From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Technophobia was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 27, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
August 6, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


My comment has to do with the deletion of the word "irrational" from this entry. Previously the entry included "irrational fear of modern technology," then user Mrwojo removed irrational for NPOV. However, a phobia is, as defined by Merriam-Webster, "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." While NPOV is very important, I do believe that it reduces the accuracy of the entry to not mention that aspect of the word.

I'll leave it as it is; since I created the entry, I don't feel right changing another user's edit!

so an 'irrational phobia' is 'irrationally illogical', it is an unrequired adjective... the same manner that 'CD Disc' is 'Compact Disc Disc'

Origin of the Term "Technophobes"[edit]

In his book Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt remarks on page 38:

If the reader will consult such a book as italicized(Recent Economic Changes), by David A. Wells, published in 1889, he will find passages that, except for the dates and absolute amount involved, might have been written by our technophobes (if I may coin a needed word) of today.

The book was published by Harper & Brothers on July, 1946.

Sorry for my very limited knowledge of Wikipedia semantics. I do not edit, but I read this and thought I should post because the origin of terms can be very difficult to trace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the Article Better Now?[edit]

I have just completed a "moderate" revision to this article. Does it seem better now? Just asking. Thank you. User:ProfessorPaul 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Real World Examples[edit]

Being frustrated by talking to a machine is NOT an example of technophobia nor more than being angry at a waiter than can't get your order right is a fear of the food service. It's just technology that isn't very good. The other examples are not as bad but particularly weak. Adding genetic engineering and nanotechnology as well as some general clean up.

Need some clarification[edit]

Can a person who despises technology due to its widely commercialised nature or its associations with consumerism be called a technophobe? Or a person who does not actually fear technology but just deems it to be superfluous? --GatesPlusPlus 14:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm not convinced that the Amish are technophobic. They just reject it for reasons of religion. RJFJR 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


The Technophobia in popular culture section seems longs to me. RJFJR 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is HUAR serious?[edit]

The humans united against robots looks like a joke. Looking at the "organisation's" site, it sure don't look like a serious anti-techno organisation that this article makes it out to be. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to remove it.

The stylistics[edit]

At the invitation of The Prokonsul, I had a look here. I see issues:

  1. with the lead 'graph (no, I won't explain)
  2. with link redirects (no, I won't explain)
  3. with copyediting

I find myself thinking coverage of the subject, especially in literature & film, is extremely biased in favor of recent projects. It didn't start with Arnold (which owes a heavy debt to Fred Saberhagen) nor Shat (& how did he keep from getting court-martialled for blowing up so many alien computers? David Gerrold, IIRC, rightly joked, "How IBM must hate that man!" It seems mutual.) nor the demolished man.

In addition, I'd be very interested in the root causes of technophobia. The Luddites weren't spontaneously generated. Why did they arise? And disappear? And reappear as greens ("It's not easy being...")? (Ever heard an eco-zealot criticise modern technology?) Is there a connection to future shock? Is there a generational difference? If so, or not, why? And is there a blind or irrational aspect necessary to its rise? (Ever heard an eco-zealot criticise modern technology, & in the same breath say terrestrial solar cells are the planet's salvation, without a hint of understanding of the inherent contradiction?)

That said, this is the best example under your project I've seen. Congratulations. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. It looks like there's a few SF buffs working on this. I Am Legend? I'm impressed. No mention of "ST" at all? Oh, well... You're finding the classics, anyhow. Maybe "ST" belongs in Technophilia. Or Gene's dreamworld. 20:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC))
(P.P.S. Don't forget to sign your posts... 20:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC))
Boy, be glad you're on a "closed" page. The revert war over "causes" (& the absence of reliable sources) could have gotten both locked out for breaking WP:3RR. For the record, unsourced info comes out, & websites (let alone blogs & adsites) are prima facie not reliable (tho this makes pretty clear not everybody gets it...)
That said, the history's improved (tho somebody still doesn't recall this is a wiki...).
Can I offer one bit of advice? When you add something like "85-90% are technophobic", tell me why, too.
Well on your way, IMO. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional review avenue[edit]

