questionable in the least.
3. As the Strategy section concerns claims whereby psychological conditions are offered "treatment" through different actions and strategies, the references used therein ought to be of a higher caliber than a press release.

Regards,  Spintendo  15:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for this feedback, this is extremely important and i recognise this conflict of interest and your neutrality. Please continue to comment as such. E.3 (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Social media addiction vs Internet addiction disorder

How could I differentiate social media addiction and Internet addiction disorder? Isn't it the same? Rafael Kenneth (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not the same unfortunately, internet addiction appears to act quite differently, and social media addiction affects women and girls much more. The reverse for internet addiction. Many concurring opinions on this, some in the citations. E.3 (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As this appears confusing i'll put more citations in such as this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29396749 — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Example edit request:

'Please add under "Psychiatry', at the end:
(This is x) to read as:

• John Hopkins University published a press release relating to social media addiction and its worldwide problems, by a startup media organisation in New Zealand.(This is y)

using as a reference:

• (This )

E.3 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 21-DEC-2018

  Edit request declined  

• It is unclear what you are attempting to communicate here by describing the press release being issued. The release itself appears to be WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature and misleading, as it does not originate from Johns Hopkins.  Spintendo  13:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks again. I dont know how these things work fully, obviously. I'm trying to promote awareness and get the translations happening, and I see my conflict of interest. I recognise that I am using the same images on this page and on the internet, its because theyre the best images I own that are explaining my concept. I have submitted this wikipedia page to the British Medical Journal and Australian Doctor who will consider publication of it as it stands. I'm really not trying to self promote, all of this is at a major loss to my person. E.3 (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarify - the images I previously owned now they're commons. I'll stop trying to cite myself, its undermining my credibility here I can see. E.3 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Redirect restored. (non-admin closure)

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Social media addiction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lojbanist (talk · contribs) 18:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose : article (ahem, hijacked redirect) created by SPA who is using Wikipedia as a web host. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 18:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Further revision with discussion from French and other wikipedias

Hello. I am presently working on a revision of this article on my sandbox here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:E.3/sandbox I would appreciate any editors contribution before putting it on the main page. This takes into account this and other language wikipedias consideration of my edits in detail. E.3 (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all the help and edits. I've nominated for GA again and see how we go. It doesn't appear to be as controversial as when I did this in December. As usual, if you point out biases or overcitations I'm most happy for any editor to change, edit, discuss, and do whatever to the article. I do not own this article at all. I just made some edits and suggestions. Thanks very much indeed! E.3 (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't find where to !vote against this article for GA as I've never tried before, could somebody help? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Images

These images appear to be the type of stock photo that would be appropriate for a magazine but not an encyclopedia, particularly in a medical article. Preserving here for discussion, please discuss before reinserting. –dlthewave ☎ 16:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for stuffing up the closed discussion. I think we should use ADHDpapers as that is relevant with the citation, how else should we image ADHD symptoms? I think Boysmartphone is relevant because the uploader named it that, and nothing images paediatrics. The pretty images are all too "artistic" I agree but perhaps Brian Solis can come back because he's quoted elsewhere in the article but not sold on that. Pokemon we can image just have to get consensus. It is the most important citation in the whole piece. Thanks E.3 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think another editor thanked me for the ADHD papers one so I think that should go back in. Its hard to be neutral and image ADHD symptoms or smart phone addiction, but that one did it well, and I think its rather encyclopedic rather than artistic. better than the brain one at least https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_media_addiction&oldid=prev&diff=877103311 E.3 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to take the editor's thank for ADHD papers as two for one against here D1thewave and reinsert that picture. No one has discussed boysmartphone.jpg what do you think about that? E.3 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I again removed the ADHD papers. Unless we have supporting sources, it's inappropriate to focus on a specific ADHD symptom like this. It implies that social media addiction leads to difficult organizing papers, instead of ADHD in general. –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Image list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
People with ADHD may find it difficult to organize paperwork. Social media addiction Social media icons An image uploaded to the internet in 2018 entitled "Boy Mobile Phone Addiction" File:Man Awake At Night In Bed Using Smartphone.jpg A man lying awake at night using his smartphone Psychology, sociology and social media A 2008 protest in relation to Google, and Scientology Street art referencing Pokemon Go in Montréal, Canada Social media addiction is correlated with ADHD. Treatment of ADHD has been shown to reduce car accidents. References

adhd and sleep

Those with risk of ADHD are at risk of developing other neuropsychiatric conditions when untreated, especially in the setting of chronic sleep deprivation.

