Talk:Internet addiction disorder/Archive 1

Systemic bias

As far as objectivity goes, it's probably not a great idea to have a bunch of frequent internet users writing about an addiction they may well have.

Well, somebody has to write it. --DanielCD 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hooray for Wikipedia bias!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias? So you're saying it's logically justified that someone, just by being a Wikipedia editor, is too biased to write this article? Interesting logic. The comment wasn't that serious. --DanielCD 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I started this topic originally a few years ago because I wrote a paper about the subject. I just wanted to share my findings. Noah 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good. This thread is just about nonsense response to a nonsense comment that got out of hand. --DanielCD 23:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As biased individuals, internet users are able to add their personal experiences as relevant information.David ju (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Internet Addiction Disorder

I added a brief outline of what IAD is, and included another short section stating some criticisms of the theorized disorder. With all likely-hood IAD will be added to the DSM-V which is due out before 2010. If anyone would like to add some internal linking please be my guest. I added several references if you would like to double check the information provided. Any other questions either ask here, or in the discussion area on my page. Noah 07:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Mmcdougall 19:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Consider merging or taking large bits from Computer addiction

Surprisingly enough...

... no one listed Wikipedia as an example. :) « alerante ✆ ✉ » 14:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I am addicted to Wikipedia. It's like asking God questions, it knows everything.

I see I'm not the first.

We're all addicted to wikipedia one way or the other. Wikipediholics is the term used to describe such person. Sooner or later, someone will study the wikipedia addiction. I hope it will be me!--Janarius 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this article is clearly POV, wikipedia is an addiction or requires to be an addiction in order to work, for example here is how Wikipedia resembles other addictions:

• one try wont hurt, thats what all the dealers say... one look for info here at wikipedia and youll be hooked into looking for more info, and then contributing with a word or two to the article... it gets sicker and sicker until the last phase, you find yourself actually spending 3 hours re-writing an article about "Technotronic".
• did i say re-write?, here's phase two, to watch over the article and visit it 5 times a day to make sure that no one changes it because of whatever stupid made-up law (whats a weasel word??).
• has your article stayed in place?, cos like a marihuana plant, it needs constant care (vandals!, they are going to come and write "poop" somewhere on the article), and like a World of Warcraft character, you need to build it up until you get a nomination for good article, without any real reward except maybe an extension to the "40 virgins by Allah" thingie.
• by this point, family and friends are secondary to your articles you watch, and if you still have friends, you sure found your way to outsmart them them with little crappy trivia ("bet you didnt knew that Harry Truman's middle name was just S., no... see?, you didnt"), boring them a little a long the way, when they rememeber that you used to watch Football with them instead of writing articles about it.
• by this point, you probably spend 4 hours a day discussing articles, watching if anyone has made a change to your articles... and, god forbids, you even had gaved money to wikipedia. You probably feel yourself like a good "wikipedian" too.
• positive things about wikipedia, or the great fallacy: youll probably be somewhat smarter, but a snobbish smart guy if we see that most of what you have learned is actually just concentrated information, and quite often POV. Would you accept an open heart surgery just because the guy who is making the surgery is a wikipedian that went through the articles "heart", "surgery" and "Optimus Prime" last night?... no one in its right mind would, this fake sense of actually feeling like we have learned something, thats perhaps what keeps wikipedia running. A horrible addiction to feeling smarter than the rest, that sweet Dopamine that the brain releases.

This is not ridiculous. I have a son that just turned 13. For the past 6 school years he has received straight A's in school and was accepted to participate in the John Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. This past Christmas we remodeled his room and put a computer with internet access in his room. Slowly each marking period his grades dropped, letters where coming home from his teachers regarding missing homework, and he stopped spending time with Family to go online. I found out that he was involved in this web site called Runescape which is a virtual dungeons and dragons. We have restricted access, and even moved the computer out of his room. Now he sneaks out of his room at 1am to go online. I am not one to jump on band wagons but I am seeing this happen right in front of my eyes.

Who is to blame? Everyone, from the parents, kids, and the providers online. Today in social settings, work and in school we use the internet. Why? My son has done 5 research papers for school without putting a foot in the library. As a society we have to say enough is enough. I need help because I am at wits end.

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end. It helps people keep track of who wrote which bits. I'm sorry that it disturbs you to learn that your teenaged son likes playing a computer game better than doing his schoolwork, but that doesn't make him "addicted." In fact, it probably makes him normal in his motivations. I doubt that you'd make the same "addiction" claim if his homework suffered because he liked throwing around a baseball, playing to his friends, or reading comic books. There's just not enough difference between playing a complex D&D game in person and playing it online to make one of them a "disease" and the other one be a "game." Your son might need help making more future-thinking and mature decisions (what teenager doesn't?), but a teenager is not sick because he prefers playing a computer game to chasing a perfect grade point average or hanging out with his parents. (If you were actually serious about keeping that computer off at night, the power cable(s) would be under your own pillow at one in the morning. Didn't you ever hear about parents removing spark plug wires to make sure grounded kids were stuck at home?) WhatamIdoing 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I need help. I can't get off the computer because of Wikipedia. Does anyone know if there is a help group like AA that can assist me to kick my addiction? "Hello, my name is RisingSun, and I'm an addict." --RisingSunWiki 00:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

I think the fact that they are even considering turning this in to a mental disorder is ridiculous. There is no way that one can become addicted to the internet. You simply cannot build up "tolerance" to the internet like you can with drugs and even gambling.

I admit that some people are on the internet way too much and that it could cause problems for that person, but it is not an addiction. It is simply an obsession that is probably co-existing with other psychological problems like depression. A perfect example of someone like that would be me.

I sincerely hope that this disorder does not actually appear in the offical DSM-IV. If it does than I think psychiatry is going a little too far. Pretty soon they are going to be handing out drugs for people who are a little bit shy. It is the sad truth.

Internet addiction can definitely be a symptom of ADHD, depression, anxiety or OCD. However, one may also display excessive internet use independently of those four disorders, implying that IA is not only comorbid, but could possibly be a cause in itself. There is a tolerance syndrome associated with compulsive web browsing, and the instant gratification involved gives a constant dopamine rush to reward and addiction centers in the brain. Internet addiction fits well within the dopamine pathway reinforcement model of addiction. --BV 16 OCT 2011

I understand that internet addiction may seem ridiculous and you have given a good point that other disorders may be a factor. However, we cannot be sure that these are the causes or symptoms of internet addiction. Of course, it would years before the next edition of the DSM comes out and in the meantime many professionals would have made considerable discussions. Please sign your posts. --Janarius 14:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a psychological addiction, and it is real. It would include Internet pornography addiction, as well as things like using chat and such (even Wikipedia?) as a substitute for real-world relations. It's really more complicated than it may seem. I understand your concern, and it is legitimate: things should be questioned in the stimulus/label-saturated world we live in. But I do think there is a good deal of legitimacy to the concept. I don't know about any actual diagnosis, but there is something here that merits formal conceptualizing. Is there another article on Computer addiction in general? I think that the Internet is more a concern though because that's how people exchange things and connect.

In fact, I came to this article to ask if anyone is familiar with any concepts drawing a similarity between road rage and angry Wikipedians, something like "Internet rage". Things can seem impersonal on the computer, and people get driven into a rage over nothing. Unfortinately, I myself can confess to being prey to this difficulty, which is why I thought examining the issue a little more may help me define and deal with it better. But if anyone knows about any such ideas, please LMK. Thanks. --DanielCD 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note Per my reading on the subject, the construct validity of Internet addiction is still very poor. It is not a formal term and not a part of any formal diagnosis, and should not be treated as such. It has yet to be defined as to separate it from the influence of other possible comorbidities. --DanielCD 14:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

For those keeping track, many of the disorders in the DSM lack construct validity due to limited understanding of direct relationships between neurotransmission and actual psychological disorders.