You may want to consider Wikipedia:Peer review to attract more reviewers.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


This page is in the process of being updated as part of an academic group project. During this time a history section was added, the Technophobic groups section is being edited, and later the in the arts section will also be edited and expanded. Many of the quality standard issues are in the process of being addressed and any mistakes in the article references section will be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm62 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

07/ 27/08 I understand that some of the material is unferenced and am attempting to remedy them in the Groups Section, while continuing to expand. It should be noted that members of this assignment are not fully accustomed to wikipedia formating and referencing system. So as we strive to meet these criteria, it should be understood that MASS DELETION IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. It is very frustrating to find large sections of texted deleted before we figure out the right way to reference it. So thank you for your time and productive critisisms, but please understand we are not completely used to this system. ~mrm62 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm62 (talkcontribs) 21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

07/28/08 I realize as this article stands it does not qualify for GA. But what about B class? I tried finding the information for B class nomination, but it was not readily appearant. Any comments? Mrm62 (talk

With the exception of very, very few WikiProjects, which do review articles for B class, vast majority of articles are not reviewed for B (or lower) classes in any kind of a formal process. In other words, any editor may at any point review that article and comment on whether it deserves or does not a B status. What I'd suggest is that if you think that this article deserves a B status, you should contact one of the editors who commented on this page and ask them for such a review.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Amish/Mennonite "state that they are against"? Isn't it safe to say "Amish/Mennonites oppose"? As written, it suggests untruthfulness on their part, to me. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Technophobia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include:

  • Unreferenced information, including:
    • "Technophobic Groups" section
    • "Technophobia in Arts" section
  • Format references according to WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access dates
  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD

Once these issues have been resolved, please renominate the article. Gary King (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Technophobia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, it's me again. This article did not address the points I raised in the last review, so I will re-iterate some of the points below:

  • Format references according to WP:CITE/ES. They must include the publisher and access date; this includes footnotes. I suggest using {{cite web}} to do this. The references that are not used inline are not really useful because they do not show which information they are referencing.
  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD. The lead section should be a summary of the entire article rather than simply an introduction; right now, it is far too short.

Please address these issues and respond here to update me on its progress. Gary King (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A useful tool that eases the use of citation templates: [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Because there has been no response in seven days, this article has failed its Good article nomination. Gary King (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass Deletion[edit]

Just want to say thanks to those who decided it was best to delete entire paragraphs and blocks of texts without giving us a chance to find more acceptable sources. Like someone said, we are trying to improve this article for a sociology class at our university. It doesn't help when people just mass delete things. The first day I was editing, I had to deal with DiscoSpinster deleting things I was writing before I even had a chance to change things. It would be more helpful if you just left things alone, and tell us what we can do to improve it, rather than delete it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  • No Big Deal... this is a wiki. Just go back in History (Technophobia (edit talk links history))and grab the text as was cut by editing the historic page. Putting stuff back that was in a para is simple with two tabs going in a browser.

     • If the page is changing a lot, cut out a version and paste it on a user page... see for example: this or this page, which are along those lines (ignoring any header section and links--did I mention wiki's have no privacy either? <g>)

     • The one, in fact that second linked, was a page where I was parking cites and cites with quotes in an article overhaul. (Section titles something like Q1, Q2, etc.)

     • It's chock full of Citation templates examples, albeit mostly only {{Cite web}}, but that's a frequent need. See the category link (hint: in this line <g>) for others.
Cites templates should all have a light-background section you can cut and paste, then lay down and fill in the blanks.
Here's one trick to getting them right when section editing... 

   with the general form (argNN means argument, or parameter, if you prefer):
   <ref>{{Cite (Template)NAME|arg1=something1|arg2=something2|...|=somethingNN}}</ref>
   when hanging the cite, break the beginning HTML "<ref>" by making it "<XXXref>" (or I would usually use the form: '<XXXref name="glopsaholic">')