Can someone explain what exactly is WP SYN here so I can fix it, its an important point i think E.3 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about social media addiction, not ADHD. Statements like this bring the implication that social media addiction may lead to sleep deprivation, which is not directly supported by any of the sources. If we're going to discuss the effects of ADHD, why are we singling out sleep deprivation? –dlthewave ☎ 17:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok I'll spend a bit of time on that. What consensus is that I have not sourced well is chronic tech addiction = correlated with adhd. Adhd with chronic sleep deprivation leads to hypomania or bipolar. Some of that is expert opinion, and I'll resarch again and cite it if it is reliable. I havent found it in literature or expert quotes yet just discussed with experts, i'll find it :) E.3 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You can certainly add this if it can be sourced in connection with the topic. We only use material that has been published by a reliable source, which can be frustrating when the topic at hand is at the leading edge of current research. Unfortunately your correspondence with experts cannot be used as a source, but perhaps they can point you to some of their published work. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is much unpublished work. I have access to it but cant cite it. You might see that the quotations in the media of one of the most reliable cites refers to this unpublished work. E.3 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

He notes that early results in a study involving real toys and iPads at Seattle Children's Hospital are investigating a difference whether very young children more "easily give ... back" real toys or iPads, and research is ongoing. I have seen this unpublished work. Also the cortese uses unpublished work. Theres others. Its hard. Do you think we should rename the article? I think perhaps "Digital dependencies and mental health" would be best. Then there can be sub articles for social media addiction and internet addiction and gaming addiction. E.3 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Is this well cited article unimportant? The guy is massive in ADHD. I think his opinion matters

Psychologists have been working on reinterpreting the concepts of smartphone addiction, ADHD and social media addiction for many years. An esteemed psychologist in Spain, Marino Pérez-Álvarez, published in 2017 that "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"."

Does Pérez-Álvarez discuss social media addiction? The first sentence is not supported by its source. The second sentence and source do not appear to be related to social media addiction. –dlthewave ☎ 17:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No he doesnt in this article. I can try to find where he does. If i put two of his quotes together does that count as syn? E.3 (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, an article where he discusses social media addiction is likely to be an acceptable source. I can't comment on the quotes without seeing them first; perhaps you could propose an edit so that we can discuss it. –dlthewave ☎ 18:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

References

WP:SYN and sourcing issues

I removed a significant amount of content which was unsourced, not supported by the source or original research.

• Sources which discuss ADHD, social media or addiction individually should not be combined to support conclusions that do not appear in any of the sources. This is synthesis, a violation of the No original research policy. For example, the image caption "Social media addiction is correlated with ADHD. Treatment of ADHD has been shown to reduce car accidents." implies a connection between social media addiction and car accidents that is not supported by any of the sources.
• There were several examples of off-topic commentary which seems intended to call sources into question such as "Nature published a review on "how data science can advance mental health research." It also continues to publish rat model scientific research on addiction. Many neuroscientific theories around addiction are considered to be outdated, with some remaining based on the Rat Park experiments in the 1970s, which were published in Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior." Although well-sourced, their connection to the topic is unclear.

Please discuss before reinserting this content. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OK Sure thats ok, but you also removed the most important meta-analysis on the issue and my explanation of that, I dont consider that WPSYN at all. I'm just stating directly what happened, there was bias in Cochranes previous metamnalysis, and it changed based on removing the bias in a new metaanalysis. Its all there did you read the paper? I dont syntetise anythng myself.

Happy for the ADHD and car accidents to go, but theyre just two separate facts. I dont draw a conclusion, but if thats syn thats fine.

You also removed the entire neurodevelopment section. You were happy with this section in December. Why? Thanks E.3 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Also with the speed that you are removing things and stating that they are SYN its hard for me to understand that you actually read the articles that I cite. We all have to be careful around bias here, its very strong both ways E.3 (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy for the Cortese meta-analysis to go back in? Thats all one article. They dont discuss social media addiction, but we are discussing ADHD the whole way through E.3 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Do the meta-analyses discuss social media addiction? This is not the place to cover ADHD in general.

Placing two statements next to each other implies some sort of connection or WP:SYN. I'm not sure why we would mention car accidents if they're unrelated to the topic.

The neurodevelopment source describes the connection between internet use and cognitive development, but it does not appear to discuss social media addiction specifically. I suppose that I did not notice this issue back in December. –dlthewave ☎ 18:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

So yes these things are all connected. I'm a doctor and I write like this in my other articles. Its hard for me. But can we see how they're all connected? Do we really have to have one article saying the whole thing in order to cite it? Ill probably try get something similar peer reviewed over at wikiversity anyway.

https://onlinesense.org/social-media-accidents/ Social media addiction, internet addiction, adhd, sleep deprivation, bipolar, neuroscience, journalism, anticompetitive law, consumer law, they're all connected. Its all there on the net, in reliable sources. Just not all of them mention social media addiction in that terminology specifically. Where's the SYN line? E.3 (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Its a much bigger article than just for one person. Thats why im using wikipedia. Theres so many opinions out there, but theyre coming together, more and more. These things are directly connected, the neuroscience is showing it slowly, and the others are showing it too. As i state in the introduction, people have said this from the start, and no one listened. Theres huge things with journalism and the ACCC. yes they dont mention social media addiction all the time, but often they do. The whole algorithm regulation thing is huge though. If you take a look at my wikiversity article draft you might see what i'm trying to show with the connections. I'm just not so sure how much of it is currently appropriate with SYN because i am certainly not an encyclopedia writer, im a doctor. E.3 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of psychiatry in a psychiatric article

That is the most bizarre edit of them all. This is psychiatry and neuroscience, it is neurodevelopment too. This is a most bizarre editwithout achieving any consensus with me. Sure you can debate whether there should be a journalism section. But deleting psychiatry in a psychiatric article?

