Talk:Second Life/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Second Life (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 2 >>

Note: This archive was broken by using Werdnabot. It is not in chronological order.

Contents

Please add more info

Excellent experience, well beyond being "just a game". This 3D web-based environment has some powerful technology behind it. --User:Merwan Marker 22:02, Jun 24, 2004

Will somebody much more gifted in verse than I please add to this entry? Please?! --User:24.166.22.65 04:45, Jul 8, 2004
I added it to the category Category:VR Communities --Sgeo | Talk 12:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed the section talking about the SL forums. Not needed.


Vandal Checks

This page constantly needs to be watched for vandals :-(. --Sgeo | Talk 15:09, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Vandals? When has this happened? --Revised 19:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at the recent article history. All of the edits from August 26 and September 17 were vandalism or reversion of same. Ponder 22:48, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)


Pricing tiers

Needs information on how the pricing tiers differ.

The Pricing section looks complete to me. What more do you want to know or is this comment OBE? Awcolley 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Vanity?

Forgive me but I don't see why this page has not been deleted due to vanity content yet. More than that, this page is an ad for a quite dull product that already comes in so many flavours. It is claimed the users own property rights over their creaations. Wow, I mean, they make their creations and pay for them! Maybe because the authors are cool people from SF, right? Not in any way I would expect these type of contents to appear in any encyclopedia, and I expect wikipedia to actually adhere to higher quality standards.

Nerd.

Huh?--NeuronExMachina 02:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
All kinds of games have their own articles. Here's tons of similar situations:List_of_MMOGs I agree that his one deserves a page, too, as much as I am a fan of it's competitor There. -- Viridis 03:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me the current version provides a fairly balanced discussion of this MMOG, and it deserves the same coverage as any other MMOG. This comment sounds like petty grousing to me.
The SL community remains large and active and I am personally aware of its use in actual sociological / anthropological / etc. research. Perhaps a section should be written devoted to that: there are a number of online articles and professional papers available for citation. -- Awcolley 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry - In which way exactly the wikipedia page for second life is NOT an advertisement?

Is the entry for Wikipedia an ad for Wikipedia? This page talks as much as possible about the problems associated with it, as any page does. Something genuinely GOOD will obviously appear to be promoted by a factual account, no? 67.81.50.181 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If this article is an advertisement, then every article on an MMO is. Don't whine about this particular article, whine about the category. 782 Naumova 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Notable Members

I think the notable members subsection should definitely be kept under a critic eye. As far as I know, all the people mentioned there as of the time of this writing have been mentioned in the press at some time or another (not sure about Chip, but it can be checked), but I don't think much time will pass before random members (or succesful but not famous, like, uhmm... me) start putting themselves over that bar of notability. So, by all means, let's keep our eyes peeled! Sarg 06:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest adding Prokofy Neva as the most notable "dissident" to the notable members section.

Are Barnett, Doctorow, Lessig really involved with Second Life to a degree that they should be considered "members" of that community?


The broken griefer link

Viridis just recently fixed a link that had been broken in a recent edit, arguing that "Don't break links just because you don't like the competition". While I completely agree with that, I followed said link to its source and what I found is a site that not only promotes griefing, but also puts online prizes and trophies for people who grief in this game, including player's names and other data. It is basically an online repositary of several ways to break the game's TOS. Given that, I don't think it has any place in Wikipedia. Sarg 07:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


IMVU?

IMVU is not competition for Second Life, and shares only but a few factors. I suggest it is removed.

I would agree. SecondLife is not simply an online chat program with avatars (as IMVU is). Awcolley 15:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • HabboHotel isn't a competitor either is it? 86.133.96.174 anonymous.
I agree, neither IMVU nor Habbo Hotel are the same thing as Second Life. I'd list as competitors There and Active Worlds. So, who does the change ;) Sarg 08:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with this. To the majority of "ordinary" users SecondLife is simple an online chat program with avatars.

This is not a matter of what the platform means for a majority of users (and, anyway, I think that is just an opinion that can't be backed by solid proof). It is a matter of what the program allows you to do. In its present form you can do many different things with SL, while IMVU is just a 3D chat, with no option to do other things like There or SL are. Sarg 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi - it is a matter of what the platform means for a majority of users. The section is about competitors, and if the majority of users see SL as a chat program with avatars, then chat programs with avatars will be able to take customers away from SL, and thus they will be competitors.
Uhmmm, I see your point now, but still there is the problem that there is no reference saying what the majority of users think. In fact, what you state is completely the opposite of my personal experience, or no one would be buying my products :D I think the amount of money spent in transactions daily could be a good indicator that a majority of users are spending enough money on commodities that in no way could be obtained in IMVU. Besides, if we have to put in competitors all things that could potentially draw people away from the system, we'd have to list every other videogame in the world, starting with WoW, and then non-videogame things, like movie theatres hehehe. Sarg 09:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Metaverse Messenger

I'm suggesting that Metaverse Messenger be merged into here, since it is only notable on the context of Second Life and there's not much to say about it. JoaoRicardo talk 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I completely agree, and I'm one of the staff members ;) Go ahead and Be bold. Sarg 07:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Profoky

Good god, this is probably contributing to her ego. Why is it that Profoky is noted for being banned from the forums, whereas other well-known griefers such as Grimmy, Celestie and Plastic are not? In which case, who added her? And what are the grounds of him being notable? He's only very well-known to forum viewers and regular participants in similar methods of communication. 782 Naumova

  • Him or her?? hehe. I don't know how much money he makes by landlording. Certainly not the brutal amounts Anshe gets, but perhaps in the order of Hiro Queso? Hey, perhaps we should just ask him :)) Sarg 20:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Counter-criticism to point 1 (not enough to do in SL)

Out of my own experience as first-time user in SL I would like to counter the criticism "not enough to do but hang around in SL" proposed in point number 1 of criticism and issues section. Within the first 6 hours of being online (on and off visits of ca 1-3 hrs within 4 days), I was inundated by offers of help, invitations to join in activities, advice, object, script and even money presents. Besides just chatting, there was trying out of things, (funny) shoot and trap play, dance, outfit try-out sessions, and finally a visit to a dance club. Talk about sitting in a chair! I upgraded my character to a sexy girl with custom clother, hair, dance scripts, and ended up with ca 200 more linden dollars than I had started out with. And for all that, all I had to do was accept the offers, and ask for help. No one ever asked me for anything in return. I am creating a point to this effect in the main article. Iani 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - this may have been your experience, but you are only one data point and this is by no means universal. SL's player base are very helpful to new players but people only have so much to give away - and as was pointed out by another user on the forums, giving stuff away to some people makes things worse by comparison for those who don't recieve any. Although SL's player base is growing significantly, it is nowhere near as big as the majority of MMORPG games and is still known to have retention issues, suggesting there is an enjoyment or value problem there. Camping chairs, Tringo, Money balls and other free money generators are popular and this is clearly visible throughout the world and on official sites.

However, if criticisms are presented in such an extense way as they are now, it is only logical to back them up with counter-criticisms to keep the NPOV. Of course the counter-criticisms should be properly backed up with references and proof and not based solely on personal experience. As it is now, not even all of the criticisms themselves are solid or backed by proof. Sarg 20:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair point.. that section isn't really meant to be about criticisms of the game, but about problems and issues that have arisen on the game and need to be dealt with. For example, the in-game scamming issue isn't really a problem with the game, just a behaviour point that's arisen among players. There is some concern and difficulty about what players who aren't skilled at building will have to do in the long term on Second Life, in fact Linden Labs have talked about introducing artifical unskilled work to help keep these players in the game. Can you think of a way of describing that without making it sound like a criticism?
I think the best we could do is rewrite the paragraph entirely, trying to keep it NPOV. I'd suggest using this talk page to do it and then, when everyone is happy with it, placing it in the main article. Sarg 09:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Rewriting the criticism section

As discussed above, the criticism section might require some tweaking to ensure NPOV and a decent coverage of the real issues. I'm copying the paragraph here. Please provide some insights and suggestions to improve this section! Sarg 09:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

* Linden Lab is currently being sued by attorney Marc Bragg, claiming Linden Lab defrauded him of $8,000 worth of property.


CORRECTION: This Bragg fellow essentially hacked the system to try to steal land, and then when it backfired on him and cost him money, he decided to sue. In the interest of fairness, it should be noted directly in the article, not just in the linked news story, that Bragg's actions have been described as "hacker-like", and that he was banned from Second Life for it. Anyone can be sued by anyone for anything at any time. It's not enough just to list the plaintiff's clam without also providing fair balance by equally listing the defendant's response. Chosen Few, SL Resident June 9, 2006


* The nature of roles and enjoyment in the economy: Because there are no entry-level jobs, and creating content requires the user to have real-world talent, many users find themselves with very limited amounts of money and the source of enjoyment for such users is not clear. In many cases, the most popular locations in-world are those with "camping chairs" which pay users a small amount just for sitting on them (funded from the money paid by Linden Lab to the owners of popular areas).

This one and several other paragraphs in this section should be merged in a single paragraph criticising some aspects of SL economy. As it is now it is clear that many different people with a very sparse knowledge of economy (and probably frustrated with it in SL...) have edited the section. Sarg 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that people exist who feel frustrated with it is itself a criticism: saying their points are invalid is like saying that bad reviews of a movie don't count, because they're only written by people who don't like the movie. Hyphz 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


CORRECTION: In point of fact, there are a great many entry level jobs available in Second Life. For example, club owners often hire dancers, escourts, etc. to enhance the social atmosphere of their establishments. The only requirement for such jobs is a basic familiarity with the world, and a friendly personality. Fashion designers often hire models for "photoshoots" or "fashion shows", the only requirement for which is the ability to put on an outfit. Also, as was mentioned, people have even been paid by land owners for such mundane tasks as sitting in chairs (in order to increase the perceived traffic on the land). A quick visit to Second Life's Help Wanted forum reveals dozens upon dozens of jobs advertized, many of which require no skill at all. That is the very definition of "entry level". Granted, not all of these jobs are ones that everyone would want, and some of them are even seen as detrimental to the world's development (camping chairs) but to claim they don't exist at all is inacurate at best, and easily could be described as a lie at worst. It's certainly not encyclopedic. It's very irresponsible.
As for the "source of enjoyment for such users is unclear" line, maybe it's unclear to the original author, but again, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Clearly, those people ARE enjoying SL or they wouldn't be there. Certainly money is not the only "source of enjoyment" in the world. To imply that money is such a necessity in Second Life is again very irresponsible. It's simply not true.
To use myself as an example, I was enjoying SL on a daily basis for months before I ever decided to open a business in it. I didn't have any money inworld back then, but I didn't care. I've never had a need for it, other than to upload textures. I've been in Second Life 2.5 years, and I can count the amount of items I've ever bought on one hand. Money isn't what makes it enjoyable. If the original author can't see any other "source of enjoyment" other than money, I weep for him/her. Chosen Few, SL Resident June 9, 2006


* The role of the in-world currency: Linden Lab have been criticised for at once marketing SL as a viable business channel for making real money, while at the same time including provisions in the Terms of Service which give Linden Dollars no legal value, so that (for instance) Linden Lab are not required to pay any compensation if they are lost from the database.

This is a constant in all similar products. It would belong to an article about the criticisms of TOSs, not here. Sarg 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Most other MMORPG-type products don't market themselves as a viable channel for making real world money. Hyphz 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
But those don't have any potential at all for RL profit 67.81.50.181 13:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


CORRECTION: First, it's not the TOS that makes Linden Dollars are valueless. It's the law. Linden Lab is not a bank, and only banks can create money. For Linden Lab to attempt to do so would be highly illegal. Linden Dollars are a product, and that's all they are.
Second, whether or not virtual inworld currency has real world currency value has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one can make real money in Second Life.
For a comparison, Parker Brothers has made millions of real world dollars selling Monopoly money, but that doesn't mean Monopoly money has value as currency. Monoploly money is a product, just like Linden Dollars. Now, one might say it's different because Parker Bothers doesn't promote playing Monopoly as a way to make money. Of course, that's totally irrelevant, but for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that they were to start doing that. Let's say they decided to market Monopoly as a business opportunity the same way Linden Lab markets Second Life as such. What would they actually be doing?
Well, the first thing they'd have to do would be to suggest to you that you trade goods and services for Monopoly money, and that you then sell your accumulated Monopoly money for real money. Each time you traded something for Monopoly money, you'd be bartering, which is exactly what you do every time you trade something for Linden Dollars in Second Life. You're trading one product for another. No money has changed hands yet.
Now, when you sell that Monopoly money for real cash, your business now has income for the first time. The Monopoly money itself is still inherently worthless as currency, of course, but as a product it does have some value, whatever you just sold it for. It's the same with Linden Dollars. When we sell Linden Dollars for cash, we're selling the product we aquired from our inworld Second Life bartering. That doesn't make Linden Dollars currency. They're just a product we've aquired that we're then selling to someone else who feels they're worth buying. That's it.
Now, let's say this thing takes off, and lots of people start trading stuff for Monopoly money. Would Parker Brothers then all of a sudden have some kind of obligation to back Monopoly money with real cash? Of course not. Regardless of what it may be worth to those who choose to buy it, it's still technically valueless, and Parker Brothers doesn't owe anything to anyone just because they happen to be the manufacturer of a product that people like to buy.
Linden Lab has no such obligations either. Just because you might feel that your Linden Dollars are worth some made-up amount of money doesn't mean they actually are. They're worth whatever someone wants to pay for them at the time they decide they buy them, and that's it. To Linden Lab, they're worth nothing, and that's all there is to it. They have no obligation to buy back their product from you, ever. Just because they like to talk about SL as a business opportunity doesn't change that. One has nothing to do with the other. Chosen Few, SL Resident June 9, 2006


* The effect of changes made by SL's developers upon the in-world economy: Certain changes made or proposed by the developers have had the effect of creating new markets, but also have on occasion destroyed or removed the value of existing ones, or given the market leader at a particular (often arbitrary) time unique advantages that entrench them as a market leader in the future, thus creating a coercive monopoly.


EXPANSION: For the sake of neutrality in an encyclopedic article, it's important to point out that this is no different than what happens in real life all the time. The world changes. Sometimes some people are positioned to benefit from such changes; other times people lose out. There's no right or wrong in that.
For a comaparison, consider for a moment the humble buggy whip manufacturer, an example often cited in economics classes. Making the whips that carriage drivers used to control horse teams with was a viable industry for centuries. Then the automobile came along, and all those buggy whip businesses were gone withing just a few short years. Their product was obsolete; their niche no longer existed. Those that could adapt to making other products to fill other niches survived, and those that couldn't simply went out of business. History is filled with countless examples of this type of thing. It's just the way of the world.
The exact same thing happens in SL. Let's say I create a product that fills a certain niche in SL. I'll do well for as long as that niche exists. When the world changes to eliminate that niche, however, I'll have to change too or else I'll be left behind. That kind of change is inevitable, no matter what particular niche we're talking about. Sooner or later, everything becomes obsolete. You either change with the times and adapt what you're doing to fit the current state of the world, or you go extinct. Again, there's no right or wrong in it; it's just the way the world works. Whether it's the real world or a virtual one like SL, the same universal laws of economics and evolution apply. Chosen Few, SL Resident June 9, 2006


* Favoritism: A few users have insinuated that a particular group of people, usually referred to as the "FIC" (Feted - or Fetid - Inner Core), use their connections with Linden Lab staff to trigger policy changes that are beneficial to their own businesses at the expense of others. However, a majority of users criticize the supporters of this idea as irrational and paranoid.

This is nowadays more of an inhouse joke in the platform's forums, with no real impact on it whatsoever. And certainly, non-encyclopedic. Sarg 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


* The balance between users' ability to edit the world and their ability to damage or disrupt it: Second Life has been attacked several times by groups of users abusing the creation tools to create objects that infinitely reproduce, eventually overwhelming the servers.

This is true and should be expanded, citing the last measures Linden Lab has taken to avoid it. Sarg 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


* The land sales system: Building any permanent in-world object requires the purchase of land and an increased monthly subscription. A number of people deliberately "play" the land market for profit, leaving other people who just want to build resentful of being forced to pay extra money to a middle man. Also, the high monthly charges have resulted in buildings being focused on those which can make money in-world, reducing the variety available.

ABSURD! Who cheats the land market??? Quotes and references! Land selling and renting are perfectly valid (and legal) ways of earning money. People rent properties all the time, too. And if you just want to build ask a friend to put your build in their land. The part about buildings being too focused is true, but the part about reducing the variety is false. Too much space in the grid :) Sarg 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The point isn't "cheating" - the point is that as long as people are doing business reselling land, people who buy land for other reasons (like say, just to build on) have to pay prices that are not the best available. It is generally considered that LL created this situation by limiting their own land sales to entire servers, which are too big and expensive for most pure builders to obtain. Hyphz 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


* Lack of zoning: With minor exceptions, Linden Lab has not placed any zoning or content restrictions on what land owners can place on their real estate. This has resulted in a wide variety of architectural variations, frequently with mixed success. Part of the problem concerns the amount of activity/resources from objects on business property causing lag for neighbors of that area that use it more of a personal manner. (example: a business property could use objects that take up a lot of loading/rendering time or communicating with the servers, thus causing lag for others that may not be on the same property but nearby due to the nature of Second Life and everything in a certian distance must load "in case" you are planning on visiting that area.) The lack of zoning is also a prime target for graffiti, deliberately obstructive and/or offensive content with the intent of defacing the local view. Such proneness to vandalism has been leveraged on occasion as a low-level form of extortion, destroying the quality of the local view in an attempt to force neighbors to buy the offending parcel of land at greatly overpriced value.


