Talk:Infomania

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmroscoe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

From what I can tell, the first half of this article needs to be referenced better at the very least, and the second half removed. The second half (about the TV Show) seems to fail WP:N and a majority of the information fails WP:TRIVIA and thus has no place in this article. If you can improve it, please do so. OverSS (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed: New Pseudonym - "Information Guilt"

A lot of folk that I've seen (well, gizmodo and the like) call this information guilt.

I think it'd be a worthwhile redirect name to this. It also doesn't link to anything currently, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Man Moon (talk • contribs) 09:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed for sourcing

@Hkoening12:, I have removed this text[1] as you sourced it to a wiki (not a reliable source). Please review Wikipedia's page on verifiability and on reliable sources. If you can locate a reliable source, it would be optimal to copyedit the entry as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Causes and effects

The causes of infomania can be changes in communication technology (e.g. computers), using of email in the modern workplace, office works a huge range of emails, and message requires a quick response. The effects of infomania can be the pressure on workers, difficult to manage workers' time, workers lose concentration, and company lose profit from reduce efficiency.

References

Proposed sources

"Hi my name is Haley Koeninger and I'm editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course at Shenandoah University, with the intent to talk about the secondary sources i found for Infomania. My first source will be an article talking about how tech may hamper with the connected experience of Infomania. My second source will be talking about how infomania actually decreases your IQ more then marijuana. If you have any questions, please write me back on my talk page. @Hkoening12: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkoening12 (talk • contribs) 15:02, February 19, 2015‎

References

Hi, Hkoening12; thanks for proposing your sources on article talk.

Some technical bits: first, talk page posts should be in chronological order with meaningful section headings. See WP:TALK. I've adjusted your post to the bottom of the page and added a section heading.[2]

Second, you should always sign your talk page entries. By adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your talk page posts, your username and a datetime stamp will be automatically added, so we will know who made the post and when. I've added an unsigned template to your post; there is no need to ping yourself as you did above. [3]

Third, you have requested questions be directed to your talk page, but on Wikipedia, user talk pages are for personal discussion, while article talk pages are the place to discuss article content. You should be following this page for article discussion.

If you are able to share this kind of information with your class and classmates, it would save other editors a lot of time and avoid others having to explain these things to other members of your class.

Finally and more importantly, regarding your sourcing, please have a look at our sourcing guidelines for biomedical content. This Newscientist source is not adequate for supporting the statements about IQ and marijuana. That is a laypress source discussing a very weak study, and not the kind of source that is likely to find any use anywhere on Wikipedia.

Please post here if you have further questions. The guidelines for how to post and indent your posts for threaded conversations on talk pages can be found at WP:TALK. @Ryan (Wiki Ed): @Ian (Wiki Ed): @ScottPKingPhD: Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Todd's Choice Overload

"Hi my name is Haley Koeninger and I'm editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course at Shenandoah University, with the intent to talk about the secondary sources i found for Infomania. I’m going to talk about Todd Choice. For Todd choice overload we ask if they’re is such a thing as to many choices/options. We bring this up because Choice overload had existed before. It has just been searching for one or main effect or cause for this condition. It might be proved that Todd Choice, the effect may be proven not informative. Todd’s article concerns meta-analysis for Todd choice overload theory and meta-analysis includes three key points. They key points are “the mean effect size for choice overload was virtually zero, the research identified several preconditions but no conditions that were sufficient in identifying choice overload, and the research failed to observe a significant monotonically increased relationship between choice overload and assortment size.” Prior research has been documented multiple occasions has lead to choice overload. People want to know when choice overload occurs not whether if it does occur. It’s hard to answer that question and everyone is dying to know because it is unlikely stem from testing such as using traditional meta-analytic approach. It would be better and you would benefit more from the Theory-based meta-analysis. This tests the power of the conceptual model of choice overload, which captures the person with choice overload psychological processes. Meta-analysis is a research compares the difference in student’s academic performance that are enrolled are demonstrated by their final course grades, but their score has to be in the range/within 1990-2002 period. This will include the data from over 15,000 participating students. Hkoening12 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Origin of the term

The article says that the term "has been used since the 1980s, but has only recently been used as a term for a psychological debility." What did it mean in the 1980s? When did it start being used as a term for a psychological debility, and by whom? ParticipantObserver (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)