Talk:Second Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Life is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
December 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents


Archive

Archives
1
2

[edit] Vandalism

Ya know I think this page just might have been vandalized.--162.95.80.197 (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I did what I couldd to remove it. Hope I did it right. --Murphoid (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know why, when you search Google for 'Second Life', the link to this page, which comes up third or something, has the tag 'Second Life is for people with no life?' I can't find that text in this document. I'm not offended or anything in fact I hardly use SL, but I guess it should probably be removed.--Lopakhin (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Some idiot replaced the page!!!!

[edit] 512 newbie land sales ended a year ago

About a year ago Linden Labs ended the $1/sq m "First Land" sales to newbies. All land is done by auction or resale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.4.138 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law and order SVU

Something probably needs to be added to the Popular Culture section about the recent Law and Order SVU episode that investigated the role a Second Life like program, Another Youniverse, played in a kidnapping/sex crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.244.122 (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism?

I just finished reading an article in a periodical that was rather critical of the game. This article mentions nothing of sex, gambling, child pornography, the issues the government has with it, etc. There is virtual real estate, and the government is challenging that along with all of the transactions occurring. Some people are making lots of money on this site. I even read about some virtual terrorist group, the libertarian army or such, that operates on the world.

[edit] Registry values

Anyone know if SL creates any values in your system registry besides those in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT/secondlife and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Linden Research, Inc.? SteveSims 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Note: These values are for Windows XP.

[edit] Brazil

About my recent edits, the first official Second Life outside U.S. is up and running [1] [2] [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.45.74 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

I've corrected this portion of the article. Brazil does not have its own grid or servers; it only has a localized portal onto the standard main grid, as the articles and especially the portal site itself make clear. The portal is operated by a separate company in partnership with Linden Lab. Agateller 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
And I've expanded it a bit but I need some help: can anyone find an appropriate source discussing the older Linden-run German, Korean and Japanese regions from mid-late 2005 onwards? That only one I could come up with is a forum anouncement and that's not usefull because it requires a Second Life login to access. EllePollack 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other virtual worlds

It may be useful to have this list somewhere, but I don't see why it belongs in this particular article. I'll place it here so it is not lost. I suggest it be incorporated in some more general article about virtual worlds and that this article cross reference to it somehow:

[[4]]20p (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Metamagician3000 12:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


What about VREng ? http://vreng.enst.fr/html/index.html

allix 21:21, 06 February 2007 (GMT)

[edit] The flat earth-like environment

Last I checked, the earth wasn't flat.

Signpostmarv 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that phrase is stating two separate facts:
  1. The SL world is flat (ie. not spherical)
  2. The SL world is Earth-like (ie. consisting of land, sea, sky, Sun, Moon, etc)
Perhaps a comma between "flat" and "Earth-like" would helpful. —Slowspace 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. TerriersFan 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
déjà vu. Fixed again. Not sure who changed it into a link to Flat Earth, but I'm sure that's definitely not the meaning meant there. —AySz88\^-^ 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have something to add to that, I talked to an admin about this topic and directed them over here, this was about 2 months ago. As far as i'm aware if you try the beta grid the land has a "spherical"(sp?) look to it. They are trying to fix the objects and other aspects to put on the main grid but I believe within 5-6 weeks it should look "round"CrazySain (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links are a Mess

Also see #Mainstream_Media_Coverage_section

Most of the external links do not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for External links. Most importantly, only a few of the links have any symmetry with this article. Most are dealing in topics related to Second Life in general. Many seem to contain excess advertisements. Many seem to be listed to promote the website itself. Frankly, it's just a mess. I have a feeling that this is fan created article.Testerer 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not fix it? Take out the links you consider inappropriate, giving your reasons. It all helps improve the article. Metamagician3000 07:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll find that most articles are fan-created or heavily fan-edited.
The external links section was a mess back when every single SL-related blog got listed. Now it's just a matter of running through the news links, turning it into an Second Life in the Media section, and using each link as a reference instead of a slice of the external links section.
Signpostmarv 09:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I was going to let the "fan created" bit go, just this once - obviously, it is vaguely insulting even if literally true, and is irrelevant to the merits of the material under discussion. People do seem to find it difficult to stick to the merits. Metamagician3000 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that having a "Second Life in the Media" section is really necessary. Look at articles such as the Wii or the iPhone, which obviously have had mountains of media coverage, but they don't have a media section in the article. Instead, I have begun transferring individual SL news links to more appropriate locations, as references – see the talk in #Mainstream Media Coverage section. —Slowspace 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, there mere fact that someone suggested a "Second Life in the Media section" proves my point that perhaps much of this article, and others related to 2nd life seem to be lacking some NPOV. All external links must help directly explain what Second life is. Not a review of the game or community itself in some magazine. I understand the importance of fan created content, however, it shouldn't stray from a sound NPOV style. Honestly, if only 25,000 people play this game at one time, it might not be as notable as many other games. 3 Million accounts on the other hand is signifigant. But it is a bit fuzzy how 3 million accounts translates to a daily max of merely 25,000 people. I really just stumbled upon this article and one related to it and saw how much help it needs. That's why I posted. There is alot of good here, but some cleaning up is needed. Testerer 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links are still a mess. Despite putting up the {{External links}} template, and a reasonable 5-line comment in the 2007 section, people are still coming along and adding new links :-( The problem is that the section has reached critical mass – it looks like an intended repository of links. I've converted the sub-sub-sub-categories into simple bold text, in an attempt to reduce the ridiculous proportion of space that the External Links section takes up in the Contents. —Slowspace 01:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's be ruthless about getting rid of external links. No argument about that. Metamagician3000 02:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I've totally removed the "mainstream media coverage" part of the external links. I think the onus should be on anyone who wants to restore one of those links (obviously, it's all in the history) or add new ones. How much are you folks willing to support me on this? Metamagician3000 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Very bold of you, Metamagician! I have been tempted to do the same thing myself... My only reservation is that some of those links might actually contain genuinely useful info, which could be referenced into the article (or another SL article). But overall, I think it's the right move; otherwise, people will be forever adding new links. I will continue assessing the deleted links from the archive when I can, and restoring any which I think are valuable. —Slowspace 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[un-indent] As a handy place for my own reference and anybody else's if they like, I'll put all those external links on a user sub-page, here. Anything valuable will still be easily at hand as the old version of the article sinks deeper into the history. Metamagician3000 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The major issue I see here is that almost all the references we have for this article are primary sources, whereas the media coverage were secondary sources, which are highly favoured for verifiability purposes. My slight worry here is that the links will just sit on Metamagician's page and we'll never get them into the article. Cheers --Pak21 08:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Understood, but at least you know about them. ;) So go ahead and raid them for info if there is likely to be citable stuff there. Metamagician3000 12:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sign-ups

I just tried to sign up for a basic account without using an SMS number, credit card number or PayPal account. So the part about obsoleting those requirements is false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.227.35 (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

The fact that you can sign up with only an email address makes the other methods obsolete.
Signpostmarv 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

Just wanted to mention.. this game looks like shit. What kind of crap is this? No wonder no one plays it, nor is it really that notable. In fact, I'd vote for its deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.191.69.149 (talk • contribs).

Your comment "No wonder no one plays it" is quite simply nonsense. There are between around 20,000 and 50,000 people playing Second Life at any time of the day. Second Life is actually attracting the same sort of attention now that the Internet did in the early-mid 1990s, so to say it is not notable is also incorrect. Your opinion that "it looks like shit" is not only ambiguous and vague, but simply that: an opionion. Unless you have recently been promoted to the role of god almighty I don't think that automatically makes it a universal truth. StanPomeray 12:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Life has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as required by the core policy of attribution. Your personal views on the quality of Second Life are not relevant to whether it should have coverage on Wikipedia or not. Cheers --Pak21 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Second Life clearly reaches notability requirement to merit an article. Commercial pros/cons of products really don't have that much place in wiki. It is true that SL has not been that commercially succesful. Do a google search on "Second Life" and you won't find many significant user community efforts. Like you would for something like World of Warcraft ("WoW"), which triggers huge projects like wowiki, allakazham, thottbot, not to mention all guild sites and the UI addon sites and efforts - even cartography sites. SL simply has not appealed to the gaming community, nor has it (like WoW has) taken the traditional gaming community and expanded the appeal. The section in the article that tries to bone out "actual" usage stats seem to me to be a reasonable attempt at objectively saying the same thing (e.g. "yeah, not many people are actually willing to pay for this"). However, that said, SL is a very interesting experiment in online environments, including fairly novel ways of building a business, like virtual product placements and other comarketing efforts. The explicit emphasis on building an economy is also very interesting. One might argue that SL is in many ways a more visionary and innovative attempt at MMO than other (more commercially succesful) projects, including WoW. Their press coverage is partly caused by this element, which underlines that yes, it's certainly notable enough to be covered. --Psm 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Second Life IS a user community. Why are you expecting to see one outside SL? Anyway, IMHO SL is more of a "casual game", so no, you're not going to see the hardcore gamers raving about it. They're all playing WoW. SL is too freeform for them. And some would argue that Second Life is not a game, but is in fact Serious Business. 71.87.39.165 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, if you look at the article, you'll see that the amount of sign-ups is increasing exponentially. Now, if it is a bad as you say it is, why is it so popular?

