By Joseph Reagle
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 2 Abstract: Hackers and other geeks have long described their spaces as meritocratic. Geek feminists challenge this belief as a myth. In short, so-called meritocracies reproduce extent members and favor incidental attributes; they can be biased, susceptible to privilege, and unconcerned with inequitable outcomes. I agree that meritocratic claims are often unfounded and elide equitable opportunities and outcomes; it is deserving of critique and qualification. Yet, meritocracy has been experienced as real by some, and it is a worthwhile ideal. Given that the word myth has multiple meanings, I offer the term naive meritocracy in its place. I also suggest there are two types of naiveté about meritocracy: that which is ignorant of critiques and a subjective naiveté by which personal experiences trumps all else. The notion of naive meritocracy permits us to be critical of meritocratic claims without sacrificing the ideal of meritocracy as equal opportunity. It also permits us to refute the claim that merit has been abandoned in favor of political correctness.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 In January of 2014, the CEO of GitHub, a company beloved by many geeks and entrepreneurs, tweeted that the company “was getting a new rug.” The company’s reception area is designed to mimic the Oval Office, and its carpet had the GitHub logo encircled with the motto “United Meritocracy of GitHub” (Orsini 2014a). Much like the design and slogans chosen by U.S. Presidents, this was meant to be representative of the company. But the carpet had proven controversial. GitHub CEO (and co-founder) Chris Wanstrath (2014) wrote that “We thought ‘meritocracy’ was a neat way to think of open source but now see the problems with it. Words matter. We’re getting a new rug.”
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 2 GitHub is a service that enables people to collaboratively develop software in the open; some argue this enables the best contributions (and contributors) to rise to the top. Eric Raymond (1997), who helped coin the term “open source,” wrote that this approach succeeds because given enough “eyeballs,” “almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.” What problems could people have with the word meritocracy? Critics claimed that meritocracy was a “myth.” Most visibly, a few months prior, feminist media scholar Alice Marwick (2013) published an article in Wired entitled “Silicon Valley isn’t a Meritocracy. And it’s Dangerous to Hero-worship Entrepreneurs.” Marwick did not address GitHub directly, but she characterized meritocracy and entrepreneurship as myths given the privilege and bias in the tech sector. Subsequently, Github replaced the carpet with a new one bearing the slogan: “In collaboration we trust” (Orsini 2014b).
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 2 Open source developers have tended to see their communities as meritocratic, as do hackers, those who enjoy exploring and building systems—they are not necessarily destructive or criminal. Raymond, who also considers himself “hacker culture’s resident ethnographer,” has written that “hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are gladly welcome” (Raymond 2013; Raymond 1991b). Critics characterize this belief as a myth in a critical sense: a widely believed but “unfounded or false notion” (“Myth” 2016). To proclaim a “meritocracy” fails to recognize biases and can further rationalize inequities as a matter of ability, preference, and choice.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 3 Those who champion meritocracy, such as Eric Raymond and fellow hacker Meredith Patterson, do so because they’ve experienced geekdom as welcoming and meritocratic in contrast to experiences in the mainstream. Raymond (2016b) and Patterson (2013) have both written about this with respect to cerebral palsy and autism, respectively. Also, when they’ve confronted challenges, their eventual victories over adversity strengthened their conviction in meritocracy. This prompts a defensiveness towards critique and a fear that the ideals of “performance, intelligence, dedication, and technical excellence” are under attack from “racial and sexual identity politics” (Raymond 2016b). In this light, Github’s action is seen as an abandonment of an ideal in favor of political correctness.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 1 Nonetheless, positive subjective experiences are not universal. And the term myth, despite its successful rhetorical deployment against GitHub, can be confusing and inflammatory. Meritocracy should not be understood as a fact or unfounded myth; it is an ideal towards which claims are often naively made. Given that these claims can elide inequities, similar to claims of openness and freedom (Reagle 2013), they should be qualified and critiqued, but the ideal need not be wholly dismissed even if the term is now tainted by naïve or self-serving usage. Hence, meritocracy is mythic, but in the sense that it is a belief “embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society” (“Myth” 2016).
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 After providing some background on geeks and feminism, I explore three claims of meritocracy by technologists Michael Arrington, Meredith Patterson, and Phil Libin; these demonstrate the naiveté, subjectivity, and privilege common in meritocratic claims.
