Talk:Gaming disorder

Medicine Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merging with Video Game Addiction

I believe these two pages sohuld be merged because, well, they are about the same thing. I suggest the contents of the video Game Addiction page be merged into this page because that's the official name according to ICD/WHO. But another opportunity is to merge the contents of this page into the Video Game Addiction page, possibly as a paragraph (which can discuss the ICD inclusion, the ICD criteria for dianosing and the surrounding controversy "Gaming Disorder". Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another argument in favour of merging with this page is that this page is extremly small for a page about the official name of this disease. Thereas most of the info is for some reason locatated on the page Video Game Addiction which I can hardly distinguish from this page in terms of the topic. Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be merged - I actually thought the same thing before seeing that you already made the suggestion. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support With the ICD 11 it is now an officially recognized disorder under gaming disorder. Agree with the merge proposal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One section reads like written by WHO officials

I propose to edit or delete this section:

"The decision to include addictive gaming behavior in the WHO's ICD-11 was made based on consultations with experts in various fields from across the globe, warranting the implementation of treatment programs in various countries to symptoms identical to those exhibited by people with gaming disorder. As a new listing, the disorder will receive the needed attention of medical professionals, allowing for empirically based evidence of its associated risks as well as prevention and treatment measures[4]."

The first paragraph is just partially true, as there was no consensus in the field about the inclusion in the ICD11, and the consultations happened within the WHO - primarily within their own task force (largely excluding oppositional voice in psychology, medicine and comm studies). The second sentence reads like PR. This is an opinion statement, not a fact.

Also, a section on the considerable debate and opposition regarding this decision is needed. There was an open letter against the decision that was discussed in media around the globe:

https://akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1556/2006.5.2016.088

Dozens of experts with considerable research experience on excessive gaming opposed the decision. Also,the gaming industry opposed the decision. This can be verified by simple googling - so this entry is biased, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safeways (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it as a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. It was basically plagiarism of a source that didn't appear reliable. It doesn't really seem to meet WP:RS guidelines, and this paragraph was sort of a medical issue, so WP:MEDRS should be considered also.

As for the issues it described, that's more complicated. I'm not sure why sounding like WHO officials is a bad thing, and the gaming industry as a whole is absolutely not credible for medical content (are pharmaceutical companies reliable sources for coverage of E3?). Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agreed. However, the argument could be flipped around: Is the WHO a credible source on games? With the new ICD11 category, they claim to be exactly that (by defining an entertainment medium as an object of medical interest). And there are some question marks regarding their competency in that field: If you have a look at the new ICD category, gaming is not defined at all (beyond being either on- or offline), which is an issue in itself. The definition does not include any insight on the specifics and mechanics of the games that are supposed to trigger the addictive behavior (and if we do not believe that ALL games do that, then this would be absolutely necessary). So their expertise in differentiating the actual object of the behavior (i.e. games) is questionable as well, maybe as much as the expertise of the gaming industry on medical conditions. Don't want to split hairs here - I just want to point out that the WHO decision in that specific case is not without its problems, and just giving their viewpoint might lead to a biased entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safeways (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find reliable sources, but the WHO is probably going to be a reliable source for disorders and diseases. The WHO would only be expected to define gaming in the most simple terms, at least for now, because anything more complicated would interfere with the purpose of the ICD. The goal is to provide a common framework so that health professionals can recognize issues and discuss how to help their patients. Only after this framework has been established could they even begin to discuss how games should be categorized regarding health implications. Before they can talk about types of games, they need to explain to each other why they should care about games at all. This shared framework will allow health professionals to communicate with policymakers in a more rational way.

At least, that's the theory, and obviously it's not quite that tidy. Again, if you have any additional reliable sources, please bring them forth. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]