Scene. Dimly-lit conference room at the local senior center; a motley-looking crew sitting on chairs in a circle. One man gets up to the lectern, taps the microphone to make sure it's working, and speaks.
"Uh, Hello. My name is Robert, and I'm a WikiAddict"
Murmured sounds of affirmation.
"Well done, Robert" says a short man with bloodshot eyes, "the first step is admitting you have a problem". "Now let's move on to the 12 steps...."
Poor benighted souls, their minds empty of original thought, their one burning desire to continuously (re)visit the WikiWikiWeb
to see what's new.
Contrast with TvWatchers
See also RecentChangesJunkie
Some people, by contrast, are addicted to adding
things, rather than just watching. But WikiWritersDontGetPaid
And still others marvel at the concept of the anarchy that is Wiki, this sparking their own original thoughts. Just because it wasn't added here in some obvious way, doesn't mean that book readers, Wiki watchers or TV watchers are any less thoughtful. Hmmm ChaosTheory
, sort of.
Minds empty of original thought? Then how did you write this?
He copied the TV page.
Ah, no, he applied it, altering its meaning to fit his opposing viewpoint. This required original thought.
Someone here has a pretty low threshold as to what qualifies for original thinking. Maybe people been reading too many wiki pages or watching too much TV.
I didn't say a lot of original thought. But more than you exercise giggling along with a laugh-track.
The discussion above maybe could benefit from a proper definition of "original thought". How about a person who comes up with a thought that he obviously cannot have copied from elsewhere but that we know has been published earlier. Is that persons thought a product of original thinking? I.e imagine a native American in the late fifteenth century figuring out some of the principles of geometrics? It was known in the old world but as far as I know not in the new world? (Bad example - but u get the idea?)
As much as I love books - I've been reading since I was four and read a minimum of two books a week - I don't see what makes books so superior. In general, they're more engaging. But only in general - you could choose to read nothing by romance or "adventure" novels, and I dare say you'd be in worse shape than if you got all your entertainment from TV. You can waste your life away with your nose crammed in a book or sitting in front of a TV; if you choose to waste your life, what's difference does the method make? At the same time, if you choose to be engaged and aware, you can do it while reading books or while watching TV.
I created the BookAddict
page; I am
a book addict myself. Maybe it didn't require a lot of original thought -- OK, it probably didn't. My main motivation was annoyance at the self-assumed superiority. -- RobCrawford
should have a 1/2-) attached. TV is nowhere near as bad for your life as, say, methamphetamine. And yes, you can waste your life reading books for no purpose. Oompa Loompa Doompedy Doo, as they say. -- PeterMerel
For a 12-step program on InternetAddiction
, see CaughtInTheNet
, a book on the subject; includes recovery advice.
I would go crazy without books, but I am trying to find the value of this... nobody commented on that so I will attempt to gain input - if you are all really addicted to this why hasn't someone responded... I thought this wiki stuff was supposed to be really fast. (9/28)
The "quick" aspect of wiki refers to ease of contributing, not the expectation that comments will appear soon after a contribution is made.
Thanks - The entry is easy, but finding the proper forum may be a beginers (my) problem... it appears as though there a billion conduits into a zillion brains with the greedy gurus making money... such is life