Talk:Geek/Archive 1

message: "::Note: When geek is used in this way, nerd and dork may be used to denote subcategories of geek. In this light, nerd typically refers to someone who has a devotion to modern-science-based subject matter (science fiction, computers, the internet, etc.), whereas a dork's knowledge would fall in the realm of the social sciences. "
Dork usually means someone like a nerd, but without the intelligence. Or at least, that's how I've heard it used. Dork is just a generally derogatory word- in fact, it used to be a reference to the male set of genitals. So this statement (though I might be biased as a social science major) should be excised. Dork really isn't the same as nerd or geek.
On a tangent, I always saw geeks as "technical" while nerds are more "wordy". That is, a geek is more physical in his love of a topic, a nerd tends to be more mental- i.e. building a computer versus reading about boolean logic. But like a Venn diagram, the two- nerd and geek-tend to overlap.
:: the way i see it dork is someone who is goofy, or awkward.. gah my mind just crapped what i was going to say.. :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.230.141 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dork?

message: I'm a geek and I'm not lonely. Many of my friends are geeks too. That means lots of us are not lonely. The rest of my friends are not geeks, so don't try the "ah, but they're just geek friends" argument on me (sorry, getting my defensiveness in first). Anyway, if you've got a computer you're never lonely. Multiply that by however many computers you've got and you'll see my point.
So I'm taking out the "lonely" slur. --FrankP 12:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lonely, who's lonely?

message: ** For many years, the sport of figure skating has been thought of as geeky, due to the musical preference of most skaters. Many figure skaters are also bookworms, staying shut up in their rooms reading endless books about their sport of choice. For this reason, figure skaters are generally avoided and looked down upon in modern society.
I'm sorry, is this for real? I don't have a problem believing that male figure skaters will be considered "gay", since it's closely related to ballet, but "geek"? And I thought figure skaters would need hours of physical training and dance practice to stay in shape, not spend those hours locked in their rooms reading books. --Pc13 18:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Figure skaters are geeks?

message: There's an incredible amount of potential redundancy between the geek and nerd articles; outside of a historical overview, the majority of content in each (especially nerd) applies to both.  I'm seriously considering the possibility that the two should be merged.  Thoughts?  (I'm posting this to the Talk pages of both articles.) - Korpios 08:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many moons later, I disagree with the motion to merge these two articles, because nerds and geeks are distinct social stereotypes; also distinct from these two are dorks.  Generally, a rule of thumb is that nerds are highly "book smart," geeks often have a proclivity to some set area (most typically is computers), and dorks are socially inept.  People can be combinations of two or even all three.  I consider myself to be a blend of all three, for instance.  But that's just my POV.  --Thorns Among Our Leaves 00:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy With [[Nerd]] 

message: Not only are Geeks smart, swank, and sweet, we have our own Corps too, Geekcorps and even a Geekhalla.  Nerds will never have a 'Nerd Corps" and neither will dorks.  
Geeks are different.  Geeks are cool.
King of the Geeks - 16 Dec 2004
Nerds can only aspire to be as awesome as us whahaha!
--66.161.213.77 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geeks are too cool to be nerds 

message: Would you reference a source for this (or provide a significant rationale)?  My personal understanding of Jungian-derived psychology is in partial conflict (though macroscopic flaws in myers-briggsian and other derivations of Jung make this impossible to point out here given the following policy).  This statement technically is counter to the no original research policy. --24.22.227.53 23:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As seemingly described here: Geek Those who see "Geekdom" or "Nerddom" as a counter-cultural social gathering tend more towards enneagram type 4 (Jungian introverted intuitive), possibly including 3w4 (3w4 is commonly, and wrongly referred to in many jungian derivatives as an ISTP (introverted thinker with auxilliary extraverted sensation. This is both a brain lateralization error, and a massive base typing error (3s are not introverted thinkers).).  Though I may be wrong on the first point... still observing.  3w4 examples are: System of a down, Ben Browder and Bruce Lee.  4w5s would be: kuro5hin (the layout and societal content), the character of Scorpius (Farscape).
Enneagram 5w6s and 6w5s have both nerd traits and geek traits, this being a potential reason the two terms have been considered pseudo-synonymous.
Note that neither geeks nor nerds are particularly socially competent, though given geeks are more drawn to people they have an added incentive to develop social skills.  Whether geek or nerd, it is possible that temperamental variations unrelated (or only loosely related) to character will have a stronger impact on the social ability/drive of any given person, as will the social peers one finds oneself among. --24.22.227.53 23:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Geeks being INTPs 