Geeks and geek feminism
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 I speak of hackers, nerds, and fans as types of geeks: “To be geek is to be engaged, to be enthralled in a topic, and then to act on that engagement” (McArthur 2009, 62). One can “geek out” about most any topic, though the term is most strongly associated with technical and online interests. Fans, for example, are geeks who are enthusiastic about fiction and music. Hackers enjoy exploring and building technical systems. And nerds love learning.
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 1 Following my sources, I use these terms almost interchangeably, though they have distinct histories and meanings (Sugarbaker 1998; Coleman 2014; Dunbar-Hester 2014). For instance, hacker was first defined in MIT’s Tech Model Railroad Club dictionary five decades ago as someone who employed an “ill-advised” but playful technique (Samson 1959). The word also appeared in the “Jargon File,” a collection of computer-related lingo started in 1975 and which received its greatest popular attention under the editorship of Eric Raymond (1991a), who also published it as The New Hacker’s Dictionary. As noted, Raymond is most well-known for helping found and popularize the open source movement—although this is being overshadowed by his reputation as a neo-pagan “gun-toting libertarian” and author of a controversial blog (Raymond 1997; Raymond 2016a).
¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Geeks tend to be self-documenting, as seen in the “Jargon File,” early Internet FAQs, and contemporary wikis (Reagle 2014). The Geek Feminism (GF) wiki and blog were established in 2008 and 2009 and follow this tradition by documenting and applying feminist-related concepts to notable events. GF’s founder, Alex Bayley (better known as “Skud” (2012)), wrote that “our main tactic is to document things.” Skud is a long time “open stuff” contributor and her path to GF included a pair of widely read essays about being a geek woman; she was also one of the first geeks to “question the merits of meritocracy” (Skud 2011; Skud 1998; Skud 2000; Skud 2009). Today, the GF blog and wiki have about a dozen active contributors and the wiki describes itself as being “about women in a range of geeky cultures/communities/activities” (Feminism 2015b).
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 At the same time as Skud’s early reflections, scholars began to challenge the geek stereotype by considering the identity and practices of girls (Bucholtz 1999) and the issues of masculinity and race (Kendall 2002; Eglash 2002). Linguist Mary Bucholtz (2002) used the discussions of Skud’s essays to define geek feminism as one that is committed to both feminist concerns and geek enthusiasms. In turn, in 2008, Skud adopted this term herself when she established the GF wiki; the next year she started its blog as a “dedicated feminist space to talk about feminism and feminists in geekdom” (Feminism 2009). Other notable projects followed, often with overlapping membership. The Ada Initiative (“About Us” 2012) was “a non-profit organization dedicated to increasing participation of women in open technology and culture.” The online and print publication Model View Culture (MVC) seeks to “present compelling cultural and social critique, highlight the work and achievement of diverse communities in tech, and explore the use of technology for social justice” (Kane 2015). I refer to those affiliated with these activities as “geek feminists” and reserve “GF” for the wiki and blog.
The myth of meritocracy
¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 2 In 2010 Michael Arrington, founder of the TechCrunch news website, posted an essay entitled: “Too Few Women in Tech? Stop Blaming the Men.” He was responding to criticisms of Disrupt, TechCrunch’s annual entrepreneurial conference and competition. Arrington (2010) explained that “Success in Silicon Valley, most would agree, is more merit driven than almost any other place in the world. It doesn’t matter how old you are, what sex you are, what politics you support or what color you are. If your idea rocks and you can execute, you can change the world and/or get really, stinking rich.” Arrington was frustrated that despite Disrupt’s best efforts, “We beg women to come and speak,” they still ended up with a poor showing. He concluded that “the problem isn’t that Silicon Valley is keeping women down, or not doing enough to encourage female entrepreneurs. The opposite is true. No, the problem is that not enough women want to become entrepreneurs.” Others disagreed. Stanford gender researcher Caroline Simard responded that “saying high-tech is a meritocracy doesn’t make it so” (Simard 2010; Smith 2010; Stone 2010).
¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 1 Simard’s response is bolstered by arguments by geek feminists about the “myth of meritocracy.” The first argument is that meritocracies are biased towards affirming and reproducing extant community members. In Model View Culture (MVC), software developer Noah Slater (2014) wrote that meritocracy is based on “what we, privately, think contributors ought to look like.” One tech blogger referred to this as “mirrortocracy” (Bueno 2014). For example, at Disrupt 2013, just two years after Arrington’s missive, one could see reflections of androcentrism. During the presentation for the app Circle Shake, a man appeared to masturbate on stage. Also, the app Titstare was proposed for the supposed benefit to men’s health (Morais 2013). These cringe-worthy attempts at humor presume and perpetuate a particular audience. It’s no wonder some chose not to attend.
¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 3 A second argument is that it might be pushiness rather than (or in addition to) skill that is rewarded in geek meritocracies. An article on the Geek Feminism (2015a) wiki stated, “meritocracies tend to promote those who not only have the skills/experience, but are also outspoken enough to let everyone know about it.” In her study of open source software, anthropologist Dawn Nafus (2012, 679) referred to this as “pushyocracy” and noted it can be unfavorable towards women who face the double-bind of being meek-and-ignored or assertive-and-censured. Nafus’ finding was contrary to the belief that software development is gender-blind because software “patches don’t have gender.” Third, ironically, the notion of meritocracy can further bias. Management researcher Emilio Castilla (2008; 2010) has found a “paradox of meritocracy”: making merit more salient to those evaluating others can strengthen (non-meritocratic) biases against women.
¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 4 Fourth, meritocracy presumes “a level playing field.” Software developer Coraline Ada Ehmke (2014) wrote in MVC that “the majority of today’s technologists enjoy elevated privilege in a meritocracy because they have the luxuries of time, money, education, and preferential treatment by the world at large.” Peggy McIntosh ( 1990) famously identified privilege as an unseen advantages in an essay that was influential for its (1) use of metaphor (“like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions”), (2) recognition that privileges of color, class, and gender are “intricately intertwined” (now often spoken of as “intersectionalism”), and (3) linking it to “the myth of meritocracy.” Research continues to reveal the ways that race, gender, and class privilege can influence what seem like meritocratic competitions. For instance, there can be an unseen advantage for young smart white men who engage in “break-the-rules” behavior without impairing their future (e.g., skipping school, use of alcohol and marijuana, and gambling). Additionally, they can parlay financial, social, and cultural capital to launch entrepreneurial ventures or recover from them when they fail (Levine and Rubinstein 2013; Black et al. 2015; Groth 2015). Unlike Arrington’s claim, one’s age, sex, and color can affect the likelihood of success—not only in the competition, but in who shows up to compete and the capital available to them.
¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 3 Fifth, and most controversially, some challenge a focus on equal opportunity. Ehmke also wrote that the utilitarianism of meritocracy is dehumanizing and asked “even if the myth of equal access and opportunity were true, is it really enough to be measured by the quality of our code alone?” Coincidentally, Ehmke’s question about meritocracy corresponds with the origins of the term itself. Meritocracy was coined by British sociologist Michael Young when he adapted his 1955 Ph.D. thesis into a dystopian novel set in 2034. Young intended to satirize the educational tracking of British students who were divided into three different types of schools based on early testing. Young and socialist writer Alan Fox argued that increasing access to opportunity by way of meritocratic education did not further the outcome of social equality. As Fox (1956, 13) wrote, meritocracy is one of the “bigger and better ‘sieves’ (‘equality of opportunity’) to help the clever boys get to the top and then pile rewards on them when they get there.” Nonetheless, meritocracy (despite unequal outcomes) is embraced by many. Equality of opportunity is compatible with influential geek philosophies, including individualistic anarchism, libertarianism, and objectivism (Herring 1994; Barbrook and Cameron 2004; Turner 2006; Reagle 2013; Coleman 2014). (With respect to objectivism, Ayn Rand (2014a; 2014b) was dismissive of the term meritocracy though she advocated for a similar notion, the “pyramid of ability.”) The valorization of meritocracy in the new millennium, led Young (2001) to confess that “I have been sadly disappointed”: “The book was a satire meant to be a warning.”
¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 In sum, many are ignorant to the significant problems associated with meritocratic claims. Even more people are unaware that “meritocracy” was coined to parody these very problems. Meritocracy is a myth because claims for it are often “unfounded.” It is also mythic in that it represents an ideal to reach for. So as to keep these meanings distinct, I speak of meritocratic claims and the meritocratic ideal.