CORRECTION: First, the phrase "variety of variation" is grammatically nonsensical.
Second, this is in direct contrast to the previous point, which claimed that buildings in Second Life lacked variation. It can't be both ways. It's either widely varied or it's not. Which is it? I would submit that it's the former, since all one has to do is spend a few minutes in Second Life to see first hand that there is tremendous variety in the things people choose to build. There will always be those who copy others, of course, but for the most part, every build as unique as the person who built it.
Third, the claim that objects on business property somehow cause more lag than objects on non-business property is wholly false. It can't be denied that a busy club with a lot of people in it can be taxing on the server, which can be disruptive to neighbors in the same region, but that has nothing to do with objects. Generally speaking, all objects take the same amount of "loading/rendering time or communicating with the servers" regardless of whether they're for business or personal use. The things that cause a lot of lag are badly written scripts and overuse of big textures. Both of these are equally prevelent in business builds and personal builds.
Fourth, with regard to the graffiti issue, yes, there are a few malicious people in SL who like to build obnoxious things in order to try to force their neighbors to buy their land, but that has nothing to do with zoning. Zoning wouldn't solve this problem in any way. No matter what rules might be implimented, there will always be those will walk the line between what's allowed and what they can get away with, and such people always find ways to annoy others if they can. How about changing this to put the "criticism" where it belongs, squarely on the people themselves, instead of blaming "lack of zoning"? Chosen Few, SL Resident June 9, 2006


* Land cost: SL real estate is seen as expensive and very limited in terms of primitive count and size, considering the in-game (and real-world) cost associated with land ownership.


CORRECTION: This is subjective, and very non-encyclopedic. How about at least changing this to say "seen by some" instead of just "seen", which implies "seen by all"? In fairness, there are many who see the prices as reasonable, and many others who see them as inexpensive. There are also many who see land size and primitive counts as not "very limited". Chosen Few, SL Resident June 9, 2006


* The Mac version is just a port of the PC version, so no matter what Mac is using it, it will never match the PC version in terms of graphics. Some people have petitions, but none are big enough to make Linden Labs make a Mac version to take full use of the resources. While some of the Alpha Builds of the Universal client are available and make better use of the Mac's system, some users have still noticed a difference.


EXPANSION: This is true of virtually all video games, and similar applications. The biggest drawback to the Mac has always been its relative isolation compared to the PC. If you happen to like the Mac, great. There's nothing wrong with it. I'm not personally a huge fan of it, but that's just me. In any case, like it or not, most computer applications are written for Windows first. A great many games and game-like apps don't even have a Mac version at all. SL does though, and by all accounts it works very well. Chosen Few, SL Resident June 9, 2006


* Adult content on SL. It has been complained that while the Adult version of SL can contain mature content (swearing, nudity, etc). It has started to get associated as being wildly associated with sexual based "jobs" and the sheer amount of sex-based entertainment that occurs in Second Life in comparision to more of a PG Based content of some other "Free form" MMORPGs. As well as the ease of crossing over from a "PG" zone to a "Mature" zone for those who may or may not want to get involved in that kind of entertainment.


CORRECTION: As with the earlier "variety of variation", the phrase "associated as being associated with" is nonsensical. Also, the last statement is not a complete senetence, so its meaning is very unclear. At the very least, this should be corrected to follow the established conventions of the written English language.
Moving past the grammar and on to the actual topic, yes, some people in SL choose to create sexually oriented content for it, but it is not clear in any way how the mere mention of this is a criticism. I don't know if it's really true that Second Life users create more of it than users of other online worlds, but if so, it could easily be argued that that's nothing more than a testament to the fact that Second Life allows more creative freedom than do the others. People like what they like, and lots of people like sex. In any kind of free system, people will always bring it in. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, so what's the criticism?
To each his own though, and if one does't like sex, there are tons and tons of areas in Second Life where one can avoid it. It's not allowed in the PG regions, of which there are many, and even in the mature sims it's not as universally prevelent as the original author seems to be trying to imply. I happen to live in a mature sim, surrounded by a dozen other mature sims, and I hardly see it. If one sees it everywhere one looks, I would submit that it's because one is looking for it. It's called self-fulfilling prophesy, and it works every time. Perhaps the author should read The Crucible some time. If one goes out looking for witches to burn, one will always find them.Chosen Few, SL Resident June 9, 2006


* In-world scams: Several scams have been sighted in-world, such as people buying small areas of land in public areas, placing ugly objects on them to deface the view from everyone else's adjoining land or block the view of their structures, and then selling the land for extremely high prices.

True, but should be renamed and perhaps expanded to include a little "rant" about freedom of expression, which is the main issue. Scams happen in all places, not just Second Life. Sarg 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


* Suspended and banned accounts: Some people have alleged that enforcement of the TOS and behaviour policies by Linden Lab staff is arbitrary and selective; in particular, that users who own large amounts of land (and thus pay larger subscriptions) are able to get away with more since there would be a greater financial loss in barring them.

Another conspiracy theory with little impact anywhere (though with a shade of truth). Sarg 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Am I allowed to add here ? ... I find this incorrect as far as I am concerned as I have personally owned up to a full region paying 195 per month to SL and then taking myself down to 125 per month and then 75 per month and then back up to 125 per month on and on so I consider myself a high paying customer of SL and I have put some thousands of real dollars into SL just since I joined this past October and I have lost some thousands in SL too as I do not have SL coming to help me when I have had problems I have reported and have sent in many screenshots of proof that are TOS violations leaving me with no choice but to dump my land at a big loss to me and move to another area to get away from the violators. SO if SL is partial then I wonder why they were partial to the lesser paying ones when it came to my needing some help from them. I just found this portion inaccurate so making sure it is said that no not every high paying customer of SL can get away with anything nor can they get any help against those abusing the rules and with that causing the higher paying customer to lose a lot of money. Cherry

Hi Cherry :) Of course you can contribute with your experiences. Such is the great nature of the Wiki :) I think the person who wrote this paragraph was talking about super-paying customers (people like Anshe who pay thousands of dollars every month...) but you raise a real criticism point that I hadn't thought about and should be added to the revised version: LL is right now terribly understaffed to attend the growing population (I think there is even a quote somewhere from one of their employees, I gotta dig it out :) Sarg 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Grids

Should there be any references to them? 782 Naumova 12:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Content copyrights

From one the first few lines in the article:

"although they are required to offer Linden Lab an open license to it."

I have just read through the Linden Lab's terms of service, and from what I read, the above is false. However I don't speak legalese. Can someone please clarify this? SiliconeGraphox 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't really understand what is meant by an open license. Can someone please clarify this? SiliconeGraphox 08:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

An open license is a non-exclusive copyright which mean that the owner can license their copyright works to other entities aswell.


Merge in Anshe Chung

That doesn't belong in its own article, and needs more sources. Good info, though. +sj + 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not merge it into the Second Life article. Anshe has been and still is active in other virtual worlds beyond Second Life. Somebody posted a quite useful list of verifiable sources in the talk page of her wiki entry.


Slustler

i read about an in-game adult-magazine in this wired article: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,69878-0.html

Itsme 15:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


2 more competitors

I think it is a very well written article but there are at least 2 more entries to the list of competitors I feel should be added... Worlds of Warcraft & Ultima Online!

Those are MMORPGs and they don't follow the same structure as Second Life or There. Sarg 06:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


What a crap registration process.

No one wants to give out real life information, yet they insist on getting it and then making you have to confirm it.

Way to go developers that's a sure way to get more people to play your game. -_-

How else would they bill their clients? Nowadays this is a common procedure. Or haven't you played WoW? Sarg 15:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Factual Content?

With all the diverse content, there has been a large rise in objects created to simply spam the world. Also, with hackers like DeuteriumOxide breaking down script barriers and other restrictions on usable items, latency and low framerates can drag down even the fastest of systems. Whether or not Linden Labs is aware of the issue, there has been little progress in updating the game engine to cope with such issues.

Could do with being more factual- 'even the fastest of systems', 'little progress', etc. are all subjective judgements, and examples of spam objects would also help. 'Whether or not Linden Labs is aware of the issue' seems to be an unnecessary comment.

Agreed. This has just been re-added by an anon user. Would move to remove this section again. Hardly relevent, highly subjective and jargonite ( what is a 'script barrier' and how do you break one ?? ) If this user really want to go into details, would recomend they this section it to the lsl entry. --Angelstorm 26th Apr
Agreed that it is vague and needs improvement; however, it is HIGHLY relevant. It has been brought to Linden Labs' attention on just how incredibly easy it is to exploit certain game mechanisms to do all of the above. They seem to be reacting very slowly to fix these exploits, however. I have personally seen very fast computer hardware - a 3.8 Ghz P4 with an ATi Radeon X1800 XL - brought to the point of system instability by object spamming and infinite replicating objects. Even the average user's system has severe problems, especially in the furry areas of the world, when (among other things) full-sized dragon avatars are loaded. The naming of individual hackers should be removed, and specific examples of abuse need to be provided. --68.229.229.13 (haven't yet registered) 13 May 2006
Ok, I'll leave it in for the moment, but it could do with a clean-up. It LOOKS like Linden bashing which isn't nPOV. Also, I've never seen any issues with the above and I've been in SL over a year, and I spend a lot of time in sandboxes and popular areas. --Angelstorm 09:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Edit, I've just noticed that this is the same user who is adding racial comments and mass reverting changes without explanation. Also the same person who is adding the glintercept link, which effectively violates users intellectual property copyright. Removing again. Sign up for a Wiki Account if you want to discuss it further. --Angelstorm 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've reverted to the last version by 10:12, 13 May 2006 88.68.39.18 since the above user basically did a mass revert to their previous version. --Angelstorm 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Racial comments?! What the heck?! All I ever did was add the line being discussed above! I have absolutely no clue why the diff for my edit on 13 May 2006 shows all that extra stuff. I'm actually rather appalled at all the other stuff in there! Thank you for adding this information - albiet in a much stripped down fashion. Readers deserve to know the good AND the bad. Baralheia 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (formerly 68.229.229.13)
Edit: I think I know what happened. I must have edited an older revision without noticing it. I'm truly sorry, and I certainly didn't mean to revert the page back to that. Baralheia 11:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Land cost: SL land is expensive and very limited in terms of prim count and size for what is charged for it. Compared to Active Worlds, SL's land is outrageously overpriced.

'Outrageously overpriced' needs to be quantified. Also, comparing with a competitor here does not seem appropriate.

Actually, I think comparing with competitors is the only appropriate way to declare something overpriced. How else are we supposed to know what the "proper" value of on-line "real estate" is? But I agree that comparing with a single competitor is inappropriate — how do we know that competitor isn't just a low-cost anomaly? And whatever the comparison, we must also be certain that the land each game offers has similar intrinsic value, or else we're comparing apples and oranges. – Wisq 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Abuse Reports/ Linden Help: Many abuse reports are filed but few seem to be resolved to any effect. It seems even priority is given to cases and its been known that some people get a turn around of 30 minutes or less for minor violations while others have to wait for days. All abuse report decisions are kept private, due to privacy concerns with other customers. Lindens in game do not really seem to help with abuse issues or problems most of the time.

Very subjective and vague: 'few seem to be'; 'It seems'; 'it's been known'; 'most of the time'; 'some people'; '30 minutes or less'; 'do not really seem'... This needs to be corrected or removed.


Maintaining Neutrality

There seems to be an excessive amount of POV posts for this article's discussion. In case you have not, please review the Five Pillars of the Wikipedia in order to familiarize yourself with general guidelines in regards to articles and conduct. Flaming an article because you do not like the subject is not an acceptable Neutral POV. If you have a problem with the content, provide documentation that refutes what is being advocated. Conversely, if the article has actually turned into an advertisement and provides no relevant information to a reader, then the article should be wikified. The external link section is somewhat lengthy, but no more so than any other similar articles. When posting commentary upon the discussion page, ensure that you employ the signature feature. It will allow others to identify the poster, facilitating relevant conversation. The signature button is located at the top of the edit box, third from the right. Great job on the article so far, it is informative and provides (apparently) accurate information. --Coldbourne 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Overlinking

Much of the article seems overlinked, as per the Manual of Style. In particular, the opening paragraph has way too many, with some (like "create") repeated. This dilutes the value of links, since they no longer highlight key topics. I have looked at reducing some of the more obvious ones — duplicates, simple dictionary words, common terms, years and months that are not part of whole dates and thus are not preference-formatted, etc. — but I've got limited time and can't do the whole article. In any case, it's probably best left to someone more familiar with the subject matter to determine which ones are truly relevant and which can go. – Wisq 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I tackled one section but do not know enough about this subject to do the entire article. Hopefully current and future contributors will read the MOS, with regards to only making relevant links. RedWolf 22:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going through it now what a friggin gong show. --Crossmr 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This over-linking seems to all belong to User:Eep². I've had a look at his contrib history and he's done it in many many articles. --Crossmr 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It took a couple of very long edits, but I've removed all of the over-linking. If I've unliked anything important feel free to link it up. I'm going to keep an eye on this though, any attempts to turn it into the mess it was before will be reverted. --Crossmr 06:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Citation tags

I've added a number of citationneeded tags to the article. Please feel free to find the appropriate citations for the information requested. I'll see what I can find on my own but in about 2-3 weeks we should start considering any unsourced information thats been tagged now and cleaning it up. --Crossmr 06:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm

Looks fine to me. However I think i saw somewhere that it was started june 2003, but it's not in this article. --TIB 03:13, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

It went live in june 2003, but it was in beta for almost a year prior to that, and there was even an alpha version called Lindenworld for a while. --eggy

Controversy section

This appears to have been deleted - do people really feel it is inappropriate?

I thought it should be included in order to provide a balanced viewpoint.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyphz (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 November 200.

>> I forked it to a seperate document for two reasons - 1) it's noplace near NPOV or Balanced, and 2) It requires a more complex discussion than can be given here without dominating the definition. check out—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.67.225 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 November 2005.


Wah?

There.com is another online game usually compared to Second Life (one I prefer, but that point is moot), and does not promote greifing. What's your source for this information? Are we talking about the same link? Viridis 23:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  • haha, well, obviously not ;) I thought you were referring to another link that the person before you also broke. I hadn't noticed that he messed with the 'There' link too. Sorry for the confusion :) Sarg 15:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Um, Hello! This Is Like An Ad...

Hello,

Before I begin know that I am extremely biased especially when it comes to Second Life. I don't believe I could dislike Second Life any more, but I couldn't love There any more either. Just a note, I switched from Second Life to There. Lets just say Linden Labs gave me a bad taste in my mouth. Plus, can you believe I spent 9 months in Second Life? 9 months! I'm extremely lucky I even left with my sanity.

However, this article reads like an ad. Like an ad stright from Linden Lab's PR department, and I know how dirty they work. The links section is an ad just by itself. Personally, I get a laugh out of looking at that link section. It is so funny to read the blogs of Second Life members. They actually believe they are building the Metaverse. More like building the worlds largest virtual sex club! But actually, it is quite sad too. Seeing how many poor pethetic souls Linden Labs has taken advantage of, boy oh boy!

Peronally, I think someone should clean up this article. More like wipe it off the face of the internet. People are giving Second Life too much credit. Yes, the company is a fraud and Linden Labs CEO is the devil himself but Second Life certainly isn't the Metaverse or even close to it. Ah, ignorance is so funny. All too funny actually! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joel1120 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 8 June 2006.

Trivia: C20 economists

Who are/were the C20 economists? What does "C20" mean? Ehn 15:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize now—much later—that "C20" means "20th century". I see that the article has been clarified. Thanks! Ehn 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Some of the sections in this article are simply flawed. For example, the section which is now correctly tagged, comparing second life land costs to the land costs in AW. It is like comparing apples to oranges, or me adding a section to the Halflife 2 article bashing the game because you can't fly a plane in it. The way land is implemented in both games is 100% completly different, which makes the entire criticism absurd. Also I love the bias in the line after it "A number of people deliberately speculate on the land market for profit, leaving other people who just want to build resentful of being forced to pay extra money to a middle man", forced??? how are you ever forced to buy land baron land? So I plan on removing most of the section now. Please don't re-add it in it's current state, it's blatantly slanderous and has no basis in fact, and obviously personal research. Seraphim 01:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Land implementation is precisely the point of why SL's land is so much more ridiculously expensive than Active Worlds', Seraphim. The comparison is valid. The way land is implemented in SL and AW (which aren't games, by the way) are NOT completely different; in fact, they're more SIMILAR than different. Readding the comparison back until you offer more proof. -Eep² 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Stop marking your edits as minor. Re-adding an entire section is not a minor edit. --Crossmr 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
and if the language of that section isn't cleaned up it will be removed. See WP:WEASEL --Crossmr 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, adding a SMALL section IS a minor edit, Crossmr. Get over yourself. -Eep² 06:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Minor edits are generally considered to be things such as spelling or grammar corrections. Adding a new section, no matter how small, generally would not be considered a minor edit. Baralheia 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
neither is a minor edit over-linking several dozen words. --Crossmr 14:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm going to remove the section again, here's my listing of all the differences. The first and most major difference is what the server programs actually do. SL's servers do much much more, and are more processor intensive then the AW servers: server side havoc physics, and scripts are huge, also the integration with the server and the asset server is extremely important, also the sim keeping track of the changes of objects you build and move ingame, and updating the asset server back is key. Also the chat functions, with determining if an im is going out of sim or in sim, or handling sim crossings of characters with multiple scripted attachments. It's much much much much more processor intencive then a AW world which is simply a database with a chat room server stuck ontop of it.
Next is the actual service you get for owing a sim/world. In AW you can build stuff... and that's about it. In SL if you own a private island you get complete control over the sim, you can lease out the land, you can change the settings of the sim, including the user amount, you can set it private/non private at will, you get priority service through the SL concierge, in AW you get none of that. It's either private or non-private, with a set amount of visitors.
Next i'm gonna explain some of the biased numbers in the chart. First you completly fail to mention that if you buy mainland land you don't get charged any setup fee. Second you fail to mention the smaller plots of land that you can buy, and the 512sqm that are included in your basic $9.95 a month. Third, you fail to mention how tiering works, especially how if you own multiple sims you don't pay the full $195/mo for each of them. Fourth, you fail to mention that sure it's 40,000 virtual square meters, but the size of items are huge, making that 40,000 meters seem alot smaller. Fifth, you fail to mention that in SL you can actually generate profit with your world to offset the high tier costs. And lastly you fail to mention the fact that AW servers are limited to a max of 20 users.
The land in the 2 games are completly different, it's the same reason why games like Guild Wars aren't compared to games like World Of Warcraft when it comes to simultanious online users, or player base. Sure they are both technically the same style game, but the underlying service is so different that they aren't comparable in the least. Seraphim 19:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Way to NOT read the info carefully enough, Seraphim. Yes, SL servers do more than AW servers do, but the principle is the same. You forgot about AW's object server which is equivalent to SL's asset server. The AW world server keeps track of object position, rotation, and other properties [1] and is constantly pulling content from the object server. An AW world also keeps track of chat and telegrams (AW's version of SL IMs), handles teleports (since worlds aren't connected together like SL is), etc--oh, and bots. The principle is the same.
You can do a LOT more in AW than just build stuff. In fact, an AW world is FAR more customizable than an SL sim is--PERIOD. Can an SL sim change its gravity (across the whole sim, not per object), cloud layers, water layers (not just depth like in SL), and, oh, about a bajillion other things? [2]. AW worlds can be ownable by anyone who decides to cover however much land they want to build on--and there are permissions for others to build on one's covered land. It's cruder than SL's land parcel system but it's similar enough. An AW world can be made private at will too.
The chart is based on a FULL SL sim and a comparably-sized AW world--not a PART of a sim. I didn't know about owning multiple worlds reduces the monthly fee so that's worth mentioning in the comparison. However, it still requires paying more upfront (setup costs). If you mean AW object ("item") sizes are "huge", they can be just about any size the modeller WANTS them to be--UNLIKE SL's limited prim scaling between 1cm and 10m. 40,000m2 is 40,000m2--PERIOD. Object/model size is irrelevant. As for profit, AWers have sold their objects (presumably to help pay for the MUCH less cost of the world compared to an SL sim). However, AW wasn't designed to be an economy so that point is moot too. An AW world isn't limited to a max of 20 users--you're thinking of SL sims which have a limit. AW worlds can hold hundreds of users just fine.
The land in the virtual environments (they're not games--you should know this by now) is more similar than different, actually. The thing about comparison is that it works for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. If you can't compare something, you're just not thinking relatively enough.
I suggest you get a clue about AW worlds before you rant and rave about things you don't know, Seraphim. Here are some helpful links for you:
Oh and I'm re-adding the section back...again.
-Eep² 06:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't even begin to explain how wrong you are. First off we are talking about worlds, not universes, for worlds the max usercount is defined by the annual registration fee that you pay, which can be found here where it clearly shows, that the max user amount is 20, that's per world, universes and galservers are higher. Also the Object server is exactly what I was describing, it holds the objects, and all the world server needs to know is which object is located where on the world plot, the world server does no tracking of object information other then the object's center location. Also the reason the AW worlds are so customizable is that they barely do anything, basically think of it this way, SL sims are close to MMORPG servers, and AW worlds are close to Counter-Strike servers. They are completly different. It's FUD. Seraphim 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right about AW world user limits; I don't know what I was thinking. However, not all worlds are limited to that size so it IS possible to increase that limit (which still wouldn't bring the cost of an AW world anywhere near to that of an SL sim). You are wrong about the world server not keeping track of more than just object position--especially in AW 4.1 with it's new "global" command that also makes the world server track object clicks/bumps too. Property dumps show:
Each line of a propdump file corresponds to one object in the world. A typical line might look like this:
123456 974027887 900 -150 13300 1800 0 0 11 10 18 arch04m.rwxEnter Herebump noise welcome
The first column gives the citizen number of the owner of the object. The second column gives the time the object was built, in "Unix" time (seconds since January 1, 1970.) The third, fourth, and fifth columns give the x, y, and z positions of the object, in centimeters. The sixth column gives the yaw (the Y-axis rotation) of the object, in tenths of a degree. The seventh and eight columns give the tilt (X-axis rotation) and roll (Z-axis rotation) of the object. The tilt and roll fields are new in Active Worlds 3.3.
The ninth, tenth, and eleventh columns are the lengths of the object name, the object description, and the object action. The final column is the actual contents of the name, description, and action concatenated together.
AW worlds do more than you think (or are willing to admit). In fact, in some ways, AW worlds do MORE than SL sims. Pretty much anything a bot does (via the AW SDK), a world server does, monitoring every time an avatar/object changes position (plus calculating encroachment if the world uses an object registry), rotation, chats, etc (see a worlds log file for more info). SL sims and AW worlds are NOT completely different; you just can't seem to fathom their similarities. The land cost criticism is STILL valid. I love how your counter for my point about AW only keeping track of object positions is that "You are wrong about the world server not keeping track of more than just object position--especially in AW 4.1 with it's new "global" command that also makes the world server track object clicks/bumps too." and then in your next line you post a dump that shows that i'm exactly right, the dump is all position information, + identification information. Compare that to sl, where the sim tracks object shape, physics, script, on top of all the other information your listing, oh and it handles object transforms so you can actually build and mold objects in real time in game. AW basically uses glorified pointers.
My argument is simple, and it's apparently lost on you. They aren't comparable because the SL sim does TONS more work then an AW world. I still like my comparison, of a AW world being equal to a counterstrike/quake 3 server, and a SL sim being a mmo server (not shard, the servers that make up the shards).
Here are some great numbers, "Pentium II CPU 300mhz or equivalent, 64MB RAM, Microsoft Windows 98, Me, 2000, or XP, DirectX 8.1 or later, Windows Media Player 6.4 or later, D3D video card with at least 8MB and the latest drivers. Those are the min requirements to run an AW world, SL has at max 2 sims per cpu core, (4 per server, the servers are dual core).
How about this? Why don't you put the same chart on the AW page and complain about AW charging you money to let you use your own server, with zero overhead on their end. Seraphim 23:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-Eep² 12:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Since they are both hosting virtual worlds obviously they have some similarities, and your correct, they are not completly different, however they are too different to do a straight up comparison like your attempting to do. Apples and Oranges are both fruits, but you can't critisize an apple for not being orange enough, it's not a valid complaint. The land pricing criticism is still in the article, so it's not like it's a pov issue, however the chart is complete FUD.


I agree with Seraphim on the bias of this section and that it is unneccessary to the article. --Crossmr 14:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I've put this on Wikipedia:Current_surveys#Articles to get some additional objective opinion. --Crossmr 14:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I also believe this section is biased and was the one to add the original NPOV tag to it. I should note, however, that Eep does know what he's talking about; there is an extensive comparison at http://www.tnlc.com/eep/compare/. Yet, that doesn't mean his comparison should be placed in this article at this particular location. Perhaps a new article should be created to compare these VR environments? --Quintin3265 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The only comparison I see there is a basic features comparison. I don't see any indepth comparison of features like and it becomes extremely obvious from that link that he's trying to push his own work into this article for whatever reason. --Crossmr 03:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem jealous, Cross. I'm not pushing my work; I'm simply pushing the truth. You just can't seem to face facts when they're shoved right in front of your face (complete with references). Who's REALLY biased? Look in the mirror... But you're right about my comparison; I don't extensively compare SL and AW feature-by-feature, side-by-side. However, I've written about how AW and SL compare (which includes BOTH similiarities AND differences, by the way) on my SL page and linked to an SL forum post I made comparing the two from my AW improvements page. -12:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No one is jealous of you. The facts are you're not comparing like things and you can't source this criticism. Its your opinion that this is a criticism of SL but you haven't sourced anything appropriate to show its needed here. And forums don't count as credible sources for wikipedia. --Crossmr 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It bears noting that even if forums were credible sources, the comparison would still fall under the No Original Research (NOR) policy, which specifically forbids (among other things) any "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source".
In a Wikipedia article, even if you are armed with facts (world prices in each game), you cannot use those to push a point of view. Aside from the NOR policy itself, this starts to fall under the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy as well. In fact, the three content policies (NOR, NPOV, and Verifiability) have a fair bit of overlap, and it could be argued that the land cost comparison violates all three.
Please, try to respect the policy and the community, even when you disagree with them. The other editors aren't trying to gang up on you; we all just want what's best for Wikipedia. There are policies I (mildly) disagree with, but they've been decided by the community, and we all need to respect that. Otherwise, we just end up making a big mess. — Wisq 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have changed my opinion on this matter. I am not sure whether these policies are enforced sufficiently to justify the removal of a section based on them. It seems to me that the amount of original research in an article has to be very high in order for the article to be deleted. There are many cases in AFD where articles on original concepts suffer fierce debate. For example, Nice guy syndrome, an article for which there are zero verifyable sources other than some Internet forums, somehow survived three consecutive votes for deletion.
  • As you said, "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". In Nice guy syndrome, we don't even have a single valid source for the rumination and theories contained within, yet the article has not been deleted. Most people would agree that scattered Internet forum references to the "syndrome" are not "reputable sources." In Second Life, on the other hand, Eep does cite valid sources: the prices taken from the companies themselves. Few would argue that the companies' websites themselves are unreliable sources for their prices.
  • In both instances, we are establishing a case, but in the former, there is no attribution to a reputable source, while in the latter, thereis.
  • The precedent set by the non-deletion of Nice guy syndrome makes it impossible to justify the removal of Eep's content. We would be setting a double standard. --Quintin3265 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately we can't use a bad precedent to justify continuationg of that behaviour. The result of the AFD debate on Niceguy syndrome wasn't a keep, it was a no-concensus which is easy to generate on wikipedia when you have a few interested people hit an AFD. Most of the keeps asked for a cleanup so it could be brought up to standards, and if it isn't, I could see this article being nominated again and easily being removed with the logic that the keep acknowledged that the article isn't good in its current state, and that since no one is taking the initiative to clean it up, it should be removed until such a time that someone wants to write a proper article. The term itself is notable as it is often talked about and used in popular culture. However in this case Eep is making a comparison of land prices between AW and SL however the basis for it is faulty. The land isn't the same thing, and there are other differences as pointed out above. Not to mention if you follow Eeps own links you'll notice he lists numerous bans from SL related wikis and forums for his behaviour. So I wouldn't exactly trust his objectivity in forming conclusions about comparisons between SL and anything. He uses weasel words to claim opinions that he can't properly source. The niceguy article and the inclusion of this biased comparison aren't really the same thing at all.
  • As stated he's comparing apples and oranges with his chart. So while the numbers are taken from the websites, the conclusions he's drawing with this numbers, and the simple fact that he claims this as a criticism of SL (which I haven't seem a reputable source indicate that the price of SL land compared to AW land is a criticism) is the bias here. --Crossmr 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia is governed by policies, not common law. If there are articles that violate policy and are not properly dealt with, then either the articles still need work, or the policy needs official debating. Using one policy failure to justify silently ignoring the policy itself is not a proper course of action.
The land cost comparison is particularly important (to omit, that is) because it compares a product negatively against a competitor. Although not personally libellous against any individual, it could still potentially place Wikipedia in an awkward position. Citing a reputable news source would be appropriate; publishing potentially damaging original research is not. — Wisq 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Please, finish talking about these changes in the Talk page here before doing anymore reverts. Please leave the mentioned content alone until a consensus is reached. There was almost a violation of the Three-revert_rule due to quick reverts. Please also keep your cool when voicing your opinion about edits made. Also note the policy on Resolving disputes Thank You. ZyphBear 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Rez originate from Tron?

I think it's a bit tenuous that Rez comes from Tron, it's more likely a neologism derived from Resource? --12.110.83.250 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[3] same thing on the official SL wiki, however I'm not sure how to operate their wiki stuff properly to see if it was the linden that added that, or the other person. If its the linden, I'd consider it solid, if its the other person, not so much. Either way a wiki shouldn't be used as a source, unless the information is added by an official individual (like a linden, at which point it might be seen as sourcing someone's blog).--Crossmr 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


(Actually, it's an abbreviation for "resolve".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.215.195.150 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 June 2006.

you're basing this on what? --Crossmr 02:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on the fact that to rez is used as slang for resolve? Or that it the original Tron derez was sort for derezolution? Seems rpetty obvious if you are playing second life and someone refers to the location resolving quickly or slowly by using the word rez then they probly mean resolve and not resource. Dalf | Talk 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
except I've never heard anyone refer to the location resolving. Just rez or rezzing. If this term does refer to something we need a credible source to base the trivia on. --Crossmr 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I was basing the use of the term in game based on the people I have interacted with there (who do use it to refer to whole areas resolving after you teleport in and more frequently refering to their clothign failing to rez when they change it. Origins of slang terms and nich vocabulary (And even made up words in fiction) are porblematic because (as in this case) the source is usually obvious (not sure how it could be resource, at that is a usualy noun and not a verb) but you can almost never find a citable refrence. I think the Secondlife wiki pink provided is going to be as close as we can get though we may have to say that it is "claimed" at that link. Using a refrence as a claim fomr the community and refering to the wiki or (probbly better) a fourm discussion if we can find one is going to be the best bet I assume. Dalf | Talk 09:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh and I am pretty sure if you can establish the tron refrence, that the script for tron explaines derez to mean derezolution though I would have to check to be sure. Dalf | Talk 09:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, the SL wiki and SL forums can't be used as sources unless we can establish the material was written by a representitive of the company. --Crossmr 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure we can as long as we qualify the assertion the same way that link above does. We cant say that is where the word came fomr but we surly can use it as evidence that it is commonly held in the among the users of the word that this is where the word came from. Dalf | Talk 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
afraid we can't. Then it becomes original research, because it is our opinion on how common the word usage is. A credible source is required for all information on the page, especially a piece of a trivia like this. see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_of_online_sources forums links are generally only acceptable for sourcing things like company statements and only in the case where you can verify that the poster is who they say they are, much like the way it discusses sourcing blogs. If a Linden made a forum post or wrote in a blog that Rez was derived from Tron, we could use that as a source. If Joe Schmoe does it, it can't be used. Any reputable media that reports that fact would be acceptable, a gaming site like Gamespot for example would suffice, but 3rd hand information from an unknown can't be used for sourcing on wikipedia. --Crossmr 21:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Afraid I disagree, though we do seem to be discussing it in diffrent terms. I am not saying we claim that Tron is the source of the word only that it is held as such by the POPULATION OF USERS not the company in question. The link above [4] which is not a fourm positn in anyevent is more than acceptable to make such a small claim. As with many article taht relate to online activitys and groups (think Harry Potter/Lord of the rings fandoms) the articles have to discuss thes online communities and I dare say there has been litle acedemic work done on the subject of the slang of secondlife. The question is weather the refrence supports the claim and if not weather the claim shoudl be changed or if the refrence is no good at all. In anyevent the article inquestion fomr its history appears to have been edited by employees though I am not 100% sure of that yet I will poke around some more. Dalf | Talk 23:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I could be wrong but it looks liek the above wiki is not edatable, and is maintained by the company. In anyevent I Cant fireout how to edit it or sign up (or login) Dalf | Talk 23:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Its either on the two pages I listed or this one WP:CITE that mentions that other wikis are not acceptable as primary or secondary sources for sourcing information, so while its not a forum, its still not an acceptable citation. I would make the concession that IF the material was verifiably added by a Linden, we could apply the blog test to it and use the information, however if you look at the page history on that entry [5] it shows edits by a linden, and some other person. I can find no way to show a diff on that page to see who added the information about Tron. --Crossmr 01:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It says that wikis are not acceptable because they can be edited by anyone. That wiki does not appear to be open to the public for editing (or apparently even users of the service). I looked and I could not find a page stating who exactly the editor communit was and I admit we should probly figure that out. I do still maintain that for the purposes of making statments about a group of people, statmens made by that group of people are usable, I think if you look at the articles about the various fictional fandoms on wikipedia that there are few hard and fast rules on wikipedia, in situations where it is reasonable I suspect every rule has an exception. The use of the term to mean bring an object into the world or out of (rahter than the usage I listed above "to resolve" does corrospond directly to the usage in Tron stating that the usage is the same can be documented acceptably though woudl not be relavent without a link. I was only arguing that also stating that users of the system have noticed the similar usage and assumed a link (regardless of wether or not the link is real) is supported by that wiki and could be supported by fourm postings if they exist. THe reason that it is not a problem with WP:CITE in this case is that the citation is not being used to support that truth of the information only being used to support that the citation exists (i.e. the simialr usage has been observed by users). Dalf | Talk 04:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
and as I said, that becomes WP:OR if we draw a conclusion that we cannot properly source, and just say "well everyone uses that term" its unnacceptable for inclusion on wikipedia. You also can't source major opinion on a service like SL. You could source someone's random blog post claiming that rez refers to tron, or that they feel a number of their friends believe that rez originates from Tron, or we could say "Hey I've seen lots of people say that in the program so it must be true". Whether or not its true is really a moot point, its whether or not it can be sourced properly. Do I believe its true? likely. but that isn't how wikipedia runs. Fandom is also being cracked down on from what I've seen. Unverifiable information is being tagged for clean up or removal. Most of their information can be sourced though from episodes, scripts, etc which is acceptable. In this case if you can confirm that a linden added that information and not that other user (while users can't edit it now, it may have been editable at one point by random non-lindens like a regular wiki) then it can be used as a source. The cite is being used to support the truth of the statement. We're making the statement that Rez comes from Tron and we need something credible to back that up. If we can't source it, then we remove it, and let the link to the trivia cite cover it, which isn't part of wikipedia. --Crossmr 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well its mostly a moot point since we disagree on the application of both WP:CITE and WP:OR in general but basically agree on this specific point. If the refrence in question comes from Linden then its ok, all the rest is hypothetical since I dont have a refrence to a fourm or blog posting. I think one of the rules you are forgetting is that strict unbending application of the letter of the rules is not what wikipedia is about (Which is why the rule pages are not protected). You come much closer to my stance though when you mention blogs (which on the "open internet" I would view as much more suspect as a refrence to secondlife players than a posting or article by a user hosted n a second life server). In anyevent as I said in the case of this piece of information you are probbly right we should not (without more evidence) say that it came from Tron. The fact that they are used in both cases essentally the same way can be sourced and could probbly be worked into the article as trivia one only need watch the movie or find a copy of the script to verify that the usage is essentally the same, but again that is trivia and not really needed in the article. Dalf | Talk 06:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
For guidelines yes. Guidelines can be bent. however policies, like OR and proper citation can't be bent. Policies have to have strict adherence, and while they can still be edited, there are enough people watching them that if someone tried to change them to something they're not supposed to be it would be reverted. There are certain policies that apply to sources on what can and can't be used to cite information on wikipedia. forums is one of them, because you can't verifiy anyone, blogs are similar in a sense, but as it states you can accept blogs if you can verify that the person posting it is reputable. These exist for the reason that you couldn't just go and create a blog or forum thread to turn around and say "hey there is proof of my point". --Crossmr 06:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well as I said we shoudl agree to disagree on this. Policies are still editable, if you are going ot make major changes you do need to get a consensus on the talk page or you will be reverted but it has and does happen. Your refrence to OR totally misses the point though as its a question of weater verifable statments fomr a group of people can be used as a refrences about statments bade by tha group of people or not. So it is a question for WP:CITE not WP:OR, but like I said we can be quite happy not agreeing on this point and more relavent is the issue at hand. Speaking to that, I have also been able to verify that any registered SL user can edit that wiki (seems I just needed to log in and then go back there). That said there are only two editors of that file the first has the lst name Linden though I dont know if non-employess can use that lastname. Also the diff between the two versiosn shows nothing, unlike you I do not think the polocy is clear on this issue but since it is not 100% claear and because its trivia I am not prepared to fight over it. Dalf | Talk 07:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