}}</ref >... with the trailing "}}</ref" and '>' spread just like that... on the next two lines. Ditto the leading <ref >{{cite web|author=|title=|accessdate=...}} staggered a bit things are easier to see. Many will lay that out as:

{{cite web

   It makes the prose far less dense and easier to edit! The "broken" <XXXref> and trailing </ref> will "Frame" the citation, letting you proof it for how exactly it will look in the footnotes. When you are happy with it, delete the XXX's and it vanishes. The HTML processing will tolerate a lot before the final ">", so works well. Same for the trailing '}}' pair and whitespace before and after a parameter "=", so there's room to make things a bit more legible. Some parameters will react and include whitespace before, and always after text, so the proofing helps sensitize you to those template foibles.

Because I like to use the same citation to verify key phrases in a paragraph, and that gets easy with a named reference like '<XXXref name="glopsaholic">'. The form is (subsequent uses, not the first) <ref name="glopsaholic" /> which assigns the same footnote code number, but subscripted a, b, c... etc. The only place that doesn't work well is if you are quoting an excerpt... the quote should then support each place you use that named reference. Hard huh!?? <g>

  • If any of you need How-to or where do I find help, just ask. I'm rather fond of Piotr... so long as I don't have to spell his name. (Oh, yeah: Belated Welcome to Wikipedia! // FrankB 08:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


I've taken the liberty of inserting three cites on behalf of your class:

  1. Quoted named cite: diff1
  2. Added quoted dic defs: diff2, which as different as the diff 'looks', didn't change any text whatever, so just the added cite. (Hmmm, may be worth a feature request change... )
  3. Second short form cite, diff3, (Ibid. form, named and used twice, but with quote and hidden supporting data) of the first cite transformed to acceptable format.

Some would argue against that, Ibid. perhaps, but in such a short para or in such close proximity, is a good example, imho, when to invoke (common sense)!

Note, most cites in wikipedia DO NOT use quotes, but having the information at hand when building the article is very useful... Getting rid of the quote and keeping it too is a snap... remember the XXX in <XXXref>... just rename to the "quote=" to "Xquote=", or as the additional data I included in the third cite "|data=" ... any undefined parameter in template is just the same as an in-line comment... it's discarded by the computer, but there for us people to read.

Good luck! Hope Piotr is a easy grader! // FrankB 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Just came across Glen Norcliffe's The Ride to Modernity (University of Toronto, 2001), which has some quite interesting comments on the causes or inspirations of modern society, which might be of use in explaining the reasons for technophobia. (If not, it might be worth reading in itself, for anybody interested in the subject...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

End of assignment: summary[edit]

I want to thank all editors who have contributed to this article, either by editing it or by reviewing it and offering help on this talk page. While the article has fallen short of the Good Article criteria, it has been obviously significantly improved, moving from stub/start class to solid C or even B class. Compare: before, after, diffs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


"In this way, the Old Order Mennonites are technophobic due to community conformities relating to the restricted use of technologies considered to be luxuries." Since i'm far from convinced a religious faith is technophobic, & it's unsourced, I'm removing it. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


I am Amish and while I know that this is a common misunderstanding of my religion, I am offended by its placement here. We Mennonites are Christians and are not at all afraid of technology. Can you tell me, would I be sitting here typing at a computer if such a thing were true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Example of Technophobia in the arts?[edit]

I'm sorry, I can't help but think there should be an entire section on Battlestar Galactica, as an example within an example. The original series, with the Cylons, an example, I think, of the real-world fear at the time of the growing spread of automation. The modern remake series and spin-off Caprica not only are examples of technophobia in art, but exhibit technophobia as part of the backstory, with the Galactica purposely having archaic technology in fear of the newer, Cylon prone technology (mentioned the miniseries).

I'm kind of a new editor, so I thought I should put the suggestion here, so that a more experience writer can write, cite, and format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Trump and Putin[edit]

Can someone please remove the sentence about Trump and Putin in this text and review this article generally? This is clearly not objective, scientific information and not relevant to the topic of the page. Thank you. 11:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvvermeulen (talkcontribs)