The subjectivity of meritocracy
¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 Those who make meritocratic claims do so on the basis of two types of naiveté. First, they may be unaware of the critiques of meritocracy (ignorant naiveté). Second, they may be aware of the critiques but their experiences convinces them that its practice is generally sound, even if imperfect (subjective naiveté). An example of the latter is when Raymond wrote that “When hackers fail our own standards of meritocracy, as we sometimes do, it’s up to us to fix it from within our own tradition: judge by the work alone, you are what you do, shut up and show us the code” (Raymond 2015). Of course, the degree to which one finds geek meritocracy imperfect is dependent upon one’s experiences, as seen in an argument from fellow hacker Meredith Patterson.
¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 1 Like many geeks, Meredith Patterson (2014), is fond of a “constructivist” mentality, as she calls it. Patterson claimed that you can’t argue with code: “Programming is an inherently constructivist discipline.” (This is similar to the claim that software “patches don’t have gender” that Nafus (2012) encountered.) Patterson continued: “Some programmers can leave constructivism at the office, but hackers live and breathe it.” Hence, constructivists require others to unambiguously demonstrate and prove a claim—to “show us the code.” For instance, according to Patterson, her people, the weird (or “outsider”) nerds, have ample reason to fear incursions from the mainstream because their “own lived experience yields proof after proof that they, and their outsider norms, will be first against the wall when the popular kids come.” Geekdom had proven to be a safe sanctuary from the challenges of “growing up with autism”; it is a space where “outsiders” and “weird nerds” “fit in a little better without having to try so hard.” When “cool” nerds and “brogrammers” arrive, “weird” nerd acceptance is threatened.
¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 2 Patterson’s belief contrasts with Zeynep Tufekci’s (2014) concern that the “many women—and men—who don’t fit into the ‘bunch of weird nerds’ culture will leave the field.” This group experiences of alienation and exit are also undeniable “lived experience.” The question then is to whom should the community be most accommodating towards, or can geekdom accommodate both the “weird” and “typical”? For Patterson, geekdom must be preserved from brogrammers (non-weird men who program for the money) and geek feminists: “Why is the onus on the outsiders who built our own spaces to understand the insider-newcomers, and not the other way around, particularly when the insiders are the ones colonising us?” (Patterson 2013). This defensiveness is, in part, a consequence of being dismissed as in “denial” or “colluding in my own oppression.” Although I think her experiences should not be so simply dismissed, her position does reflect a particular subjectivity.
¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 In addition to having been welcomed, Patterson (2013) never heard “no girls allowed.” Unlike her experiences as an autist in the mainstream, Patterson’s experiences of gender bias in geekdom have been unnoticed, rare, or easily overcome. In one rare instance of gender discrimination, Patterson only learned of it when “it was brought to my attention long after the fact.” Unbeknownst to her, someone had dismissed her technical proposal because of her gender; she subsequently implemented it herself. When she later learned of the discrimination, “I literally doubled over laughing at how nonplussed he must have been to see it not only implemented, but implemented to ‘rousing success.’” Patterson’s geekiness rendered her immune to slights, and her code allowed her to triumph. Other women have told Patterson that her experiences of a welcoming geekdom are not typical. She conceded that this may be true, but that “maybe other women would have a better time of things if they tried walking around in my shoes for once” (Patterson 2013).
¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 4 Patterson’s story highlights the fact that as a “weird” nerd she’s found geekdom welcoming and non-discriminatory. Additionally, in the instance in which she did encounter gender-based discrimination, it was something she was easily able to overcome—so much so that it was laughable. The story of geeks as oppressed underdogs who eventually come out on top is a common one. The trope of the insecure but triumphant nerd is even recognized in the 1984 film Revenge of the Nerds. (The disguised protagonist’s sex with a popular cheerleader, by initially leading her to think he was her boyfriend, rightly complicates some geeks’ appreciation for the movie (greeneyedtrombonist 2015).)
¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 Granted, one cannot easily reconcile the experience of those who found geekdom exemplary and those who found it alienating. In Patterson’s interpretation, her lack of sensitivity to social slights and the success of her code is evidence of how to participate in a functioning geek meritocracy. Yet, others could easily be alienated in the same circumstance. And some women have been told “no girls allowed”—and actively harassed. These experiences are not objective or constructivist code. Context matters, even for code—as seen when companies cheat at benchmarks for phone and graphics hardware. It is possible to have good and bad experiences in a community and for people to interpret these experiences differently.
¶ 28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 There is much to appreciate about geek culture. It can be a haven from mainstream strictures, a community of like-minded enthusiasts, and, at its best, a space that welcomes novelty and difference. It can also be a place where many feel they are judged for the merit of their intellect and creativity rather than social adroitness, dress, and popularity. But like any other community and culture, it has its biases. Indeed, the narrative of a misfit who finds a new home and triumphs is powerful, but one that can be naive to the fact that not everyone’s circumstances are equal, even in the refuge of a subculture that is preferable to the mainstream.
The privilege of ignorant naiveté
¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 I conclude with one final case, that of Phil Libin, former CEO of Evernote (a note-taking app), professing that “we live in a geek meritocracy.” In a 2011 talk at the Stanford entrepreneurial program, Libin (2011) explained that, “Now is the best time in the history of the universe to start a company because we are living in a geek meritocracy today, or as close to a geek meritocracy as has ever happened.” Advances in technology allowed him to focus on creating excellent products, rather than worrying about marketing, logistics, and “other crap,” as he did in previous companies.
¶ 31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 Unlike Michael Arrington’s (2010) subjective naiveté in claiming that Silicon Valley (and his Disrupt conference) is merit-driven and that women fail to participate, Libin (2011) was not referencing gender when he opined that “we live in a geek meritocracy—or as close to a geek meritocracy as ever happened.” Libin’s ignorant naiveté preceded much of the meritocracy melee; he was speaking of his excitement for creating great products in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Libin (2011) believed “we live in a geek meritocracy” because there has never been a better time to start a tech company: “Is there any point that you think you would rather change your life today for? Would you be back in 1992, would you go back to the ’70s, would you go back to the 1500s? When was there ever a better time?” That is, we live in a geek meritocracy because the present is preferable to the past.
¶ 32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 This question reveals a privilege in Libin’s comparative historical thinking. Even if every geek (including feminists) agreed that the present is preferable to the past, this does not mean things could not improve. Geek feminists can easily conceive a future where things are better, and the presumption of meritocracy achieved (or even approached) is an impediment to that future.
¶ 33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 The idea of meritocracy is often used naively. Even if we abandon Young’s meritocracy as “satire meant to be a warning” and accept “equality of opportunity” as valuable, opportunities are not as equal as we might hope. Meritocracies can be biased towards affirming and reproducing attributes of extant members, and they can then favor incidental attributes of those members, such as pushiness or idiosyncratic dress. Also, the very notion of meritocracy can create biases against non-majority members, and it presumes all members have equitable competitive circumstances.
¶ 34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 1 Because the word myth has multiple meanings, and the first sense (unfounded) tends to extinguish the second (an ideal), we are better served by speaking of a meritocratic ideal, imperfect implementations, and naive claims of meritocracy. We should never claim to have a meritocracy, only to aspire to have meritocratic methods—to claim any thing else is naive.
“About Us.” 2012. Ada Initiative. May 16. http://adainitiative.org/about-us/.
Arrington, Michael. 2010. “Too Few Women in Tech? Stop Blaming the Men.” TechCrunch, August 28. http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/women-in-tech-stop-blaming-me/.
Barbrook, Richard, and Andy Cameron. 2004. “The Californian Ideology.” Imaginary Futures. April 17. http://www.imaginaryfutures.net/2007/04/17/the-californian-ideology-2.
Black, Sandra E., Paul J. Devereux, Petter Lundborg, and Kaveh Majlesi. 2015. “On the Origins of Risk-Taking.” National Bureau of Economic Research. July. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21332.
Bucholtz, Mary. 1999. “”Why Be Normal?”: Language and Identity Practices in a Community of Nerd Girls.” Language in Society 28: 203–23. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/bucholtz/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.ling.cms_bucholtz/files/docs/publications/Bucholtz1999-LinS.pdf.
———. 2002. Geek Feminism. Edited by Sarah Benor, Mary Rose, Devyani Sharma, Julie Sweetland, and Qing Zhang. Gendered Practices in Language. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/bucholtz/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.ling.cms_bucholtz/files/docs/publications/Bucholtz2002-BenorRoseSharmaSweetlandZhang.pdf.
Bueno, Carlos. 2014. “Inside the Mirrortocracy.” Web log message. Blog. June. http://carlos.bueno.org/2014/06/mirrortocracy.html.
Castilla, Emilio J. 2008. “Gender, Race, and Meritocracy in Organizational Careers.” AJS 113 (6): 1479–1526. https://ecastill.scripts.mit.edu:444/docs/Gender,%20Race,%20and%20Meritocracy%20%28Castilla%20AJS%20May%202008%29.pdf.
Castilla, Emilio J., and Stephen Benard. 2010. “The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 55. http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/65884.
Coleman, Gabriella. 2014. “Keywords: Hackers.” Culture Digitally. October 6. http://culturedigitally.org/2014/10/hackers-draft-digitalkeywords/.
Dunbar-Hester, Christina. 2014. “Keywords: Geek.” Culture Digitally. May 19. http://culturedigitally.org/2014/05/geek-draftdigitalkeywords/.
Eglash, Ron. 2002. “Race, Sex, and Nerds: From Black Geeks to Asian American Hipsters.” Social Text 20 (2): 49–64. http://homepages.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/ethnic.dir/nerds.dir/nerd.htm.
Ehmke, Coraline Ada. 2014. “Codes of Conduct: When Being Excellent Is Not Enough.” Model View Culture, December 10. https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/codes-of-conduct-when-being-excellent-is-not-enough.
Feminism, Geek. 2009. “Geek Feminism.” Web log message. Blog. August 10. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_blog.
———. 2015a. “Meritocracy.” Wikia. January 9. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy.
———. 2015b. “Geek Feminism.” Wikia. March 4. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism.
Fox, Alan. 1956. “Class and Equality.” Socialist Commentary, May, 11–13.
greeneyedtrombonist. 2015. “Revenge of the Nerds: A Response to Comment 171 and the Oppression of Geeks.” Web log message. Nerdy but Flirty. January 16. http://nerdybutflirty.com/2015/01/16/revenge-of-the-nerds-a-response-to-comment-171-and-the-oppression-of-geeks/.
Groth, Aimee. 2015. “Entrepreneurs Don’t Have a Special Gene for Risk–They Come from Families with Money.” Web log message. Quartz. July 17. http://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-for-risk-they-come-from-families-with-money/.
Herring, Susan C. 1994. “Politeness in Computer Culture: Why Women Thank and Men Flame.” In Berkeley Women and Language Group, 278–94. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/politeness.1994.pdf.
Kane, Shanley. 2015. “About.” Model View Culture. January 22. https://modelviewculture.com/about.
Kendall, Lori. 2002. Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. Ewing, NJ: University of California Press.
Levine, Ross, and Yona Rubinstein. 2013. “Who Becomes an Entrepreneur and Do They Earn More?” National Bureau of Economic Research. August. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19276.pdf.
Libin, Phil. 2011. “We Live in a Geek Meritocracy.” Stanford’s Entrepreneurship Corner. October 12. http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2804.
Marwick, Alice. 2013. “Silicon Valley Isn’t a Meritocracy. And It’s Dangerous to Hero-Worship Entrepreneurs.” Wired, November 26. http://www.wired.com/2013/11/silicon-valley-isnt-a-meritocracy-and-the-cult-of-the-entrepreneur-holds-people-back/.
McArthur, J. A. 2009. “Digital Subculture: A Geek Meaning of Style.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 33 (58). doi:10.1177/0196859908325676.
McIntosh, Peggy. (1988) 1990. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html.
Morais, Betsy. 2013. “The Unfunniest Joke in Technology.” The New Yorker, September 9. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-unfunniest-joke-in-technology.
“Myth.” 2016. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth.
Nafus, Dawn. 2012. “”Patches Don’t Have Gender”: What Is Not Open in Open Source Software.” New Media & Society 14 (4): 669–83. http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1461444811422887.
Orsini, Lauren. 2014a. “GitHub’s CEO Ditches ‘Meritocracy’ Rug.” Business Insider, January 22. http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-ceo-ditches-meritocracy-rug-2014-1.