message: I think both nerds and geeks are members of not only the INTP personality archetype, but the INTJ, and generally all the rationals, and some "light" artists. i personally think the barriers between the two are almost null now, and theyre very much the same. I fit into both categories for example.
I originally posted the below in the article section of Nerd, where it was promptly deleted.  Given questions stated above, I've decided to repost it here (in the hopes it will not be deleted in a discussion page).
As Character, not temperament (I'm personally unsatisfied with the current comprehensiveness of the temperament definitions, especially as my current usage of the term temperament more closely coheres to the instinctual variants most commonly described as a subset of Enneagram theory.).  The correlations between Enneagram and Jung are derivative from Riso and Hudson's work on the matter, as are some other incidentals used for correlation (and some of the examples).
Though others (ie. James Bond's "Q" and Harry Potter's "Hermione Granger") manifest certain traits of geeks or nerds, Nerds most fully correspond to Jung's (Carl Jung) introverted Thinking character (Enneagram's personality type 5).  Thus you get people such as Einstein, Nietzsche, Trent Reznor, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Hawking, the character of Winifred Burkle and the character of Reginald Barclay.  Intellectual mastery of domains of knowledge (and thus the universe) via personally understanding them is the overriding concern (motivation) of these people.  This being the Polymath orientation (as distinct from a Jack-of-all-trades).  Creation and exploitation of one's own niche.  Defense of one's intellectual turf.
Geeks most fully correspond to Jung's introverted Feeling character (Enneagram's personality type 6), though there may be some overlap with extroverted Intuitives. (To a certain extent this is referencing back to the definition used with respect to Geekcorp further up this section).  Thus you get people such as Richard Stallman, Eric Flint, Jay Leno, Malcolm X, Mickey Zucker Reichert, the character of Jason Bourne and the comic Sluggy Freelance.  Here being able to count on your fellows, and have your fellows know they can count on you is the dominant concern (motivation).  Expertise and skills are developed towards these ends.  Thus the more interpersonally aware and competent entity.  Identification with persecuted minorities (sympathy with the downtrodden) can occur.  Possibly more picked upon than nerds -- thus development of interpersonal defense mechanisms (blatant hypothesizing) -- given a desire to socialize, this may be a negative feedback loop on their own part.
: As seemingly described here: Geek Those who see "Geekdom" or "Nerddom" as a counter-cultural social gathering tend more towards enneagram type 4 (Jungian introverted intuitive), possibly including 3w4 (3w4 is commonly, and wrongly referred to in many jungian derivatives as an ISTP (introverted thinker with auxilliary extraverted sensation. This is both a brain lateralization error, and a massive base typing error (3s are not introverted thinkers).).  Though I may be wrong on the first point... still observing.  3w4 examples are: System of a down, Ben Browder and Bruce Lee.  4w5s would be: kuro5hin (the layout and societal content), the character of Scorpius (Farscape).
Enneagram 5w6s and 6w5s have both nerd traits and geek traits, this being a potential reason the two terms have been considered pseudo-synonymous.
Note that neither geeks nor nerds are particularly socially competent, though given geeks are more drawn to people they have an added incentive to develop social skills.  Whether geek or nerd, it is possible that temperamental variations unrelated (or only loosely related) to character will have a stronger impact on the social ability/drive of any given person, as will the social peers one finds oneself among. --24.22.227.53 23:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nerds, geeks and personality theory

message: Shouldn't we be saying who she is (i.e., Steph the Geek) and not just "a geek"?  I have that same damn shirt and pictures of me wearing it.  Thus, it would say "Wikipedia user Thorns Among Our Leaves is a prime example of a geek specimen," not just "A Geek." Thorns Among Our Leaves 20:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we should. I changed the caption to read "StephTheGeek is a prime example of a female geek." Gbeeker 06:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This is less inately about sex than about personality.  Females and males can/will adopt various self-descriptors. 24.22.227.53 17:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WTH????!!!! This wasn't a vandalism thing.  Steve Wozniak meets much of the critieria (from geekcorps/geeksquad-like helping others with high-tech, knowledge of high-tech (and such a focus), etc....) to be a geek.  If anything, he shows a much greater preponderance of "geeky" traits than StephTheGeek does. Fine then, until a decision is made higher up, I'll add Steve as another photo (one more accurately representing the totality of "geekiness" traits. 24.22.227.53 05:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In concur.  In fact, I don't think she rates an article at all.
Woz is evil!!! I revoke your geek license IP 24.22.227.53!  He is from APPLE which means he is like the antichrist DUH! Caleb09 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo / [[Stephanie Pakrul|Steph the Geek]]

message: I cut out this bit on Autism and Aspergers.
"Perhaps due to the high prevalence of High-Functioning Autism among geeks, especially Asperger's Syndrome, the INTP type of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is common in geekhood (description 1, description 2.)"
While many geeks appear to have Autism spectrum disorders, it is probably a case of self diagnosis and other pop psychology, though the similarities are quite interesting. Many people who have severe forms of HFA and Aspergers don't appear to be very geeklike, and perhaps geekyness is "Autism lite", but there hasn't been much research in terms of proving this "link", though it is very interesting. 
Also, having Aspergers/Autism doesn't mean one shows up as one Myers-Briggs type or another- one thing doesn't really have anything to do with the other. However, a section on geek/nerd personality and references to the "IT" sorts of Myers-Briggs might be interesting, though.
Whenever Asperger's syndrome is added to the article, someone deletes it. 
  It appears to be a sensitive issue. Geeks do not like the idea that their
  behavior is pathological. And it is not. People labeled Asperger's also
  don't like their behavior to be considered pathological. Many feel it's
  just the way they are. I also considered myself simply a geek or nerd
  (my sister calls me 'nerd' to this day) until I had a child diagnosed 
  autistic. It's pretty clear to me that I'm Aspie after reading a lot about
  the subject. Also, my dad didn't speak until the age of 4 (though he acts
  very neurotypically today) so I'm not
  making stuff up. I just haven't found the need to get a formal diagnosis 
  because I don't see the upside in my case, as I manage fairly well.
::I'd have left in the part about many geeks being INTPs. I've seen people do studies and actually made a few people at my school take the test, and it's actually quite common. I completely agree that it isn't related to autism, however. --Flyne 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism  

message: Why do we actually use the term geek in this way? The term geek is merely the thought of someone who feels inferior by the "geek's" superior intelligence. You also state that geek means ' a person who is highly consentrated on one aspect of knowledge', E.G. Books or computers. But if you think about it, jocks are interested only on one aspect of learning: Sports. So are they geeks too? Unless you are saying that sports isn't about learning. Then you'd basically be saying that jocks are stupid asses who torment so-called "geeks". I myself am a "geek", but is thought of as "cool" by other individuals (no, these individuals are not geeks). So what is the definition for "geek"? Cause I love lots of geeky stuff, yet at the same time is thought of as cool... P.S. Does anyone find Stephthegeek attractive? ;) (laughs his sternum out, whatever that is)...Spawn Man 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geek term: 

message: Finally, geeks tend to be highly egotistical and convinced of their own intellectual superiority over the 'herd', trumpeting said prowess at every opportunity. They deride and denigrate 'popular' culture whenever the opportunity arises, as if this somehow 'proves' the staggering immensity of their superiority to the masses. Geeks are often convinced that they're innately better than the people around them, and that under the right circumstances everyone (including the women they desire) would see the error of their ways and bow down before the geek as their master and lord. In actual fact geeks aren't any smarter than non-geeks, and are just as likely to belong to their own conformist social groups who, ironically, claim membership as a badge of nonconformity. Geekdom can rightly be thought to be a product of both egomania and an inability (or unwillingness) to mature beyond early pubescence. UberJimmy25 way to go loserUberJimmy25
::"Ironically, the farsical Greecian herald strode forth to innately strike down the whimsical battlements of egomania, thus obliterating the country of Geekdom, once again restoring peace thouroughly throughout the world, especially to boring people whom write long un-understandable paragraphs of mental pubescence". You know what? My sentence sounds almost as crap as yours. I don't know how you blend such a long list of boring words together like that? You really are the master of boring sentences... I haven't heard that many undecipherable words since Britney got married to that guy for a day in a drunken spurr. Have a nice day =).  Spawn Man 11:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unobjective paragraph full of wild speculation 

