Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because the Wiki Prayer is genius and almighty, use this:


This Wikipedian recites the Wiki Prayer regularly.		 God, grant me the serenity to accept the pages I cannot edit,
The courage to edit the pages I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

{{user wikiprayer}}


For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipediholic

Why not post "neutrality disputed" disclaimer in article

Just some ramblings -- not sure we need another silly page, so I'm hijacking this empty talk page.

A new Wikipedian recently wrote "I'm having a great time." This struck me. "You're in phase 2" I thought. So here are the phases of descent into Wikipediholism. They're more relevant than the 12-step programme out of Wikipediholism, because, let's face it, who has ever made it out willingly?

  1. Inquiry -- "what's this strange place?"
  2. Discovery -- "I'm having a great time"
  3. Enthusiasm
  4. Dependency
  5. Realising your previous lifestyle of bicycling, dinner with friends, seeing the sun and doing laundry was like being a caterpillar, and that you are now a free-flying wikimoth.
  6. Resignation to the fact that you now belong, body & soul to the Wikipedia, and are forever flying into the irresistible flame of the wikicandle.

Perhaps we can cure Wikipediholicism by remembering that you should contribute what you know? Martin

I'm going to move this to meta. Objections? Martin 23:51 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. While it's a silly page, it's linked to a lot of other silly pages, and moving just this one to Meta doesn't seem like a good idea, and it's clear that many of the other ones refer specifically to the English wiki. So I think the whole bundle should stay here. --Eloquence 23:53 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I was just going to move this and the "in denial" list, and maybe the test slightly later. They're mostly linked in user pages and talk pages - I'm happy to fix those to point directly at meta. I thought it'd go nicely with meta:Wikipedians by favourite color and similar lists. Checking the links back they don't seem particularly strongly interconnected - should be an easy move.
Doesn't look particularly English-specific, either. But I'll not move it for now. Martin 00:10 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Real funny.I know its serious,but its funny at parts nonetheless.(The "you know you have a problem when") New Babylon.

Contents

[edit] Real cases

This page and others like it are mostly humourous and give no help, respect or recognition to those people who have a serious problem with Wikipedia. There is no system to help such people, that I know of. A small number of Wikipedians who are particularly close to me have confided in me regarding their feelings towards Wikipedia. No doubt the problem is fairly common.

If anyone would like to talk privately and confidentially about how Wikipedia is affecting your life, please email me and we'll see if we can set something up. At the moment we don't have much of a support network, but we'll see what we can do. -- Tim Starling 15:20, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why only Wikipedia?

wikipediholic (n) - one who is addicted to wikipedia - why not to Wikibooks or Wikiquote or Wikisource or Meta-Wiki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

wikipediholic
you could just call it "Wikiholic" then you have every wiki included
HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real work to be done

My addiction to wikipedia seems to increase when I have an essay to do, and become stronger and stronger as the deadline approches (and the work remains undone)--JK the unwise 14:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Ditto (replace "essay"->"work deadline"). Elf | Talk 21:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexism

Does anyone else agree that the His (or Her) reference throughout is sexist, and should be changed to His/Her, or indeed Her/His?--Cormaggio 20:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not. (Unless this was meant as a joke, in which case surely something better could be arrived at--say, "wikimer".) Elf | Talk 21:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Light Bulb -> God?

Why does light bulb link to god in "The Subterranean Wiki Prayer Revisited, Nos. 5 and 36"?

[edit] translation

I want to translate this page to hebrew, how can i do it?

[edit] You Know You've Got an Editing Problem...

... when you spend all night wondering if "anal-retentive" has a hyphen.

[edit] Is a score of 331.86 points really bad?

Hi, I just took the test; avoided taking it for the last one month but thought I shd chk it out today. The score is in the range given as fatal. I'm a wee bit (probably more) worried. Pl. reply on my talk page, else I'd be adding his to my watchlist and refreshing it :-( --Gurubrahma 11:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Damn me! I got 2000+ altough more active in id.wikipedia than in en.Aditthegrat 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] definition

I deleted the dictionary definition from the top of the article. That kind of thing belongs in Wiktionary, and the first paragraph does a fine enough job explaining what a Wikipediholic is.

[edit] Information addiction

Does opening tab after tab of wikipedia articles (I think I have 11 up right now D:) count as wikipediholicism?

Only 11?

