Talk:Hackerspace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Cleanup[edit]

Added image. --cayden (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a general cleanup of the main text and added some more information about the way hackerspaces are run. It would be helpful to see more information about these things. --cayden (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article looks good as it is, I would add a bit more information and sources, but the problem is not to turn it into a mess.nevermindthebollocks 07:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklaunch (talkcontribs)

Additions to the list of Hackerspaces[edit]

A number of days ago I tried adding some other hackerspaces to the list. They were red links and I was unaware of the rule against that. I've also seen where someone tried to put external links in the list and that it's, also, against the rules. I have just added a hackerspace (Pumping Station One) to the list again. It is standard black text with a reference mark pointing to the "reference" section at the bottom of the page which then has the external link being referenced to. Is this correct? I have tried to find the official rules regarding lists, but have been unable to and no-one seems to have linked to them in any of the deletions thus far. Colecoman1982 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In example lists, we generally try to restrict the entries to just those that have an article already. Otherwise every relevant example would add themselves (The rule against this is WP:NOTDIR). In actual "List of ..." articles, the restrictions are a little more relaxed, and redlinks are sometimes encouraged. (WP:LISTS and WP:STAND are the relevant guidelines. However they are a bit unclear, and different editors agree/disagree with them to different extents. (It's a can of worms!))
In this particular case, the hackerspaces.org site hosts a comprehensive and uptodate list of hackerspaces, so rather than creating/maintaining our own "List of hackerspaces", we point to them for that role.
Hope that helps. I'll add a hidden-note to the article summarizing this. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Pumping Station One has been added to the list ^_^ 12.144.116.172 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Iranian hacker space in Tehran is registered in http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Iranian_hackerspace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasankamalifard (talkcontribs) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and we point to hackerspaces.org in the external links section, especially/explicitly because it already compiles a comprehensive list. The list here is just for examples that we have entire articles about. Moreover, we do not include external links within articles. Please read the above discussion for background and further details. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential references[edit]

Items were removed from the article (or added here later), but may prove useful. Please add freely, and remove any once the item is cited within our article. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs links to history/context[edit]

This (and many of the other articles on hack/etc.) need more linking to social and historically related articles/context. Both to articles covering other amature and professional entities with similar function (e.g. university, industry research labs, learned societies), and to past renditions of these same things. 100 years ago hackers were playing with things like internal combustion engines, flight, electricity. During the chemical revolution it was chemistry. etc. Tying into the larger historical context of amature engineering would help move this (and similar) articles away from just dictionary definitions and toward being real articles about the concept. (e.g. this should either generalize to cover amature workshops - whether computers or steam engines, or should cover this segment of the more general concept.) Zodon (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional references[edit]

Hackspaces get closer to home BBC News Technology 2010-08-19 by Jamillah Knowles Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok,. this needs discussion.[edit]

