Talk:Psychological effects of Internet use

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MOEALI101.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 13 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scooby7829. Peer reviewers: Ms0615, Rubiii1231.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashely.dipchan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How internet use affects the human brain → How web use affects the human brain — This article seems to be about hypertext, web surfing, search engines etc. These are all technologies of the World Wide Web, which is only one part of the Internet. Therefore, it is wrongly named unless there is much more research that is going to be added about how e-mail, file-sharing, remote desktops and the other internet technologies affect brains. Relisted. billinghurst  sDrewth  16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Nigelj (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you make a good point. However, I do want to add more information about e mail, twitter, etc. Wouldn't this be considered part of the internet? Thanks --Jo (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Twitter, no, email, no. Email exists without needing the internet. Twitter is microblogging, blogging is "web log", a web thing. Don't you remember people using FidoNet mail, or BANGPATH mail, or BITnet mail? None of which are internet email. Then there's Lotus Notes mail, which is intranet mail, also not internet. Or Compu$serve mail, which is not internet mail either. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh. i'm sorry; I did now know the difference between web and internet! If you think that changing 'internet' to 'web' would be more appropriate, then I agree with you! 'Human neurological effects of web use' sounds like a nice name. But I was thinking that maybe that would be too complicated? Perahps something like, 'Web effects on brain'? I am not sure, really. Do you know if their is a place where more people can discuss this, and so maybe we could get more thoughts? Thanks--Jo (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what talk pages are for. And a WP:RM was filed, garnering more attention. If you'd like, you could increase attention to this issue with a WP:RFC. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thank you for explaining. --Jo (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose JDDJS (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment what about Human neurological effects of web use? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Internet" is used more prevalently in cited sources than "web". In some cases, they may technically be using the wrong terminology but I don't think it confuses anyone. Why not create some redirect pages? --Kvng (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree that 'internet' is more appropriate than 'web.' Everyone I know just uses the term 'internet.' In fact, I do not think that anyone would be confused with the title. Personally, I think that the current title is all right.--Jo (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. Can we change it to, 'How Internet Affects humans'? That would cover other aspects, too, like social relationships.
 * http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/
 * --Jo (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Internet is by far the more commonly used term, and that usage includes aspects which might technically fall under "web". More, "web" is not a precise enough term by itself, because it more broadly means any net-like arrangement; so precision would actually dictate that World Wide Web be the alternative, which is a little dated, unnecessarily long, and not commonly used.  As for the rest of the title, localizing the effects to neurology is limiting and doesn't reflect the scope of interest or research into how the internet affects things like family relations, interpersonal communication, workflow, business models, etc.Ocaasi (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:NPOV etc
OK, so the rename discussion went... strangely. Now, we have an article that is mostly written by one person, that is labelled as being an 'essay', and that seems to say that the whole internet is thoroughly bad and damaging. This is patently not the whole picture, so I suggest someone have a look at policies like WP:NPOV and has a think about well-documented facts like, there are billions of web pages and so people can sit almost anywhere on earth and access a level of information and knowledge that was unthinkable a decade ago. This must 'affect humans'? People can write to their friends, shop online, work from home, publish their holiday snaps, report on oppression, describe wars, publish points of view, and build collaborative projects that span the globe. Does any of this 'affect humans'? You get my drift. We cannot have a whole article that is as one-sided as this one currently seems to be. The trouble is, when it's done, there will be a huge duplication of what is already in the internet, www and other articles, but maybe with an emphasis on it all 'affecting humans'. I can't really see where this is going, or how it's going to be useful to the Wikipedia project, at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In short, this article needs to be more like Internet addiction if it wants to survive. --Kvng (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why someone cannot add something about the positive aspects of the internet. The article may be biased, but it can certainly change. The internet is having a huge impact on people, and their is a lot of research on this, and in my opinion, this research needs to be talked about on Wikipedia. Thus far, most of the stuff I found about how the internet affects human behavior was pretty negative, so i just added it here (I wrote most of the article). I am planning to add more positive material. And at any rate, anyone is free to edit (I have not deleted any contributions, for example.) And i agree that maybe this article was misnamed. Maybe it should be changed back to 'How internet affects human brain'? I have looked at the other internet articles, and I could not find any article that talks about how the internet affects the brain or behavior or intelligence.--Jo (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Individual editors such as yourself must strive for a neutral point of view. If you believe you have put up biased material, you foremost are responsible for correcting it or taking it down. --Kvng (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand, and thank you for explaining. I think that the article is quite balanced. For example, the opening paragraph has both sides presented. And their is a section on intelligence and finding information that talks about the benefit of the internet in these areas. for the article, I just presented information that I found by searching the web. i hope to add more information in the future. --Jo (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Another option might be to rename it again, limiting the scope of the article to negative impacts. It might violate WP:FORK, but I think the topic is broad enough to warrant its own article (once developed). Ocaasi (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm revisiting this and a fresh read leads me to believe that WP:NOTESSAY is the fundamental issue here. The article is already so tagged. If work isn't done towards correcting this, the article could eventually become a WP:AFD candidate. --Kvng (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

copyedits
I am afraid many of the claims in the article do no properly reflect the sources cited. I have removed some, but not completed, as this may require a lot of work. This seems mostly an unintelligent collection of bits and pieces pasted or picked from magazine or newspaper articles. The new title doesn't quite reflect the contents yet either, but the old title was horrible. Kbrose (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Title
The best title is "Human impact of Internet use". this title is very comprehensive and describes the article very well. It is just a slight change, as the original title ('How internet use affect humans') was horrible. i think it is an excellent article.--Jo (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember
I didn't realise at first, because it hasn't been published here yet, but I think this article was originally meant to be based on this book by American writer Nicholas Carr.(book review) Maybe it should be changed into a book review article, to include not only the content of this book, but also some of the pasting it has had from academics and the sensible media? --Nigelj (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the section "Internet and political revolutions" belong here?
Does the section "Internet and political revolutions" belong in this article? Is a political revolution a "psychological effect"? I'm thinking not. But if this section doesn't belong here, where does it belong? A new standalone article? Part of some existing article? Perhaps Sociology of the Internet? Or in the Social impact section of the main Internet article? Jeff Ogden (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I moved this section to be a sub-section within "Social impact" in the main Internet article. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding a Section " Effects on Children"
I think this section plays a key role as there is a lot to be said about Internet's effect on children. Internet has a direct impact on most of the children in their daily lives. Children are psychologically addicted to internet which in turn results in many other problems such as health problem, concentration problems, getting exposed to inappropriate stuff at early age which will lead to negative thoughts at very early age. Svenigalla (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree - however I don't think that the content you added to that section is good. Here are some useable sources for a start:
 * http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/12/jackson.aspx
 * http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/dev-423391.pdf
 * http://www.cdmc.ucla.edu/Published_Research_files/spkg-2001.pdf
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=_cyPiIDZy4YC&pg=PA38
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=PgVzAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT486
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=internet+psychology+children
 * --Fixuture (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)