From my research, I came to the conclusion that "internet addiction" does not exist, but "excessive internet overuse" does. There's a difference, although slight. The "addiction" is being compared to gambling, which is very anti-social, while the internet is extremely social, as shown on Wikipedia. Noah 16:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not online social interaction actually counts as legitimate human interaction is subject to debate. For example, right now I'm "speaking" to complete strangers whose "responses" to what I'm saying will never physically reach me. Communication is for the most part non-verbal. I read the words everyone of you writes, and I'm forced to fill in the non-verbal cues using my imagination. Bouncing thoughts off of an imaginary person who reads from the text you've posted off of a message board is indeed dissociative and anti-social, and must not be confused with social intercourse. --BV 16 October 2011

I don't think that something that can help someone with disabilities and cannot get out very much, find other people in that same situation to communicate with, as isolating.Ms cat mom (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Neopets

Somebody should add something about the addictive properties of neopets.com. No joke, I was seriously addicted to that site for almost two years and had to get blocking software to block it for months until I taught myself to use it in moderation. I am not the only one who experiences this, and it seems to affect preteens and young teenagers (9-15 age group) the most.

Lady6String 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This concept...

I think this is a silly concept, despite spending 10+ hours a day on the internet - while I would enjoy spending even more time it's because it's something I enjoy, just like most people would prefer to do more of their hobbies than do less of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.4.39 (talk • contribs)

I think the point is that, for some people, it becomes a problem they have difficulty controlling, even though it has a negative effect on their lives. If you use the compter that much and it's not a problem, good for you. But for other people, it may be an upsetting or negative experience when they can't seem to pull themselves away when they need to. That's what the point is. --DanielCD 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

if gambling can be considered an addiction, so can internet use. it doesn't matter that internet addiction stems from other mental issues. so does all addiction. perfectly happy and healthy people don't one day drop what they're doing and start shooting heroin into their veins. an addiction is an inability to control oneself. some people can't control how much they use the internet. i'd say i definitely have some degree of internet addiction. the effects aren't as horrible as drug addiction, but it certainly wastes time and has some negative health effects (sleep deprecation, lack of excercise, wrist and eye strain, etc). i think this article is extremely biased and focus almost entirely on discrediting something that definitely exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthed (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Runescape

i may not agree with the concept of internet addiction and there was a very good article arguing that it is ridiculous (i wish i could find the link) but i agree with the part of the page where it says games like runescape are addictive. I was so addicted to that game. only cure was: a girlfriend, lol. 70.247.73.235 20:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly not a hoax

Because I fit basically every "symptom" they have going. I first became addicted to Neopets a few years ago but managed to keep it under control. In August last year I became addicted to finding about BEAUTY PAGEANTS of all things. This has progressed to include an addiction to Wikipedia. I started searching on here about this today, after I just discovered I got a C+ in one exam and a B in another (which I put down simply to being unable to control the amount of time I spend on the internet)... I had similar marks last semester despite getting two A-'s and one A+ in the first semester (before the addiction really set in). I just went through the "symptoms" and realised I fit every one there. Yet I don't know what to do about it! It is actually painful because I know I'm hurting myself but I can't stop it. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Get some selfcontrol or join the army to implant you one. That's what I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Term first coined

I just wondered about the date given at the top of the article for when the term was first used “(IAD) is a theorized disorder coined by Ivan Goldberg, M.D., in 1997”.

I came across an article in The Lancet (Mitchell P, Internet addiction: genuine diagnosis or not? Lancet, {Lancet}, 19 Feb 2000, vol. 355, no. 9204, p. 632) that states “The existence of internet addiction as a discrete disorder was first proposed, albeit not entirely seriously, in 1995 by Ivan Goldberg, a New York psychiatrist. But it was a 1996 study by Kimberly Young of the University of Pittsburgh (Bradford, PA, USA) that triggered the controversy”. Which, obviously, would make the date earlier. Unfortunately the article didn’t state a reference for where Goldberg first used the term so I haven’t been able to check this. What I did find though was a reference for what is I think earlier work by Kimberly Young in the form of a conference presentation ie: Young KS: Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, Aug 1996.

--Rgas 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Keys Moran described internet addiction in his 1989 novel The Long Run, where it went by the colloquial name “data starve”. —MJBurrage • TALK • 02:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Pro-social"?

"The Internet is largely a pro-social, interactive, and informational-driven medium, while gambling is seen as a single, anti-social behavior that has very little social redeeming value."

I don't know, I would think that this largely depends on what one does on the internet. Many people (such as myself) do not primarily use the internet for chatting with other people. Being a wiki-holic is just one example. Basically, that sentence seems to be false. Esn 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"pro-social" does not necessarily mean you have to "chat" to people. Do you send emails? Do you visit digg.com? Do you respond to comments on Wikipedia? Do you read the latest news clippings on CNN or Yahoo.com? Those are all "pro-social" types of activities, and the article is directly comparing that to the "anti-social" activity that which is called gambling (as defined by the DSM-IV). Make sense? :) Noah 08:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to remove some ridiculous POV claims, such as "If they are part of a group of people, such as a clan, or a forum community, this is a sign of strong social skills, and would not classify them under Social Problems." Joining a virtual "clan" with people you have never met in your life does NOT give you "strong social skills." -Tapd260

Did you read about that facility in Beijing where they treat people with internet addiction? They are treated for "anxiety, depression, and lack of sleep". I wonder if the internet is a social environment how come it gets you depressed. A true social environment can't cause all those symptoms.

Believe me. A true social enviroment can cause a lot worse symptoms. You don't have to be agoraphobic or pesimistic to realise how pointless and sometimes depressing or even malicious true social relationships can be and try to avoid them. Homo sapiens sucks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Shouldn't the whole title be capitalized? (Internet Addiction Disorder) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazins490 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure. Wikipedia: Naming conventions (capitalization) emphasizes that page names should usually be lowercase, but an example says "Proper names: North America, William Shakespeare, International Phonetic Association." Can anyone more experienced with naming conventions shed light on this? Tapd260 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a proper name/noun, just a phrase that turns capital when it becomes abbreviated. :) The International Phonetic Association is a proper name because it's the name of a business, which for some reason is different to the name of a disorder. Dunno why, but there we go. Lottie 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My name is anon and I'm a...

... you get the picture. I have struggled with issues like this for over half of my life, and I'm thirtysomething. This page is not a self-help reference but actually it's shockingly hard to find real advice, so a high-quality link or two would not be out of order. (Like most, I can't go cold-turkey without a major life change, so I was looking for filter software to help me. It has to be something I can poke through if necessary, but something that first puts up a warning I wrote for myself that usually works. And all my initial searches on "filter" and "internet-addiction" and related terms just gave pages of "gee-whiz, does this really exist, hee hee hee?" articles and protect-the-kids antiporn filters.) -- signing as anon for obvious reasons. I'm not ashamed if someone finds who I am after reading this; but I don't want job-interviews soured by coming here. 72.252.71.56 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's my warning:

I am tempted. I can feel desire in my body, the same deep desire that I call beautiful when its object is beautiful. Perhaps a higher tone, perhaps further up in my lungs; mixed with tight, shallow-breathed guilt and with the remembered automaton hunger of the addicted rat; but true desire nonetheless. According to my cryptic calculus of quitting, I am in a state of grace, artificially elevated to magnify the precipice of just one more, just one little more. Because the death I desire lasts only a few hours, only a millionth part of a real suicide, and one by one the tiny oblivia do not match even the daily little evils with which I am surrounded. But death approaches always, and though she has the purer beauty, I must turn towards her shyer sister.

I am building these words as a fence. I know that again I will be tempted, that again and again I will choose life or choose death, and that no resolve I make now will subtract one iota from that choice. I know that the screwtape voice will try to twist the choice, will try to pretend, when the moment returns(for the moment of choice never leaves), that the moment has gone and that I am just the automaton. I know that my body will quicken for him, that its true desire will hurry me into that lie that will carry me over, and over, and over the moments when I could turn away. And this tiny tinny voice that I call me can struggle with screwtape, but against a corporal truth it is weak. I can hope that it will call on hope, that she will call faith, and on to love and on to joy, but these powers do not answer on the first ring and the chain is not short. So to arm this little ego to resist demons and dark desires until help arrives, I am writing a moat and a wall, and cementing them with the one power that he has of himself: pride. If I am anything, I am the arbitrary, the ridiculous decision (for example) to read the florid words on a scrap of paper or a glowing image before I choose. The choice is now, and now, and now.

Thanks, anon ... your warning strikes a deep chord in me. I don't know the chance that you will read this, but I want to tell you that tonight, you have been the voice I needed to hear. I apologize to the WP:EDITORS for this message, which is completely unrelated to improving the article. Let me just say that I think a merge with Computer addiction would be good, but I think we need some citations to justify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.218.75 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How is there criticism?

If someone spends 12 hours a day on this invention we call the "internet". I'm sorry but that's an addiction. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly!! This is not "controversial" AT ALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.186.128 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You judge addiction by the time spent on some activities? I know people that work 14 hours a day and still want more. Would you call that addiction? NOOOO! Because it is productive and good for the society and the workings person benefit -economical ONLY-, even if the person's personallity is reduced in an automaton and his mental capabilities has fallen in the level of a car-assembly-robot's software. Gee! You sound like my parents! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Addiction to newness

This [1] describes, I believe, a major component of internet addiction. Unlike regular addictions, internet addiction, specifically, has to do with addition to newness, and collecting information. I think this deserves a section of it's own in the article. Otherwise internet addiction could be described as gaming addiction, shopping, bidding, etc. It's the newness and collecting information that is specific to internet addiction. It would be really nice if anyone could contact experts who are somewhat dismissive of the idea and see what they say on this aspect of things. Ariel. (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We would have to have a source the connects this with IAD. Furthermore, to keep the critics happy, we'd probably want a source that asserts that reading lots of newspaper articles online (for example) is materially different from subscribing to lots of newspapers on paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's real

You losers just want to pretend it's not real to make yourselves feel better about spending 12 hours of your day on the internet. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As it says at the top, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet addiction disorder article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Treatment sources

I'm pleased to have five refs for our problem, even if none of them are particularly high quality sources, but none of those seem to mention 12-step programs. Which parts of that list of options do they actually support? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong focus - please extend the "Prevention and treatment" section instead

I doubt that the average reader of this article is interested in if Internet addiction or computer overuse is the appropriate scientific term. I believe the main question is: How can it be treated? Or how can it be prevented? (Something a parent might ask.) My English language skills are limited, and I'm no expert in the area. I would be happy if someone would summarize the references mentioned in the Prevention and treatment section (the shortest but most interesting section), or better sources on the same topic. 79.136.45.134 (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary: "Internet addiction disorder" does not exist. What some people call "internet addiction disorder" is actually many entirely unrelated social, psychological, and/or medical conditions that manifest with a general symptom. They may choose this name because they are embarrassed by their real problem, particularly if it is some kind of mental illness, or because they are uneducated about it. Effective treatment depends entirely on what the real problem is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Computer/Internet overuse exists. A psychiatrist might not say it is the underlying problem, and it may never be classified as a medical addiction disorder in the literature, but it is a real problem to lots of people in their everyday lifes. What should this article say to these people? If it is like you claim, the article should refer people to treatment for typical underlying "real" problems.

Let's assume that I am writing too much in Wikipedia, day and night, more than i intend to, I have no control of it, i cannot stop, and it destroys my carrier and my family life. And also that I watch pornography at the Internet way too much, but never would buy a porn magazine or a porn movie in the local video store. And that I enjoy online games, but seldom play non-computer games. Let's also say that I don't drink, and I am not addicted to anything else but computers. So, what is my "real" problem according to you? This article mentions poor impulse control. Would a real psychiatrist or psychologist use that kind of terminology? And where can I read about the treatment for "poor impulse control"?

Let's say that I am worried that my children are using computers too much. What position should I have? Saying "the problem does not exist" sounds like bad parenthood.

Your claim implies that a person with problems with computer overuse statistically should show more problems with other forms of addiction, or at least poor impulse control, than the population in average. Has anyone proved that in a statistical study? Your claim implies that there is no statistical correlation between the various forms of computer overuse, for example overuse of cyberporn , gambling, and social networking. Can you prove that? I doubt that, but probably no one has proved the opposite position either. So we still don't know if IAD is a "real" disorder or only an everyday life problem. That should be the position of the article.

However, the last paragraph was a science theory sidetrack. Please let's focus the discussion on the treatment issue. People need help. 79.136.45.134 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have assumed too much, and answered you with jargon. I apologize. "Computer overuse" is like having a cough. There are a billion things that could cause you to cough. You could cough because you have one of many dozens of infections. You could cough because you have asthma or allergies. You could cough because you have a tic. You could cough because you are standing behind someone and want to let them know they aren't alone without startling them. "Coughing" is not a disease or disorder. It is most certainly not a single disease. This does not mean that people don't cough.

This is what I mean when I say that IAD does not exist: it is not a unitary (single, self-contained, properly differentiated, specific, independent) "thing" like influenza.

You asked, So, what is my "real" problem according to you? My answer is clear: I don't know. No one could possibly answer a question like that (accurately). This question is like saying, "I coughed today. What's causing the cough?"

What I would tell you instead is that the best way (and perhaps the only way) to approach this symptom is for actual, specific individuals to get a personal diagnosis and a personal treatment plan from actual, properly qualified professionals. This is necessary because a person that spends all day and night on the computer because of major depressive disorder needs very different treatment from, say, a person that spends all day and night on the computer because they have a dozen friends that they're chatting with online.

A person that overuses computers may have no addictions at all, and I make no claim at all that all people that spend many hours on their computers have a tendency to have other addictions. That claim forms no part of my response.

The claim that the article makes is that IAD is not recognized by any reputable health agency or professional organization as a specific disorder. In fact, it has been rejected as a specific disorder, because the experience of thousands of professionals is that "I spend too much time on the computer" is about as specific as "I have a cough". That is, the symptom is present in literally dozens of diseases as well as non-diseases. Therefore the article should not represent this concept as an accepted specific disorder, or even as a concept which "might" be a specific disorder, because it is actually known that "I spend a lot of time on my computer" is not a single, specific disorder any more than "I coughed today" is a single, specific disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for your well-written response. Actually there is a wikipedia article on Cough. And it answers questions that are interesting to ordinary people, despite the fact that it is hard to know the reason for coughing. It does not dwell upon academic definition discussions that are only interesting to professionals. There should be an article on Internet overuse as well with helpful information. Perhaps the IAD article should be renamed Internet overuse? 79.136.45.134 (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, IAD is not the article you're looking for. For all I know, the article you want already exists under some other name. "IAD" began as a hoax, and the concept continues to live in professional debates. It should probably not be merged into the symptom of general computer overuse. I have no objection to such an article being created; I just don't think that such an article is best served by emphasizing this particular hoax. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does this researcher merit a specific mention?

"Researcher Kimberly Young, Psy. D. is lobbying for the inclusion of IAD into the DSM-V, the next edition of the DSM." There is no citation. I see her web presence and book writing but... there are lots of brainbenders on both sides of the argument, I don't see why this one deserves a spot in the article... not even having a wiki article.sinneed (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove unsourced information. This article tends to develop a bad case of bloat every now and again, and removing unsourced and unimportant information like this will very likely improve the article significantly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• nod* I have been wielding my editorial hatchet pretty broadly. This just seemed odd.sinneed (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving this to the talk page.

Internet overuse is often correlated with OCD and possibly Mean world syndrome.

It is unsourced and doesn't really seem to fit. Maybe, with expansion, a new section? Easily restored if someone disagrees.sinneed (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition of 2 Feb 2009

According to Morahan-Martin & Schumacher, IAD (also known as PIU [pathological internet usage]) "causes a specifed number of psychological symptoms, such as altered moods, denial of responsibilities, guilt, and craving." Internet addicts have also appeared to show a higher tolerance levels and suffer recognizable withdrawal symptoms in comparison with normal internet users.

"Computers in Internet Behavior" has no hits on Google. It would need to be a real reference.

Could you provide the entire quote where they refer to IAD?

I won't delete this again, but I am going to flag this with a "dubious" if restored without substantial improvement. sinneed (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support and Opposition for...Internet Addiction Disorder?