Well again, the good/bad issue isn't relevant for notability, but the level of interest (quantity) is. So, not that it matters, but amount of sign-ups does not signal quality or even popularity, critics of SL would argue that it's simply an effect of massive media coverage. SL is free to try out, so of course it attracts a lot of people. The question is do they stay and/or do they care very much. But again, none of that is relevant from a notability standpoint. Though the wiki article should somehow also capture any material criticism of SL, and/or at least reference where it can be found. Not so much because wiki is about pro/con arguments, but because in the specific case of SL, the controversy surrounding the level of media interest is part of what today makes SL notable. --67.170.225.125 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I've reverted the most recent formatting change to the external links section: if they're "too small" in whatever style you're using, the correct action is to change your style, not to change the markup on the page itself. By changing them to bold text, this makes it impossible for other users to change the style to how they like. It's a markup language we're using here, not a layout language. Cheers --Pak21 08:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Pak, I was too ambiguous in my edit summary! When I said "subcats too small", I meant that the subcategories are too short to be warranted. I didn't mean that the actual text size was too small! "Linden Lab" only contains 2 links, and "Audio and video media" only contains 5 links, so I think it would be better just to label the groups of links with bold text, rather than create actual subcats for them. (Remember, every subcat shows up in the Contents, and this really isn't necessary here, since the subcats are very short.) —Slowspace 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That explains things a bit :-) In that case, I think I'd say that if the subcats don't have enough entries, we should just remove the headings entirely. Cheers --Pak21 14:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Look Viewer

Is the First Look (Second Life Viewer) worth noting? I don't even know what it is, I came here looking for info on it and instead ended up creating a stub. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperdivision (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Probably not. The First Look Viewer information should be contained within the Second Life article. You may wish to add the {{db-author}} template to the page. You can find info on the First Look Viewer in the archives of the Official Linden Blog. If you use Second Life, and your frame rate sucks you'll love the FLSL (pronounced Fooly Sooly ?) viewer- I get between 10 and 30fps increases :-D (Radeon X800 GTO (AGP) w/ 256mb RAM)
Signpostmarv 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps more importantly, the article's text is directly copied from the official SL page. Please do not do this as it is a copyright violation. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion on this basis. --Pak21 08:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It was indeed a copyvio, though doubtless done with the best of intentions. I've speedy deleted it. Metamagician3000 10:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a question- is it a copyvio if the text is copied from the Second Life Viewer itself, which is released under the GPL ?
Signpostmarv 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No. Yes. The GPL requires that all derivative works are licensed under the GPL. Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL. --Pak21 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, that sounds like that means "yes, it's a copyvio", not "no"? —AySz88\^-^ 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
D'oh. Thanks. --Pak21 18:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education in Second Life

To follow up on the edit about Education in Second Life (3.5), anyone interested can see it first hand on Berkman Island. This is the island owned by Harvard University, administered by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Currently, there is a course that meets on Tuesday evenings and is open to at-large participants. Everyone is welcome to join the dialogue.

Can whoever wrote this section correct it so that it does not say "last semester"? Even now, it is not clear to me when "last semester" began and ended in the northern hemisphere. Someone reading the article in a year's time will be even more confused, even if they come from North America. Can it be changed to say "in the 2006 fall semester", or whatever the correct terminology may be? Metamagician3000 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the SLurl for Berkman Island is - http://slurl.com/secondlife/Berkman/114/53/24 -. // Internet Esquire 04:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi there! I'm hoping I'm adding this in the right place, as I'm still a "newbie" to the editing process of Wiki. I was looking at your "Education in Second Life" section of the wiki, and wanted to add to the list of schools that the University of Louisville in Louisville, KY currently uses Second Life for a few of their classes. I was going to go ahead and add this myself, but wanted to make sure this was all right. Thanks! --Sokababe04 (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computer formats

Ok guys i just joined but my computer is a ME and it says that second life supports XP and mac and windows 2000 (4) something like that . anyways if i try to install the client to my windows ME edition computer will it cause it to crash my computer (and lose data or something) or is that warning just a disclaimer that means you can still play the game? i need to know please so i can decide weather to get a new computer or just stick with the old one. Maverick423 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the Second Life article; if you're after technical information, you should try the offical Second Life forums instead --Pak21 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As Pak says, try the Second Life: Technical Issues forum. —Slowspace 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Pak has politely reminded me that you won't be able to access the official Second Life forums unless you've logged in to Second Life at least once, and have valid payment info on file for your account. Try one of the unofficial forums instead (such as Stratics: Second Life), or search the Second Life Knowledge Base. —Slowspace 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
http://secondlife.com/knowledgebase/article.php?id=013
“ Question:

Will Second Life work on my Windows 98, 98SE, Milennium Edition, or ME computer?

Answer: Second Life requires Windows 2000 or Windows XP, and the program does not work on older versions of Windows. You will need to use Windows 2000 or Windows XP to use Second Life.

 ”

—Second Life Knowledge Base article 013
Signpostmarv 14:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ah thanks much on this issue guysMaverick423 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it "resident" or "Resident"?

I prefer the former but I see that it's now often "Resident" in the article. I won't change any more, given the number of them. I think we need to agree on one or the other and stick with it. What do people think? Metamagician3000 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The official SL website should be our guide in this matter. Here are a few quotes from it:
  • "Second Life Videos – Check out resident-created Second Life videos at our media page."
  • "Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents."
  • "You'll also be surrounded by the Creations of your fellow residents. Because residents retain the rights to their digital creations, they can buy, sell and trade with other residents."
So it should probably be "resident". —Slowspace 09:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks - that's totally fine with me. Let's be consistent about using a lower-case "r", unless anyone comes up with a cogent objection very soon. Metamagician3000 10:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that Signpostmarv has taken the other view and reverted my initial changes from "Resident" to "resident" before I posted on the talk page, so we'd better give him some time to support it before going ahead and changing them all to lowercase. Metamagician3000 10:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently waiting upon a response from Robin Linden (Robin Harper, Vice President, Community Development and Support @ Linden Lab) to make a post here.
I did have a private conversation with Robin over Skype, and I'll need to get permission to post the chat log, but Robin did say that Jeska Linden decided it should be capitalised. Robin wasn't sure as to why the decision was made, but I offered the following theory:
  1. A citizen of England is an Englishman, not an englishman.
  2. A citizen of America is an American, not an american.
  3. A citizen of Second Life is a Resident, not a resident.
So.... either way, please hold off until I've had permission to post the chat log from our conversation here, or Robin gets time out of her busy schedule to post a response on the SL Wiki.
Btw, in case you're concerned about the "no-wiki" rule of "not knowing who made a post", the SL Wiki is tied into the SL Authenticatation system in such a way that a SL Wiki user has the same username as their SL avatar, and that any SL wiki user with the last name "Linden" (as is the case in-world) is a Linden Lab employee.
Signpostmarv 17:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That look like abuse of teh English language. Consider teh following counter example:
  1. A citizen of England is a resident of England.
  2. A citizen of America is a resident of America.
  3. A citizen of Second Life is a (R/r)esident of Second Life.
Using the format in your example, you should be saying something like "A citizen of Second Life is a Second Lifian." Resident breaks that pattern, because it isn't an adjective formed from a proper noun. Of course, all that is irrelevant if LL decides it should be so for their own marketing purposes. It won't be the first corporate abuse of the English language after all. Rhialto 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    1. A citizen of Liverpool is a Liverpudlian.
    2. A Liverpudlian is a citizen of Liverpool.
    1. A citizen of Second Life is a Resident.
    2. A Resident is a citizen of Second Life.
Seems perfectly valid to me.
Signpostmarv 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The term "Resident" is used to describe an inhabitant of the virtual world of Second Life, just as "American" is used to describe an inhabitant of America, "Englishman" is used to describe a (male) inhabitant of England, "Liverpudlian" is used to describe an inhabitant of Liverpool.
Signpostmarv 05:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(breaking indent) My point is that those capitalised adjectives are capitalised because they are derived from a proper noun, not because they are being used to describe a person inhabiting a particular country. There are quite a few examples of other capitalised adjectives erived from proper nouns which DON'T describe citizenship in any way.

Truthfully, they aren't using "resident" in its usual meaning in the English language. The word isn't derived from a proper noun, so teh capitalization, whether it be official policy or not, is certainly non-standard (simialr to how "eBay" is non-standard capitalization). Rather, they are using it as a jargon term. As such, I'd say the grammatically correct approach as prescribed by most style guides would be to place the word in italics.

Basically, unless a their official policy says otherwise, I'd say the word should be made lowercase and italicized. Rhialto 06:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with italicising it, as I don't see which bit of WP:MOS#Italics applies. --Pak21 08:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters which we use so long as we're consistent about it. If we need to make a decision, a quick scan of the current posts on blog.secondlife.com shows a mixture of "resident" and "Resident" in use, and the Knowledge Base is equally inconsistent. If we get an official statement from a Linden on the matter, let's go with that. If we don't, let's not worry about it. Cheers --Pak21 17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope we resolve this issue before we get noticed by WP:LAME :-) —Slowspace 12:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL, but still ... Metamagician3000 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
SL Wiki, Origin of the term 'Resident'
Robin tells me she's passed this along to "Jeska, who developed the style guide", so we should see something regarding the official policy of "Resident" over "resident" soon :-)
Signpostmarv 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Physics of Second Life?

Lacking experience of Second Life, I'd be happy if someone wrote about the physical constraints in SL, it could be a separate article. Is there a physics engine underneath? Do objects have gravity? Can violence be inflicted on objects or avatars? What are the limits of travel speed? etc etc. 133.186.102.42 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a full article, just some notes on the physics...

SL uses the Havoc engine (but there has been talk for a long time of upgrading to a later version). Objects (and avatars) have mass. One llgetweight (mass?) unit, as defined by the scripting engine, works out as being 0.1 cubic metres (yep, it is technically a unit of volume, not mass). Avatar 'mass' is purely a function of avatar height. Mass is only relevant for physical interaction between objects that have physics enabled. All other objects do not interact in terms of game physics; they effectively have infinite mass. Gravity generally pulls objects downwards, with increasing force as you go up, so that it is effectively impossible to rise above 200m or so without special scripted assistance. Objects do not have their own gravity; gravity is only exerted by the 'planet' itself.

Someone else can tidy that up into a section. I don't think there is really enough to justify a full article on the topic. Rhialto 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. Linden Lab use completely made up measurements.
  2. Objects don't have gravity, but they can be scripted to mimic the effects of gravity.
  3. Yes violence can be inflicted on avatars- but only in areas designated for it (most of SL isn't)
    1. Objects need to be scripted to respond to collisions via the collision_start(), collision() and collision_end() events to be the subject of "violence"
    1. Inter-sim speed is limited by the region transfer time
    2. within a sim, script-assisted speed is dependant upon the energy made available to the object doing the flight.
Gravity
  • Unassisted, you can fly up to approx 170m above the terrain mesh
  • Unassisted, you can hover up to 50m above the terrain mesh
Signpostmarv 05:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for informative answers. In particular, I am interested in how the economics of SL are related to physics. If users are close to omnipotent, it is hard to see how anything can be of value. What about virtual energy and materials? Can users "invent" new materials or energy arbitrarily, or does it take some kind of cost?
133.186.102.42 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There is almost no relationship between SL physics and the SL economy; any relationship is coincidental at best. However, users are NOT anywhere near omnipotent. technically, there is nothing to stop you building a complete functioning space shuttle, so in that sense perhaps you are omnipotent. The real value lies in knowledge - do you know how to build it? As for energy and materials... scripts require "energy", which as I understand it is really just a timer to put a brake on some of the more cpu-intensive or abused script commands. the only way to make more of it is to wait, and it can't be stockpiled or traded. Materials presumably refers to prims, and the only real limit there is that a given parcel of land can only have so many (approximately 1 per 4 m2) rezzed at a time. Rhialto 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Each region is limited to 15,000 primitives.
  2. While there is a wide variety of content available in-world, if you wish to upload your own sounds, images or animations, it's L$10 per item of content.
    • Sounds are limited to 10 seconds per audio clip.
Signpostmarv 16:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have some light to shine on this discussion, I am an expert coder/builder/tinker in Second Life. As I am aware of coding you can make an "object" that allows you to actually follow physics in Second Life it would cost around $50 USD in Linden Dollars because every movement and action needs to be accounted for but it is possible, as I think of it there is a town that actually follows physics to the tee. Trying to think of the name of the town... can't think of it right now I'll look around for it and report back.CrazySain (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about ?
Signpostmarv (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Language Please, and you can create a code so your character conforms to gravityCrazySain (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: Sense; your message; it makes none.
  1. USD$50 is approximately L$12,500
  2. Making an object use Havok is a case of llSetStatus(STATUS_PHYSICS,FALSE);
  3. The performance of a physics engine written entirely in LSL would be so abysmal as to render that price tag extortionate
  4. Avatars react to "gravity" by default, requiring no additional scripting.
Signpostmarv (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Residents

It has occurred to me that, sooner or later, people may want to create articles about some of teh more notable residents within SL. Of course, where a given avatar is closely identified with a RL person, there are already well-defined standards for determing notability (in the context of whether a person should have an article in wp). But I would say there are a number of avatars that are potentially notable, but do not have a RL person identifiably associated with them.

As such, I suggest we put together a set of guidelines to decide under what circumstances a SL avatar should be considered sufficiently notable to justify an article about them. I expect it would largely mirror RL criteria, but it would be useful to formally organise this before a flood of avatar articles appear.

As an example, one of the avatar articles is in because the avatar in question was interviewed in a number of newspapers regarding a certain topic. But the articles were about the toppic, not the avatar, so I'm not sure whether that would be considered a trivial mention or not. It is why we need to formalise this. Rhialto 06:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the list on Resident (Second Life), a place to start for use-cases would be User:Signpostmarv#Articles_on_Marv.27s_to-do_list_to_create
Signpostmarv 14:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd consider adding Simon Walsh (rl name Simon Stevens) to the list. He has been fairly active in using SL to promote awareness of disability issues. Rhialto 02:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent minor restructuring

I don't really agree with all the recent (admittedly fairly minor) restructuring. Part of the effect has been to move detail into the lead, which should really just be an overview of the article, and should have very few (or ideally no) references, because the relevant references appear where the summarised points are made in the body of the article. An ideal lead is about three paras, rather than the five paras we now have - once it gets that long it's a good clue that we are putting too much of the detail in the wrong place. Also, the whole section about Second Life as the Metaverse now seems incorrectly titled, because the section is no longer making that point - it has been shifted to the lead.

I won't make any unilateral changes back, because some of what was done may nonetheless have been a good idea, and I'd like to see some discussion. Overall, though, I think that the previous version was better and that some changes should now be made to try to regain the strengths of the previous version - without losing any genuine improvements that have been introduced. Cheers! Metamagician3000 07:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and done some restructuring which, in my opinion, was needed. I've been feeling for a while that the organisation of information in the article is not great. It gave the impression that the article had grown bit by bit, with contributions by many separate authors, and that the contents of some sections would now be better placed elsewhere.
I have now tried to trim down the lead a bit, by moving a few bits of info out to other sections. I agree that the Metaverse section needs to be retitled - how about "Features of the virtual world"?
If anyone feels I have been too bold in my restructuring, please let's have a discussion here, rather than an edit war :-) Thanks. —Slowspace 11:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Features of the virtual world" works for me. I made that change. Metamagician3000 04:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can one only play music into microphones?

'Live music performances take place in Second Life, in the sense that of vocal and instrumental music by Second Life Residents can be provided from their homes and studios. This is played into microphones, uploaded to audio streams, and played in-world for the enjoyment of other Residents.'