message: In it's current form it seems that the article has an overwhelming bias towards the perception of geeks as being socially inept and other negative aspects. Any positive aspectes described seem to be embedded within paragraphs describing a negative aspect.
One oddity is that all the paragraphs describing geeks as having a lack of social skills right next to pictures of Stephanie Pakrul (blogging being a major new social sphere) and a group of geeks socializing in a bar.
There is a lack of the positive side of geekdom (those who consider geeks to be intelligent, highly social, and sometimes quite fashionable), and an overabundance of the negative side. The geek subculture seems to have two very different sides, those of the negative stereotypical geek (ugly, average, greasy, socially inept), and those of the positive geek.
I don't have time at the moment, but I suggest that the article be expanded and partitioned into two main sections describing the two different views of geeks.
Does anyone else support this idea?
LQ 07:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My own view on this is that it's down to how you define a geek. The word geek has been widely used as a pejorative for someone who is considered socially inept - however, as the article points out, geek means lots of other things too. A person who self-identifies as a geek isn't necessarily socially inept - indeed, the recent phenomenon of geek-cool means they're anything but. I think there's evidence that geek-cool has come about partly because of the word's use as a pejorative. So if we drop all references to social ineptitude in the article, we're denying the history of how the word geek and its associated concepts have come to be used in the way they are today. (does that make sense?) Squashy 12:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs Improvement 

message: Mixing in the images of Steve and Steph is screwing up the display of the bulleted list. I know it's nice to swap pictures from one side to the other to keep the article from looking unbalanced, but can we find a better way to display the images without screwing up the list? You can call me Al 16:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: sigh False hope: this link redirects to the top of the regular Geek page.  As the daughter of a NASA scientist (therefore well versed in classical Geek culture) I have a few questions to raise:
*Can a pretty girl be a geek?
:Yes.  It's worth pointing out though, that most of the girls who call themselves geeks have very little geek cred, and are actually what are known as scene whores in the Linux community.  This would be descriptive of a hanger-on who is attracted to the "culture" of geekdom.  Amazingly, there is such a thing as a "geek groupie'.
*What's the relationship of geekdom and sex?
I have a thoroughly nonscientific theory, probably non-PC as well.
The formative Geek years are adolescence.  It's pretty easy for a guy to become a geek even if he's fairly good looking.  A teenage girl who's good looking is going to get attention.  She'll also experience far more social pressure to maintain her appearance.  This leads toward the social mainstream and away from advanced Linux skills, strangely worded t-shirts, and the Monty Python oeuvre.
Geekery could be called a set of behaviors that people engage in when they can't have sex.  Once a geek persona is firmly established it withstands romance.  Developing geeks need abstinence.  A young woman with natural geek tendencies who seeks out geek gatherings is probably going to get laid.  Or at least get hit on by a huge number of guys.  This inhibits the proper development of her geek nature.  There are exceptions to this rule...but that kind of proves the rule, y'know?
Durova 07:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Girl Geeks 

message: I deleted the last half because it is incoherent and utterly POV  with little relvence and most important it has no point! It is just an anti-geek ramble.  UberJimmy25
:And it's been reverted at least twice. Can you articulate exactly what is so "anti-geek" about it? I'm a self-identified geek and I don't see any issues with it. You can call me Al 13:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last half should be dealt with. 

