Template:Vital article

Featured articleDigital media use and mental health is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 6, 2019.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2019Articles for deletionNo consensus
June 6, 2019Good article nomineeListed
August 1, 2019Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
August 5, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 5, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that research into digital media use and mental health has found that females are more likely to be affected by problematic social media use while males are more likely to have gaming disorder?
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 August 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Review of literature by Desmurget

The neuroscienticist Michel Desmurget has published a review of the literature on the effects of digital media use entitled La fabrique du crétin digital. Surely this would be a relevant inclusion? Munci (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Seems to be a 2019 book, and dozens of other literature reviews on this topic have been published since then. That said, it looks a good book from a quick scan, so no objection from me if you wanted to add a few lines on it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondance between content and lede

I get the impression that the lede does not accurately summarise the contents, notably the lede sentence "Digital media and screen time have changed how children think, interact and develop in positive and negative ways" does not accurately represent the findings presented in the long and detailed Problematic use section and the short Mental Health Benefits section. Munci (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. Granted, the 'Problematic' section is much longer than the 'Benefits' section. But the latter section is rightly unequivocal on benefits associated with digital. Whereas the Problematic section is so long as much of it is relaying counterargument and rebuttal. I think I get where you're coming from. It was shocking to read CDC's February report showing a clear majority of US teenage girls experience persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, and that 30% have seriously considered suicide. These figures have risen massively since 2012, when smartphone use first became prevalent. As Jean Twenge explains, the trends kept getting worse even in 2017 & 2018 when there was less climate anxiety, the US economy was doing well, and there was no pandemic or major war to worry about. It's similar here in UK, as a bloke in my 50s I have several in my circle of friends with teenage girls who have been struggling with suicidal thoughts. But regardless, we have to be careful not to go beyond what is said in the quality WP:RS, and at the moment, the scientific literature, especially at review level, is very equivocal about linking digital use with negative mental health outcomes. When and if this changes, we can update the lede to reflect it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating and adding a social media section

Hi all. Social media and mental health redirects here, but this article currently has no Social Media section. This might have made sense back in early 2019 when a higher proportion of studies looked at the MH implications of broad sense digital, rather than focussing on social media. But since 2019 there has been a "staggering increase" in the studies looking specifically at SM & MH. According to a 2022 umbrella study, there were 25 review level articles (meta-analyses, narrative & systematic reviews) focusing on social media & MH for adolescents alone, published between 2019 and mid-2021. So a dedicated Social Media section seems warranted. I'll go ahead & create one. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my update run for now. I may return once more review level articles are published. At that point I might be a little more ruthless in trimming older info for compliance with WP:size. I know it's distressing to delete other editors work. But the scientific understanding of this topic is evolving rapidly, and should be reflected in the article. It's near impossible to make the artifcle coherent and easy to read if we keep the dozens of long paragraphs relaying findings of outdated individual studies. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No citations?

this article could use some citations. Kwixotik (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has abundant citations. I guess you mean it could have citations in the lede? (i.e. the introductory paragraphs at the top). Per MOS:CITELEAD , citations are not necessarily required in the lede. This said, while I generally dont like cites in the lede, I'll take your view into consideration, and may add some later (as may other editors.) Thanks for taking the time to offer feedback on the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

This article was promoted to FA in 2019. Since then, several additions have been made to the article, including off-topic information (see this diff, showing completely irrelevant information that I just removed). I haven't gone through the whole article, but I have removed a couple of large chunks of prose. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories