Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
How could I tell people about wikipedia without sounding like a nerd? I'm trying to replace people's Warcraft addictions with Wikipeida (after all, which one is worse?) but everyone says, "That's so stupid! How are you addicted to an encyclopedia? You're a nerd!". What do I do? Is it wrong to try to get someone addicted to something?
Leaving aside issues related to the War on Drugs, being addicted to something can be a positive characteristic for some people; for most others, unfortunately, it bears the hallmarks of escapism or even obsessive-compulsive disorder. Really great accomplishments in this world are often the product of a passion, but so too is the devastation of some of history's greatest arch-villains, and so too are the ravings of lunatics. Those who lack the passions are too fearful of the risks posed by the villains and lunatics to encourage new creativity.
Epithets like "nerd" are too easily taken as insults when they really shouldn't be. Sometimes, when you consider the person who is trying to insult you with it, you can even see it as praise. It's understandable that you would want to share your joys with your friends, but the risk is that of sounding like a fundamentalist preacher who has Wikipedia in his hand instead of the Bible. Replacing someone else's addictions can have unforseen consequences, since an addiction sometimes fulfills certain psychological needs. It requires understanding the other person's addiction, and where they're coming from, or perhaps letting them know when material has been posted to Wikipedia that would give them an advantage in their Warcraft play. But that requires at least enough understanding of the game to be able to recognize such "quality" information, or even drawing upon other material about this that is already on the net. You may even find that as a non-addict your game-play standards may be much higher than that of many of the addicts -- that could make you an excellent advisor.
Eclecticology