This sounds like support for Internet Addiction... rather than classification as a disorder. Leaving it in, but it seems wrong to me.sinneed (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethical Right or Moral Wrong?

In order for a decision to be made regarding the right or wrong of internet addiction, we must first examine the existence of a disorder or dysfunction. We need to figure out if there truly exists an addiction to the internet. Does excessive use of the internet warrant the term ‘addiction’? Addiction, as a disorder, is defined as such when the behavior meets a combination of four or more criteria, as specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition(1994). Although the DSM IV does not specifically identify a disorder known as Internet Dependence or Addiction, the obsessive-compulsive behavior has been compared to compulsive gambling. According to Dowling and Quirk, excessive internet use is viewed as “an impulse control disorder that does not involve an intoxicant but shares characteristics of substance dependence, such as salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse.” (Dowling & Quirk, 2008) The criterion for addiction, as found in the DSM IV (1994) is as follows: • Preoccupation between periods of use • More use than had been anticipated • Development of tolerance • Characteristic withdrawal symptoms • Use to avoid or control withdrawal symptoms • Repeated efforts to stop or cut back • Use at inappropriate times (such as work), or when withdrawal interferes with daily functioning • Reduction of social, occupational or recreational activities in favor of further use • Use continues despite social, emotional or physical problems

With regard to the internet, these demands can very easily be met. There are many internet users who spend their time between online sessions, obsessing about ‘missing’ something without the internet. This preoccupation has led to some obvious technological advances, such as laptops and internet accessibility with cell phones.

As far as more use than anticipated, how many people have been online, looked at the time, and realized they have ‘been on’ way too long? Grohol puts this concept into perspective, stating; “time must be taken in context with other factors, such as whether you’re a college student, … whether it’s a part of your job, whether you have any pre-existing conditions, … whether you have problems or issues in your life which may be causing you to spend more time online [e.g., using it to ‘get away’ from life’s problems, a bad marriage, difficult social relations], etc.” (Grohol, 2005)

Many find themselves subject to depressive episodes and or short-tempered when not online for a period of time. This is especially true if, for example, social networking has taken the place of face-to-face interaction. As quoted in Internet Addiction Disorder, “David Greenfield, PhD, founder of the Center for Internet Studies [stated] … ‘It’s (the Internet) a socially connecting device that’s socially isolating at the same time.” (Garcia Duran, 2003)

Some, who use the internet to excess, actually experience withdrawal symptoms not unlike those in the detoxification process from a chemical substance. As written in Science Daily; “Sufferers [of internet addiction disorder] may experience loss of sleep, anxiety when not online, isolation from family and peer groups, loss of work, and periods of deep depression.” (University, 2007) The fact that Internet use can develop into an actual addiction brings the discussion to the core question; is it right or is it wrong? The Kantian perspective, indicating the concept of good will, tells us the only good thing is good will and a person should cultivate and promote the desire to do the right thing. In the text Ethics for the information age, it is stated; “Kant held that addiction is a vice, because it is wrong to allow your bodily desires to dominate your mind.” (Quinn, 2009). By this very rational theory, it is wrong for a person to allow themselves to become addicted to the internet. Excessive internet use can cause harm to self and others, thereby making it unethical.

Internet addiction is also considered wrong according to Subjective and Cultural Relativism theories, although these are not workable ethical theories. It is also an unethical behavior by the Divine Command Theory. Although not based on reason, if we are to be obedient to God, we would be remiss if we allow ourselves to put the internet ahead of God, as this is a ‘sin’ that violates the first Commandment of false idols. According to theological teachings, our bondage to sin is rooted in Adam. “The true nature of all addictions is that have chosen to go outside the kingdom of God and look for blessing in the land of idols.” (Welch, 2001). Also found in Welch’s book, Addictions: a Banquet in the Grave, he writes; “More obvious bondage becomes apparent as we practice sin, but our bondage is more than the consequences of what we do. It is who we are. It is our nature. Second, the bondage we experience is intentional. It is a voluntary slavery. As sinners, our preference is to give ourselves over to our desires. We choose slavery.”

The overuse and eventual addiction to the internet may not be such a cosmic theological or religious faux pas as indicated with the Divine Command point of view, but there may a spiritual element to the behavior. We need to look beyond the grand question of right or wrong. Realistically the why and treatment are the relevant questions. Are we really that bored with our situations that we need to be connected by the internet? What exactly are we searching for? According to Chopra, “everyone has the ability to create genuine pleasure in their lives: we all did it as children, and though we may become estranged from it for many years, the power to create joy always remains with us, waiting to be rediscovered and explored.” (Chopra, 1997).

The above interesting essay was added on 31 March 2009. I have cut it to the talk page for possible integration into the article. A number of sources were added as well.sinneed (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Treatment: Relaxing Podcasts

There exists some podcasts about Yoga Relaxing etc. in WWW. They help to reduce the (Wiki)stress level. Is this also an objective Solution for IAD? --Manuel-aa5 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

NO! I dont't no why, but it didn't help to reduce the panic attacs. But sometimes walking plus drinking water helps a little bit. Sorry, there are no books availible to support this. {{missing literature}}--Manuel-aa5 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

The following excerpt is entirely copy/paste from this NY Times article:

Several counselors and other experts said time spent on the computer was not important in diagnosing an addiction to the Internet. The question, they say, is whether Internet use is causing serious problems, including the loss of a job, marital difficulties, depression, isolation and anxiety, and still the user cannot stop. "The line is drawn with Internet addiction," said Mr. Zehr of Proctor Hospital, "when I'm no longer controlling my Internet use. It's controlling me." Dr. Cash and other therapists say they are seeing a growing number of teenagers and young adults as patients, who grew up spending hours on the computer, playing games and sending instant messages. These patients appear to have significant developmental problems, including attention deficit disorder and a lack of social skills.

--Дарко Максимовић (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I killed it. It is indeed a direct copy, including the introductory text. An interested editor may decide it needs to be included and rewrite it in the editor's own words.sinneed (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There was another chunk from the same article. I attributed it clearly, but I have no idea if that is adequate. It may need to be killed.sinneed (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cut to talk for possible inclusion/rewrite.

"One researcher estimates that up to nine million Americans could be labeled as pathological computer users."

The link was to an article by Joyce J. Fitzpatrick, incorrectly attributed (link is wrong). The actual article cited is at Prevalence underestimated in problematic Internet use study, CNS Spectrums and does not have the "9 million". Also, it is a "letter to the editor". The real source, if interesting, would be the article about which the letter was written, and to with which Dr. Block was disagreeing.

Sloppy work by the journal publishing the article (they did not fact-check it), and by the editor adding the content here (no fact-check, wrong article).

I do note that BOTH articles have a series of sources that interested editors might wish to incorporate into the article.

It might be worth including the original statement, reworded. While I am unsure we can wisely use "letter to the editor" as wp:RS, there is considerable "good stuff" in the 2 letters.

Possible wording: "A nurse, Joyce J. Fitzpatrick, writing in the Archives of Psychiatric Nursing in 2008, stated that up to 9 million Americans could be labeled as pathological computer users. However, the Letter to the Editor by Dr. Jerald J. Block cited as the source for this statement does not contain this information." with both citations (the opinion piece about the subject, the cited letter).

Block wrote further in 2008 at Issues for DSM-V: Internet Addiction. This, too, might be worth including by an interested editor. Or not. :)- sinneed (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cutting to talk for possible inclusion.

A new addition:

Hilarie Cash, Ph.D., director of Internet/Computer Addiction Services (1999) and co-author of Video Games and Your Kids: How Parents Stay in Control (2008), has found in her clinical practice that the primary problems for which clients seek help are sexual compulsivity and compulsive video gaming, with frequent overlap of these two groups. (http//icaservices.com)

Behavioral addictions are now being recognized as true addictions because of the similarity in neural activity in response to both ingested chemicals and addictive behaviors, as well as the similarity of behavioral symptoms. There will be a category for Non-Substance Use Addictions in the next iteration of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-V). Which behaviors will be included will depend entirely on the weight of research evidence at time of publication. Because IAD is a new phenomenon, there may not be enough evidence for it to be included in this version of the DSM. Should this happen, it is likely that, with time, the research will[[]] demonstrate the addictive nature of video gaming and other digital activities.