message: I've removed the "research" descriptions (looks like they keep getting reverted -- please don't revert again unless you can provide references).  There appears to be no such thing as an "Asim-Berg Personality Inventory"; that entire item looks like a fabrication.  The other items cite research by only university name, with no author, title, year, or URL; there's no way to cross-check; they're lost in the noise in Google's index, if they exist at all.  
It's worth noting that all of these unreferenced items were added at the same time by the same unauthenticated Comcast Cable user 67.171.196.193 on 17 Oct 2005; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geek&diff=25773448&oldid=25767542. 
That same anonymous user also edited the "connotations" paragraph, changing it from NPOV to negative.  I've added a POV tag to the article and will leave that paragraph for someone else to fix.  (Go get the text circa 14 October for the older version without the derogatory H1 comment.)
On 20 Oct an anonymous user from the same IP address vandalized another page outright: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Hyori&diff=25990931&oldid=25483846
A few minutes later, they heavily edited the Nerd page, moving it also to a decidedly negative slant, while also citing similar "research":  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nerd&diff=25991873&oldid=25978229.  That page got reverted on the next edit.
I think it's safe to say that the anonymous user's edits were made in the spirit of vandalism, not information.
While here, I've also tried to balance the "causes" section, by mentioning possible environmental effects.  Take care, folks; kids read these pages.  Exclusively attributing "geek" personality traits to a clinical disorder is enough to mess someone up for a long time.  
This page still needs a lot more work.  A good place to start might be to go and fetch some of the deleted paragraphs from before the 17 Oct vandalism.
Stevegt 07:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "research" paragraphs were vandalism 

message: This article has (prior to my attempt at a cleanup, hopefully) gone way downhill.
I've attempted to restore some semblance of sanity and clarity to it; please feel free to make any changes that do *not* result in it further degenerating.
If there is agreement, I'd also like to remove the warning.
Thank you.   - Korpios 08:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Cleanup 

message: As it stands, I don't think the article is as bad as some make out. But the opening paragraph - A geek is a person who is fascinated, perhaps obsessively, by obscure or very specific areas of knowledge and imagination. - really? So I've added the Wiktionary link.
Wikipedia doesn't need to duplicate what appears on Wiktionary, but I think it should at least be consistent. The fact that we've got a list of some of the uses of the term 'geek' is a good thing, but that's at odds with the assertion of what a geek is in the opening sentence.
Given that the meaning of 'geek' is slightly vague, I think the fact that it has been widely used as an insult is more important than any specific meaning of the word. And also, the contemporary phenomenon of 'geek-cool' follows on from its previous usage as an insult. I appreciate that the negative connotation is already mentioned, but I think it needs to be nearer the top. The point of the Wikipedia article is to explain the phenomenon of geeks, not just to give a list of definitions.
But I can't quite think how to word it yet. So I'll umm and arr over it for a few days, and if someone beats me to it, great. Otherwise I'll change it myself in the next few days. Squashy 09:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining geek 

message: The way I see it there are really no two distinct groups that could be classified as geeks and nerds; it is all about the same mindset really and I doubt it has anything to do with the individual's penchant towards science or culture; having read much of the above debate on the terminology I have come to the conclusion that small clusters of people (net communities e.g.) like to apply one of the two terms to themselves, based probably on some obscure story corroborating their choice as being the one on the side of "coolness", and apply the opposite term to the ones they consider to be merely poseurs and not really worth of the title geek/nerd. This whole debate could stop if someone actually found out how those terms came to existence; even in such a case though it is obvious that we would come up with the fact both terms were originally applied by outsiders as derogatory; and my guess would be that we would simply find out that originally both terms were used not to differentiate between two groups, but interchangeably for the same group; this whole debate "I am a geek, you are a nerd" is only possible to have come about after these terms became proudly accepted as titles by groups, the differentiation could not have been there at the time they were used solely as derogatory monickers. Lucius Domitius 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless argument over terminology

message: Even if there is a possibility that the term "Geek" used to refer to a person with low social abilities, I think that the meaning has evolved.
On this page, we learn that there are several types of geeks ! In my opinion, such "geeks" (science geeks, and even "Star Wars geeks" !) refers to people who'd like to become hackers, but dont have the appropriate skills, nor they are intersted by computers. Hackers have been widely emphasized in medias, especially for creating computer viruses or things like that.
There is something that's not mentionned in this article : Geek Humour. Geeks (I mean, real geeks = computer geeks) have a very special kind of humour : see D.E. Knuth in TAOCP.
To find our way towards this article, we may ask someone whoses authority is recognized, eg D.E. Knuth, R.M.S., L. Torvalds...
King Mike 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  evolution of the term "Geek" 

message: If you're going to include Professor Frink, why not also include the comic shop guy? Seahen 22:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geeks and ''The Simpsons'' 

message: If you have any arguments about geeks/nerds and need clarification, feel free to e-mail me at Forsaken_Gleeman@hotmail.com (I am an "expert" on the topics of Geeks and Geekdom (I have performed many, many social/psychological expirements on the subject of so-called "social-castes", and I am also a self-proclamed geek myself.
[www.record-eagle.com/2005/nov/15quiz.htm] (Proof of my Geekiness)
--204.38.134.6 19:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geeks are people!!! (Well, that's what we want the world to believe for now!) 