———. 2014b. “Why GitHub’s CEO Ditched Its Divisive ‘Meritocracy’ Rug.” ReadWrite, January 24. http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/.
Patterson, Meredith L. 2013. “Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy.” Web log message. Medium. October 14. https://medium.com/@maradydd/okay-feminism-its-time-we-had-a-talk-about-empathy-bd6321c66b37.
———. 2014. “When Nerds Collide.” Web log message. Medium. March 23. https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c.
Rand, Ayn. 2014a. “Meritocracy.” Ayn Rand Lexicon. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/meritocracy.html.
———. 2014b. “Pyramid of Ability.” Ayn Rand Lexicon. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pyramid_of_ability.html.
Raymond, Eric. 1991a. The New Hacker’s Dictionary. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
———. 1991b. “The Jargon File.” January 3. http://www.catb.org/jargon/oldversions/jarg231.txt.
———. 1997. “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/.
———. 2013. “Coding Freedom: A Review.” A Review. January 28. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4781.
———. 2015. “Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs.” Web log message. Armed and Dangerous. October 29. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918.
———. 2016a. “Don’t Dis the Wiccans, Tea-Partiers!” Web log message. Armed and Dangerous. February 9. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1676.
———. 2016b. “Protective Camouflage and Holy Victims.” Web log message. Armed and Dangerous. April 21. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1046#comment-236592.
Reagle, Joseph. 2013. “”Free as in Sexist?”: Free Culture and the Gender Gap.” First Monday 18 (1). http://reagle.org/joseph/2012/fas/free-as-in-sexist.html.
———. 2014. “The Obligation to Know: From FAQ to Feminism 101.” New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444814545840.
Samson, Peter R. 1959. “This Is the First TMRC Dictionary, Which I Wrote in June, 1959.” Gricer. June 26. http://www.gricer.com/tmrc/dictionary1959.html.
Simard, Caroline. 2010. “Saying High-Tech Is a Meritocracy Doesn’t Make It so.” Huffington Post, September 16. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-simard/saying-hightech-is-a-meri_b_719804.html.
Skud. 1998. “Feature:Female Geeks.” Online forum comment. Slashdot. http://news.slashdot.org/story/98/11/24/0941201/featurefemale-geeks.
———. 2000. “Geek Chicks: Second Thoughts.” Web log message. Freecode. February 5. http://freecode.com/articles/geek-chicks-second-thoughts.
———. 2009. “Questioning the Merit of Meritocracy.” Web log message. Geek Feminism. November 9. http://geekfeminism.org/2009/11/29/questioning-the-merit-of-meritocracy/.
———. 2011. “Why I’m Not an Open Source Person Any More.” Web log message. Infotropism. January 28. http://infotrope.net/2011/01/28/why-im-not-an-open-source-person/.
———. 2012. “Thoughts on the “Dark Side” Discussions.” Web log message. Geek Feminism. August 3. http://geekfeminism.org/2012/08/03/thoughts-on-the-dark-side-discussions/.
Slater, Noah. 2014. “The Open Source Identity Crisis.” Model View Culture. July 21. http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-open-source-identity-crisis.
Smith, Eva. 2010. “Too Few Women in Tech?” Tech Life Magazine, August 29. http://techfoodlife.com/2010/08/29/too-few-women-in-tech-stop-blaming-the-men-response/.
Stone, Helena. 2010. “In Response to Michael Arrington’s ‘Too Few Women in Tech’.” Web log message. Chipchick. August 31. http://www.chipchick.com/2010/08/michael-arrington-too-few-women-tech.html.
Sugarbaker, Mike. 1998. “What Is a Geek?” GAZEBO: The Journal of Geek Culture, May. http://www.gibberish.com/gazebo/articles/geek3.html.
Tufekci, Zeynep. 2014. “No, Nate, Brogrammers May Not Be Macho, but That’s Not All There Is to It.” Web log message. Medium. March 19. https://medium.com/technology-and-society/2f1fe84c5c9b.
Turner, Fred. 2006. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wanstrath, Chris. 2014. “We Thought ‘Meritocracy’ Was a Neat Way to Think of Open Source but Now See the Problems with It. Words Matter. We’re Getting a New Rug.” Twitter. January 22. https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/426104782894284800.
Young, Michael. 2001. “Comment: Down with Meritocracy Politics.” The Guardian, June 28. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment.