final draft of literature review 1

blogContent/posts/open-source/towards-a-new-hacker-ethic.md

@@ -1,26 +1,28 @@
-Last week I looked at [*Programming is Forgetting: Toward a New Hacker
+Last week I listened to the talk [*Programming is Forgetting: Toward a
+New Hacker
 Ethic*](http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting-new-hacker-ethic/)
 for a second time. This was an amazing talk given by Allison Parrish
 at the Open Hardware Summit in 2016. The first time I was introduced
 to this talk was over a year ago by a friend that was introducing me
-to the nuanced differences between "new" and "old" FOSS (Free and Open
-Source Software) cultures. Whenever I listen to this talk I get
-reminiscent about all the 70's and 80's hacker literature like the
-["Hackers Manifesto"](http://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html) that 
-inspired me when I was in middle school.   
+to the nuanced differences between "new" and "old" FOSS cultures.
+Whenever I listen to this talk I get nostalgic about 70's and 80's
+hacker literature like the ["Hackers
+Manifesto"](http://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html) which inspired me in
+middle school.    
 
 <youtube src="4kiXCeJwrMQ" />
 
-In Parrish's talk she examined the points that Levy makes in his book 
-*Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution*. This talk picked out how
-aspects of Levy's hacker ethos are problematic and how we can work to
-change this Hacker Ethic to be more supporting of diverse communities.
+Parrish's talk examined the points that Levy makes in his influential
+book  *Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution*. This talk picked
+out how aspects of Levy's hacker ethos are problematic and how we can
+work to change this Hacker Ethic to be more supportive of diverse
+communities. 
 
 However, before we dive into the breakdown of Levy's and Parrish's
 arguments, it is important to have a common understanding of these
-things:   
+things:    
 
-- what being a "hacker" means
+- what being a hacker means
 - our assumptions about learning, knowing and society
 
 
@@ -30,10 +32,10 @@ things:
 
 The mainstream definition of a "hacker" is a derogatory term to
 describe cyber-criminals; however, "hacker" in the tech world is a
-very positive and well appraised term. In the tech world, "hacker" is
-used synonymously with geek: people who love to tinker with computers
-at great lengths. Due to the vast differences in the interpreted
-meaning of "hacker", people have been recently avoiding it. For this
+positive and respected term. In the tech world, "hacker" is used
+synonymously with geek: people who love to tinker with computers at
+great lengths. Due to the vast differences in the interpreted meaning
+of "hacker", people have been avoiding using that term. For this
 article and in general when people typically talk about "hacker
 culture", they are referring to the positive definition of hacker.    
 
@@ -41,31 +43,30 @@ culture", they are referring to the positive definition of hacker.
 
 Being the philosophy buff that I am, I believe that recognizing our
 assumptions about knowledge and society is quintessential to
-understanding Levy's and Parrish's understanding of the hacker ethic. 
+understanding Levy's and Parrish's views on the hacker ethic.  
 
 ![Knowledge](media/ethos/paradigms.png)
 
 On the scale of knowledge, people fall somewhere on the scale between
 subjective and objective thinking. An objectivist seeks
-generalizations, favors statistical analysis, and views reality as a
-fact separate from human experience. A subjectivist views that reality
+generalizations, favors statistical analysis, and views reality as
+separate from human experience. A subjectivist believes that reality
 is formed through personal experience and views knowledge as a working
-definition up for change. When discussing learning, an objectivist
-will try to find the **Truth**, where a subjectivist will seek to
-learn **truths**. In policy analysis, objectivists would favor
-quantitative methods where subjectivists would favor qualitative
-methods.   
+definition. When discussing discovery, an objectivist will try to find
+the **Truth**, where a subjectivist will seek to learn **truths**. In
+policy analysis, objectivists would favor quantitative methods where
+subjectivists would favor qualitative methods.    
 
-On the scale of social processes people usually fall on a spectrum
-between *radical change* and *improvement*.   
+When examining socioty, people usually fall on a spectrum between
+*radical change* and *improvement*.    
 
-Status Quo (Improvement)   
+Status Quo (Improvement)    
 
 - social order
 - consensus
 - actuality
 
-Radical Change   
+Radical Change    
 
 - power structures
 - radical change
@@ -73,24 +74,26 @@ Radical Change
 - contradiction
 - potentiality
 
-Although people don't always fall at perfect edges of these spectrum,
-it provides a good frame of reference for analysis. I'm going to argue
-that Levy's ethos falls in the *positivism* quadrant where Parrish's
-ethos falls in the *Critical Humanism* quadrant.  
+Although people don't always fall at perfect edges of this spectrum,
+it provides a good frame of reference when discussing policies. Levy's
+hacker ethic falls in the *positivism* quadrant since he focused on
+incremental improvements twords "ideal" software. Parrish's ethos
+falls in the *Critical Humanism* quadrant because she is focused on
+the multiple truths of software communities and is focuses on the
+power structure that software supports. 
 
