The Word "Hacker" (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#21

Post by baha_man » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 7:32 PM UTC

unalone wrote: post #8

windsurfer wrote: post #5

Maybe we need a story called "The Word 'News'"

That might make for an interesting story! There're arguments about the origin: there's the mindset that says it's slang for "the new things", using "news" as a plural for new. Then there's the one that says "NEWS" is an anagram of "North East West South." It leads to some interesting arguments in media class, when it comes to defining "What is News?" (That's an argument that Hacker News seems to have as well, so it's…

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwordorigins/...

"The original sense of news was 'new things'; this is long obsolete. Since the 15th century it has been used to mean 'tidings, the report of recent events, new occurrences as a subject or report or talk.'"

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#22

Post by sounddust » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 8:15 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #19

sounddust wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the English language is defined by its usage, and if 99% of English speakers think that a hacker is someone who illegally tampers with computer systems, then that's what it means. I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word rather than just coming up with a new word or phrase that defines the positive aspects of being a hacker. In fact, if don…

the English language is defined by its usage Any language is, but not by simple majorities. In practice there is something like a pagerank for people for language usage, just as there is for most topics. For example, it could be that 99% of people who use the phrase "begs the question" misuse it. But the 1% who don't are not merely a random 1% of the population. So in disputes about how to use the phrase, those who g…

That's not how it works, at least as explained by linguists. Those 1% do not exist to be the "pagerank 10" sources; they exist to analyze how language is being used, and adjust the official meanings of words to reflect that usage. That's how words and meanings get added to (English) dictionaries and grammar books.

Old meanings are not considered wrong of course, but are often pushed back to the higher-numbered definitions and eventually considered an old or archaic usage.

It doesn't work the same in all languages; for example, French has the l'Académie française which strongly attempts to regulate the meanings of French words, and is quite successful.

To prove my point: there are two official meanings of "begging the question," including the one you assume to be incorrect in your post:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begs

Furthermore, I'm confident that with some research, we could find several words and phrases in your post which were considered "incorrect" several hundred years ago (despite being commonly used then) but are considered "correct" today.

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#23

Post by sounddust » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 8:24 PM UTC

Xichekolas wrote: post #16

sounddust wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the English language is defined by its usage, and if 99% of English speakers think that a hacker is someone who illegally tampers with computer systems, then that's what it means. I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word rather than just coming up with a new word or phrase that defines the positive aspects of being a hacker. In fact, if don…

> I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word Probably because it allows easy group identification. Those that use the positive meaning are in the group and those that use the negative meaning are outsiders. We use many words this way. At the risk of sounding very suburban, witness the difference between Gangsta/Gangster when used by people inside/o…

True, but we don't constantly hear "gangstas" complaining about how everyone misuses their group identifier.

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#24

Post by pg » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 9:30 PM UTC

sounddust wrote: post #22

pg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the English language is defined by its usage Any language is, but not by simple majorities. In practice there is something like a pagerank for people for language usage, just as there is for most topics. For example, it could be that 99% of people who use the phrase "begs the question" misuse it. But the 1% who don't are not merely a random 1% of the population. So in disputes about how to use the phrase, those who g…

That's not how it works, at least as explained by linguists. Those 1% do not exist to be the "pagerank 10" sources; they exist to analyze how language is being used, and adjust the official meanings of words to reflect that usage. That's how words and meanings get added to (English) dictionaries and grammar books. Old meanings are not considered wrong of course, but are often pushed back to the higher-numbered defini…

The 1% of people (assuming it's that) "exist to analyze how language is being used?" What does that mean? I'm in the 1% who understand "begs the question." Do I exist to analyze how language is being used?

Nor is the shift of meaning in a word over time identical with people misunderstanding the previous meanings. That type of shift is quite rare. It's much more common for words to shift meaning the way "computer" has than the way "buxom" did.

There's nothing official about dictionaries, incidentally. They describe usage (as well as they can); they don't prescribe it. If dictionaries defined terms in the prescriptive sense, I could refute you by starting one.

