American Gangster was a cool movie, I'll go read about it on Wikipedia. Oh, it's based on a real story, let me check out Frank Lucas' article. Hmm, I don't know too much about heroin, I'll read that. Seems it's an opiate. Whoa, wars were fought over opium between China and England. It seems as if the Chinese Empire wanted to outlaw opium imports. The Qing dynasty were ruling at the time. In 1912 that gave way to the Republic of China. And now it's 10 PM and I've missed dinner, great.
This may have happened to you before; you come across an unrelenting wave of information that must be tamed, read and learned. Urban Dictionary would describe the process as a Wikipedian Loop, a deadly loop of addiction that only ends when your computer crashes due to the number of pages open.
Wikipedia surfing or general Internet information surfing is not normally thought of as problematic Internet use (PIU) in the same vein as online gambling, and massively multiplayer games. However, I've talked with enough people both in real life and online to know that people do let their thirst for knowledge get the better of them on occasion. But isn't that a good thing? After all, learning must be better than wasting away time playing games. Not necessarily so. While I may have learned a little something about the effects of heroin or the Opium Wars, the general knowledge gained does not always return its value. How will that heroin information answer question 3 on my ECE exams? In addition, for my example, I've missed dinner and got a late start on my homework. While not a dramatic effect on my life, it is a typical one, that when repeated could add up. So what drives people to downloading page after page of an encyclopedia?
Natural human curiosity seems to be a clear target for responsibility. Humans are inquisitive, which drives them to learn. Encyclopedias are excellent sources (I acknowledge Wikipedia does have its faults here) of knowledge that can help satisfy that drive. With this in mind why do people not sit down and read the Britannica or head over to the library? The online space here, especially the space of Wikipedia, can help explain. The ease of use and more importantly easy access to inordinate amounts of information seems to make people use Wikipedia first and foremost. Would one rather click a button on a hyperlink or ask a librarian for help in finding “some book?”
So people would seem likely to first choose Wikipedia for ease of use and access, but would anything other than sheer intellectual curiosity lead to PIU? This is where the style of Wikipedia articles, somewhat alluded to in the beginning paragraph, helps to explain the PIU potential. Anything remotely meaningful in an article is linked to its own article. In essence, articles flow into one another without end or impedance. There is no need to turn a page or look up another book, one click and it is there.
In addition to this simple flow aspect, B.F. Skinner's reinforcement schemes can also be applied, further strengthening the draw. For one, there is the continuous ratio reinforcement (a special case of the fixed ratio reinforcement where reinforcement occurs after every response.) Every article contains links to more information. However the real catch is a variable ratio reinforcement scheme. Every now and then, one comes across an article that is really interesting, going above base curiosity, that is read from beginning to end. As we learned, a variable ratio reinforcement is particularly powerful in generating the highest response rates and resistance to breaking the habit. Skinner's reinforcement schedules help to explain why people may continue despite other needs. It also shows that the unique properties of Wikipedia in relation to the traditional paper encyclopedia and libraries are responsible and how they are responsible for potential PIU.
As long as vaguely interesting articles come up with the occasional diamond, it is easy to understand how hours float by and it's now 1 AM and there is still work to do. Hmm, I think I'll read about diamond first.
7 comments:
Great post. I know that I'm one of several people who get caught in these sorts of Wikipedia Loops, and I think you bring up an excellent point about how, although there is an apparent benefit of knowledge, that this can still impede other necessary things from getting done. I like that you bring up Skinner, but do you think that Caplan also applies to your example? For instance, do people who have psychosocial problems become attracted to Wikipedia (perhaps they have a specific knowledge of one thing and contribute an article about this. If so, does this increase their psychosocial problems as Caplan suggests)?
Really enjoy the post. I agree it is possible to get caught up and this is not entirely a positive thirst for knowledge. Some of this addiction prevents a person from interacting with other people ftf leading to or as a result from PUI. After reading several blog posts this week, this post makes it clear that excessive internet use has some benefits, but these benefits are not necessarily social benefits. I also believe the ease of access is huge. I'm sure not that many people were addicted to Encyclopedia's before the internet. People are addicted to the ability to access info so quickly and be able to actually add on or question the validity of the info, which can lead to compulsive use and PIU.
I liked your analysis on the possible reasons wikipedian loops may lead to PIU. I wonder if there is a distinction between PIU in the sense of Caplan and that of general procrastination can be made with Wikipedia? Clearly the potential for problems exist, but it doesn't seem like Caplan's theory about psychosocial problems being predictors totally applies, possibly because wikipedia is different than, say, email or text chatting.
I don't think any post on this blog has resonated with me more than this one! Nice work. Wikipedia has devoured hours of my time and a big chunk of my brain.
The fact that it held you back from your schoolwork is interesting, since schoolwork is intended as a tool to help you learn. In effect, you're replacing learning about the things you're supposed to learn about with learning about things that strike your interest as soon as you see them. (When I say "you" I really mean "we".) I wonder what would happen if there were a three- or four-credit class where your only job was to surf Wikipedia and summarize your learning for the day--waste of time, or personal enrichment?
The other interesting thing about Wikipedia surfing is how personal it is (as opposed to social). I can't think of a way to make it a social activity. That might be the real danger of Wikipedia addiction--Mom can't tell you that it rots your brain, but she can tell you that you haven't made any human contact in three weeks.
I regard Wikipedia as a dubious source of information at best, but I've gotten stuck in the loop a few times as well. Echoing what Ken mentioned, I think it's interesting how we're substituting information about subjects we're actually interested in for what we should learn. The fact that all that information is so easy to access doesn't help at all.
A lot of large websites have their own wikis now, and I find I get lost in those just as easily. So perhaps the hook has a lot to do with the organization of information after all.
Joe,
I really enjoyed reading your post. You do a good job of tying in concepts from class into your post. I especially like the way you start your post, taking the reader through the thought process that so many of us experience daily. You make many valid observations about wikipedia use, and the endless loops that one can take after looking at even one wikipedia article. YouTube is similar in this respect, that many of the obscure videos that people find are found through YouTube loops.
Great job!
So true... On the other hand, if you really do want to binge on surfing the Wikipedia wave, you should try a website called wiki-surf.com. It even wraps youtube videos into it - very addictive indeed.
Post a Comment