I disagree with listing Cowtown Computer Congress in Kansas City, because 1) it was deleted via AFD discussion and 2), the section says Notable hackerspaces, of which it was proven through that AFD that it wasn't notable, so it should not be included in the list. Can you tell me, though, why are there no red-links in these "lists" - [1], [2], [3], [4]? Redlink removal from those have stood without issue.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't the same thing as WP:N. The perverse WP use of "notability" has a definition that's clear, but of little relevance in the real world. For this reason it's usually a bad thing to use that word anywhere near WP, unless it's for the strict WP:N sense. Anything else leads to unwarranted assumptions about applying the WP:N definition when it's inappropriate, and so confusion ensues.
There is no need for list entries to meet WP:N. This is often what justifies lists (where the overall list is notable), rather than individual articles. The function of this list is to give examples of Hackspaces that illustrate the overall concept: this example meets that.
I'm also concerned that you've AfDed this article in the past, and that is blinkering you to think that all mention of it needs to be removed from everywhwere. That's quite wrong - I'd agree that it doesn't warrant an article (although it might yet pass WP:N, there are media mentions after all) but that doesn't mean that it doesn't add value to the encyclopedia when used in this list, to illustrate the list concept. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd also like to chip in here. ArcAngel has set himself as the arbiter of the Notable Hackerspaces section, and set quite high criteria for adding to it. His requirement that linked hackerspaces already have articles seems to be a big ask considering he is also marking individual hackerspace articles AfD as the articles are not notable in his view. This list is quite limited, USA-centric, and deserves to grow to reflect the growing Hackerspace and Maker movement throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.51.235 (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
So why should these places be singled out from the WP:N policy? All articles on WP need to show some, and therefore that is the policy I am applying here. The section in the article says Notable, and if they have no article, they are not notable in my view. It isn't a stand-alone list, so I don't feel a "list exemption" applies here. The only reason I have left CCC listed is due to the reference on it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read the basic WP policy article and commentary on it.
  • WP:N is a requirement for the topics of articles and the overall topics of lists. It is not a requirement for members of these lists.
  • WP:N cannot be demonstrated through Wikipedia, as that could become recursive and inappropriately self-bootstrapping. WP:N is not satisfied by the presence of an article, although the content of such an article should help to show it. WP:N is certainly not disproven by the absence of an article! This may merely indicate that no-one has yet taken time to write it.
It is completely wrong to require that lists can only list items that have pre-existing articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Radio interviews[edit]

Some recent radio interviews which may or may not be relevant... Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

List of hackspaces is WAY too long[edit]

The list of "notable hackerspaces" is now - well, I lost count, but it's more than 50 items long. That's not a list, that's a trivia pit, a fanboy competition, a data dump, and definitely not wikipedia style.