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#25

Post by sounddust » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 9:54 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #24

sounddust wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works, at least as explained by linguists. Those 1% do not exist to be the "pagerank 10" sources; they exist to analyze how language is being used, and adjust the official meanings of words to reflect that usage. That's how words and meanings get added to (English) dictionaries and grammar books. Old meanings are not considered wrong of course, but are often pushed back to the higher-numbered defini…

The 1% of people (assuming it's that) "exist to analyze how language is being used?" What does that mean? I'm in the 1% who understand "begs the question." Do I exist to analyze how language is being used? Nor is the shift of meaning in a word over time identical with people misunderstanding the previous meanings. That type of shift is quite rare. It's much more common for words to shift meaning the way "computer" ha…

Well, I suppose we're talking about a different 1%. Perhaps you feel that you are a "pagerank 10" person regarding "begs the question" because you understand the original meaning. I would argue that the "pagerank 10" would be the person who has studied its usage and has observed that "raises the question" has also become an acceptable use.

Assuming that a shift in a word's meaning due to "incorrect" usage is rare, what makes it any less valid of a change? And are you willing to have the same view regarding all English words that turn out to have been formed as a result of misuse that you have toward "hacker" and "begs the question," even if you are forced to use an obsolete word?

You argue that dictionaries can't prescribe language, and I agree. I'm saying that there are limits to how much you can prescribe language in general, including the attempt to prescribe the meaning of "hacker" and "beg the question." The "beg the question" of 2009 is no less valid than the one of 1600.

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#26

Post by Radix » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 9:55 PM UTC

sounddust wrote: post #14

matthias wrote: post #9

"Hacker" may very well be (helpfully) keeping the size of HN down. The last time I sent someone a link to an HN discussion they took one look at the url and phoned to tell me that my email had a virus.

Well, the English language is defined by its usage, and if 99% of English speakers think that a hacker is someone who illegally tampers with computer systems, then that's what it means. I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word rather than just coming up with a new word or phrase that defines the positive aspects of being a hacker. In fact, if don…

Do you remember the 90's? I recall that, for a time, at least twice a week the news would have a story going on about hackers, the danger to the audience, and their children.

I don't hear hackers used for fear mongering as much anymore, so I suspect that hackers will eventually reach the top of the hill. Of course, I expect it will always have slight negative connotation.

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#27

Post by Radix » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 10:00 PM UTC

sounddust wrote: post #23

Xichekolas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word Probably because it allows easy group identification. Those that use the positive meaning are in the group and those that use the negative meaning are outsiders. We use many words this way. At the risk of sounding very suburban, witness the difference between Gangsta/Gangster when used by people inside/o…

True, but we don't constantly hear "gangstas" complaining about how everyone misuses their group identifier.

Wouldn't their identifier become less valuable to them if it was used positively everywhere? Changing it wouldn't do them any good.

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#28

Post by sayrer » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 10:09 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #19

sounddust wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the English language is defined by its usage, and if 99% of English speakers think that a hacker is someone who illegally tampers with computer systems, then that's what it means. I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word rather than just coming up with a new word or phrase that defines the positive aspects of being a hacker. In fact, if don…

the English language is defined by its usage Any language is, but not by simple majorities. In practice there is something like a pagerank for people for language usage, just as there is for most topics. For example, it could be that 99% of people who use the phrase "begs the question" misuse it. But the 1% who don't are not merely a random 1% of the population. So in disputes about how to use the phrase, those who g…

It's even trickier than that. People who get it right will often think less of the person using the term incorrectly, but won't bother to correct them. I'm sure similar things happen when you encounter clueless MBA types in the valley.

There are more extreme cases of this kind of silent dismissal: thick brooklyn accents, ebonics, southern accents, spanglish, etc. will not get you very far in many places I've worked. I'm not saying that's morally right, but it certainly happens.

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#29

Post by dhimes » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 12:10 PM UTC

callmeed wrote: post #10

I don't agree that everyone in the tech world agrees on the term. When I was in school (late 90s/2000), one of our professors made a clear distinction between "hacker mentality" and "software engineer mentality"–emphasizing that the latter was professional/preferred and the former was undesirable/rogue. To him, a "hacker" didn't plan, didn't show an engineering thought-process, didn't think long-term, and wasn't a te…

Even some of the people we would call "hackers" consider a "hack" to be a temporary fix they put in that's meant to work until they have the opportunity to do it right.

Re: The Word "Hacker" (2004)

#30

Post by messel » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 11:16 AM UTC

There's a lot more to this post than semantic arguments. Get past the first three paragraphs and read about the profound connection between hacking and liberty. It's tied to our past, our present and our future innovations.