Unless, I am reading the meaning of intrumental wrong, This paragraph states that one can only play music in SecondLife when one plays into a microphone. If this is true,what I am presuming, then what about audio wires? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raistlin Dragonlance (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Live music pretty much requires a microphone. I'm not personally aware of any technological means to convert sounds to digital data without a microphone being involved. Pre-recorded music can of course be played into SL, using the same technology that internet radio stations use.
(ps. please sign your posts by typing four tilde marks (~)
Rhialto 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Any instrument with a line-out capability (eg. keyboards, electric violins, electroacoustic guitars) can be played live into SL without a microphone. The line-out signal is connected to the sound input socket on the computer. The sentence in the article should be reworded, I think. —Slowspace 10:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA/FA

There are a couple of points that still need citing, but this is starting to look really good. If whoever wrote those sentences with citation tags on them could back them up soon, it'd be nice to apply for good article status for this article ... then maybe think about the process for peer review and perhaps applying for FA status (with something much more solid this time). Metamagician3000 03:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Currently working on grabbing citation tags- got them for COpybot, looking for the recently published metrics to back up the daily cycle of logins. Aspengrey 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

If you see here, it is (apparently) almost impossible to create images in Second Life, and to have copyright, because you must have created every element "photographed" from scratch. While this sounds odd to me as a proposition in intellectual property law, I have to accept it. This seems like a pity because we really need to try to convey the look of the world - apart from the fact that it was not entirely straightforward creating the avatars and other images that I did to illustrate Second Life articles. Well, anyone got any ideas? Maybe we'll have to write to Linden Lab and ask if they can provide images that they're prepared to release to Wikipedia. Does anyone have contacts there? You'd think it would be in their interests to help us illustrate the article attractively, but the images would have to be released under the GFDL. Metamagician3000 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. Go on flickr and look for Creative Commons licensed photos by Second Life Residents. Shots of individual avatars or their own content likely won't violate this rule.
  2. How does this rule affect RL photographers who take photos in public spaces ?
Signpostmarv 12:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, those people would not have the ability to grant copyright for their shots any more than I do for mine if this rule is correct unless the avatar and its clothing etc was all created by the Resident from scratch.
I find it hard to believe that the rule is correct - I don't see how I am infringing on someone's intellectual property in SL just by (say) taking a photo of an avatar I created that (for example) uses a skin or an item of clothing that I bought from another person. It seems to me that all Linden is saying is that the code the other person used is copyright. Also, as you imply, this rule would mean we would not be able to take any photos at all in a public space or any space that we did not wholly design ourselves ... yet we are encouraged to do exactly that. And as for all those little movies on YouTube ...
However, while I find this interpretation implausible, it's what is being put to me and will presumably be put to anyone who replaces the images that I created with images of their own ... or with images from sites such as you referred to. At the moment, I am in no position to argue against it. All I know is what is in the link that I've put above. Unless we can get the Linden people to help out in some way, it looks like we're stuck, because this is the way people who police images on SL are viewing it. OTOH, if you think you can argue against it, you can go to the images for deletion page that I linked to and have your say there. Metamagician3000 13:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
“ You also understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the Service, you automatically grant (or you warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted) to Linden Lab and to all other users of the Service a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free and perpetual License, under any and all patent rights you may have or obtain with respect to your Content, to use your Content for all purposes within the Service. ”

—Second Life Terms of Service: Section 3.2
Signpostmarv 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that might be the answer. Would you please go to the link I provided above and join the debate? I can see what the reply is likely to be - that in putting the images on Wikipedia I am not using the content "within the Service" (i.e. within SL), but it's worth having this out. Meanwhile, I'm going to pop over to the SL site and see if it gives me any other clues. Metamagician3000 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've written a long (but hopefully not so long that their eyes will glaze over) email to Linden Lab explaining the problem and asking what they think. Whether anything will come of it is another question, but it seems to be in their interest to have the article illustrated in a way that shows the look and feel of SL. Metamagician3000 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've also drawn Jimbo's attention to the problem, though there's nothing I really expect him to do. Metamagician3000 05:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You'd probably want to contact Torley or Robin.
Signpostmarv 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[Un-indent]Good thinking. I followed up by sending an IM to Torley. You can see the substance of what I sent on Jimbo's talk page. Metamagician3000 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation and copyright

I asked for a citation here in paragraph 5, and I think it's worth adding that I believe there's a rather gross factual error here in that there are no secondary levels of permissions (the term used in Second Life for controls regarding copying, modifying, transfering); as the creator or owner of an object in Second Life, one can only apply permission restrictions in such a way that affects the next immediate owner and all subsequent owners (although subsequent owners may in some cases impose further restrictions which get passed downstream, so to speak). There is no mechanism whereby one may specify certain permissions for the next owner, and different permissions for the owner after that, as the article currently states. This is a oft-wished-for feature, and it may be something which is planned for the future, but it is decidedly absent at this time.

Yes I'm new here and posting anonymously, and as such I do not feel comfortable making any sweeping edits to the article; I hope requesting a citation and noting my reasons here is appropriate, and that an experienced editor will see fit to correct the error in such a way as to enhance the article and keep it in line with Wikipedia standards. 131.191.10.220 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If the relevant sentence or so is contested and not attributed it should simply be removed, which I'll now do. Metamagician3000 00:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following but will place it here as a resource in case it turns out to be correct and can be verified: In addition, these rights can be set for future owners. That is, an item that is copyable and transferable might become non-transferable once it has been transferred. For example, A may create some item and give it to B. B can give to as many Cs as he wishes, but the Cs will not be able to give it to any Ds. Metamagician3000 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Life

I just created the page redirect First Life to SL#Parody. An actual article devoted to it would be nice, but I doubt it would be noteworthy enough to survive a RFD. samwaltz 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • remark removed by user Me053076 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)*

Apparently I jumped the gun, I apoligize for my commentary. I shall endevour to make sure that I am properly informed before making any other comments/opinions.

I had talked to other residents that were present at the time it happened, it was a 'humper' AO (Animation Overrride) that was being passed around.

As for hysterics, in retrospect it is a valid assesment of my opinions/complaints. Again, I do apoligize.


Me053076 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstated

I reinstated this: One study extrapolates 25 million total accounts, with 150,000 Residents simultaneously online, by March 2008. Not sure why it was deleted. Did somoeone read it as 2007, perhaps? Metamagician3000 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media stories

I've just updated this User:Metamagician3000/SL archive with a new story in The Age. Metamagician3000 11:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

This doesn't seem like a game.. what is it? Would you classify it as? Fr0 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtual World software.
Signpostmarv 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something Awful

I recon you guys should add a note of some sort that implicates somethingawful.com's 'Second Life Safari.' Considering you've already added a parody site, and its rather popular in its own back handed way. - Sye

[edit] Second Life Blogs

Last time I checked, the previous time a list of SL-related blogs was compiled in this article, the entire thing was nuked to prevent it from being misused.

Signpostmarv 12:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Motional"

"Motional" isn't a word, and if it's part of the nomenclature of SL, then it should be defined as such in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davjosmes (talk • contribs)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=motional
(adj) motional (of or relating to or characterized by motion)
Signpostmarv 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new medium of existance

But is it healthy? That is the question. DavidPesta 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not the question. Maybe a question. Lee.Sailer 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] child pornography

please see the german article to add the cases of child pornography being investigated in germany and belgium!--Dirk | <°°> 08:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been significant scientific evidence for a "corrupting effect", so articles should be careful not to imply that this is an established fact. Restricting free speech rights is a very serious step in a democracy, and it should not be done merely because speech or images are disgusting or because there is a supposition that they might be harmful. Also c.f. the 2002 US Supreme Court decision on virtual child pornography.Jcarnelian (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

this is so cool yo they hot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.37.199 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

In my short time in the Second Life universe, it has been my experience that most residents refer to it as "2L", not "SL" as stated several times in the article.

Naznomad 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First I've seen 2L. SL is used widely as an abbreviation. See slurl.com and nwn blog for high-profile examples. ∴ here…♠ 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never once heard "2L" unless, of course, something costs "2L" (Linden Dollars) But no, I don't recall anything but SL, and SecondLife, and "that laggy P.O.S" But I digress, that last one is a pet-name.Soylent.Hero 10:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In my long time in the Second Life universe, it has been my experience that only newbies use "2L" after reading it in an article penned by someone who spent less than a day in-world.
Signpostmarv 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copybot reference

Just changed the citation needed under Second Life Protocol (other unforseen capabilities) to a reference to the CopyBot, which was certainly controversial and should be mentioned here. I linked it to the Wikipedia Copybot page, so I don't think the citation is required any longer.