message: According to a webcomic...
Oxford English Cat and Girl DrWho42 20:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An accurate definition betwixt Nerd, Geek, and Dork 

message: This article needs photos of geeks.  I added one.  I see others have, too.
Here we go.....
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geek&diff=35046529&oldid=34961752
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geek&diff=34956351&oldid=34952534
3) Movie poster of Napolean Dynamite
Others??  Please add!Tempoo 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should vote on photos 

message: With the increasing number of self-styled geeks coming out of the woodwork, you have to wonder if the qualifications of being a geek have lowered their standards. Having a head full of useless knowledge derived from watching hours of tv, anime, movies, videogames and whatever is not really considered as being "smart". Being "smart" means being able to figure things out and use their knowledge to work for them. And that is the one thing that geeks always had going for them. And it goes beyond the stereotypical image of geeks building their lives around things like D&D, sci-fi, comics, gaming. Just ask all the old school Trekkies who actually became scientists and engineers. Unfortunately, however, even the most hardcore anime fan will have it tough if he wants to become an animator; that field is even more competitive.Mr. ATOZ 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geeks redefined 

message: I think this article should be reformulated in a way that treats what do people call a geek, and not in what a geek is, because, practically, a geek doesn't exist and is often an insult.
I am of the opinion is not a person but an insult (even though one can either seriously or comedically admit being a geek).
I think it should be remade to a structure alike the "White Trash" article, because the term geek, like many other insults is subjective and there for noone can absolutely say that a person is a "geek"
It should incorporate either a list or text of the attributes of a "stereotypical geek"
EDIT: Also i think the picture of the article should not be a photograph of a person but rather a drawing of a geek with all or most of the geeky attributes listed in the article.
:It seems obvious that 'Geek' exists only as a social construct. However, I have not found anything citable in that regard. Neurodivergent 18:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention: Geeks don't exist

message: Due to the recent unpresidented rise is the American, and in that case world, Geek population, I have been recriuted as part of an elite team to try to isolate and eventually illiminate, this problem. My area of expertise is recriutment and communications, therefore I was hired to head the identification wing of this new colalition. 
The reason for dealing with the Geek issue is obvious: they are weird. They are solcially awkward. They are distruptive to supireor people. They are Geeks!
I therefore implore you to join my squad and rat out all Geeks. You will be compensated on a commision basis, based on the geekiness of the Geeks you turn in.
[geekiness= (# of computor languages mastered X Geeky games they play X # of times they have watched any of the forbbiden films*)/their social awkwardness]
Help the world, your country, and your self-esteem by turning in all Geeks. Whether they be your friends (yeah right), tech help, or siblings (I'm so sorry), you have have a duty to turn them in.
Thank you and may god bless you all,
Special Agent 253
Forbidden Films are:
LOTR
D&D
ect.
If your so smart then how come you mispelled about 30 words right there?  Obviously you just wish you could have and IQ above 3 at some point in your life.
--Caleb09 02:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention you Geek-Bounty Hunters 