Strikes me as a bit advert-like. The book itself may be a good source... but this reads as all expert wp:OR.- sinneed (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that it's being inserted by User:Hilarie Cash? :-) (We don't want to drive away experts from Wikipedia, but must carefully but firmly convey WP:V and WP:COI.) Shreevatsa (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thus the COI-flag in the article, and a rather long-winded note on the editor's talk page (unanswered as yet).- sinneed (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This NYT article about the I/CAS shop and Dr. Cash is already in the article.- sinneed (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodman in the opossition

Not clear how the "Goodman" section relates to the argument. Talgalili (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Too researchy?

edit to add: I don't know what that means, or why it meant the content should be removed. - Sinneed 04:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael and Iana Straw were the parents of two children, a 22 month-old boy an 11 month-old girl. The children were found "severely malnourished and near death." The parents were each charged with two counts of [[child neglect]]. Both children were both severely underdeveloped and in poor health. Police claimed the couple were too distracted by video games to care for their children.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289331,00.html Parents Neglect Starved Babies to Feed Online Video Game Addiction] July 2007</ref>

This is about child abuse and neglect. Perhaps the excuse the parents gave was online gaming. Declaring the cause to *BE* internet addiction is the reason Faux News is considered by many not to be a news source, but entirely editorial opinion. I rewrote to neutrality based on the source. I don't see how it has a place in the article, though it might in the Press coverage section of video game addiction.- Sinneed 04:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Links out of date

Link to citation #13 no longer available

Yinmaru (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Title

I propose changing the title of the article to simply "Internet addiction". The name "Internet addiction disorder (IAD)" is not used in actual psychiatry, it was merely the name of Ivan Goldberg's hoax. Similar articles, such as computer addiction and video game addiction do not use the word "disorder" in their titles, either. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Although, it is not "merely" the name used by Goldberg. IAD is used fairly extensively in popular literature, and there is *sharp* debate (cited in the article) about whether there is such a disorder and whether it is or not an addiction. My reasoning is to be consistent with other articles... we would leave a pointer from IAD to it, so that those looking for that usage would still find it.Shajure (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. While the fact that Goldberg coined the term as part of a joke does not automatically invalidate the arguments for considering it a disorder, the arguments against the label are strong enough that going against the Wikipedia convention Sajureltalk notes sounds to me like a violation of NPoV. Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs an admin to move. Mere mortals can't move this to "Internet addiction", as there is an article with history of that name. There is a process for getting this done but I don't care enough to follow it. An interested editor might follow it. Shajure (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

EL to a link for a test for a proposed medical condition

Again, please see wp:EL, wp:Pillars. Note wp:Medical, as well. ELs should be information about the subject. So, for example, a yoga training video would not be a good link on a yoga article. A test for you skill at yoga would not be a good link... it would fail wp:EL.Shajure (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

internetaddictionsupport.com

This doesn't seem to meet wp:EL for this article. If it has more coverage in the press, perhaps it merits an article and a link in the SA section. Shajure (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Anon edits claiming recent changes.

Please join the discussion here. The changes ranged from 0 to... well... there are some charts which might show something, or might not. If you find support for adding a percentage, I'll be interested in seeing it as a quote from the article, rather than a personal interpretation (I note that the numbers you are using have shifted). In the mean time, if you would prefer we can simply remove the content and use the article as an EL. Shajure (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

'Addiction to the internet'

Hello, my name is john. I will be taking on this subject for my assessment in the Psychology of Internet Behaviour module, being delivered at the University of Hull Scarborough campus. Please feel free to leave comments on my talk page. I am eager to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, so any mistakes I may make I apologise for in advance, and hope that people point these out. Any constructive comments people make will be a great help.

Feel free to contact me John Bailey (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

'Online Gaming Addiction'

I will be working on the Wikipedia page for Internet Addiction Disorder as part of my 3rd Year Degree Study. I am interested in adding more information about the subcontent of 'Online Gaming Addiction' or creating a new page as I don't feel this subject is adequatly covered. I will be planning the subject within my sandbox User:Benparcell/sandbox Please see my user page for further information and feel free to talk to me. I have added the subsections, Online Gaming Addiction, Reward Systems and Gratification, and Rehabilitaton. Benparcell (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

'Online Addiction: Procrastination/Causes and effects'

My name is Michael Moverley. I am a 3rd Year Media Student. I will be editing this page in relation to my current module 'Psychology of Internet Behaviour'. The process will involve communicating and interacting with other Wikipedians, so please inform me and other members of this group of additions we could make to this specific page along with potential sub-categories to expand our coverage of the medium.

Please contact me to discuss additions and revisions MikeMov89 (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible additions

Is there any one who would be willing to view my sandbox on my user page, to discuss the sections I may be adding to this page? John Bailey (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Additions

Hello Wikipedians, I am MikeMov89 I have made some recent additions to the page, adding two new sub-sections, 'Causes and Effects' and 'Psychiatric services study'. Please contact me as to whether this content is suitable for the purpose, references are correct or revisions which could be made. Thanks. MikeMov89 (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions

Hi all I have added the following sections to this page, I am looking forward to any feedback or explanations why this information may not be acceptable. Please feel free to contact me

Patricia Wallace Mark D Griffiths PhD six criteria of Internet addiction Internet addiction Test (IAT)

John Bailey (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible Merges, proposed by User:Jarble

Merge proposed here.

Discuss - After reading all the articles both Cyberslacking and Goldbricking appear to be basically the same thing. These two articles could be merged under a single section within the Internet addiction disorder page titled Cyberslacking/Goldbricking. It could be argued that both of the for mentioned articles relate to Internet addiction. For example the argument could be put forward that if an individual is unable to restrict their use of the Internet during office hours, that this could be a sign of Internet addiction. John Bailey (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - "cyberslacking" may be done by those with an internet addiction disorder, but it may also be done by people who are simply bored or unhappy with their work. It'd seem more relevant to merge it with an article about slacking off at work, which appears to be "goofing off". --McGeddon (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss - If the User that proposed these merges, has nothing to say on the matter i suggest the banners be removed. Balypu (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose merging this article with either of the others. Support mergers of cyberslacking/goldbricking/goofing off. Rich Farmbrough, 09:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

Support - I support a merger, the other pages relate to this article, yet lack the content to stand alone. MikeMov89 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss - Based on the discussion I believe the merge icons should be removed. MikeMov89 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Typo Ref 57 and 58

Reference 57/58 have typo’s, is it ok to change them? MikeMov89 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course! Be bold! --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Social Bookmarking and Webslideshows

I want to add the following to the Examples:

• Social bookmarking sites such as del.icio.us, digg.com or webslideshow sites like web2.0slides, webfalls.com occupy users for hours trying to satisfy a non specific lack of information.

What do you think about this addition?

---

Unless there has been research to conclude this, I don't see it sufficient for the article. Chris4uk (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Qualifications and names and verbs

Generally we avoid (except once, in the lead, if the person is the subject of the article) use of qualifications and most titles in running text. Also after the first use we use just the surname, if it is unambiguous. "Explains" is a verb to avoid, the implication from the editorial voice is that we agree, while it may feel like you are overusing "states" (nothing wrong with "says") it is neutral, whereas a lot of verbs are loaded - "claims" "denies" "refutes". Often a decision needs to be made as to whether the concept should be attributed in-text or in the footnote. Generally, if we are talking about non-contentious ideas, rather than the historical development of the ideas, the footnote is the best place. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

WoW Detox

I removed a line about a website called WoW detox. It just seemed like an ad to me. 216.185.77.30 (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

IAD has as much evidence as schizophrenia

IAD has just as the same amount of biological data (X-rays, MRI scans, PET scans, autopsy reports, etc) supporting its existence as do drapetomania and schizophrenia. None. 76.120.17.197 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

---

I wouldn't agree. I'm doing a paper into internet addiction at present and there's a good amount of studies into it. Chris4uk (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

O-Oy vey iz mir goi are you trying to start another holocaust? I'll have you know that over 80% of white males have schizophrenia and the rest have depression! Now take your medicene, silly goi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.144.37 (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Updating and correcting the text to cite earlier medical examples and case law

Hi - I came across this and believe that it is inaccurate but I feel unable to correct it because I would have to cite myself - which I understand is not allowed under the Wikipedia rules !! The article says that Internet Addiction Disorder was first suggested in 1995 as a joke. This is not correct - as a barrister defending a young man called Paul Bedworth in 1993 I raised the defence of what I then termed as "Computer Addiction" arising from a hacker. The case and my acquittal of the defendant were fully reported in the newspapers at the time.