Aspengrey 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Requests

I think that citation requests are getting ridiculous, is wikipedia a thoroughly second-rate product that cannot engage in primary research? A citation request is noted for someone claiming that numbers of residents logged in varies from 17000 to 35000 (approx). To conduct primary research on this you just need to load the Second Life viewer once an hour (or open http://www.secondlife.com), as the number of residents logged in is shown when the programme (or home page) loads. Why is a citation required? Wikipedia has a lot of academics on it (I am one), but for how much longer if editors show little understanding of research. If I conduct primary research in Second Life it is not good enough, but I can cite a poorly written and badly researched article. That is not how to do editorial work, so please stop puting citation required after every uncited claim. "Further explanation required" makes more sense (i.e., to explain that this is primary research which can be verified by loading the programme once an hour). PS, the figures are incorrect, I have seen it as low as 10,000 logged in. MnJWalker 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above- however, in this case, LL has in fact published metrics on their websites that makes it very easy to verify this... just as soon as I get a change. (Better yet, you could go grab them.) Aspengrey 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the expression "primary research". If you mean research that draws on primary sources, then yes, Wikipedia editors can indeed use primary sources in some circumstances. Nonetheless, the sources should be cited. There is nothing "second-rate" about that practice. However, if you mean that you want to use Wikipedia to conduct your own original research program, then that flies in the face of our policies. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original academic research. It is an attempt to draw together knowledge already available elswhere into one giant repository with appropriate acknowledgment of the sources that it draws upon. No more, no less. Metamagician3000 05:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Primary research (in a Wikipedia context) should mean research that you do yourself and provide an explanation of your evidence and how you came to the conclusion. Can you point me, Metamagician, to the stated policy that Wikipedia is only a repository for what is available elsewhere [citation required!]? The point here is not about doctoral graduates publishing their theses online, but about those items that can patently be derived by primary research that any reader of the Wiki can verify for themselves. Then they can alter the numbers if they are wrong (as I noted that the minimum number online is too high). This is simlar to the complaints of artistic academics that the criteria for research production in universities tends to overlook the fact that their research might be an original play or sculpture. My second rate comment stands, if the patently obvious has to be cited (as opposed to proved) then Wikipedia comes across as peurile and undeserving of respect. MnJWalker 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like someone to cite what source said "Among these was Starax, SL's most popular sculptor and builder/scripter." This sounds like an opinion to me, seeing as how I do not remember seeing any polls... But in such a case, what about the likes of 'Cubey Terra' for example. Other than Philip Linden himself, i don't much see any reason for any avatars' names to be on this page. A sub-category, yes... for people like Starax, Cubey, Jade Lily and the Relay for Life; things of that nature. Soylent.Hero 17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Many SL avatars are famous, at least within the context of SL, but teh people behidn those avatars take care to keep their RL identity secret. Given that this is the prevailing culture in SL, it makes sense that often only a SL name will be available to assign a cite to. Rhialto 19:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Inside Second Life is a wall of history that offers tidbits of information about how the virtual environment evolved and changed. Things like which landmass was first created and when, how the first avatar was actually just a purple blob and later a composition of primitives. How would one link to this information? Give a SLURL (Second Life URL which expresses a location within Second Life) to this wall of history? (http://slurl.com/secondlife/Kirkby/137/163/24) There also seems to be a Historical Museum dedicated to Second Life at http://slurl.com/secondlife/Phobos/218/167/32 Would this information be useful to add to the wikipage? --217.122.63.239 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

Parts of the article (I haven't read it all) sound rather as if they were copied directly from the game's website. I noticed especially the part where it talks about whether Second Life is a game. The phrase about Second Life being in a "virtual world class of its own" doesn't quite sound like it fits NPOV to me. --illumi 04:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linden Lab vs Linden Research, Inc

The formal name of the company is Linden Research, Inc. (indicated at www.lindenlab.com) Unless there are valid objections I will change the name of the developer/publisher etc to Linden Research, Inc from Linden Lab. I will also add a part in the main article indicating the naming conventions, including how Linden Lab prefers "Lab" rather than "Labs" according to their press guidelines. Javit 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I object. They are widely known as Linden Lab. If you want to add a note about this other name, that would be ok. Lee.Sailer 20:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raistlin DragonLance suggestions.

I would like to make some general suggestions, if I may. I am so sorry I dont have the time (metamate, lol)to make edits atm. Keep up the good work. Although, I do think in some ways the article was 'better' a few months ago. Certainly as a tool to gauge what SL is. Which is what I came to wiki to do several months ago.

1) I cant find any reference to dwell/camping. Camping, is a major reason why the numbers always seem artificially inflated (alt avy's/camp farms) That it is a major way people make money in SL and is very controversial and publicised issue.

2)Infact, not much reference to any kind of work/jobs in SL apart from artistic creativity or academia - Again something people will be looking to this article for unbiased info on.

3)This paragraph seems not to be in the right place:

Customer dissatisfaction with the board is extensive, as evidenced by regular public posts of outrage against Linden Lab, even on their own blog site. However, as there is very little currently in the way of competition, the system continues to grow. Commentaries as to the results (healthy/unhealthy) of such growth are a common subject of forum comments and blogs.

Also, Customer disafaction with the board, sounds like a ref to a B.O.D and not a forum/blog.

4) Should this article be in the game related catorgories. As, it is not strictly speaking a game. Maybe software application and/the current catagories.

Thanks for reading this. If we agree my proposed adjustments needs to be made I will change them when I have time from family duties, if they have not been changed by then. BTW I am cetainly no academic or even compentent in comunicating.Its just that I saw these and it really stood out to me that these are the main things 'wrong'. Excuse me if I have no idea about Wiki conventions, yet, as this is only my 2nd post on Wiki. Regards and good work again on what has been done on it already,its not looking so bad. *smiles* Raistlin Dragonlance 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


The article does see, to have gone downhill somewhat. For example, the following is not acceptable, and I deleted it:
Early 2007 brought significant criticism of Linden Lab for hosting alleged pedophiliac concepts and groups commonly referred to as "AgePlay". Along with this came criticism of potential legalities in regard to online casinos and "RL" (real life) wealth lost by people at those casinos. The FBI has investigated such activities, Linden Lab maintaining a defense of "L$ aren't real money". Critics present the fact that L$ can be purchased on the Second Life website and in concept are very much like gambling "chips", with customers exhibiting very "real life" gambling addictions. Factual reports exist of customers purchasing large amounts of L$ specifically so they can gamble at Second Life Casinos, and losing significant RL funds as a result. Casino game designers have been known to design their machines to place the odds significantly in favor of the house, the customer having no way in which to discern such fraudulent activities. In "real life" such systems are strongly regulated by the state, with significant fines and even criminal action against those who build machines to cheat the customer. There are no such regulatory agencies on Second Life, Linden Lab taking their consistent stance of "let the customer beware".
This is all original research. If there has been a lot of criticism, we need to cite a reliable source that says so. It's not acceptable to go making unsubstantiated claims, or even to poke around in primary sources from which we try to draw contestable inferences about whether certain levels of criticism are or are not "significant", etc. That is running our own research program, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Metamagician3000 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And I just deleted a whole lot more original research/POV material. We are not here to conduct our own research program, draw our own inferences about the extent of criticism, or conduct our own critique of Second Life. We are just here to report the facts contained in reliable sources and without cherry-picking them to synthesise an original picture of our own. Metamagician3000 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


LOL. I was just about to say, ageplay should have its own artice. Then I decided to check if one has been created, it has. I think a simeple ref or sentance is all that is needed. It IS a big issue in SL. I would suggest that it certinaly does not warrant such a lengthy mention here. In the grand scheme of things there is more to mention. It was not all just original research though, just not referenced well and not needed here. I feel technical gripes, for one, 'deserve' to be here more then ageplay and it was already. We should conecentrate more on what 'frames' SL as a metaphysical/physical entity, in that the article should be imfortmative but still clear, concise and based on relaible sources only.

Funny, normally being un-original is normally common and easier.

Raistlin Dragonlance 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think one sentence mention of ageplay and its references is perfectly sufficient. If we put more, the article will suffer from Recentism. Javit 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] conceivable real life property taxes

Have never contributed on Wikipedia before, but I was struck by the sentence: "Second year land costs total $3,540, far in excess of any conceivable real life property taxes." That's a pretty conceivable figure to me; it is almost exactly the annual property tax on my average middle-class home here in Portland. 63.230.174.130 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a subjective judgement then. You'd be well within your rights to delete it and leave only the objective dollar amount. Jeff Alexander 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I say adjust it to suit your statement, it seems to have more impact (yeah, probably subjective) if you compare it to 'real' money. Soylent.Hero 10:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable population figures

"Second Life: What are the real numbers?" http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/12/12/second_life_what_are_the_real_numbers.php

"Linden's Second Life numbers and the press's desire to believe Email This Entry" http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/12/26/lindens_second_life_numbers_and_the_presss_desire_to_believe.php http://news.com.com/Counting+the+real+Second+Life+population/2100-1043_3-6146943.html

Well, how do you want to measure it? They count the number of accounts, the number of accounts used in the last 2 months, and the amount of logged in people on the front page. Other than that, what counts as a SL resident? Do you have to login every day? What if you log in a few times a week? What if you're taking a break from SL during the exams period (which includes many people). I spent nearly a month not logging in at all, then started logging in every day again. Was I a resident during that break? IMO, the only right thing to say here is facts: X accounts total, Y accounts active during a given period, Z are logged in right now. Other than that, the actual amount of people that could be classified as "active users" can't be determined, because "active user" is hard to define precisely. Dale Glass 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they can do much better. LL does hold the number of active residents which they define as residents who logged in for more than a certain number of hours in the last month, yet they do NOT publish these. We know they hold this information because they publish other information based on that, such as Active Residents by Country. My opinion is that figure would be in the region of 750,000 or less but no way to be sure. That sort of figures are substantially lower than the number of registered accounts, which I guess is why they're holding that back for now. At the moment, they give information on users logged in last 7 days, which is pretty useless as it includes those who register, log in once and never come back. Plus, as Dale said, a user might not have logged in the last seven days but still count as active as long as they clock more than 1 hour (or something like that) in a month. --Javit 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussions about which figures LL could release are perhaps vaguely interesting, but honestly better suited to the SL forums than this page. Without any verifiable information, all we can do is report the LL figures. Cheers --Pak21 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that obsessing on this is pretty much pointless. There's no denying that SL is used by many people. Whether the actual active user base is 7 million or 750K doesn't matter that much. It's definitely far from deserted, and you can easily log in and see that a good part of the people using it have been around for months or years. Dale Glass 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
no, i think it is very important, the whole relevance of second life is based on how actually useful it is to a lot of people. if you claim your users is more than 10 times your active something is seriously wrong. let alone when those numbers pale when compared to other games like world of warcraft or even starcraft where nightly you can log in and check how many people are actually on. the entire supposed popularity is what pushes technology ignorant companies to jump at investing in this second life. as for defining what is an active user, its really not that hard, you just have to set a certain period of consistent usage activity. say half a year. while you would miss people that only log in 10 minutes once a year its safe to say your numbers would give a general idea of useful population. another relevant figure would be how many users that started the service long ago are still active or simply have abandoned their accounts. frankly i don't believe its the only purpose of wikipedia to parrot company claims. lindin lab has a vested interest in fluffing their numbers to get companies with technologically retarded leadership to invest out of a fear of missing the next big thing.

A couple other articles also support the possibility that there are only 100,000 to 300,000 steady users: http://www.betanews.com/article/How_Many_Users_Does_Second_Life_Really_Have/1178573043

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/20/second_life_analysis/

[edit] sexual activity

No mention of the real-world investigation into 'virtual sex crimes'? http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/REPOSITORY/706030389/1013/NEWS03 64.126.24.11 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bah, sensationalism. You can't "rape" anybody in SL. First, because rape is a physical crime and SL at best can provide a simulation that's absolutely nothing like the real thing. Second, because nobody can really force you into it anyway, you must approve the offer to animate your avatar, can stop any animations in progress, teleport away or logout at any time. Nobody can really force you into it, although they can trick you. In any case, arguing that rape is possible in SL is on the same level as saying you're committing actual murder in a FPS. SL also has plenty tools to deal with that sort of thing from inside, so no, no real-world intervention is needed. Dale Glass 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect.
animation scripts, llSitTarget(), and an invisible prim overlaid over someone else's furniture can be used to position an unsuspecting avatar into a sexual situation against their will. They can of course escape just by standing up, teleporting away or logging off; whereas rape is generally typified by violence and control over another against their will rather than the sex itself, it is a hell of a lot easier to escape such situations in Second Life.
So yes, it's sensationalism and fear mongering for the most part, but forcing peeps to do things against their will is possible- if only for a couple of seconds.
Signpostmarv 12:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No, quite correct, I just didn't go into details. That's what I meant by that they can trick you into it. Dale Glass 17:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That's probably "sexual harassment," if anything. Noting that it's not a cool thing to do, and it's probably imoral by most normal standards... but, at any rate, I don't think it can/should be considered "rape" Soylent.Hero 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

- Forced Play in Second Life is relevant ... but probably over-selling ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Competitors"

A website called "Wonflhome.Com" went off-line before Second Life even existed (they closed up shop around (2002). It had many of the same funstions as SL (based on the technology at the time), including moveable avartars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.120.9 (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because they exist does not mean by any means, that they are actually competetive, or even competing, in a "success" context.

"Despite its prominence, Second Life has notable competitors, including Active Worlds, There, and newcomers such as Entropia Universe, Dotsoul Cyberpark, Red Light Center, and Kaneva."

I will agree with the There and Active Worlds statment. As far as "newcomers" that list is, with risk of sounding pompous, laughable.

Firstly, Entropia Universe far as I can tell, is a game with social aspects, like the The Matrix Online which means it's more MMO than Virtual World, not bringing much more to the table than customization of your avatar, and dance parties. A living economy does not a virtual world make. If this still counts, we might as well add FFXI to the list.

Dotsoul as a matter of fact, is simply based on the Active Worlds engine, and is the certainly the least "competition" on this list. Having seen it on this list, I promplty checked out the website, and downloaded it. I logged on as a tourist (a la Active Worlds) and check the Whois, a massive two players in-world. Including myself. Now, if 2 users competes with 5,000+ in-world at a time, then yes. This can be on a competitors list with SecondLife.

Kaneva, from what I can tell, this is nothing more than a higher-tech IMVU. Which, basically, is a 3D Myspace. Which, in itself, does seem interesting, but as far as a competition to SL, it's got no more place here than Gaia Online (Albeit, 2 dimentional).

Red Light Center No comment here :p It's a virtual world, almost exclusively for cyber sex... Not my cup of tea, but I suppose it fits on the list, because SL does have quite a bit of digital debauchery... I do not know how much "user creation" is involved in RLC, I have not taken the chance of trying it, as there are young'ns about... but this seems like it would fit more with the Virtual Sex Villa crew, than SL.

In conclusion, 3D Chat ≠ Virtual World, lest Habbo hotel and Coke Music would be on this list. :P

Soylent.Hero 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd be perfectly justified in removing those from the article then. Jeff Alexander 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Second Life/Archive 1#What defines something as a competitor to Second Life for my thoughts on the matter.
Signpostmarv 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it might behoove us to take another look at Entropia for this "competitor" section. Perhaps it isn't notable enough yet, but it's recognition in reliable sources is growing, and it is not just an MMORPG. Specifically, the studio producing it is adamant that it is "not a game," including this in the EULA. Further, it has such things as user-owned "property" in-world, and a currency which can be directly exchanged for USD. Please take a look at what Wikipedia has to say in the article, and in some of the sources within, and see if you agree that Entropia might be worth a mention as a newer competitor with Second Life. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 10:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be good have some list of prior art as well as competators. There was a big push on virtual worlds in the late 1990s, including The Palace, Blaxxun ("black sun"), Alphaworld, and a big research project at Microsoft called V-Worlds.

[edit] Adding Competitor: Entropia

I am still awaiting a response to my above comment about the removal of Entropia from the list of "competitors" of Second Life. I believe that Entropia deserves a mention in the article, but I would like to seek broader consensus before editing. Would anyone object to Entropia being added? Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Second Life/Archive 1#What defines something as a competitor to Second Life
Back when I wrote the list, Entropia Universe met the requirements.
Signpostmarv 13:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista

The article says Second Life is not supported on Windows Vista. However, is it worth meantioning it works for most people fine regardless? I've had no problem with it on Vista.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.82.3 (talk • contribs) 23:40, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "it works" and Linden Lab saying "we will give a rough guarantee that our software will run on that platform".
Signpostmarv 10:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It is now officially supported. Frodo Halfpint (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside the U.S.