and how are you going to verify those statements a group has made? By looking at it yourself and drawing that conclusion. That is original research. In order for that group opinion to be used on wikipedia, you need a source for it. For example, if Wired wrote an article on SL and mentioned that point, it could be used as a source. Its a question for this one WP:V which spells out what online stuff can and can't be used and in what context. Regardless of whether or not anyone can edit that page (which currently they can't), this policy has to be followed to the letter, and includes "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus" as much as common sense could say "Yes I've seen a lot of people use it in game" you can't get around this policy. Now there is a blog I know that Slashdot has referenced a couple of times, someone who writes regular stories about SL, if he has ever written about Rez in his blog, that would suffice depending on how he's written it. Unfortunately I can't recall right off who it is that writes it, but if you check Slashdot you might be able to find it. --Crossmr 15:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say if you are writing about an online only community, and you are able to link directly to the community, and you are claimming that they do X and you can link to them doing X than far form being original research it is a primary source. That is they statments are instances of the claimed act and therefor they are the verification. I dont see how linking to a person doing somethign you claim they are doing is somehow worse than linking to some random person blogging and saying they do it. You are refering to policies about making hard science refrences and I am talking about a much smaller set of assertions, specifically non-scientific facts about things or events that can be linked directly too. Forexample you would not I suspect need a reputable source to tell you that Uncyclopedia was a satiirical site you coudl simply link to it and people could verify it themselves [6]. In anyevent I don't know why you are getting so worked up as I said in this case I agree with you and you will note I have not edited the article on this point at all. Do I suspect as you said above that a link to some guys blog or some other source coudl be found? Yea, but as you stated further up doing suff like that in the fandom is being cracked down on, you would have to edsablish the guy or his blog as actually knowing somethign about the subject first before it could be used as a source. Dalf | Talk 19:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting worked up about anything, simply debating a point. Whether we're referencing hard science, or something thats happening in an online community, it has to be sourced. You can't just link to the community and say "Hey you go figure out where I got the information from". WP:V doesn't go out the window because you suddenly are talking about something like a web comic, online community, etc. If you can link to specific pages, like an about page that you can ascertain was written by the community creator, etc. Thats fine. Linking to forum posts though isn't. There is a crack down on what can and can't be linked to. Almost any part of the second life site can be used to cite information, but the forum, can't be used to cite information. This section of WP:RS is linked directly from the WP:V Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. I would make the concession that in the case of a verifiable representative of say a company or community make a public statement or press release, you could likely bend that slightly, but any further than that and you're going to find people aren't going to accept it as a source. Don't forget that forums generally aren't representative of communities as a whole (unless the community is only based on the forum), but even still you're drawing conclusion about their behaviour by saying they're doing this, or they believe this, etc. Someone did find us a verifiable source, so for this matter we're covered.--Crossmr 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The wiki's hosted on the secondlife servers are not wiki's in the sence that WP:RS talks about. The wiki's WP:RS talks about are wikipedia style wiki's that anyone can go in and edit without being subject to review. The sl history wiki, and the official lsl wiki are official Second Life support webpages, edits to the pages are approved by the lindens, and usually the content is written by the lindens themselves. Anything you see on those wiki's has been approved by the people at linden labs, therefore it is valid when it comes to WP:RS. WP:RS is written by wikipedians with our ideals of what a wiki should be in mind, what the SL wiki's are, are moderated development wiki's where the pages are all ownwed by LL. It's completly different.
Your also misrepresenting WP:RS just a bit, it's the comments posted by other users on blogs that can't be sourced, if your claiming that somebody refers to spawning objects in sl as rezzing them, it's perfectly valid to show that that person actually does refer to spawning objects as "rezzing" by linking to their blog page, the primary/secondary source ban on items like this applies to using the actual content and "facts" posted by the blogger/poster which is unacceptable, simply using someone's blog posts to show what they commonly post is ok. Seraphim 17:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the lindens approved the content. I just knew that something was written by a linde, and something written by someone not a linden, but I couldn't figure out a way to show which was which. That clears up its usage. As to the blogs, while you can link and say "This person believes this" you can't base a claim that the population of a community does something based on what a random blogger writes. --Crossmr 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct, that's why you find and ref atleast 3 blogs and say "some". Seraphim 01:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:WEASEL no you don't. Who are these some? 3 random people? what do they matter in scheme of the entire Second Life population. This is exactly why you don't source Blogs and Forum postings. --Crossmr 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually yes you do. Re-read WP:WEASLE about how to fix weasel words, "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts." in this case stating that some second life residents say something, or some second life residents belive something is a concrete fact. Since i've linked to 3 blogs of various secondlife citizens all saying X then it is a fact that some secondlife citizens say X. It's impossible to argue that no secondlife citizens say X since sources have been shown. Seraphim 08:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes but the source still has to be some sort of authority on the subject. Just because Joe Schmoe, Larry Dingbat, and Dorris Halfwit said x in their blogs doesn't mean its any kind of credible or meaningful source. Do we know if these 3 people are who they claim to be? Can we be sure these 3 bloggers aren't a competitor making statements to try and taint them? Can we be sure these bloggers aren't the person trying to get the information included in the article and trying to create sources? As it stated in WP:V the person you're referencing usually has to be some kind of expert on the subject. Just because you can always find someone who says x doesn't mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. We don't collect every last shred of everything that someone says about a subject. We need a sourceable indication that a significant part of a group believes something in order for it to be considered encyclopedic. --Crossmr 17:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations on information

I've had citation requests on a number of paragraphs for some time now. I'm going to give them another 48 hours which will be a reasonable amount of time to wait in addition to the time we've been waiting already. We do not keep unsourced information indefinitely.--Crossmr 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

"It is similar to There, another such world created around the same time, in that one of its primary focuses is socialization, but the similarity ends there."

That's not NPOV... --64.12.116.5 Oct 26, 2004

How is it not NPOV exactly? --Sgeo | Talk 13:04, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
It's comparison with a simular world. --Ice 02:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't see that as POV at all. There and Second Life are very similar to one another, in fact I think they are much more similar than that sentence implies. Comparisons between the two are natural, and can be done without violating NPOV. Ponder 12:49, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
It'd be POV if the article referred to either of them being better or worse than the other. However, the text only refers to There as a way of categorizing Second Life -- a comparison which is factually valid, as both products do share a number of features. --216.21.133.125 21:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV could possibly be argued in the other section, the nature of the macintosh port as 'inferior' is an individual's point of view in itself. Note should also be made about the Linux client currently in alpha development with the Linux user's community. --Ice 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ego Trouble

I think there is a large potential for this to all get out of hand. There are quite a few people willing to toot their own horns for no good reason. Also, beyond all that, the Links section at the bottom is fast becoming a blasted Classified ad. I'm not going to touch it, but I think someone should. We don't need 50 links with people trying to add revenue off of a wiki page, or random residents plastering blog links. There are nigh on 200,000 residents now, and this article will soon end up far too personal. Perhaps someone should wipe the lists, add SL's blog list page, link snapzilla, and link the Metaverse. That covers everyones blog, and you'll get a fine amount of advertising out of there, without ending up with a link list that is longer than the article itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soylent.hero (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 April 2006.

I agree the link section should be kept in check. I try to keep any blatant spam links out of the list.--Crossmr 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Archive

Page is getting long. Any discussions that have no timestamps from the last 30 days will be archived by werdnabot. This is pretty automatic and will required little user interaction. If anyone notices an archive page getting long (over 32KB) you can easily switch the code to point to Archive2, Archive3, etc its pretty self explanatory.--Crossmr 06:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume that any thread that's accidentally auto archived or in the latest auto-archive cycle but someone wants to reply to should be pulled back out per standard practice? Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course if such a need arises, though really if the thread is that old the users involved in the previous discussion may no longer be here and it might be best to create a new discussion and summarize the old one if necessary. This also shouldn't archive any sections that don't have replies. If someone asks a question and doesn't get a reply for 30 days it shouldn't be archived. I believe I set it up correctly to only archive sections with 2 signed comments. After the initial archiving, any sections that didn't get archived properly because of sig issues (which I encounter on old talk pages sometimes) myself or someone else can move into the archive by hand.--Crossmr 07:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Premium rate changes

Whats the purpose of not combining changed information onto old information. When people are reading the article it reads as:

Premium - The only differences between these accounts and First Basic accounts (aside from the fee) are the ability to own land (Basic account holders can rent), a L$500/week Stipend and a L$1250 signup bonus.