message: So, if I really love Magic the Gathering, and like to purchase all the cards and stuff and read books related to it, and love the artwork and hang posters with that artwork in my room. That makes me a geek even if I have never thought myself to be one?
*In the proper sense of the word, geek is an insulting pejorative bestowed upon you if others believe you deserve it. And I emphasize proper sense of the word. Twenty years ago, people who loved stuff like Magic: The Gathering, sci-fi, and LOTR were often few and far between. You could be one of very few people you knew who admitted to liking that stuff more than mainstream interests such as sports, popular music, and popular entertainment. Now that these interests are somewhat popularized by geek movies like the ones that came out in the 90s, everyone got on the bandwagon. But, if you ask me, liking sci-fi, comics, gaming, fantasy, or Magic cards isn't what being a geek is all about. There is circumstantial reason why a lot of people who fit the geek image are into those things. But just saying, for example, you're a hardcore online gamer isn't enough to be a geek since everyone and their brother seems to be glued to their Playstation. What got people labelled geeks is just being too studious or bookish. Not being into "cool" things like sports, popular entertainment (which includes videogames which were never totally uncool just depended on what games you play), Not being outgoing enough, not using the slang, not being down, (these last two are especially a problem with a lot of young African Americans who don't lace their vocabulary with a lot of urban hip hop slang. They often get unfairly and stupidly stereotyped as whitebread. But a good, racially neutral example would be the kid in the low budget (but good) movie Tadpole. Best analogy I can think of: the term geek was mostly stolen and bastardized by trendy hipsters in much the same way the artsy bohemian image was stolen and bastardized by trendy wannabees who are not starving and are not as artistic as they think they are.Mr. ATOZ 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it more like a title people give to themselves? 

message: A nerd is someone who is smart in terms of science and math yet socially retarded.  A geek is someone who is just socially retarded, but is adept to very technical things such as comic books or computers. A nerd can be a geek and vice versa, which is why sometimes these terms overlap.  The cases of each and/or both range from mild to severe, and may sometimes interfer with their social life significantly.  That is how each term should be used, if they are to be used at all.  Anyone feel free to comment on their insights as well.    Lue3378 07:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geek/Nerd 

message: The article has been nearly completly redone since there was a "The neutrality of this article is disputed." tag put on it.  
Do people still think it suffers from NPOV problems?  Or can the tag be removed?  Ocicat 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Huo_Ma_Ke:
This TV show actually isn't half bad, check it out for sure!
But the point is, it helps out with our definition of "Geek": They say it has a lot to do with lack of social skills.
Take a look at the professions of some of the geeks:
"Tracks monkeys with lasers"
"Rubik's Cube World Champion"
"Speed Chess World Champion"
And so on. So we can expand it to include odd jobs, or intellectual interests. Odd jobs should NOT include dirty jobs....most of the included jobs are very clean and involve technology.
However, we must note that not all geeks are bad-looking. The geeks all have some problem with their looks, like acne or bad hair....but they can be fixed.
Anything else?
</huo>
The reason that many geeks are "bad looking"...is well they don't care as much as most people.  They care more about other things that are more important than "looks", they like more intelligent things that can actually help them in life (well I guess looking good would help with some jobs like umm.....ummm....telemarketers? I don't know?! See it really isn't as big a deal as everyone makes it.  If intelligence more important than looks for in this world geeks would be in control of the world xD...but I digress).  But some geeks (and some people in general...) don't care enough about their hygiene which bothers me a little...(i'm more hygenic than most people you see...) well because it can make them umm..slightly unpleasent to be around and, well its just not good for you ya know (as geeks they should know somthing that obvious..)...well anyway I digress
Caleb09 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beauty and the Geek 

message: It feels like the first three definitions in the Various Definitions section are more or less the same... they mention that geeks tend to have an immense depth of knowledge in a few subjects, and this tends to place them out of the social norm.  Perhaps the part about entertainment interests can be a seperate point. 
*It's already covered under non-technical geeks. Many of the otaku/fanboy geek types who know a lot of entertainment related trivia (this includes gaming, music, movies, comics, anime, TV, anything entertainment oriented) wouldn't be able to cut the mustard as the science/tech geeks (to many, the only true geeks) who know a craft and are good at it, can contribute to the body of knowledge related to their craft (example, science),because they've devoted time and work towards serious study.Mr. ATOZ 18:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that, but Im talking about the concision and readability of the overall article.  I think the Definitions section could be written a little more directly, and perhaps slimmed down, especially if some of the info is covered in more detail later in the article.  This would be a more encyclopedic course of action. MrPMonday 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: Here is the offending statement. "The revolution of passive entertainment including video games, television, DVDs and the internet has replaced traditional geek pastimes such as reading, studying, and creative hobbies, although the proliferation of amateur web-comics and fan-fiction is a notable exception to this." It eludes me how reading on a computer screen can be considered passive as opposed to reading on paper. The insinuation about lost, "creative" hobbies of old, contrasted to "passive" hobbies of our times also reeks of bias. Seeing how these statements are unsourced and seem to reflect personal opinions rather than fact, I am removing them both. Porfyrios 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious delineation of "passive" entertainment removed 