 # Levy's Hacker Ethic
 
 ![Levy](media/ethos/levy.png)
 
-
 # Parrish's Hacker Ethic Rewrite
 
 ![Allison](media/ethos/allison.png)
 
 # Why the difference?
 
-Despite the rewrite, both hacker ethics still emphasize the following
-points:  
+Despite the rewrite, both hacker ethics still emphasize the importance
+of:   
 
 - sharing
 - openness
@@ -98,59 +101,57 @@ points:
 - world improvement
 
 The major difference between the two ethics is not in the fundamental
-message but on the philosophical perspective of the authors.  
+message but on the philosophical perspectives of the authors.   
 
 Levy's hacker ethic was written and interpreted using the
-incrementalism framework.  Computer hacking is the means of
+incrementalism framework. Computer hacking is the means of
 incrementally improving flawed technology moving towards the
-**Truth**-- a computer system that perfectly works.  
+**Truth**-- a computer system that perfectly works.   
 
-Allison's hacker ethic focuses on how can we use technology to better
-**truths**-- multiple computer systems designed with different
-purposes to better support communities. 
+Parrish's hacker ethic focuses on how can we use technology to better
+**truths**-- computer systems designed with different purposes to
+better support communities.  
 
 
 # Who is right?
 
-As a subjectivist I would argue that the debate over which one is the
-**True** hacker ethic is fruitless. Since Parrish did not radically
-change the Hacker Ethic, I believe that we should consider it as a
-valuable contribution to the Hacker Ethic. Moving forward with this
-improved working definition of the ideal hacker, I believe that it
-will better enable us to better support communities. 
-
-Positivism has long been the dominant perspective when it comes to
-politics and research. However, in recent years there has been a
-shift towards a mix of objective and subjective perspectives 
-in research. This is due to the fact that when you look at the
-objective **Truth** or average of a population you often ignore minorities
-and edge cases. In public policy, an objective viewpoint is useful
-when doing cost-risk analysis; however, subjective research is useful
-when identifying complex social issues that are hard to quantify with
-numbers. 
+As a subjectivist, I would argue that the debate over which one is the
+**True** or better hacker ethic is fruitless. Moving forward with this
+revised working definition of the Hacker Ethic will better enable us
+to better support diverse communities.  
+
+Positivism has long been the dominant perspective in politics and
+research. However, in recent years there has been a shift towards a
+mix of objective and subjective perspectives in research. This is due
+to the fact that when you look at the objective **Truth** or the
+average of a population you often ignore minorities. In public policy,
+an objective viewpoint is useful when doing cost-risk analysis;
+however, subjective research is useful when identifying complex social
+issues that are hard to quantify with numbers.  
 
 # How did we get here in technology?
 
 During the [Future is Open
 Conference](https://fossrit.github.io/events/2019/10/26/the-future-is-open/)
 [Mike Nolan](https://nolski.rocks/) gave an amazing analogy that
-exhibits how we got here and why we need to have the objective vs
-subjective debate in FOSS and hacker culture. Nolan compared
-the beginning of technology to homesteading in the western frontier.
-In the  beginning, there was plenty of land for everyone and everyone
-got their own chunk of land. Everyone was happy and they maintained
-their land or software independently of each other. There was rarely
-an issues. However, as time went on you couldn't get your own plot of
-land. We now all live in large cities packed with communities,
-governments, and law affecting our every action. With all of these
-competing entities it is impossible to work on instrumental software
-without interacting with these entities. 
-
-The things that hackers make often start as a personal project. We as
-hackers are content with perusing these projects towards our own
-objective **Truth**. What started as a personal project may turn into
-a massive open source project that dozens of  communities depend on.
-This is the root of a ton of friction now in days: our objective
-**Truth** may not align with the **truths** or needs of the community.
-To alleviate this "friction", I believe that adopting Allison's
-subjective interpretation of the Hacker Ethic is a great way to start.
+explains how we got here and why we need to have this debate in FOSS
+and hacker culture. Nolan compared the beginning of computers to
+homesteading in the western frontier. In the beginning, there was
+plenty of land for everyone and everyone got their own chunk of land.
+Everyone was happy and they maintained their land or "software"
+independently of each other. There was seldom any issues. However, as
+time went on you couldn't get your own plot of land. We now all live
+in large cities packed with communities, governments, and law swaying
+our every action. With all of these competing entities, it is
+impossible to work on instrumental software without interacting other
+entities. 
+
+The things that hackers make often originate as a personal project. We
+as hackers are content with perusing these projects towards our own
+objective **Truth**. Over time what started as a personal project may
+turn into a massive open-source project that dozens of communities
+depend on. This is the root of a ton of friction now in days: our
+objective **Truth** as the original developer may not align with the
+**truths** or needs of the community. To alleviate this "friction", I
+believe that adopting Parrish's subjective interpretation of the
+Hacker Ethic is a great way to start.