[edit] Uncool : move to meta

What's with moving the whole page to meta without discussion? I think this page serves a great purpose here; it's on many watchlists; it links to many pages which should show this page in ther "what links here" list. CoolCat, please explain what's on your mind... 140.247.73.254 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He's done the same thing on nl, where it was reverted too, and i can guess on a bunch of other wikipedias too ;-) Venullian 09:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Whats not cool about it and why is an anon lecturing me? What is there to be explained on a move to meta? Its now at meta. Just like images get moved to commons, wikipedia related stuff that doesnt help us create a better encyclopedia (aka stuff that is strictly part of wikipedia culture) are always moved to meta. What else is the point of meta? --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's totally not cool, Cool Cat. You cannot say that every article good or bad depending on you like or not. Wikipedia's the community-based encyclopedia. --manop 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) /Thai Wikipedian

[edit] Another Type of Wikipediholisism

Well, I'm a Wikipediholic, but not in the sense this page describes it - I start browsing wikipedia and simply CANNOT help but visit a ton of links from a page, then visit MORE links from each of this page, until I've got about fifty windows open and have to force myself to not open any more. I've talked to a few people who are like this as well - maybe we should add it to this article. -Jetman123 01:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At the bottom

I don't gamble, I don't play games or read other websites much more than other people I know, but I log in and out of Wikipedia for hours on end, saying I'm going to stop and coming back thirty seconds later to check my watchlist (which is large enough that there is a decent chance that something has happened in thirty seconds) and then rearrange some more categories, or fix all the incoming links to the first dab page I can find, or just hit alt-x over and over looking for violations of my idiotic pet peeves. I can't even remember how many accounts I have. I'm in my thirties; I have a cool job; I hold advanced degrees; I have a black belt; I've slept with beautiful women; I've traveled the world; I'm fluent in several languages. Life could be good, but I am throwing it all away spending fifty hours a week on Wikipedia. I've lost my wife already, and will likely soon lose my job. Why can't I control this? Lowest 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider yourself a Wikipediholic, my friend. -Jetman123 08:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A psychometrically valid questionnaire is needed

I began the questionnaire, but I found it rather too long and tedious (perhaps the acid test of being a wikipediholic is whether one has staying power to complete it!) I really feel that if this page is to feature a test, it should be a psychometrically valid and reliable one, so that one can check its validity and Cronbach's alpha. Can we have a briefer instrument, one that has less amusing questions, and one which is less transparent, please? I would be interesting to read of validation data on this test, for example evidence that people who have used Wikipedia just about every day really do score higher than those who score seldom use it. I use Wikipedia with just about every internet visit, at least from my home PC, but felt somewhat happy doing the questionnaire that there are evidently people who would score higher than me. I am not meaning to offend Wikipedia there, just believe that one should combine use of Wikipedia with other internet resources. ACEO 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is offended. You may use Wikipedia and other resources...BUT...if you are a wikipediholic, "other resources" may mean wikipedia in other languages and automatic translators. Nobody can claim this is a healty attitude, but it is an effective shortcut for a yes/no answer, instead of taking the whole questionnaire.--FocalPoint 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does this mean?

I really don't quite understand the reference to 'coconut mokeys', and the "and good memories" part of the same sentence. Can someone explain that further?

[edit] Weird article

If this article is supposed to be funny instead of being true information, then I don't think this article should exist. Wikiholism is NOT real. I cannot talk to myself online. I think the creators somehow are BREAKING THEIR OWN RULES. (Plainnym 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] You know you have a problem when...

  • You edit from work.
  • You are subscribed to the Recent Changes RSS feed - and it doesn't update often enough for you. MonaLS 02:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Be bold in updating pages. GeorgeMoney (talk) (Help Me Improve!) 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think it's a serious problem

I don't think it's a joke! My GPA must have been at least half a point lower last year because of all the hours I spent on Wikipedia every day. Then again, it probably also was boosted half a point my the random knowledge I gained. Could we have some doctor look at this so we can get rid of the joke tag!? -newkai | talk | contribs 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Vandalism.

Is there a page where vandals, like wikiholics, can recover? 63.23.7.233 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Yes -- the sandbox. SWAdair 04:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "See also" section

...lists a user because he has contributions in five digits. Um, I'm not impressed. On Wiktionary, I'm about halfway to six digits (not including my 'bot accounts.) Surely some here have passed the six digit milestone already, right? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humour lost on some

Since this is mainly a humour page, shouldn't it get the notice at the top (like the Wikipediholic Test)? I've actually seen some people point to this page as "evidence" that Wikipedia editors (and therefore articles) cannot be trusted (I'm sure everyone will spot the irony in that).

--RMN 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathetic

You people need to get a life/get laid. --Stukov 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a joke?

If this is a joke then it should have the {{humor}} thing at the top.--Scott3 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size

Can people one down and stop adding to this? It takes me ages to get through this as it is. And i am refering to the quiz. Simply south 17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikipediholic_f3f8.html"