message: The most recent reversion of the main article reverted 'vandalism'. I am not sure it is vandalism, but a description of what a geek was and where they came from in the pre-computer age. --Dumarest 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 'old' defination of geek

message: Why do so many geeks have ADD or ADHD?  It just doesn't seem to make sense.  I mean we all know Einstein was said to have ADD.  Heck I have it too!
--Caleb09 02:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADD/ADHD and geeks 

message: I once did searches in both Amazon books and Google print of the word "geek", to find out when it changed meaning from a kind of circus performer to a social misfit.  (The latter could naturally evolve into a term like "computer geek".)  What made me curious was Freddie Blassie's somewhat disturbing humor song, "Pencil-Neck Geek", published in 1976.  What I found was that few if any American books published before the 1970s used the term "geek" in the modern sense.  But starting from the late 1970s, around the time of Blassie's song, many sources did.
Meanwhile the song itself has a double interpretation of the word "geek".  The lyrics go out of their way to define a geek as a circus performer.  But then the song treats a geek as someone who deserves to be cruelly picked on, that is, a social misfit or outcast.  So it seems very possible that Blassie is really responsible for current definitions.  There are various problems with connecting the word to Shakespeare.  First, Shakespeare's "geck and gull" doesn't really mean the same thing as the American "geek".  Second, you would expect occurrences in the literature between then and now, but I didn't find any.  And third, you could expect schoolyard bullies to learn their language from someone like Blassie, not from Shakespeare.  Blassie, for his part, derived his usage from the old definition.
Without crossing the line into "original research", I think that citing Blassie is fair.  But I do think that serious etymological research is called for, based on word searches in the literature.  Schoolyard slang has commonly appeared in silly teen fiction, and even in good fiction, for many decades.
Greg Kuperberg 22:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I welcome your well thought out addition. I'll look into this approach as I get time. Using the word geck is not deliberately a stretch; it is referenced by the New Oxford American Dictionary. "ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from the related English dialect geck ‘fool,’ of Germanic origin; related to Dutch gek ‘mad, silly.’"  Of course, it was easier for me to link in Shakespeare than old Dutch. I think the etymology does need to be fully cited and vetted. --Charles Gaudette 01:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: A recent edit removed a link to Girl Geek as vandalism, but I would question this. I went to the site, and it is a valid site, for female computer types, and if 'geek' now is related to computer 'nerds' then this site is a quite valid addition to this article - after all, geeks are not sexist are they? --Dumarest 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with the link is that it does not meet the guidelines at WP:EL.  Links to local chat sites such as this do not provide any significant encyclopedic content, but serve instead as a means to promote the linked to site.  If the site were to change such that it provided a large amount of unique and valuable information about the Geek comunity as a whole, or otherwise became a useful reference, then it would then be appropriate to replace the link.  Until this happens the link should not be put back into the article. --Allen3 talk 16:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate the explanation. Thanks --Dumarest 11:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Girl Geek

message: Just wondering, who pronounces it [dʒiːk]?  I myself have never heard that one before...  --Xyzzyva 18:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Well seeing as the Hebrew version has become featured, could we not improve this ... lots? ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: It looks like the author of this article has a lot of time, must be a geek XD
All in good fun m'boys.
Poppleganger 08:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  observation 

message: I believe a geek is more a scholarly type of a person and not a person obssessed with trivial knowledge, that is a nerd (like me).  This acticle needs to be fixed to conform with the nerd article. WikiDaily 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy dispute 

message: First of all Geek and Nerd are "slang" terms. they have no real meaning. it varies from area to area. It takes the meaning of  the generation; it develops with the people. the th statement above it starts with "I believe"; this is an indicator of a slang term. in the same way that the  "N" word has changed; today you cannot say it if you are white today. Yet on the flip side fifty years ago if you were white you would say it. It may have still been a hateful word but it was okay back then. The term "Geek" cannot hold a Exact meaning because next year it might be held to a different context. DesignDroide 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can it be accurate?