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 done properly, the new phrase could even contain the word "hacker".
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 get it wrong tend to defer to those who get it right. You couldn't say the meaning of the phrase had changed till that stopped happening, because it implies by induction that everyone who misuses the phrase would change their usage if called on it.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
> 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/outside hip-hop culture.
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.
