As the title said. I have participated in several hackathons over the last decade (10 hackathons).
And a thing I have noticed is that, in the last hackathons I went, winners were selected based on the inclusivity of their idea and not on their ability to build such idea.
To clarify, this were blockchain hackathons (I don't know if this can be relevant)
Examples
So I don't just sound like someone complaining, let me give examples.
In one big blockchain hackathon organized by Eth Global (a very big group) one of the 10 winners was a project for helping women and people of color. They presented only a presentation.
In another smaller hackathon, one of the winners was a great idea on how to fight censorship to help LGBTQ+ access the information they need in current times (and this idea was very well thought, I really like it). Again, they only presented slides, but didn't have any code at all.
My problem with it
It may be something new, or maybe I'm outdated but when I go to a hackathon, I expect people to actually build a proof of concept and present it.
I always thought that was the idea, get together and see what you can build in 24/48 hours. And at the end, the winners are selected by a mix of how original their idea was + their ability to actually build it.
When I see a team winning by presenting a project without having actually built enough to show it, I feel cheated. It feels like I'm watching Shark Tank or any show where participants try to sell the idea to VCs, instead of a programming tournament.
The fact that hundreds of people spend one or two all nighters planning a project that they can actually do in that time, fighting bugs, designing the site, testing their functionality and struggling with all the process of software engineering just to see that the winner didn't actually do anything of that and proposed an idea that maybe it can not even be done in a hackathon, is frustrating.
I want to clarify, my problem is not that I didn't win, my problem is that I always look up to the winners, I want to see their project, how it works, how amazing it is, how they were able to build it in such a short notice, and when I see that they didn't actually build anything, I have the problem.
When I participated in GameJams, having a submission was always a requirement, and I could play hundreds of amazing games, original or not. And the winner usually was someone that make a game from which I can learn a lot.
So, coming again to my question:
Have hackathons became too political? Is it only a blockchain hackathon thing?
I really enjoy going to hackathons, but this have been a bit frustrating between the last ones.
The trouble is, many hackathons these days aren't "programming tournaments." They are advertising for a company/group or a way for that company/group to solicit new business ideas.
This goes double for the blockchain space where everything is about appearances and hype.
So as others have said, I don't think you should be upset about the "politics" of the winners, but rather about the actual purpose of the "hackathon."
I think OP wasn’t aware that a lot of “hackathons” involve no code. I certainly wasn’t before I read some replies here. So I’m guessing OP wonders if it’s “we’re giving them the win regardless of their failure to complete the basic standards of a hackathon because of their minority status” instead of “we’re giving them the win because we’re looking for something other than functioning code, and despite that we won’t change our name from ‘hackathon’ which implies you need functioning code.”
Nothing wrong with minorities winning hackathons, a lot wrong with people establishing certain expectations by calling an event a “hackathon” when it isn’t one.