Unless an objective criteria can be created (hackerspaces with more than 500 paying members, or hackerspaces that have been in existence more than 10 years, or whatever) then I suggest the entire list get killed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please show the examples of "fanboy trivia" in this list. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There are eight (at this count) hackerspaces without any wikilink or refernce - at the very least, that's sloppy, lazy wikipedian-ifying but I'd call it fanboy silliness ("ooh, ooh, me sir, me sir, I know one! I'll write it down and that's all I'll do!"). For all we know, they never existed or closed last week - there's no way to tell.
More importantly, without a criteria of "notability," the list is pointless - any editor who thinks her/his local hackerspace is cool can list it. The subhead should read list of every hackerspace that somebody wanted to include, which is useless to readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
What would be vastly more useful, although more difficult, would be a "history" section, talking about the first few hackerspaces to get up and running, and what led them to do it. Most hackerspaces have some sort of "about us" section with a tiny bit of history that could be used as a source. I fear I haven't the knowledge or expertise. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Then fix those, but a lack of sourcing on some is not the same thing (and requires a different fix) from an addition of "fanboy trivia". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's overlook my snide terminology (sorry)! What's the criteria for that list? What makes those places "notable"? If I remove 17 of them because I don't think they're notable, what would be the counter-argument - other than "I like it"?
The list claims they are "notable" but doesn't support it. That's what is wrong with the list, and that's why it has grown like Topsy without adding more information. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for list entries to be notable. The word notable here is some left-over edit-warring from a past editor who was trying to delete them on that basis.
If there are any criteria for inclusion here, then they should be discussed and developed on this talk page. Sourcing would seem to be a pre-condition. Having organised or hosted a MakerFaire would be clear grounds for inclusion, as would other significant exhibitions: Bristol has done these (Arnolfini, Stokes Croft), Newcastle and Brighton have had MakerFaires. An active community would be another thing, a lack of obvious recent activity would suggest otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
"Active community" is going to be a very tough criteria to pin down, I fear. Hosting a MakerFaire or equivalent open-to-the-public event, especially if we ask that it drew some sort of linkable online and/or media coverage - that would be an excellent start. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
A Hackspace that doesn't have an online blog with recent postings is a dead group. Unfortunately wikidogma & XLinkBot will usually prevent these being referenced. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) It's such a very long list that it would be a ton of work to do such verification. One way to do it is to delete the whole list and ask editors to replace items according to some specific standards. That's pretty extreme, however. I know from past experience that unless some knowledgeable (which isn't me, in this case) editor with interest and time steps forward to vet the list in some systematic way, it will sit there. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to remind ourselves: Wikipedia is not a directory, and I think we'd be hard pressed to describe the current list as anything but an incomplete and haphazard directory of hackerspaces. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sofixit. There's certainly no need to duplicate other lists, although we should still link to them. The main problem with NOTDIR is when a list, like this, shows nothing more than the bare list. It would be much improved if there was expansion on the entries (even though this is going to squeeze their number) to indicate what each hackspace was up to, and what their differences were. London's singing Teslas, Cardiff's music, that sort of thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the list isn't very useful as it stands. Each entry should point to a relevant active hackerspace website, and include a few words about why it is noteworthy. Entries lacking this info should be removed. Otherwise, there is little benefit of having an arbitrary, unannotated subset of the comprehensive listing at Hackerspaces.org. --Reify-tech (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. But as I said above, from my wikipedia experience the best way - and probably the only way, because the list is so long - to accomplish the above is to delete the whole list and let editors replace the items with the relevant description/link, deleting them immediately if they don't meet the new standard - although that standard can, of course, change as/if consensus changes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Wandering through the various websites of organizations, I'm damned if I can see any obvious, objective way to sort through the places. There's no criteria which can be obviously obtained by an editor or two: usually no membership numbers or budget figures or even opening dates. You're left with ... I don't know what. Listing those which have hosted public events that have been covered by the local media, maybe? But what good does that do?
So I hereby recommend that we kill the whole freaking list and don't try to replace it or trim it, acknowledging that the hackerspace phenomenon has outgrown the need for the general article to have any kind of list. We could write a short paragraph saying that hundreds of hackerspaces have been opened around the world, with an external link to hackerspaces.org for those who want to find one of them. (This is a standard transition for wikipedia articles about new phenomenoma: at first, listing examples is an important part of demonstrating the topic's status, but as the number of examples grow the list becomes unwieldy and outlives its usefulness.)
I'm new to this article, so I wouldn't take such a drastic action myself, however. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it should probably be removed. The whole list is far too subjective as it and should be removed/replaced. Reportingsjr (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No reaction at all to the idea of killing the whole "notable hackerspace" list, as having outlived any usefulness? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I had helped maintain the list for a few years, restricting it to just the entries with bluelinked articles, eg back in 2010 - partially to keep inclusion-criteria simple, and partially to avoid the kind of arguments and purgings that lists with redlinks and external links seem to inevitably attract...
There are three options: (1) returning to that state, of a shortlist, and reverting anyone who adds a plain redlink/extlink. (2) write a paragraph explaining some notable features of the hackerspaces we have articles on, as the original edit of the article had. (and again, maintain it by reverting non-notable additions. (3) Replace the entire list with a {{category see also}} link, and maybe an hackerspaces.org reminder, eg:
I think the option 3 would be the least-complicated in the longrun, but it's also the least-informative. If someone were wanting to write a paragraph (option 2) that might be preferred. I'd support any option. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
From years of experience on wikipedia, I'd say Option 3 is the only method that won't require constant policing and weeding, and a repeat of this discussion in a year or so. What's the point of a list, really - it's not like people come here to find their local hackerspace. Actually, I had meant to delete the list entirely, but never got back to it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
So what the heck, let's do it - if outrage ensures, maybe we can create something better. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Except I don't know how to make a category link in the text. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose what I understand #3 to be - replacing the list with a category and a link to it.
The problem is that this article is not a list of hackerspaces. It's a description of the hackerspace principle in general, illustrated where this is useful to the article narrative with examples of hackerspaces. We don't need an exhaustive list - that's a directory's job, not WP's. However we should also avoid falling into the WP:NOTABILITY trap where examples are only listed if they're both WP:N-notable and also bluelinked. Even worse than the previous "All list entries must meet WP:N" fallacy, using a category here would encourage everyone's favourite hackerspace to immediately appear as a skimpy, orphaned perma-stub. Swarms of such stubs are not of much encyclopedic value.
We should focus on a list that adds value to this article, by demonstrating the particular aspects of each hackerspace, so as to expand the depth of explanation for the overall concept - even though there will be few hackerspaces for which this can now, or will be done in the future. In the meantime, we lose those articles from the list and we emphasise the external link to the external hackerspace directories. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is figuring out a list that adds value. What unique criteria should be used to include or exclude a facility? That's the hard part; without it, we end up with "list of hackerspaces that editors have heard of". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What do Hackerspaces do?
  • Can we show exemplar Hackerspaces that demonstrate these topics?
  • Stuff the rest. We're not the hackerspace directory.
Hosting MakerFaires is an obvious one (Newcastle & Brighton in the UK). Publically-accessible, off-site exhibitions of either tech or art projects would be another (Bristol has done at least two of these). Community outreach or education might be one too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggested using the {{category see also}} template partially because it is an "Exclude in print" template (ie. categories aren't accessible in print versions, or offsite mirrors, etc). I'll change it to use that now.
I'd propose a mix of option 2 and 3, if Andy and others are willing to write it. We could keep the template at the bottom of that section (in order to link to the category which contains all the hackerspaces we currently have articles on (at any given time)), and above that, write out a paragraph (or more) giving examples of a few notable hackerspaces, preferably ones we have full articles on, giving RS citations to verify why they could be considered notable. Eg. "c-Base has been called one of the first hackerspaces, formed in 1995. It inspired the formation of Y and Z. Hackerspaces all over the world have been created since then." I'll add a sample, but feel free to overhaul it. Does that seem reasonable? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds great to me; I'd love to get a sense of what truly notable hackerspaces do. Your first stab at history has already taught me more than I knew before - good stuff. -DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Declaration per WP:COI: I've attended Bristol Hackspace on one occasion, and am currently considering becoming a paid member. I agree that Hack(er)spaces shouldn't have to be notable in order to be mentioned in this article. There is no policy I know of (other than WP:UNDUE) which would preclude their inclusion, provided they're referred to in reliable sources. If any such list becomes too extensive, then it could possibly be spun out to List of hackspaces or similar, per WP:LISTN. How about a table in the current article along the following lines?

