Apologies for arguing from first principles, but for anything that spurs a lot of activity, the only alternative to a bubble is this: people ramp up investment and activity and enthusiasm only as much as the underlying thing can handle, then gradually taper off the increase and gently level off at the equilibrium "carrying capacity" of the new technology.
Does that sound like any human, ever, to you?
(The only time there isn't a bubble is when the thing just isn't that interesting to people and so there's never a big wave of uptake in the first place.)
If you were right then we'd have a lot more than a dozen listed bubbles on wikipedia.
That's an absurd framing for a cute quip.
Why do you assume that Wikipedia can be trusted to provide an exhaustive answer to this question ?