Laziness was first described in the context of a computer coder’s preference for repurposing existing code for other jobs, rather than writing entirely new code.

This is not a new concept; in fact, building up a library of code for common tasks is the key concept behind object-oriented programming. Repurposing code, originally written for one task, then modifying it for a new task, became known “laziness” in the hacker community, in part because the idea was taken to the next level of the physical world.

Hacking (not to be confused with the often criminal pursuit of “cracking”) is really the idea of taking an object designed for one purpose, modifying it, and then applying it to another context entirely.

But laziness also expanded to incorporate another idea in the hacker community: working on projects simply for the enjoyment of learning something new, seeing a job done well, and/or the community recognition for skillful work.

Hacker culture, born of the network relationships so accurately predicted by Manuel Castells, also acknowledged that working collaboratively on non-linear, granularized projects allowed (and maybe even required) a rethinking of the traditional work environment, which sprung up to support labor completed for the more traditional motivations.

If people were now working for their own satisfaction, on their own time, and perhaps in their own homes, laziness seemed to also catch up the core idea of working closer to one’s true interests. And since in an electronic environment existing work products can be reproduced without charge, originality and creativity are paramount.

Here, too, the “doctrine” of laziness indicates that work on a network involves more a closer alignment between labor and self-identity: laziness grew to represent a work environment which encouraged spontaneity, individuality, and creativity.

Working without traditional pay is what binds this new knowledge community on Wikipedia. 

These are not a bad set factors for writers.