So, the English language. A free-for-all of words, with well over a million, compared to French's trim and proper 20,000 or so. Typically, the masses decide how a word is used and what it means. This is why "chav" is gaining acceptance (Though I have a very vague idea of what it means, where most others in this country would have no clue) as a valid word. Ask most people what sushi is, and they'll tell you "raw fish." Wrong.
"Sushi is a Japanese dish consisting of vinegared rice combined with other ingredients such as raw fish, raw or cooked shellfish, or vegetables. Sushi is sometimes confused with sashimi, which is the [raw] seafood sometimes served with sushi." (Stolen from www.thefreedictionary.com)
The masses evidently use in sushi in a certain manner, but that doesn't make their meaning the correct one. After all, the word is from another culture, and one can hardly expect Japan to change sushi to mean "raw fish."
I'd like to imagine the same applies to hacker. The word was once loosely defined as "a brilliant programmer." (Assorted definitions can be found at here. Though do ignore the interesting definitions like "someone who plays golf poorly." :P) It is even said hackers (By the original definition) form a subculture of sorts. Thus, is it right to have that subculture redefine "their" word to what the masses believe it to mean?
So, my question is, should hackers change their definition of the word to what the masses say it is, or are they right, in that the masses are misusing it?
