I think it's because it treats hackers as deficient academics who can't be bothered to cite their sources properly or do any research, while there's an equal and opposite argument that academics are deficient hackers who can't be bothered to put their code on github or write any documentation.

In reality, neither is really deficient, they're just aiming at different audiences which need different things.

My main criticism with your otherwise excellent article is the use of the word "tinkerer". "Tinker" has a pejorative meaning: "to busy oneself with a thing without useful results", "to work unskillfully or clumsily at anything." to take a couple of definitions from a random dictionary search.

I'm old enough to remember "shared source" and the classification of "hobbyists" in Microsoft's licenses. In that case the intent was to try to create a division between "professional" programmers, who would pay for useful access to source code and "hobbyists", who supposedly had no need for useful access to source code (because they aren't "professional").

I'm quite certain that's not your intent (and you say so several times in your article), but the implication still lingers. My area of interest is in language design and practitioners have made significant contributions to the field. Researchers are enabled because the endless experimentation of practitioners have narrowed the search space, even though it may have been done in an inefficient manner (by reinventing the wheel many more times than necessary). In turn practitioners have benefited greatly from the exhaustive knowledge and documentation of the researchers.

Both scholarship and practice are useful, but it is understandable that one group may emphasise one over the other and get different kinds of useful results.

I don't think you will find it against research per se, but against the arrogance that many academic researchers exhibit towards those who are not in academia. Once one has a PhD, it seems to be a mental requirement that one will have or show disdain to those who do not.

I have met humble academics, I have met many more who are arrogant know-it-alls. It behooves all to understand that each one of us has a limited set of knowledge. Especially when one becomes more "expert" in some field.

I think one reason that various groups of people has a distaste for science and academics is the fairly common "I'm better than you because I've earned a degree or two or three and know more than you do" attitude displayed.

One aspect of research and publication which has been highlighted many times is that replication of experiments that have been published don't get any funding or recognition.

In that regard, what seems to happen in research is that instead of further investigating the slight anomalies that are found, it is often just let go because it is not within the scope of what was initially being investigated. It seems to be a rendition of the attitude of "Move along, there's nothing to see here".

In case it was unclear, I personally am not at all resentful toward academic research. It is just that for structural reasons related to social organization and funding model, it has both advantages and disadvantages, and the latter shouldn’t be ignored.

Your post did a nice job explaining some of the reasons that academics do the type of work they do, and how that differs from hobby side projects. I think it’s more interesting to discuss the trade-offs involved instead of just passively agreeing with the OP. [Also, many non-academic projects are more organized than someone’s weekend hobby hack (large scale volunteer efforts, funded by donations and sponsorships, directly corporate-run, etc.), so it is worth discussing those as well.]

My comment is probably also considered "negative" but I actually come from an academic background and appreciate the value and importance of good research.

In my opinion, the major problem with your post is that your view crystallises the ivory tower mentality instead of really discussing the difference between "researchers" and "tinkerers". In reality, statuses and titles aside, there is only a fine line between a seriously good "tinkerer" and a seriously good "researcher", and the assertions you have made are simply shallow and narrow.

Your attitude towards opposing, but non-hostile opinions is also rather off-putting—you are simply making light of people who wish to add to the discussion and dismissing them instead of addressing them. It doesn't seem to be that of a reasonable person who is willing to consider different views and explore different possibilities, and definitely not one of a good researcher.

Resentment is not toward research (or even "real" researchers) but toward smugness

I suspect that some people here have had to take software written by academics and convert it to production quality code. From experience it's a pretty thankless task :)