And this article should directly discuss ADHD, it already is. That is not synthesis, that is consensus. Social media addiction and ADHD are correlated, so we dicuss what the experts state about both. Any less is a disservice to readers of the article and quite biased in my opinion. E.3 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@E.3: Content added to the article must be supported by a reliable source. Medical content added needs to be supported by a reliable medical source. The source must reflect exactly the content that it supports in the artcle. You cannot add a reliable source on ADHD to make a statement about Social media addiction, you can add a reliable source on Social media addiction to make a statement about Social media addiction. --Treetear (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks for the help. I get it. It is hard for me because 1. I am a doctor I usually synthetise when I write 2. Still a new editor 3. controversial article, and I'm not getting much help, just being told off most of the time. I need help, its clearly of high importance. 4. I have a COI. E.3 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I want Cortese back. There is no reason why the main meta-analysis about ADHD should not be on the page, when it says exactly the opposite to the last one. That is of high importance. Also the opinions of the ADHD psychologist. There is a proven correlation, we agree the page is psychiatric and medical, we agree about the correlation with ADHD. So the ADHD psychologist needs to come back. We do not need to have every single reference stating "social media addiction" in those exact terminology for it to be cited. It is not synthesis to cite what experts state in different sections. It is consensus. But most editors just dont read the citations and consider me to be breaking the rules. I disagree. Don't keep deleting, achieve conensus and help! we can see that it is of high importance. I have no idea why this wiki considers it to be of low importance in psychology. The reason is cognitive bias. We know this. E.3 (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Since medicine rated it of low importance too, I'll just put them back. there is no synthesis here at all in Cortese or neurodevelopment. I do not have to cite social media addiction articles all the time when consensus is that it is correlated with ADHD. We agree on the introduction, so I use the best medical sources available and to not synthesise with them. Now just let it be, and perhaps read the citations before saying they are synthesis. Then we'll try some more another day. E.3 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Two things: 1. We only paraphrase sources on Wikipedia. 2. If the content is irrelevant to the article, it may be removed. Adding good content on ADHD to the Social media addiction article, that is irrelevant to Social media addiction, is bad. And don't get too stuck on the WikiProject ratings. --Treetear (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Combining sources that say it correlates with ADHD and sources that talk about ADHD but not Social media addiction is very clear WP:SYNTH. The only sources you should be using here are ones that directly talk about social media addiction; this is very clear per our policies WP:V and WP:OR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

(WP:OR: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we rename the article "Social media and ADHD" then E.3 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Other possible titles "Digital media dependencies and correlations with mental health" "ADHD and digital dependencies" "ADHD and social media addiction" "Mental health and digital dependencies" E.3 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

These sound like appropriate titles for an essay or research paper, not an encyclopedia article. If we did use one of the proposed titles, we would still need sources that support the connection between ADHD/mental health and social media addiction, otherwise we would have the same WP:SYN issue and the topic would likely not meet the General Notability Guideline. –dlthewave ☎ 23:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've again removed Cortese, the neurodevelopment section and a few other sentences whose sources do not support the social media connection. This has been discussed and there seems to be consensus that it is WP:SYN. –dlthewave ☎ 23:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Quite literally all the sources support the connection. they are the most reputable sources in the world. Note the impact factor of the publications if thats a measure you trust. It is notable that they are saying things like experiments on children, commenting that bias is underconsidered in Cochranes metaaalysis, stating that we must return to meta science to work out ADHD, its quite notable. Whether the guideline supports this notability, I have no idea. E.3 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not an essay. It is me trying to write a neutral encyclopedic article on a global mental health issue that no one really helps with or calls "low importance" or "likely not meet general notability guidelines" or stating that I break your guidelines without reading the papers I am citing, stating that this is an essay'. I highly recommend that certain editors have. read of the Wiki pages on cognitive bias before we consider further edits. E.3 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Lets leave this page as it stands

I think that's probably best. I think I'll start to write a new page called "Digital dependencies and global mental health" in my sandbox over the next few days. Then we can consider if it meets notability guidelines. E.3 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Any suggestions on the title most welcome. As you can see we can't even agree worldwide on what the title of "digital anthropology" should be. E.3 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be quite bold and nominate this as high medical importance due to deletions of medical citations without achieving consensus

Thanks for the input, but I need some help from the medical portal. We can't delete psychiatry from a psychiatric article. E.3 (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Images for discussion for possible inclusion

OK being rather artistic myself I'm quite happy to have found a few appropriately licensed encyclopaedic pics to image the condition. I will not ever try to use my own again. Other people are better than me at doing this. I'll try find more and place these on the list below. Any comments most welcome. 02:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

At present I don't know how to remove the "the discussion has been closed" tag. E.3 (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not married to any of the images. I think that Pokemon GO and the map are good. I'll add boysmartphone now, because this is essentially a child mental health article, and that is what the uploader on pixabay called it. I think thats encyclopaedic, but just delete. I think with those images thats probably enough for the whole article. Any comments appreciated and welcome, as always E.3 (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please help me with closing the discussion around the images as we can't add any more talk after it, the discussion appears to have become dormant. Want to discuss the new European consensus statement thxE.3 (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Social media addiction images
Image list
An image uploaded to the internet in 2018 entitled "Boy Mobile Phone Addiction" File:Man Awake At Night In Bed Using Smartphone.jpg A man lying awake at night using his smartphone Psychology, sociology and social media Pokemon GO is the most reliable article in the whole piece File:DigitalAnthropology.jpeg For the anthropology subheading as the author of the photo is cited. Less artistic than his other picture above — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC) File:Denver Art Museum.jpeg This could be of some use for anthropology E.3 (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC) This could be for technology, I might just go ahead and insert this one as its already used elsewhere E.3 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Updated European Consensus Statement on ADHD 2019

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933818301962#bib0645

(Redacted)

Can involved editors please have a read of this consensus statement and we'll decide together what to include and what not to include. Much obliged. E.3 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the content which you copy-and-pasted from the source as a copyright violation, but editors may still view it via the free-access link.

Frankly I'm not sure how any of this relates to social media addiction. Did I miss where it is mentioned in the source? –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes they say it twice. Just not that exact terminology. It appears I'm trying to bring all the terminology together somewhat if you look at my Wikiversity article. We do not have to put evreything in a fixed category depending on exactly what English words were said at a particular time. 1.152.107.187 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking, what terminology do they use? –dlthewave ☎ 14:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"hyperfocus" mentions it. basically a "symptom" of ADHD makes you use social media more. and also "internet use" being a risk factor. E.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Also thought it might be notable to point out here that sometimes doctors from other specialty fields push back a lot against this and it is all around linguistic misunderstandings sometimes. I do not know why a surgeon feels like they must speak out against social media addiction, referring to old studies without citing new ones like we have here but this kind of cognitive bias is how we ended up here in the first place, in my opinion. This is a tough topic and I think we've done remarkably well so far. Thanks everyone! https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/addictions/75194 1.152.107.187 (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Linguistics

OK since everyone seems quite convinced that we can't quote literally anything that doesn't state "social media addiction" in that exact terminology, ever, failing whatever policy, it looks like we're going to need the new article "digital dependencies and global mental health". I'll basically start it from what I had in my sandbox originally. Thanks E.3 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I am going to place that in the anthropology portal with high importance at class C. This is because I believe their portal may be best able to assist with the development of the article at this stage, and they are extremely important to the issue. E.3 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is not achieved when you simply state ???? or random other things and delete=

There are multiple involved editors here. I am going to revert all your edits and we can achieve consensus around them before you just delete them. Thankyou. E.3 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC) I've put anthropology back. We can see that other wikis are happy with that section especially French who had a huge discussion about anthropology.

I can understand how everyone feels like this is a "proposed diagnosis". I propose that we propose who on earth we trust. I suggest we do not trust the DSM, but rather consensus opinion. Please discuss further edits and achieve consensus otherwise the whole article will be deleted within a few weeks, everyone has a piece to say on the issue, virtually in the world E.3 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want a more thorough explanation on my edit summmary "???", it was because the text removed in that edit was fluff, essay-like and the out-of-nowhere quote was frankly not relevant to the article and/or bore no information. Please will you acknowledge that you have understood what several people have written to you (here and on your talk page), that we only cite sources here on Wikipedia. That means, yes, we must use exact wordings otherwise it is WP:SYN as already pointed out. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with encyclopedic articles, not essays. The fact that other wikis do something is irrelevant (related topic: WP:OTHER).

As you have a COI, please be more careful in editing the article and seek consensus instead, see WP:COIEDIT. --Treetear (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Please note that I also have the condition ADHD and some of this is a symptom called "hyper focus" or "emotional dysregulation." E.3 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we please specifically discuss cognitive bias if we think it is relevant. We all have it, I think it is just as important as NPOV in this type of article.E.3 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I obviously created the page digital dependencies and global mental health without understanding that I should have proposed it under AfC first. That needs to be discussed, I have asked for it to be under the anthropology portal to begin with naming it high importance. I disclosed the COI on the page. E.3 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I partially understand the policies around COI and synthesis, and no original research, and I read them repetitively. I acknowledge my COI again and my mental health condition, and attempt never to edit war. I also point out that I find it very difficult to exactly understand the meaning of particular words and phrases, reading metaphor into quite literally everything. notable examples include the word "essay" "conflict" etc. Thankyou E.3 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we discuss the letter to the editor

"(this source is a comment on the JAMA Psychiatry source, and the topic on Angry Birds and Pokémon Go is misquoted in the current text. Removing such a letter to the editor. nowhere does this source say that the cited article (jama 2018) is covering mentioned games. Using "Experts" is misattributing the cited comment/letter." I think the letters important and dont quite understand the comment here. This is how I'm not doing syn mainly by using this expert opinion, can we explain exactly what I've done wrong here? E.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's good if you try to not WP:SYN. Do read WP:MEDRS which has been linked before (and is, albeit not clearly, in the edit summary you quote). Even when clearly attributed it is strongly recommended against such sources. --Treetear (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good. Because in my opinion this topic is much broader than medicine (hence creation of the other page) can you please explain to me if WP:MEDRS applies directly on the other page? Thanks E.3 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

apologies for the edit with the Canadian guidelines

I get it. I won't edit this page without permission. Are we OK with the EU guidelines being in it with that quote? E.3 (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also can someone remove the GAN as its clearly not anymore. Is the other? E.3 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Do the EU guidelines mention social media addiction? –dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

They state exactly what I put on the page. No, not in those three words. E.3 (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the reason for the other page that I created. I suggest that we don't have to use those three words in every single citation if the related article is broader with a broader title, rather than the narrow focus of this page. E.3 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Someone recently created the article Digital dependencies and global mental health, which appears expanded and more detailed compared to this one. Because the subject matter is the same, I suggest that the content be merged from there to here. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes that was me and quite obviously i'm the bulk contributor to both pages. The reason is because the three words, in my opinion "social media addiction" I agree with all editors on this page stating that we should only really cite high reputable medical sources on this on this particular page. The other page, can include reputable sources on the broad, interrelated issues from other disciplines, namely digital anthropology and others that I've mentioned there. I have made it very encyclopedic and neutral, I dont think theres any essay like content. There is no self promotion, I've tried very very hard to ensure there is no synthesis, every thing is cited on that page with a very reputable source. It does not push any point of view at all, I suggest, I even state depression at the start etc etc . E.3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Anachronist, That article is basically a fork of this one because content was removed from this article for being WP:SYNTH or failing MEDRS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes every time i've failed WP:SYNTH I addressed that on the new page. MEDRS I have asked questions about - when is expert opinion acceptable for instance. I suggest that we can quote many medical experts on the topic. E.3 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to suggest that as per the MEDRS 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. - that page is society and culture rather than entirely medical E.3 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I just made this explicit on the first sentence with the anthropological quote from the University of London "Digital dependencies are biopsychosocial phenomena caused by overuse of digital platforms, that behave differently in individual societies and cultures." E.3 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK i have joined the projects of Anthropology and Sociology and tried to follow their guidelines, stated that its in their portals and rated it as per my best assessment as I understood (but may be incorrect) I am allowed to do being a new member of their Wikiprojects. E.3 (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Digital dependencies and global mental health is a copy of an older version of Social media addiction. The "expanded and more detailed" content was removed from this article as WP:SYN. Although it has the superficial appearance of being well-sourced, a thorough review will reveal the fact that most of the sources do not actually mention social media addiction. There's nothing usable to merge. –dlthewave ☎ 05:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with caution It looks like most of the copied content has been removed, and some of the new material could be merged. –dlthewave ☎ 13:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Can you please point me to exactly what is WP:SYN in the new article, I've tried to address every single concern about it from the edits here. It is no longer a medical article. This is the medical article, that is the society and culture article, that is the reason for the need for two articles, in my opinion. Thankyou for your help you've been great i wouldnt have been able to do any of it without these edits. E.3 (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I was saying that if the content is merged back into this article, it would bring back the WP:SYN and WP:MEDRS issues. I'm not sure if the new article itself is WP:SYN in the context of the Digital dependencies and global mental health topic, I haven't reviewed it yet. –dlthewave ☎ 06:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh i get it. Sorry I literally misunderstand about 40% of what is ever said to me over an electronic device E.3 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Also it is not a copy. It has a different title, different scope, different citations. Every single time SYN was mentioned I tried my best to remove it, it's no longer there if you read the new article. It is in different portals that I am now a member of the Wikiprojects rather than the medical one. I don't want to edit the medical one anymore as we can see it is very controversial, I just dont want it to be deleted like it was in 2011. I note that editor appears not to edit anymore. E.3 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment An AfD has been opened for "Digital dependencies and global mental health", so this discussion may be redundant at this point. –dlthewave ☎ 13:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The scope and title of this page is clearer than the proposed target. Just about everything is going "digital" now -- see the internet of things -- and, as the resulting phenomena are new and unsettled, it's better to be specific than to try to cover them with a vague catch-all. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we bring some of the neuroscience and psychiatry back that I wrote on the other page that im suggesting to be more sociological?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_dependencies_and_global_mental_health&diff=877385795&oldid=877385123

What do we think should these come back to this page in some way shape or form? E.3 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also please note I am completely happy with rewrites and any form of collaboration, I have asked since my very first edit on the medical portal. I am still suprised at its importance rating. This is most confusing to me. We have quite literally all of the experts that i've cited disagree with its importance rating. E.3 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

all the better cites are in previous revisions

I started citing terribly because of linguistics there was somewhat of a requirement at one stage for the three words "social media addiction" to be present as well as being reputable. CADDRA 2018 guidelines and EU consensus statement says everything. Just not quite those three little words. Also all metaanalyses do not say them. They are the highest quality evidence. E.3 (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

under MEDRS we have to think about weight and false balance. I suggest that the weight is towards the consensus statement and the guideline, and the false balance I have given due consideration in my most neutrally written article on the other page. The DSM and the ICD-11 have given it all consideration, but they are unable to keep updating as quickly as the evidence does, however the guidelines, experts and consensus statements do. E.3 (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

What is Pokemon GO other than a social media app?

Its all linguistics again in my opinion. There is one good medical study. Because it does not say "social media addiction" its not allowed on the so called medical page? And therefore nothing about ADHD is allowed on this page? E.3 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Also that was not my edit. That was a senior editors edit. E.3 (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you want to title the page? Social media addiction might not be right. But they use heaps of different words to describe it, its the commonest one. I know from discussing with these people they are ACTIVELY trying to change terminology. And then editors just delete without consensus because the three little words aren't there. Then the article is virtually useless. Do you see my point? E.3 (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Medical correlations with social media overuse

That might be a better title. Then we won't be forced by linguistic policies to cite tiny studies from India and ancient studies from a decade ago only? E.3 (talk)

Request for comment around MEDRS

There is a lot of confusion in my opinion in this page as to how MEDRS applies. We have a high quality, well reported (worldwide reported and cited) about social media (Pokemon Go) namely being correlated but not causative to ADHD. They don't say the three words "social media addiction" in this study. Therefore ADHD is not allowed to be mentioned, and the rest of the previous edits I have made become worthless. I have removed all WP:SYNTH as best as I am able with the kind assistance of these same editors. EU Consensus statement around ADHD states internet use. But not "social media addiction". Also hyper focus causing problematic internet use. Not "social media addiction" No meta analysis around ADHD is allowed to be used. Nothing from any other field is allowed to be used because of MEDRS, which is why I created digital dependencies and global mental health. This page always has content removed, sometimes appropriately, but digital addict does not. I have just discussed with some experts and that is because they are moving away from this terminology, being so stigmatising to the afflicted people. It however means we are unable to use any reliable source such as guidelines, EU consensus statements, metaanalyses etc. I am the only person really adding anything to the page, everyone reads MEDRS slightly differently as to how it applies here. This is a unique page in regard to MEDRS because it is so current. It is of high importance, regardless of what the portals in this page have stated. The suggestions I was given to add re internet addiction metaanalyses were already deleted prior to the suggestion, because of the linguistics. Expert opinion (even when they all say the same thing, using slightly different words) is deleted. I think we need clarification from uninvolved editors as to how MEDRS applies to this, and whether exemptions may apply. This is a high importance medical issue, and we cannot with this impasse make it encyclopedic at all, in my opinion the article as it stands is useless. E.3 (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If its because its not a secondary source, Uptodate perhaps we can quote? "Another possible explanation for new onset of ADHD symptoms in adolescents is frequent digital media use (eg, checking social media, playing games alone, video chatting). In a longitudinal cohort of 2587 15- and 16-year-olds who did not have self-reported symptoms of ADHD at baseline, self-reported higher-frequency digital media use was associated with self-reported ADHD symptoms over two years of follow-up [94]. The frequent distraction and rapid feedback of digital media may disrupt normal development of sustained attention, impulse control, and ability to delay gratification. In addition, digital media may displace other activities that build attention span and executive function [94,95]. It remains to be determined whether symptoms that develop in response to media use require or respond to typical ADHD treatments." All secondary sources currently citing it are here: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=12121365218872112063&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en E.3 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we can neutralise it with this letter? The other letter I was trying to cite said it too. "We agree that a number of factors may influence the results of Ra and colleagues. For example, both cognition and digital media use could be influenced by family chaos, sleep, academic disinterest, peer activity, and excessive passive leisure time. In addition, adolescents long have been distracted by a range of media—from science fiction books to rock music. Digital media use could be a result, rather than a source, of typical adolescent sensation seeking."E.3 (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello E.3. Thanks for your work on this. I agree with you on one general point: 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.

In this case though, I'm struggling to see how the application of MEDRS is the problem. I see that especially since Jan 6th, there have a been lots of removals from the article - it might help if you posted specific diffs of the ones you feel represent a miss - application of MEDRS? It looks to me that many of the removals were due to WP:OR & WP:Synth concerns, even if that wasn't always stated explicitly. It's exciting to see someone of your obvious talent & passion working on this critical issue, but it looks to me like you might have made a few inaccurate assumptions which are making things difficult for you. I'm going to post at length about this on your talk page, as some of what I'd like to say is out of scope for this RfC. And also, if you don't find my comments helpful, you're obviously free to just to delete when it's on your talk. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

happy for importance ratings so long as they are the same I was just trying to avoid appearance of gender bias

thanks everyone E.3 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 20 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Daniellapetralito.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amsberry37.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JessPThom.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tiffany1679.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annyamariee. Peer reviewers: Hennock,l.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HANZHIZOU.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannah8615.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jooookerr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

New contributions

I reverted the below text. Some of it seems helpful and useable, but as per previous revisions, consensus needs to be achieved around WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. I have marked it as needing attention from an expert in Medicine other than myself. Some text originally here has moved to Digital media use and mental health, which is a GA candidate under revision at present.

Thanks to all contributors!

--E.3 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Addictive Strategies

Social media applications seemed forced to incorporate many addictive strategies as they develop. These applications are run with a specific goal in mind; to retain people's attention longer than their competitors. Their success is built on the development of the "Smartphone Generation" which refers to the influx of teenagers and young adults who lives are replicated and built through their smartphones and the apps it can hold.

These applications (like Instagram, Twitter and Facebook) are inherently gamified with how they function: in many of the apps, there is the presence of the 'reputation system' which describes how the user gains 'points' or notoriety within the app by using it correctly (and usually frequently). This can appear in the form of followers or likes on posts, and since the invention of social media, younger generations continue to associate these number with their social status. The applications also create feedback loops that trigger "intrinsic motivations to participate in generating content." These motivators include the ability to tag people in pictures and statuses (to show that you important and to feel included), the ability to comment and receive comments when appropriately 'using' the site or application, and the ability to receive likes, retweets, or reposts on your content. It provides the user with the belief that their contribution is valued and important. The presence of all the strategies are only reinforced younger generations become more invested in the applications, and the information they can hold. Complete digital realities are starting to exist, replacing much person to person contact. Teenagers are finding themselves more comfortable talking, 'hanging out' or having important discussions through media or messaging. This is both a societal change, and a growing outcome due to the addictive strategies present on these websites.

--E.3 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Title to problematic social media use

Recognising the controversy of the addiction terminology, its avoidance at problematic smartphone use for some time, and that the terminology is updating in the literature, here, here, here (1.3 million google scholar results) as opposed to here (750k google scholar results), I propose that we rename this page problematic social media use. --E.3 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 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: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Social media addiction → Problematic social media use – Recognising the controversy of the addiction terminology, its avoidance at problematic smartphone use for some time, and that the terminology is updating in the literature, here, here, here (1.3 million google scholar results) as opposed to here (750k google scholar results), I propose that we rename this page "Problematic social media use" [E.3][chat2][me] 11:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support – this may not count for much, but, in contrast with other clearly addictive behaviors, I don't really see how overusing social media could cause this process to occur. A lot of literature conflates addiction and dependence/withdrawal syndromes without regard for the fact that they're distinct pathologies. While the DSM and ICD don't really do a good job at classifying behavioral addictions to begin with, there's no diagnostic classification for a social media use-related disorder as a "social media addiction" in either diagnostic manual; so, we shouldn't be inventing our own classification with that article title. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

I would really like to add a section on scales and measurements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsberry37 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Problematic social media use scales and related studies

There are many different scales that have been created to look at social media use disorders and risk assessment tools for addiction. It is extremely important to list tools, scales, studies that will validate the fact that this is a real problem. I want to place different tools and scales on this site to help the general public and academic colleagues to assess and predict addiction risks. it is also important to understand the causes and effects of over use that leads to abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsberry37 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Problematic social media use/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this. Give me a few days. Normally I would, obviously, assess this against the GA criteria; if you are wanting to take it on to FA, I could assess to that level to give you a flying start, as it were. Your choice. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• There seems to be a bit of overlap between non-quotation prose in the article and the Vitality Unleashed web site - see here. Any thoughts?
• A little low on images. Perhaps copy in one (or two) from one of your other articles?

Apologies E.3. Things have become a bit busy recently. I am aware of this and will get back to it soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• "in various life domains" Does that mean in plural life domains? Or in one or more?
• "it appears to affect individuals based on the social media platform used" I know what you mean, but possibly "based" → 'depending'?
• "daily responsibilities" What is a daily responsibility?
• "a manifestation of underlying psychiatric disorders" Just checking that "disorders" if definitely plural?
• "Researchers have approached the question from a variety of viewpoints, with no universally standardized or agreed definitions." I suspect that in this sentence you are mixing the approaches to "whether the disorder is a separate clinical entity" and the definition of "problematic social media use". If so, I suggest splitting the sentence; if not, I suggest clarifying.
• Generally I would expect the main article to open with a definition; you do this with the lead. Possibly a new, opening, section: "Definition[s]?
• "in children and young people" Only in children and young people?
• "effect size" What is this?
• "Signs and symptoms" The 2nd and 4th sentences of this are spookily similar. The fact that they are in reverse chronological order is confusing. What if anything is the connection between them. Are they two meta-studies a year apart studying the same thing and getting the same result.
• "was shown in a cohort study in 15- and 16-year-olds" Suggest second "in" → 'of'.
• "to have a modest association with self-reported symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder followed up over two years" I honestly don't know what this means. Do you mean '... when questioned on the latter two years later?
• "A 2016 technical report" We are going back in time again. Is there a reason for the order of presentation of these three syudies?
• "adolescent mental health" Just checking whether that should be 'adolescents' '?
• "It showed that the amount of time spent on social media is not the key factor, but rather how time is spent." Suggest 'It showed that the key factor was not the amount of time spent on social media, but rather how this time is spent.'
• It may be that I am being slow, but I am struggling to understand the distinction between "passively consumed" and "more actively engaged"> Perhaps an example or two of each would help?

@E.3: I have only done the lead and the first section, and apart from the usual bits and pieces am hitting a lot places where things are not very accessible. Could I suggest that you work through the areas I have commented on above, then go through the rest trying to improve the flow and remove or explain any jargon or technical terms? Ping me when you are happy for me to continue the assessment. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Almaty. It's been seven weeks. If I don't see any action over the next couple of days, I'll close this as unresponsive. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Failing for lack of response. Which is a pity, as it is an important topic and the article is in good shape. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Renaming & Reorganizing Sections

I think that the heading “Signs and Symptoms” does not match the content of the section which is a review of recent research. Rather that heading would more appropriately characterize the material collected under the heading “Diagnosis.” Renaming the section something like “Recent Research Findings” would also allow for needed a more systematic re-organization of the page. Much of the material could be kept under the existing headings, such as “Diagnosis” and “[Psychological] Mechanisms.” However, some of it might more naturally be combined as in the case of the one item section entitled “Limiting the Use of Social Media” (which describes only a single study reporting improved well-being among mainly female users of certain platforms). Dwarner201 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Diagnosis revision

I think the author should off added more examples to the diagnosis sections to elaborate on how people showed different factors of addiction for social media. And also go in-depth with what age group of individuals usually expresses these factors of addiction and which of these factors of addiction are mostly common. For example, I would probably add the different age groups or gender of individuals who expressed each factor of addiction “ member in the “at-risk” withdrawal and tolerance group were likely females who used social media for more than 30 hours per week have low self-esteem and high level of depression” adding something like this would help compare and contrast between the different factors. Oriannek2001 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Mechanisms

More detail in the two sections under the Mechanisms tab could be helpful as the descriptions of the studies provided are very brief and do not provide enough detail or data. Having more context and reasoning of the studies provided can improve one's understanding of the studies and how they contribute to this page. Actual data and numbers from the studies can further credit the sources and provide for a more accurate understanding. Additionally, results can be provided to the data in order to provide support. It would be useful in analyzing and explaining the data provided. There are not enough examples in the two sections to really back up the information to make it validated. Going through each of the examples that are being used would give better insight into the paragraphs and make them sound a lot better along with having the right information to be able to back it up. In general though, just adding more information about the research that was done would help out the two sections immensely.

Content Revision

Currently, the section “Platform-specific risks” covers only the study in the United Kingdom. I suggest to revise the section adding one or two sources and discussions based on studies in the United States.

I would recommend adding another study "Problematic Social Media Use and Depressive Symptoms among U.S. Young Adults: A Nationally-Representative Study “Problematic Social Media Use and Depressive Symptoms among U.S. Young Adults: A Nationally-Representative Study” conducted in the United States in 2016. The study has assessed whether there is an association between PSMU (problematic social media use) and depressive symptoms among a nationally representative sample of U.S. young adults, while controlling for overall SMU (social media use). The findings of the study were consistent with other studies, but the results also found that PSMU is independently associated with depressive symptoms regardless of overall time spent on social media and that frequency of SMU may be an additional behavioral risk factor. Also, the section “Platform-specific risks” does not cover an important issue of using a small number of different media platforms compared with many platforms simultaneously and whether it correlated with change in the depression rate. I would recommend adding the results of the study conducted in the United States by Pitts Center for Research on Media, Technology, and Health in 2014. 1,787 young adults were sampled with the goal to assess depression while using a different number of the most popular social media platforms. The study showed that participants who used a lot of them had 3 times more depression symptoms than participants who used just a few.

A. Everette James, JD, MBA., director of Pitt’s Health Policy Institute, is senior author of the research publication. Additional authors are Ariel Shensa, MA, Erica Barrett, Jaime E. Sidani, PhD, MPH, and Jason Colditz, MEd.

Shensa A, Escobar-Viera, CG, Sidani JE, Bowman ND, Marshal MP, Primack BA. Problematic social media use and depressive symptoms among U.S. young adults: a nationally-representative study. Social Science & Medicine. 2017;182:150-157. PMID: 28446367.

MarkV2019 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

References