Country Location Name Activities
United Kingdom Brighton Build Brighton Maker Faires[1][2]

-- Trevj (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

References
I would oppose such a table list as making the problem worse. As above, this "list" should be for the benefit of this article, not to become a hackspace directory. It's useful to list some hackspaces for as much as they're illustrating this article with examples. Placing them into a formal table though turns it into a Pokemon contest - gotta list 'em all! - and everyone's local hackspace finds itself being added, simply because it's local. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion I agree with the table setup proposed by User:Trevj. Additionally, I think the criteria for 'notable' hackerspaces should be Wikipedia's definition of 'notable', covered by more than one 3rd party source. If we are using their activities in the community and possibly membership size as the guide, than this should not be an issue. A comprehensive list can be maintained on a dedicated article, say List of hackerspaces.
Sowlos (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
However, considering the international/non-national perspective taken by many in the hacker community and the redundancy of the two first columns if the 'location' is wikilinked, I suggest removing the 'Country' column in favour of the single 'Location' column.
Sowlos (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The current article with some of the more notable examples in a paragraph seems fine. Its not wikipedia's job to maintain a list which is better done by hackerspace.org and does not meet WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--Salix (talk): 13:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Do not start listing them; check earlier versios of this article and you'll see the morass of hackerspaces that was listed. There are thousands of the damn things around the world; we couldn't list them all even if we wanted to, and we don't. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I proposed an InterWiki prefix for hackerspaces, so that we can link from relevant wp articles to there, and avoid wiki spamming such as the mention of TechShop that I just removed.) I think HBNE, although relevant, should not appear in the Notable hackerspaces list for the following reasons: (1) many hackerspaces were created in 2009, and a lot are worth mentioning, (2) the /tmp/lab for example, hosted the HackerSpace Festival (HSF), gathering members of Metalab, HacDC, HSB, CCC, and others, (3) the Hackerspaces category seems like a good reference for notable spaces, (4) I'd like to encourage linking to hackerspaces.org instead of spamming wikipedia with always-changing details, not necessarily relevant details. Hellekin (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Build Brighton Hackspace[edit]

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to Collaborative working environment[edit]

My guess is, that the concept of Hackerspace is similar to that of Collaborative working environment. Aren't they similar? In fact, isn't it common for a place that is one, to be both?

I am not an expert, so I am hesitant to even add any "see also" entries (yet); but I suspect that what would really be even better (and appropriate), is some cross-reference explanation, within the text, where the article is explaining what a Hackerspace -- (or a Collaborative working environment) is.

Right? Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Similar, but in quite different contexts and operating organisations.
Shared offices are run for commercial profit, by a for-profit business, and charge their users a substantial amount. As they're paying so much, their users are pretty much only professional users.
Hackspaces are run by a committee of the people using it, and not-for-profit. As their fees are low, and the quality of service isn't guaranteed, then they're mostly populated by amateurs rather than professionals. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of Men's Sheds?[edit]

I'm not seeing the point to the "Men's Sheds movement" reference . Never having heard of it, but familiar with hackerspaces, I read the Wikipedia on Men's Sheds. I don't see much of a tie-in, unless you want to advertise men's sheds. There's no historical tie-in, with for example, men's sheds having inspired hackerspaces or some such. The reference does nothing to help define or explain hackerspaces. Since all subsequent research I've done shows that men's sheds are less well known, I'm not seeing why this should be in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.28.46 (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A recent addition. Now reverted. A see-also link seems to be the appropriate amount of reference unless some causal link can be shown.--Salix alba (talk): 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. It seems to be a social club, with only incidental repair functions. A "See also" link would be OK. Reify-tech (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
i presume you are refering to "If you looked inside one you might see a number of men restoring furniture, perhaps restoring bicycles for a local school" [1] X-mass (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

please explain how "restoring bicycles for a local school is diffrent from: "Launched last year as the result of an idea spawned around the National Day of Civic Hacking, freespace is an experiment in community engagement...Alton is developing a program that will teach low-income adults how to build bicycles. His goal is to build 30 bikes in 30 days using donated spare parts and donate them to nearby charity organizations. He was inspired by his work with Yellow Bike, who he credits with helping him to come up with the idea."[2]

Noted Issue in subject line, when I wrote it I couldn't work a better way to flag the connection. I have moved Men's sheds back in as a two word example in the line "A hackerspace (also referred to as a hacklab, makerspace, hackspace or Men's Sheds) is a community-operated workspace" X-mass (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The OP states "Since all subsequent research I've done shows that men's sheds are less well known". the situation maybe different on your piece of the planet - but Men's sheds are backed by some very notable charities in the UK and "Men in Sheds has also featured heavily in the national and local media including Newsnight, the BBC One's Show and regular stories in the national press. An article on the health benefits of Shedding has also recently appeared in the British Medical Journal." Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). X-mass (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Could the OP and Reify-tech explain the substantial differences between Hackerspaces and Men's shed in the light of the following:

