The recent podcast covering the maker faire made a comment about makers shepherding the drone rev...

[G+_Mike Meyer]

The recent podcast covering the maker faire made a comment about makers shepherding the drone revolution. That's only true if you call all the members of the electric flight RC community makers. While the maker community has made some important contributions, the RC folks were building quadcopters before makers had faires. From what I saw, the maker community didn't get into the game until after the press came along and abused the word "drone" to get more clicks on their stories about people who were calling their aircraft multirotor or quadcopters.

[G+_Ben Reese]

I don't see any reason to not consider the original crop of RC aircraft enthusiasts in the "maker" group. Many had far more knowledge about electronics and radio technology than the current quadcopter builders.

 

My grandpa was in that group. An electrician in the Navy who worked for King Radio after he retired and had a couple RC airplanes of his own. I'm sure if he was still working with electronics now, he'd be in the "maker" group too.

 

And, he now has a store-bought quadcopter that he's had to replace parts on. I haven't gotten him to build his own yet.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

Ben Reese Well, yes, they are clearly makers in the strictest sense of the word, as they make things. By that logic, you could claim that makers have been responsible for everything humanity has done since the invention of agriculture. It's pretty clearly silly for the maker community to try and take credit for that. Doing so for multirotors is a difference in quantity, not quality.

[G+_Ben Reese]

I don't see any problem with that. Maker, inventor, engineer... It's a title. The "maker movement" has really just greyed the line a bit.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

Wayne Hobbins Yes, but that doesn't make them part of the community, and attributing work done by them to "makers" when participating in that community is theft.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

Wayne Hobbins Search rcgroups.com for quadcopter. RC people were doing builds in 2006, and even coined the word "quadcopter" (at least, it looks like that).

 

Yes, "theft" is a bit strong. But I feel like making all inventors part of the maker community without their consent or even knowledge justifies a strong reaction. "Misappropriation" is probably a better choice.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

Wayne Hobbins Not sure you can get to the link without an account, but here's a post from 2004... http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200567&page=6&highlight=quadcopter#post2328112, dating from someone working on a build as of 2004.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

Wayne Hobbins So do the Writght Brothers, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Og, the inventor of fire. Basically, using "maker" this way makes it a synonym for "inventor" - except it only gets done for groups whose work the maker community wants to try and claim as their own.

 

Again, my real objection is the inclusion of people into the maker community without their consent, or even knowledge. If they think of themselves as "makers", that's cool. If not, it's not.

[G+_Ben Reese]

A wise man once said, "There's nothing new under the sun." Nobody - as far as I know - in the "maker community" is trying to take credit for creating the first quadcopter, but quadcopters as we know them have come a long way.

 

Feel free to check out the Wikipedia page to see the history of the crafts. Looks like one of the first was designed in the early 1900's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadcopter

 

The majority of engineering/making/inventing is building on the accomplishments and technology that came before you. That's part of the process.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

Ben Reese Oh, I know the history is a lot longer than just the RC communities involvement. That just makes the claims that that community is somehow part of the maker community even more offensive.

[G+_Ben Reese]

I'm curious what your definition of "maker" is. I think the term "community" here is used very loosely.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

Ben Reese A maker is someone who calls themselves a maker.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

On second thought, maybe I should be glad that the maker community wants to take credit for creating the aircraft used by the morons who are doing things stupid enough to make the news and creating enough bad press and ill will towards the RC community that - after nearly a century of peacefully co-existence with the non-flying public a 1:1 pilots - people are wanting to ban our hobby.

[G+_Ben Reese]

So an engineer is anyone who claims to be an engineer, an inventor is anyone who claims to be an inventor, an artist is anyone who claims to be an artist...

 

Again, I don't think anyone in the "maker community" is trying to take credit for making the first quadcopter and it's ignorant to say someone 10-15 years ago invented it.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

Ben Reese I didn't say that anyone was trying to take credit for inventing it, I said they were trying to credit the maker community with advancements that came from a different, much older community that was working on these things well before any member of the maker community doing so. An assertion that the person who made the statements that caused me to think this hasn't contradicted.

 

Are you saying that there is some absolute standard for what a maker is, and that if someone doesn't measure up, they would be excluded from the maker community and shouldn't call themselves a maker?

[G+_Ben Reese]

I'm not quite sure what I'm arguing anymore. But it's mostly a lost cause anyhow... You've got your mind set that someone was done wrong so that's how it is.

[G+_Mike Meyer]

Ben Reese I'd be interested in actual arguments that I'm wrong, as opposed to simply trying to define "maker" to include everyone who's ever done anything interesting. As far as I'm concerned, that's an even more repulsive stance. It feels like Anonymous declaring that makers are hackers, so they could proclaim at a hacker convention that hackers gave us 3d printers, arduino, and so on...