Below is a link to an article I wrote around the time for the TWELFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ECONOMIC CRIME which contains under the heading "A Barrister's Tactics" a full rundown of the case which was in February 1993 and the medical diagnosis.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12j8TYEmsix4ED0Nrs01xCWs2OlfqLSZnr9M1g7m9SUM/edit

For ease of reference I set out below the relevant parts of this article.

A Barrister's Tactics

Last year in the trial of Paul Bedworth, a teenage hacker, I succeeded in obtaining a not guilty verdict after the jury was out for less than 40 minutes. Paul's defence was "computer addiction". The case lead to calls for additional legislation - which was not necessary. What it showed was how a skilled legal defence team can undermine a prosecution which would appear to be a "shoo-in".

Paul Bedworth: The facts: Paul Bedworth was an 18 year old young man at his trial. He was the youngest of three defendants charged with conspiracy to commit offences contrary to Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in that it was alleged that he and his co-defendants gained unauthorized access to the computer systems of academic, government and commercial organisations and modified the systems to which they gained access. There were also charges alleging criminal damage and dishonest use of services provided by British Telecom. The prosecution freely admitted that none of the defendants hacked for gain or for any other criminal purpose. None of the defendants had ever met but had communicated on electronic bulletin boards. All three defendants were committed for trial in June 1992 and Paul's trial occurred in February 1993 at Southwalk Crown Court.

On June 26th 1991 an operation was mounted called "Operation Killern" by police from four different forces. All three defendants were arrested at their home addresses at around midnight. The various police officers did not tap and ask for entry into their homes but simply broke down their front doors. The Prosecution allege that all three were arrested in the act of committing an offence.

The police seized computer equipment at all the Defendants' homes and a vast quantity of documentation. In the Case Summary the Crown Prosecution Service said that "It is understood that if all the diskettes seized were to be printed out on A4 paper together with the other documentation seized, there would be a pile of paper approximately 120 feet high". I was presented with vast volumes of documentation including annotated logs from PADs which contained programs and data that the Prosecution allege was swapped by the Defendants as well as logs from Call Loggers and Data Monitors which were attached without warrant to the Defendants' home telephone lines. The Prosecution decided to rely upon 14 sample victims: (1) Brighton Polytechnic; (2) Bristol Polytechnic; (3) The European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting; (4) The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control; (5) S.G. Warburg; (6) Pfizer Ltd (7) BICC Electronic Cables; (8)The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, Belgium; (9) Purdue University, USA; (10) Manchester University; (11) Polytechnic of Central London; (12) The Foreign and Commonwealth Office; (13) The European Economic Community, Luxembourg; (14) The Financial Times.

The Prosecution Case Summary said that the evidence at the trial would come from five main sources: z Statements from the persons responsible for the computers at the victim organisations;

z Statements from the British Telecom investigators;

z Evidence of the arrests, searches and interviews by the police;

z Expert evidence interpreting the computer generated material which consists of material found on disks in the defendants' homes, logs from British Telecom computers and logs and audit trails from the victims computers;

z Admissions made by the Defendants during tape recorded interviews.

Paul was 17 years old when he was arrested and was still at school studying for his A-levels. Because of the complexity of the matter it took ten months for the committal to take place. In January 1993 upon the joint advice of my Leader, Ian McDonald and me, Paul pleaded not guilty. His two co-defendants pleaded guilty and in May 1993 were sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

Paul Bedworth: How was he defended:

So much for the facts. But now we turn to presentation. Defending alleged criminals is a very skilled activity. As a Defence lawyer it is essential that you consider any possible defences to a charge which are legitimately available to your client. You do not deceive the court but you should always be aware that juries will sometimes like a client and in the face of evidence will want to acquit him. Nobody trusts judges to sentence criminals correctly - almost every week some scandal erupts regarding a rape sentence or something similar. Paul was just such a client. A young fresh faced lad with no criminal record. He was not being charged with beating up old ladies, just for being a bloody nuisance. When I am asked to defence somebody I consider the evidence and ignore the legal textbooks which say what I can or cannot do. If I find what I think might be a defence I set it out. I then look at the books of authority and find what the legal position is considered to be. If it doesn't fit in to what I was considering I know that there may be a considerable battle at the trial to run the defence. But this does not stop me - it just means that I know that I will have a difficult time in getting the ideas across. I like working with non-technical barristers of the highest quality. A skilled advocate can mesmerise a courtroom when he is on form. However advocacy is like cooking - it takes constant practice to remain good at it and the best practitioners need to be on their feet continuously. He will be complete at ease with all matters of criminal legal procedure and will not be afraid of, politely, telling the judge off if the judge disagrees with him. But there can be difficulties with the highly experience advocate. As barristers we tend to be "prima donnas" and it is sometimes difficult to get a barrister to be a team player. Yet heavy litigation requires teamwork with research, speech drafting and analysis being done not in isolation but in active discussions. Until Paul Bedworth's case I had never worked with Mr Ian MacDonald QC. But I was aware that he was a very skilled advocate who took difficult cases and I wanted to work with him. I believed that the proper defence of Paul Bedworth required teamwork and was unsure whether he could tackle the case in the manner I believed to be correct. I need not have worried. Ian was fascinated by the technology but deferred to my superior knowledge and experience on computer matters. I in turn deferred to his detailed knowledge of criminal law and procedure. We approached the case using a process which we called "negotiation"; I would fire up an idea, Ian would point out flaws, I would respond and through the ensuing debate there was a refinement of ideas. It was a bit like comedy script writing for programmes like "The New Statesman" where teams of scriptwriters sit down on a morning, bounce ideas around and finish up with the script for an episode. The aim is for the team to produce the perfect "script" or "speech". However to get over the "prima donna" problem at an early stage I like to get any counsel focused upon the issues I consider to be important. To do this it is my practice to write them a briefing note before they have even seen the papers. This note sets the scene for the case so that the other barrister can see the way my mind is working and can get to grips with the case that much sooner. With Paul Bedworth I wrote a very long letter to Ian MacDonald QC introducing him to the case. Here is what I said on computer addiction:

Computer Hacking as an Addiction

Here I believe is our best chance of success. Paul is a very bright lad who was truly addicted to computing and computers. He shows a great deal of originality and writes in a powerful computer language called `C'. He is from a single parent family in Ilkley and lives with his mother in a tiny terraced house. However his mother told me that for years he has frequently forgotten to eat or sleep and she often has had to turn off the mains power in the middle on the night just to get him to stop tapping away on his computer. When his mother stopped him using the telephone because of the bills he secretly wired himself into the network. When she got British Telecom to secure her line with a Touch Tone password of four digits he got his computer to monitor the line, recorded her keystrokes and then played them back whenever he wanted to dial out.I understand that he has few friends because in his part of North Yorkshire there are no other young people of similar interests and ability. He is going to take `A' levels this summer in Maths, Physics and Chemistry. He then has a place at Edinburgh University where he will read Computer Science. I think he may already have an `A' level in Computer Science. His behaviour was clearly obsessive and during the lengthy police interviews he appears to have suffered from withdrawal symptoms on being deprived of computer services.

This could give rise to a defence that he was so mesmerised by hacking that his critical faculties were so affected that he was unable to form the necessary mens rea of his own free will to commit the offence of conspiracy. Taking into account the family circumstances, Paul's age when he began `hacking' and the then state of the law (pre-Computer Misuse Act when merely entering a computer system to "have a look" was not illegal) there seem to be good grounds of establishing this defence. This would be a defence of involuntary intoxication in that at the time he started hacking nobody knew or warned of the dangers of becoming addicted to hacking.