The statement that Brazil has its own locally-based servers implies that this is a separate grid, independent of the main grid hosted in the U.S. However, research by a friend who is a resident of Second Life indicates that this is not the case. He downloaded the client, which has a Portuguese user-interface, but was then able to log in as his own avatar, complete with his Linden dollar balance and friends list showing.

The notion of using Brazil as an offshore Second Life haven where gambling is still permitted seems a non-starter, at least at the moment.

--Portnadler 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no source given for the number of Users per country. the sentence wa added by Futurer in october. Could the number please be veryfied? Active users are 30 % US and 40 % Europe according to september stats by SL at http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pxbDc4B2FH94Dsi3na_riHw&gid=8.

-- Bibi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.192.119 (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] external links

I removed secondseeker.com because pretty mucvh everyone and his dog has a blog reviewing some aspect of SL, and there's no room for every such blog. secondlifeupdate.com had a blatant commercial aspect (pay me 85 usd and Ill write about your site) and so breaks teh wp:el guidelines. Rhialto 08:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Every site needs to pay its hosting costs. Link re-added —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magnusgrafex (talk • contribs).

Removed again. Please stop spamming links to your blog here. Kuru talk 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review: Article Design

The article is not displaying correctly to users beginning after the article cites line 15. I do not think that my attempt to box the code in on the page fixed this error. It appears to be an interpretation error, but I'm not keen enough to try and fix it without use of an actual editor nor do I really care to get on one right now. If someone could please at least fix this error as I at least pointed it out, Wiki thanks you! --Mnemnoch 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I got bored and fixed this. This error was due to keeping a reference tag open. This is no longer an issue. If you're going to put in reference tags or if you are editing the article for any purpose you're doing so in a manner that you're also clean about your code and finalising the actual article. --Mnemnoch 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism in Second Life

Natalie O'Brien wrote an article in The Australian, a Murdoch owned newspaper about Jihadi terrorism in Second Life. Major tenants of the article have already been debunked by an Information Week columnand its been slashdotted (only one post though). In case this is a rising meme being kicked about somewhere there probably should be some discussion or at least a placeholder for it on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haverberg (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the best NPOV on these articles I could draw up: "Throughout the Second Life community, there are many places that an avatar can aquire a weapon to turn Second Life into more like a Massive multiplayer online role-playing game rather than an MMOG and then participate in acts of fantasy violence." Since Linden Labs has declared the game to contain mature content and there is a clear separation from Teen Second Life for reasons as stated above, free will for anyone to own a weapon is allowed. Since there's a possiblity that this article could be found as propoganda, mentioning at least that Second Life has ways to aquire virtual weapons for role-playing is fair. Because many people of different religious beliefs, associated or not in a group, play MMOG's, I would think that stating anything other than what I created to include in the article may potentially be disruptive and lead to satisfying one's own need for personal gain. Also, it should be noted that to call this terrorism, it would have to be an unwelcome act brought on to the community. Groups have the right to assemble regardless of wherever or whomever they are so long as they are doing so in a peaceful manner. If the individuals in question were to use Second Life and disrupt its main grid by means of hacking, then that could be virtual terrorism. At this point, I fail to see how doing anything other than just pointing out a group is considered terrorism. --Mnemnoch 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Another NewsCorp article on SL Terrorism by way of the London Sunday Times, borrowing from the O'Brien articleHaverberg 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I corrected your link for you. --Mnemnoch 19:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Now, with the above being said, I want to point out that I'm attempting to keep a neutral point of view on the articles that you're bringing to the table rather than supporting anyone. The London Sunday Times notates that there are groups, like the "Second Life Liberation Army" run by children in an effort to "grief" others, but it isn't run by a specific group of individuals who are notorious for terrorism by means of a Jihad. The group mentioned is a bunch of "geeky kids" and I have to point out that right after that statement in the article that it becomes biased. I could blow my own horn about how there are "geeky kids" on any MMOG that do the exact same thing because I was one of them. I've tinkered around with SL enough to know that you can manipulate the LSL coding to create distributable and buyable code that anyone could have that could upset an entire area. I digress. They're creative but not terrorists.
Second of all, I find this section to be highly mislabed and one that is biased to supporting a viewpoint since there hasn't been terrorism in or occuring from Second Life. I think that it's very easy to say that the parties writing the last article are using the Sunday London Times as a platform to very creatively advertise MetaSecurity at the expense of Second Life. Third, it's very important to point out that they notate that there are not any "extremist" groups operating in Second Life. That allows the press to state whatever they want since until a Jihad turns into an act of terrorism, they're simply another extremist group. Either way, this is still very debatable prose that I don't find worthy of mention in the article unless under controversy or using a statement like I did in my first commentary. --Mnemnoch 20:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, its important to keep NPOV regardless of personal feelings on the subject, even in the talk section. I edited my subjectivity out. I also removed the Metasecurity link since its not germain. I do think its appropriate however to keep the "Terrorism in SL" heading (in talk) because that is how the mass media (or subsectors of it) are attempting to define it, and therefore how the major society is introduced to the subject matter. We have to live with the agenda they so set. I also don't think it is appropriate (yet) for inclusion in the article, but this may become a forced issue from media speculation - which is why I bought it up in the first place. My focus isn't so much on the possibility of terrorism in second life so much as the media perception of such - justified or not. I do find it interesting, however, that the media properties most concerned about this belong to Murdoch, but it would break NPOV to speculate whether there is a motive.Haverberg 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

Is there a reason this article has no picture? garik 22:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that there are copyright issues. --Mnemnoch 07:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, other than perhaps the logo, is there really a single image one could prepare that would properly represent Second Life as a whole?--MythicFox 13:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Flying penises? OK, seriously, I've seen the former login screen used in some news articles, and there should be no copyright issues with that one.Haverberg 19:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, intellectual property issues. We had some pics of representative scenes and reasonably typical avatars that had to be removed because of the intellectual property regime that operates in Second Life. Metamagician3000 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a screenshot. We cannot take a single screenshot because of copyright shit? A screenshot should be fair use... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frap (talk • contribs) 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Other language versions of this article are illustrated with screencaps, including the Dutch, French, Italian, Polish and other ones. The German version, in particular, has a whole section with screenshots. Presumably we could use some of those. It could be good to include screenshots depicting a variety of "typical activities". I can provide a couple if anyone's interested (such as: a rather nice picture of two avatars ice-skating amidst falling snow, on a rink with Christmas trees in the background). 83.114.178.87 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I've got a screencap showing a fairly large gathering at the official headquarters of the French Socialist Party, if we're looking to show a variety of activities (and a variety of uses SL has been put to: the party's SL HQ was officially launched by Ségolène Royal, who made a video encouraging people to visit it.) 83.114.178.87 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

It appears Second Life adds new surnames on occasion; is this the case? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to allow for more population or expansion, I would imagine this is the case. I would look at the Linden Labs site to see if you can find some history as it is worth noting in a "growth" manner. --Mnemnoch 07:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Read the Knowledge Base. (You may need to be logged in to see that). --Pak21 07:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing History?

My recollection is that originally SL charged $10 per month in usage fees, similar to MMORPGs, but they failed to sign up a significant population to pay the bills, so they started experimenting with other business models. Does anybody have any references for this? Why is pricing history not in the pricing section? --Psm 14:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a source handy but here is my recolection of how it went:
-Prior to version 1.2, there was a plain old monthly fee
-From version 1.2 up through sometime in 2006, there were Basic and Premium accounts. A basic account was a one time fee of $10 per avatar. Premium accounts were $9.95/mo which included 512m^2 of virtual land; more land incured additional montly tier costs.
-For a limited time in the above period, LL offered a $200 Lifetime account to early adopters, which gave them 4096m^2 of perminent tier. As I recal it was discontinued in early 2005.
-In June 2006, Basic accounts became free.
Thx, that meshes with my recollection; I'll see if I can confirm your data points with press releases or whatnot. I did find the original coverage in the SF Chronicle (their original pricing was $14.95 per month but they got less than 2000 subscribers on that model). --Psm 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
SL History Wiki has some of this but much of the content hasn't been updated in a while. EllePollack 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Elle, thanks, but I zoomed in on that wiki with google and couldn't find anything, actually. --67.170.225.125 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Not sure how to work this into the main article yet... the basic fee to become a paying member is US$72/year (more if you pay quarterly or monthly.) Paying members get a weekly Linden dollar stipend and can own land on the "mainland" but they have to pay "tier" on holdings more than 1024 m^2 (up from 512 m^2). Anyone can own land on "private estates" but you have to pay tier to the estate owner. All members, regardless of payment status, are debited L$10 (a little less than 4 cents in US money) from their Linden dollar balance every time they upload a file into their avatar's inventory. (The upload fees are a major source of revenue.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Life BOX - System requirements - 50 MB1000 MB HD space for Disk Cache

Is this a specification for Hard Disk space required (as for downloaded code), or Disk Cache space required, or both, and which is which?

Run-on typography ["50 MB1000 MB"] needs correction.SalineBrain 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo re-uploaded -- Neatly licensed this time

I reuploaded the logo, and this time, it's licensed properly. It's under the Fair Use Policy, as in any other logo. —Smiley Barry. (Full signature under work) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism / linkspam

I guess people won't need it, but... just a quick warning to people not to go to the link (teamer blog.com) which is being spammed onto this article at the moment; it looks like it's trying to download some form of nasty ActiveX control. I'm immune though :-) Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia tag

Someone improperly added the "Trivia bad" tag to the "Second Life in Popular Culture" section. Obviously I removed it. 23skidoo (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with MyControl Speedway?

* Support - The MyControl Speedway article really does not merit it's own article. JASpencer (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Too long. JASpencer (talk)

[edit] Good reference

This http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-02/mf_goons is a good reference. I linked it as a reference for the bit already there on griefers, but there's a lot of stuff more in this article. William Ortiz (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is second life a MMORPG?

If not what's the difference? Serendipodous 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not intended to be a role playing game, therefore not an MMORPG.
Signpostmarv (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It is, however, a MMOG (massively multiplayer online game), which is the same thing as a MMORPG, except you're not role-playing anybody but yourself. See Virtual Magic Kingdom for another example.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That depends on how you define a game. Second Life, generally, is not a game.
It's a virtual world environment, not an MMOG, so you could probably just call it an MMO without any additional suffixes.
Signpostmarv (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contested entry

Addition of the following section was contested by User:Beetstra:

--

In 2007, a number of online articles [6] [7] [8] alleged that Second Life's economy was itself a ponzi scheme. The claim is that the majority of customers purchasing L$ in exchange for US$ are new users, and thus constant new user growth is necessary to maintain the economy. Although this growth is successfully sustained at present, this nonetheless meets the technical criteria for a ponzi scheme: those who have invested in SL in a business sense are largely obtaining their profit (ie, their return on investment) from new investors in SL. Linden Lab have, to date, issued no response or disproof of this - although they have issued responses to negative economic allegations in the past [9]. It has, however, been noted that not every user of SL wishes to make a monetary profit, and thus many of the "new investors" who purchase L$ will have no desire or expectation to ever obtain any monetary return on that investment; this is not true of classical ponzi schemes and may be adequate to prevent problems occuring.

--

User:Beetstra argued that it lacks reliable sources. However, there are no more reliable sources than blogs for much information about Second Life. Second Life has not yet developed to the point where any point that is true, and agreed true by experts, about its economy will necessarily appear in a print book or a published paper; indeed, many of the best-known Second Life experts publish exclusively via blogs.

User:Beetstra replied that this lack of real world publication means that WP:NOTABILITY is not met, however this applies only to entire articles, not to paragraphs within them. If this standard is to be applied to sections then I would content that several of the existing sections, such as Physics Simulation and Virtual Art Gallery, are not notable on their own either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.146.153 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Winners and losers"

It's incorrect to claim that Second Life does not have winners and losers, as it includes a competitive business element. I'm not arguing that SL is a game, but still, there are winners and losers there. 161.73.146.153 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there are losers. --DearPrudence (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It Would Be Nice If...

there could be more Second Life Screenshots. Can an adult get them? I would get the shots myself, except for the fact that I'm currently too young to log in to Second Life. And, as always Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you could login into Teen Second Life for 13-17 year olds. I used to be on TSL myself Nexii Malthus (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

I'm doing tag cleanup and just happened on this article. I notice that this was nominated for featured article status but failed. It could be a variety of reasons, but I'll tell you all one thing: They won't feature an article with a POV tag (or any, for that matter). I don't see much ongoing discussion here about it, either. I'd suggest that if you all actually have a consensus, as tags are often left without real cause, then you remove them. I'm not going to touch anything here, just a word to you.Jjdon (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Section "Management changes"

I suggest that all content in the section "Management changes" be moved to the article Linden Lab, as, while it is relevant to that article, it's not particularly relevant to the mechanics or experience of the Second Life world. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No disasters? No tragedies?

With the recent real-world disasters in Asia (typhoon and earthquake), I find it interesting that the article on SL doesn't mention the possibility of anything really bad happening at random. Is it true that in SL there is no dangerously bad weather? No accidents? No disease? No annoying relatives? Or is it all about fake identities, adventure, sex, and money? --72.70.28.70 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO an odd question. SL is much like a cross between Disney World and Burning Man. Whatever you find there is there because someone put it there (and nothing can "happen" to you -- i.e. "damage" -- unless you give specific permission for it to happen to you.)
The only bad things that happen at random are annoying people, griefers, and system crashes.
"Or is it all about fake identities, adventure, sex, and money?"
- "Fake" identities? Most people use "virtual" identities, the way people playing role-playing games say, "Okay, now I'm going to be an Elf while doing this" -- just for fun.
- "Adventure". IMHO there is more "adventure" in most MMOGs or other computer games, which are specifically designed to be exciting. "Adventure" in SL comes mostly from not knowing what cool place or person what might encounter next.
- Sex gets a lot of press but I'd say isn't a huge part of what most people do in SL most of the time.
- SL has an economy that converts to the real-world economy, people are interested in economic transactions, so people are interested in the economic transactions that happen in SL. Some people are very interested, some are hardly interested at all.
Something that you don't mention that interests a lot of people are issues of "cool" and "style". People can quite easily and cheaply appear much cooler or more stylish in SL than they can in real life, so a lot of people enjoy doing "virtually" what they really can't do in reality. People can also fairly easily create quite cool clothes, items, etc., and impress their friends or sell the items at a profit.
- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Linking primitives: 31 or 255?

User:86.13.150.88 recently made a change "Complex shapes may be linked together in groups of up to 255 separate primitives." (Formerly read "31 separate primitives".) Is "255" currently correct? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are correct, in a way. 255 prims is the maximum for any object, however, if one wants to make that object physical (sensitive to server physics powered by Havok4) it has to be connected of 31 prims or less. In addition, it should be added that prims, when linked, must all be in a 10m parameter when linked for the linking to be successful. -Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 16:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This will be interesting to try to briefly explain in an encyclopedia article intended for the general public. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nederlans

We are unable to complete your Second Life registration. We apologize for the inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.224.31 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is putting Blogger opinion right?

One small thing: it seems that when quotting the USA today article you actually quote a comment by a blogger, not a real journalist, should this be allowed on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.72.168 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, the quote comes from an article on the USA Today website, written by a USA Today employee.
The basic gist of wiki-fu seems to be that the reputation and notability of the source in question, though in most cases blogs and bloggers tend not to fall under this category, it's not always the case- see references from the official Linden Blog (a blog, but an official source), Wagner James Au (who writes for Kotaku, Gigaom, and New World Notes where he was actually Linden Lab's "embedded journalist" for a while), Massively.com (part of Weblogs, Inc., which is owned by AOL).
Wikis are another source that is generally treated with suspicion- mostly due to the facility for anonymous edits, or the use of registered accounts to create FUD/blatant lies. However, you will notice that Resident (Second Life) quotes the official Second Life Wiki, where the edit was made by the user "Robin Linden"- the setup that Linden Lab have with their MediaWiki installation is that that a Second Life Resident's in-world account is the same as their wiki username, and that only Linden Lab employees can have the surname "Linden"- so although the statement is on a Wiki (which can be edited by any Second Life Resident), the edit history shows the statement was made by a Linden Lab employee on a data source owned by Linden Lab, and can thus be viewed as an official statement.
Signpostmarv (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)