"She also makes some great points about how we, as players, have inherent prejudices that make games seem less wide-reaching than they already are. We don’t consider FarmVille a game when, in fact, it is. "
Is a random episode of Seinfeld a movie? Its a scripted narrative that's performed by actors, filmed, and edited in a nearly identical way as a feature film, but we don't call is a "TV episode" rather than a "movie" for a reason. We might like that Seinfeld episode more than we like a given movie, but we don't call it a "movie."
Labels and boxes exist for a reason, they clarify what you're talking about and place things into the right context for comparison. That's why I don't buy this "every interactive piece is a game and you're narrow minded if you don't view them all the same" line that's been going around lately. The way I look at it, large-ish PC/Console games are the equivalent of feature films (the flashy vanguard by which the other mediums are compared), the handheld domain and to some extend the download-only space is the game equivalent of television (the smaller-scale side business that replicates the original medium but which is largely defined by its delivery method), and stuff like Farmville and most mobile stuff is the equivalent of Youtube videos (crude little things that are technically the same medium but aren't taken that seriously even though they have been known to reach a wide audience because they're more accessible).
The distinction you're making is more-or-less the same one I do, and it's the same reason I'm not too concerned with free-to-play iOS games killing consoles. Most people aren't worried about YouTube killing Hollywood, and for that matter, the people who thought TV would kill Hollywood turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There's room for different types of entertainment.
There's nothing wrong with saying FarmVille isn't a video game, because to many of us, "video game" means a specific thing. It's an issue of language more than elitism, I think.