I realise that there are some risks in running this defence. It must be clear that we are not trying to run insanity within the M'Naughten Rules. We do not want any judge to try to conclude that Paul was a long term risk to society. The tape recorded interviews and the fact that nearly a year has passed since his arrest without him getting in to further trouble of any sort seems to indicate that he is not a long term risk. Additionally he has been on unconditional bail up until this time. Frankly in the face of the weight of evidence against him I feel that Paul has no other defence - and he really does appear to have suffered a form of involuntary addiction.

Effectively the police made him go "cold turkey" when they broke down the front door of his home at midnight and took away all his computer equipment, books and other materials. He now has a UNIX workstation but this does not have a modem so he cannot communicate down a phone line.

The medical position on this type of addiction is very interesting. Basically psychological addiction is well established and I believe that there is quite a lot of literature on this topic. However the addictive qualities of computer hacking and computer conferencing is a new topic altogether and although there is supposed to be some research in this area there are no current findings.

Professor Griffith Edwards at (I think) the Maudsley Hospital has been recommended to me as the best expert witness on addiction.

Following this letter there were lengthy "negotiations" as we worked on how we would handle this defence. Every night during the trial I made a précis of the day's evidence and a briefing note of points that could be used the following day or in the closing speech. We knew that we only had one shot and that had to be carefully handled. Normally a judge has to sum up the evidence and put this before the jury. We decided that we should take time and go through all the evidence, putting Paul in the best light. This, we thought, would stop the judge from repeating the same material and putting matters in a different light. As a tactic it worked perfectly.

Juries appreciate the efforts of counsel who have clearly been working hard for their benefit. The prosecution gave a ninety minute speech to the jury. Ian MacDonald gave a speech that lasted four and a half hours. We had negotiated a great deal of the speech and one of my notes was headed "Idea for Peroration". Reading it through the idea seems a bit too glib for such a role so we put it aside on a slip of paper. But it came into its own when the Prosecution in their speech made the mistake of trying to rubbish the evidence of `trick cyclists' generally. Ian reminded the jury that our expert, Professor Griffith Edwards, said that with drink, drugs and gambling he had been running 20 year studies regarding long term addiction. The research data takes time to build up. He reminded the jury that the Prosecution said that psychiatric evidence was dubious and the jury should use their own knowledge and experience. It was the right moment to use the "idea for peroration" and Ian turned to my note: Idea for Peroration The First World War in which the grandfathers and great-grandfathers of members of the jury may have fought was the first war with trench warfare and tanks. After standing in the trenches suffering the effects of explosions for days on end many men developed a medical condition where they were unable to continue fighting. The condition is known as "shell shock" and twenty years later, by the time of the second world war, it was a recognised illness - it is now part of ordinary language. However the condition was not part of the medical literature at the time of the First World War and many men who were unable to continue fighting because they were shell-shocked were branded as cowards, were court-marshalled (losing any benefits to their next of kin) and were taken out and shot. There is currently a campaign to try and obtain a pardon for these men who were not cowards but were simply ill. Professor Edwards said that in twenty years his team will have the long term results of computer addiction as exists with both drugs and drink. Until then there is a serious doubt regarding whether Paul was just being bad or Paul was ill.

We had rubbished the Prosecution and dissolved the case into a simple question for the jury: Was Paul Bad or was he Ill. To convict a jury had to be sure that he was not ill. The psychiatric evidence was solidly in Paul's favour and the Prosecution's unprovoked attack on Professor Edwards made a comparison of computer addiction with shell-shock look like a fair and reasonable response. However had we tried to put the same point not as a rebuttal but as an argument in its own right it would have lost its impact. We were able to obliquely imply that the Prosecution did not believe in shell-shock and were like First World War generals, totally out of touch with the man in the trenches. We, the Defence team, were thoughtful, understanding, humane. We were a double act; Ian the experienced criminal advocate who never talked down to the jury but who explained everything in straightforward terms and me in the role of a "hacker with a wig on", feeding Ian questions for technical witnesses and being deferred to by the Judge and the Prosecution when called upon to explain computing concepts or jargon. Because we had worked together, negotiating the speech, we were totally in tune. Our different skills and experience complemented each other and the jury could see a holistic defence team.

I believe that Paul was rightfully acquitted because he did not deserve the full State Trial process to descend upon him. Our successful defence has caused the Computer Crime Unit serious problems. They might now have to start prosecuting adult computer criminals rather that choosing the soft target of children. Since the case Paul has gone on to become a model citizen. He still works long hours at the computer but far less than before since he is now engaged to be married. He has shown great strength of character - turning down several thousand pounds from The Sun newspaper for his exclusive story and living instead on his tiny student grant.

I also maintain that if the Serious Fraud Office ever intends successfully prosecuting anyone for City fraud it needs to adopt the same approach that Ian MacDonald QC and I did in defending Paul Bedworth. The close teamwork approach and our use of briefing notes meant that we were ready to capitalise on any minor slip made by the prosecution. Hard work and `negotiation' honed our points to perfection. We took control of the evidence away from the judge by dealing with it in our address to the jury. We filtered the case down to its bare issues. And we presented it in a unified manner. In a fraud case a legal team would have to be somewhat larger with an accountant being an active member of the team rather than someone to be called upon as and when the need arose. But the future of heavy litigation lies in the use of sophisticated, well resourced legal teams - anything else will be a waste of public time and money.

So, you may ask, how does the defence of computer addiction work ? Could I claim as a defence that I was "addicted to bank robbery" or to "shoplifting" ? Not quite!

First the person should be socially isolated with lack of support from a peer group. Then there must be an internal motivation - working for no wage. This is very similar to gambling; gamblers don't gamble to win they gamble to gamble - they gamble on two raindrops going down a windowpane.

Second there should be some aspect of person vulnerability or situational vulnerability. Adolescent is a vulnerability, isolation is a vulnerability (the image we conveyed was of Paul as a toddler being a lonely young boy at the edge of the playground). The lack of a father when added to other things is bad if you cannot talk about it, as was the case with Paul. This is different from loss of a father in a war as opposed to being abandoned. Professor Edwards said "I thought that he was a very vulnerable young man. It didn't surprise me his walking into some kind of trouble - he could well have fallen in with bad group doing drugs instead of computers".

Third the behaviour should be habit forming through repetitions. It is better if the reward is intermittent "you don't get the jackpot every time, you get a reward every 100th attempt. This is like attempting to break into systems - it defeats you most of the time." There are a ragbag of divers conditions; something impinging on the pleasure centres.

Finally you look at what the person is doing and say "is this normal ?" There is a continuity of normality from normal to abnormal, there is no blood test but you know what is abnormal when it is grossly staring at you. You know when you are in the foothills and when you are in the mountains, the problems arise in the areas in between. Paul's addiction was clearly grossly abnormal and was in the mountains.

The judge asked about young teenage joyriders "Joyriding different in intensity - one car a day is good going - not highly repetitious. Shoplifting is a complaint that some people say that they cannot stop. But Joyriding and Shoplifting are in quite a different category. Paul's condition is more akin to persistent handwashing. It fits within it descriptively and the underlying structural basis has considerable overlap. Professor Edwards felt that he had the misfortune to develop a non-chemical dependence on computing, on hacking to an extreme degree. It is easy to try and dismiss his behaviour as adolescent behaviour. But he had gone into the mountains rather than the foothills.

Paul Bedworth: How was the addiction broken ?

There is a known medical change referred to as The Damascus Effect after St Paul. For example a drunk allowed his young child to stray onto a railway line and be killed. As a result gave up drinking. The Professor explained that the trauma in a young man of the circumstances of his arrest and questioning and what happened to his Mother was such as to have overwhelmed any withdrawal symptoms from hacking.