Reify-tech states "It seems to be a social club, with only incidental repair functions" which seems at odd with what the Australian Men's shed site says "The modern Men’s Shed is an updated version of the shed in the backyard... If you looked inside one you might see a number of men restoring furniture, perhaps restoring bicycles for a local school, maybe making Mynah bird traps or fixing lawn mowers or making a kids cubby house for Camp Quality to raffle... You will see tea-bags, coffee cups and a comfortable area where men can sit and talk." and "AMSA recognises as a Men’s Shed any community-based, non-profit, non-commercial organization that is accessible to all men and whose primary activity is the provision of a safe and friendly environment where men are able to work on meaningful projects at their own pace in their own time in the company of other men" [3] In what substantial way is this diffrente from "A hackerspace is a community-operated workspace where people with common interests, often in computers, technology, science, digital art or electronic art, can meet, socialize and/or collaborate (emphasised in answer to the OP).X-mass (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the Irish Men’s Shed Association which is full of statements like "Men don’t talk face to face; they talk shoulder to shoulder", it seems to focus on the community side, but there is little about the computers, technology, science, digital art or electronic art which are the focus on Hackerspaces. Yes there are similarities but Men's Sheds lack one of the defining features of Makerspaces/Hackerspaces the embracing of modern digital technology.--Salix alba (talk): 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
By very loose criteria, we could say that any men's social club is synonymous with a hackerspace, but I don't agree with that characterization. A war veteran's or sports club that makes birdhouses, or sponsors a soapbox derby for charity is not really a hackerspace. Also, most hackerspaces don't exclude women, and some actively encourage females to join and even to take up leadership positions. The main focus of a hackerspace is on building or modifying stuff, and exploring technology; the social aspect is significant, but not primary. I think a "See also" link is OK, but claiming in the lede that a "Men's Shed" is the same as a hackerspace goes way too far. Reify-tech (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So one of your key objection is that their name is sexist - and I agree with you. I'm with Oxford hackspace and speaking as a woman were all about women taking leadership and challenging the rubbish around gender. I personally hate the way Men's Shed's describe themselves, it makes my hackles rise and makes me want to spit blood about this return to the bad old days of the nineteen seventies and eighties. But just because in my opinion they are bunch of sexist idiots, doesn't mean they are not a type of hackerspace.X-mass (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A useful criteria is how the hackerspaces wiki describes hackerspaces as Men's Shed's seem to fit directly within their definition "Hackerspaces are community-operated physical places, where people can meet and work on their projects." [4]

Whilst you were typeing your comment I was trying to think about the reasons you might be objecting I will post what i was saying below and expand on it afterwards the aim and the culture seems almost exctaly the same. However, there is one difference that I can find: hackerspaces are about "computers, technology, science, digital art or electronic art" where men's shed's are about wood and metal working, technology, science and art. If this is the bases of your objection then i would first point to the numerous hackspaces that have extensive wood and metal working facilities - that the write up about hackerspaces is lacking

The second issue I would point to is that this is a generational and class based issue, that older men didn't grow up with computers, digital or electronic art, and that acess to higher learning was more restrictive 40 - 50 years ago. Obviously if the seond issue lies at the heart of your objection - you open the article to accusations of having a strong cultural bias and that it is ageist!X-mass (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What has become clear from the commentry is that its not about what they do, its not about the nature of their community, the objection is two fold: 1. one of the explicit aims of mens sheds is to help older men, who find difficulty in communicating, find connection and enjoyment in life, as opposed to hackerspaces, who at least seem to, have signifcantly more people who are on the Autism spectrum and have an implicit assumption that people who come will find connections and enjoyment in life 2. That the write up of hackerspaces has concentrated on the use of newer technologies to make stuff whilst mens sheds emphasise older technology. Despite the fact that most hackerspaces work hard to have wood and metal working tools

If we describe a hackerspace as somewhere that is used by hackers, and hackers generaly subscribe to the Hacker_ethic then Mens sheds fit well within that ethos

So the key objection seem to be that were hip and into all the latest tech and they're not and that's what makes them not a hackerspace. Because if I did a poll on lists.hackerspaces.org, i suspect that I would recieve intense objections on the grounds that such ideas are based on holding financial privalages and explicitly not what most hackerspaces are about. It certainly would not sit well with the ethos of hippies from hell [5] or the ideal of the chaos computing club's [6] nor with people such as the hackers on a plane crowd who came to CCC2007 [7] and helped found the world wide hackspace movement

Would it help for me to run just such a poll on a world wide list - so that we have accurate data from which to judge? See if other people who use hackerspaces think a hackerspace is all about being intrested in and having access to the latest technology? X-mass (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).