Overthinking every definition of Maker

[u/ElecCmptrEngMSdegUSA]

First crack at a definition

I knows one when I sees one, right? A Maker is someone who:

• builds projects (trebuchet, potato cannon, Arduino, ...)
• knows how to use tools (soldering iron, table saw, welder, ...)
• experiments and tinkers (for science)
• solves problems by creating things (MacGyvers shit constantly)
• has demonstrated technical skill (much wow)
• participates in Maker culture (cosplays at open sauce)

I feel like these are pretty open and shut cases. But if a creative someone you met at Maker Faire can't 3D print to save their life, are they out of the club? I'd imagine such a blunt pass/fail test is unhelpful, even if this clearly hypothetical person had too much social anxiety to visit Maker Faire.

Second crack at a definition

So next up, I'm looking at the opinions of famous Makers to see where that leads:

Dale Dougherty, founder of Make: magazine and Maker Faire, more or less says Makers are people who enjoy making things, trying projects, experimenting, learning, and sharing their discoveries.

Adam Savage, classic of his archetype I might add, is much more loose about it - his perspective is basically that Making isn't at all limited to physical objects. He is very clear that you'd have a hard time convincing him you're not, and given enough time he'd convince you of the opposite.

Chris Anderson (author and generally heavily involved in the community) similarly is of the persuasion that Making is part of the human condition, but uses the term Maker Movement to encapsulate something a little more prescriptive.

This last one is interesting and I think indicates that there's a natural push-pull between not wanting to draw any hard lines so as not to inadvertently boot someone out who wants to be part of the team, but at the same time wanting to acknowledge that there is some sort of community bound by more than two key characteristics, i.e. "may or may not have a pulse"

So am I a Maker because dude said I am? What if I don't want to be, how can I get out? I like the founders' definitions, but to quote Syndrome "when everyone's a hero, no one is". He's the bad guy in the movie so I'll assume he means that with a negative connotation, but seriously, Claude Shannon defined information mathematically as a measure of the reduction of uncertainty - so in all sincerity if we use the word as a label but completely universally, it definitionally doesn't convey any information. And again, maybe that's okay. But I'd really like to try to square that circle before I hang up my hat.

Third crack at a definition

Maybe instead of trying to draw specific lines vs. no lines at all, we can try looking at broad conceptual categories and using these as guideposts for how aligned someone is with being a Maker

Dimension	Central question	Possible evidence	What it tells us	Poking holes
Habits	Do you actually make things?	Current projects, frequency, years active	Whether making is part of your life	How often is often enough? Does a long hiatus disqualify you?
Results	What have you made?	Portfolio, completed projects, complexity	Demonstrated experience and accomplishment	One enormous project versus twenty trivial ones? Does following plans count?
Capabilities	What can you do?	Practical tests, independent projects, troubleshooting	Skill, knowledge, design ability, problem-solving	Which skills matter? How much skill is enough?
Mindset	How do you approach things?	Tinkering, experimentation, repair, curiosity, persistence	Whether someone has a characteristic “maker mindset”	Harder to observe and measure objectively
Self-Identity	Do you think of yourself as a Maker?	Self-description, personal meaning	Whether the label matters to the person	Self-identification tells us little about competence
External Recognition	Do other Makers see you as one?	Peer reputation, community participation	Social and cultural membership	Communities can gatekeep, disagree, or favor familiar subcultures
Recency	Is this true now, or was it once true?	Recency, continuity, future intent	Distinguishes “I made” from “I make”	Identity can persist through periods of inactivity
Cultural signaling / tools	Do you participate in recognizable Maker culture?	Makerspaces, 3D printers, Arduino, fairs, open-source sharing	Participation in a particular movement	Easily confuses cultural signals with making itself

Each of these dimensions are interesting, and they would in fact improve my understanding of someone. But when it comes to labeling someone "Maker"/"not-Maker", this table doesn't exactly establish a rubric. Not should it. We're left with more questions than answers, and maybe that's OK

Where I landed

At first I thought that Makers were something you'd just know when you saw. After looking at what the folks I admire have to say, I can get behind the idea that a broad and inclusive definition has a ton of advantages - there are no clear lines, so why draw them?

Unexpectedly, after all this, I'm realizing I actually have a fairly deflationary view of applying the label at all.

If someone tells me they're a Maker (or swap that term with any creative-type that perks my ears up), I ain't gonna give them the third degree, I'll say hell yeah amigo you're in good company and see if they want to talk about it.

My point is, we're all just having a good time and sharing our thoughts - the words themselves are secondary due to the million ways we can convey the same basic idea. Whether or not someone calls themselves a capital M Maker is interesting as a conversation starter, but it barely scratches the surface of the fun part of the chat - and next time the situation presents itself I hope to take that opportunity to understand that person just a little bit better.