Paul Bedworth: Nullifying the Specific intent for the offence

The way Professor Griffith Edwards expressed this was masterly: "It is proper to be cautious - when someone is suffering from a pathological dependence syndrome they are going to have a strong motivation to obey the drive dictated by the syndrome. I wash my hands. I have free choice and free intent to wash my hands, a free choice it is up to me to do so, freely entered into. I think it is essential. There are a variety of psychology conditions when my freedom is impaired e.g. driven by a delusion - the man who believe that his neighbours are part of a conspiracy and are firing rays at him... Here the person has a compulsive habit which puts him under duress. The concept of intent requires freedom of choice. This no longer exists when obeying the dictates of the compulsive state. There is a mass of experimental work which demonstrates the validity of this condition. There is experimental work on gambling. But there is no experimental work done on computer dependence. I would describe Paul as being under an "internal duress". Regarding Authorised/unauthorised access to a computer - he would know what he was doing was illegal/wrong but this knowledge would be overrun/overriden by the dictates of his habit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlistairKelman (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC) AlistairKelman (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Hacker

“Hacker”

A hacker is someone who enjoys playful cleverness—not necessarily with computers. The programmers in the old MIT free software community of the 60s and 70s referred to themselves as hackers. Around 1980, journalists who discovered the hacker community mistakenly took the term to mean “security breaker.”

Please don't spread this mistake. People who break security are “crackers.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.144.37 (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I heard...

...that they were going to classify IAD as a legit disorder sometime this year. True? --Matt723star (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Who is "they"? Which country are you referring to? Chris4uk (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

SOURCED http://blog.paperc.com/2012/11/06/in-2013-internet-addiction-will-receive-the-status-of-a-mental-disorder-in-the-us/ --Matt723star (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you see my source? --Matt723star (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

library.thinkquest.org

Over 8,000 websites created by students around the world who have participated in a ThinkQuest Competition

— thinkquest.org

Need I say more? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Pornophilia

There is only one article about "pornophilia" indexed by PubMed, and it is from 1971. This means that the term gained no support from the scientific community and therefore it should not be employed in Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS for more information. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that many people like porn, since it is said that porn is one of the motors from the development of the Internet, but porn consumption is not considered paraphilia by any medical researcher worth his/her salt. It is true that according to DSM-IV-TR, the consumption of paraphile/child porn belongs to or is associated to paraphilia/pedophilia. We may therefore state as verifiable information that there is nothing abnormal in porn consumption in general, but only when such porn fits specific categories of paraphilia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

EBSCO search for pornophilia (using Academic Search Alumni Edition and Business Source Alumni Edition): no results whatsoever.

JSTOR search for pornophilia:

1. On the Cover: Cecily Brown. Alexi Worth, Cecily Brown. BOMB, No. 91 (Spring, 2005), p. 23

2. Obscenity and Censorship. Howard Poole. Ethics, Vol. 93, No. 1 (Oct., 1982), pp. 39-44

3. Perversion for Profit: Citizens for Decent Literature and the Arousal of an Antiporn Public in the 1960s. Whitney Strub. Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 15, No. 2 (May, 2006), pp. 258-291

PubMed search for pornophilia:

Fracastoro. 1971 Jul-Aug;64(4):247-59. [Pornography and pornophilia]. [Article in Italian]. Bonuzzi L. PMID: 5157314 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Conclusion: pornophilia is an extremely marginal term in peer-reviewed research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The articles found on JSTOR do not support the idea that "pornophilia" would be a mental disorder. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Cybersex

Stop peddling links stating that cybersex or internet use are addictions and offering suggestions about how they should be treated. Their very status of being an addiction is controversial, we cannot consider them addictions unless they are consensually considered so by psychologists and psychiatrists. DSM-5 does not support the idea that they would constitute addictions and it has been published fairly recently. Nor does American Psychological Association consider them addictions. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball which could tell if they will ever be considered addictions. Just because some kooks could make money treating purported addictions does not mean that Wikipedia should promote their business. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Problematic Internet Use

Hi I am looking into adding a bit into this section of the page. I would like to know what you guys think about the information I have provided in my sandbox User:ClaraRoper/sandbox. If anyone had any advice or objections to what i would like to submit please fell free to talk back and inform me of your opinions. Thank You ClaraRoper (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Take care that Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted text which cannot be released under a copyleft license. This means citations have to be short and you may not copy/paste large blocks of text written by others, even if you state its source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You may add text to Wikipedia only if you own its copyright, if it's in the public domain or if it obeys fair use doctrine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

negative outcomes? Needs to be explained and expanded

I am trying to find a definition near reference 76 (which is pay for view only) so I don't know what it says. What types of negative outcomes are being referred to? Does it not seem like pay for view sources should not be promoted as anyone can make a cryptic statement in hope people will be curious enough to buy the article. It should be explained what negative outcomes? Online negative interactions? Real life negative outcomes with friends and family or co workers. Maybe just over all failure in life in general? Apriv40dj (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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

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

• http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190630/

  Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist

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

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Social Networking Addiction

Hi I am also University of Hull student, i am looking into adding more information about social network addiction into this page. I have wrote a small section within my sandbox , and i ask whether you guys could please tell me what you think, and any possible feedback would be much a appreciated, advice or objections. Thank you Ninjanasha (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition

I feel that this article would benefit from adding a section on internet compulsions such as online gambling and stock trading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleo2003 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC) I have re-read the article and I think I would rather elaborate on these compulsions and explain in detail why they may or may not be considered addictive disorders. Mass media is defined as the channels of communication in modern societies.The television,radio, and print were means of mass media which were commonly around the 1960s.The internet in simple terms is a network of interlinked computer called the world wide web, which is accessible to the general public.The internet has benefits much of advantages than more less of disadvantage. Advantage in the sense that of communication, search information, educational aspect to learn in class just by sitting in-front of your screen. It also provide a well proper aspect of entertainment, as a matter of fact every thing about this earth is made available by visiting the internet. On the contrary, the internet disadvantages is less beneficiary to the society than it advantages. Nevertheless, it can be said that the negative , the internet weight more on the people in our modern society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinwanasi (talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please verify the source

I put {{Verify source}} to the following sentence:

Corrective strategies include content-control software, counselling, and cognitive behavioural therapy.<ref>"University of Notre Dame Counseling Center, "Self help – Lost in Cyberspace"". Retrieved 2009-11-11.</ref>

because I didn't find the mentioned information from the source. Please double check.--Gqqnb (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090721121833/http://www.netaddiction.com:80/faq.htm to http://www.netaddiction.com/faq.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Image box removed

If restored, please join here. Pwetty Prease.Shajure (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC) No idea what happened to my edit summary on removing the image. Sorry.  :( I removed the image as it is a generic image of a light-complexioned male in a hoodie with a computer. I see no way that this indicates the global nature of problematic computer use... such as the current issues with Pokémon Go while driving, people walking into fountains while texting, texting while driving, other distracted usage while operating trains, automobiles, etc.Shajure (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Textbook removed as a source?

I reversed an edit removing a textbook. While certainly many textbooks are trash... WP generally favors published books over most other sources, and I don't see an argument for removing this one.Shajure (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

See http://bogost.com/writing/blog/writeonly_publication/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Trash book. And thank you, I enjoyed the blog very much.Shajure (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

KKMAK

I see an editor adding text and a citation that is linked to an author that may be the same person. wp:conflict of interest may apply. Also, please stop editing the Ref section. That is not helping.Shajure (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Once this storm of edits calms down, I'll review and see if I can help fix it. This is a mess at the moment, and there are too many edits going in.Shajure (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok unless someone else supports the addition, I am going to cut it as self-promotion.Shajure (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

New editor to the page

Hello everyone, I am a new editor to the page. I was given this assignment as part of a project and chose this topic because it is interesting. I am excited to add my views and receive friendly feed back. I will also do my best to help add more information to the interested posts or add new information as I move forward on my research. Please feel free to give me some editing ideas if you feel an adjustment is needed. I can't wait to hear everyone's view on this matter. Nice to meet you!= )Butterflyeffect818 (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If you don't have WP:SOURCES, you have nothing (in respect to Wikipedia). The kind of sources required for medical claims is explained at WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, the information you provided will help guide me. I will keep your advise in mind when editing.Butterflyeffect818 (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)