It is stated again in a later part:

Premium memberships receive a stipend every week regardless of logging in or not, with those registered before Friday July 21st 2006 recieving L$500/week and those registered on or after recieving L$400/week [10].

But since it is after July 21st, 2006, it's proper etiquette to put the current information in place of old information.

Cheers, Ddahlberg 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Version

They release new versions every few months, 1.11.1 is the old one, there is a new one, 1.11.2 (4) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.10.192 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 August 2006

Alleged "residents"

Having a section entitled "Notable people who became Second Life Residents" is POV and misleading to the reader. It makes the article read like an advertisement for the game, implying that these notable people "live" in the game in some sense. I understand that this is the terminology preferred by the company (of course) but it is nevertheless marketing fluff and nonsense. I would further note that all of the claims without reliable sources should be removed, including me, but I didn't touch that because it is about me, and the last thing I need is a round of stupid news stories claiming that I am trying to cover up participation in the notorious Berkman Center of Harvard Law School.--Jimbo Wales 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. on one hand it is the terminology used internally, by the users themselves, and the language used in the rest of the article, on the other the use of "Residents" does indeed imply that the person referenced is relatively active and currently "residing" there (as opposed to having quit SL, or never having actually held an account in the first place, in which case they wouldn't be "residing")
  2. SL does not fit the basic criteria of a game, having no rules, character development, victory conditions, story, tasks or prepared challenges
  3. The section is meant to be a list of notable people who have accounts for Second Life currently or in the past, and each reference to a person is supposed to have a reliable source
  4. The use of "Players" would imply that Second Life was a game
Taking these into account (once any unverified people have been removed), "Notable people who have been users of Second Life at some point" is probably more accurate.
With the inclusion of "at some point", it'd probably also make sense to include the dates their accounts were created and (where appropriate) the dates when they quit. --Signpostmarv 12:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm also assuming that stripping out ever other reference to "Residents" would need to be replaced with "users" as well. --Signpostmarv 13:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No if you're talking about what users are doing in the program use resident its the internal language. I think this solitary change is fine so that we don't give the impression these individuals are currently active when they may not be.--Crossmr 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Residents (and not users, players, members or whatever) is the official term used by SL and should thus be used in the description of SL too. LHOON 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Residents is our term for "citizenship" it's exactly analagous to calling a citizen of Great Britain a Briton, or of the US as an American and so forth is correct. If you think it's too confusing then including a comment to that effect is the way to go, not trying to define some other term. I also think you'll find that Torley coined the term BEFORE she became a Linden and it spread from her, a lovely example of a meme at work, although that might be my mistaken memory. --Eloisepasteur 07:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the entire section should be removed as pointless fancruft. It seems no more relevant to me that these people have played this game than that they have all also played Doom, or Chess.--Jimbo Wales 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
After almost making a horrendous screwup (by looking at the section above the one that's being discussed), I agree and I would suggest putting any such list in SL's (semi-official?) history wiki instead. It's certainly not of any use in Wikipedia.
Whatever is done, I would also suggest not using the word "game" as it is inaccurate - it's like saying that television shows are movies, i.e. Second Life itself is a medium, and they are different types of media even though they may be similar in many aspects. —AySz88\^-^ 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be totally removed so much as it should be restructured. Putting aside your references to SL as a game, you are right in what you say about the information in it's current state is irrelevant. Stating that people I've never heard of (Anna Krenz, DJ Unknown, Tod Maffin) being Residents is about as useful as whether Joi Ito is [[7]] or Alliance. What is usefull to know is that Lawrence Lessig encouraged Linden Lab to give Second Life's Residents IP Rights, Wagner James Au and Peter Ludlow's efforts towards exposing what's happening in Second Life to the "outside" world, and how business/organisations like Creative Commons (Lessig, Doctorow, Ito, Garlick, the BBC, American Apparel, Coca Cola (pushing it on that one), Disney, 20th Century Fox have been involved in Second Life. Yes, on one hand you could percieve a company's or organisation's interactions with Second Life's Residents as "marketing fluff". But the fact they're dealing with the Residents, and not the company is important. What these people, companies and organisations are doing is important and shows that Second Life is not just some other virtual world.
To put it simply, the information should remain, but not as a list. The people and Residents that have done bugger all towards contributing to Second Life should be ignored (and also, technicalities that it's Philip Rosedale not Philip Linden that has done more for SL be corrected). Since the article is already pushing it's limits, it makes sense to me (and I'm hoping others) that the list should be expanded into more detail over to Resident (Second Life).Signpostmarv 01:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The statements made by Robin Linden Login Required support the idea that if a person hasn't done much else than log on a couple of times, then the term "Resident" shouldn't be used in association with them:

Robin Linden (in response to the question: Just wondering, who coined the term "Resident" and why ?)

It was pretty early in the development of Second Life. One of my jobs was to come up with the different words we wanted to use, including the name! The naming discussions were usually between me, Philip, Hunter and Peter (both of whom aren't here any more) with feedback from everyone else.

When it came to what to call the people in the world, we knew we didn't want to call them 'users', although that would be the most typical thing for software. However, the word 'users' doesn't do a very good job of describing the two-way nature of Second Life, where the people involved are providing content and contributing to the experience.

We also thought about 'members' (boring!), 'citizens' (too political!), and 'players' (too game-y).

'Residents', however, seems most descriptive of people who have a stake in the world and how it grows.


Signpostmarv 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the title again. It just didn't sound right. If they're on this list it means they had an account and were in the game at least once I'm assuming. As such saying they "may" have played the game isn't correct otherwise we could just put a phonebook in that list and claim any one of those people "may" have played the game at some point. I've changed the title to be factually accurate and added a disclaimer at the top of the list indicating that we're not stating that these people can currently be found in the community. We were dancing around trying not to peg someone as active who might not be way too much and it made it sound a bit silly.--Crossmr 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Links

I think it'd be a good idea to have www.sluniverse.com and www.secondlifeherald.com added onto the list. They're both well-known and good resources for second life. Any reason why not to? 782 Naumova 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you feel they would add to the article that isn't already covered? I guess thats the crux of it there. I've noticed a crunch of late on the external links sections of some articles as they've gotten out of control with people trying to use the external links or fansites section of articles as advertising. I'm not saying they wouldn't be good additions to the page, I'm just asking what you feel they provide that existing content and links do not.--Crossmr 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. SL Universe's Snapzilla is the most widely known photo-sharing site aimed specifically at Second Life, making use of it's Postcard feature.
  2. Aren't the peeps behind SL Universe the same ones originally behind SLURL ?
  3. The built-in photo features aren't covered anywhere in this article, neither is the reaction of SL Photographers to Flickr's NIPSA policy
Signpostmarv 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
First time to this wiki entry, I had hoped to jump in and grab a link to one or two established second life blogs or podcasts so I can check out what's being said outside of the official sources, but it appears the links section has suffered the usual fate of clueless expansion followed by frustrated link nannydom. Could someone please resurrect a small handful of the best non-official links so I don't have to spend two hours with Mister Google to try and figure out which of the 15,800,000 hits are worth looking into? I'd like to figure out what's going on in the game from a non-whitewashed but still mainstream perspective before I commit myself. All I'm asking for are the websites anyone who'se been in the game for more than two weeks can reel off with a moment's thought.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haverberg (talk • contribs) 06:29, 8 August 2006

Wikipedia is not a link repository or search engine. WP:NOT. If a link is relevant to the content of the article and what is being said in that article, its usually provided. Links need to be kept to those that either source or expand upon existing content in the article. While "Joe's Second Life Blog" might be about Second Life and might be an interesting read about the inner-goings on, it might not be actually terribly relevant to the article. This is what happens with link creep. If a specific blog entry or podcast were to deal with something specific that was discussed in the article, it might find its way into the links as relevant, but when we start to get into "I think this is a generally useful blog, or this is a generally useful fan resource" we get into virtual pissing matches over who wants what on the list. You get people using the links as a form of advertising and other issues.--Crossmr 06:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Employee Editors?

How do people feel about Linden Lab employees editing this page? I work there, and some of the stuff in the open source section is wrong. We're not, for example, moving to Jabber any time soon. No one is currently working on it and it's not on any schedule I've seen. But I doubt that's been said publicly. Jamescookmd 06:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. If there have been statements or information presented that indicate these things are true, then whatever goes on internally cannot be put in the article unless there is some verification.--Crossmr 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Plus, its a great way to lose your job :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.149.229 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 August 2006


New World Notes as reputable source

Just wondering why, other than being in blog format, that New World Notes is not a reputable source for information.Signpostmarv 08:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

blogs aren't typically accepted as sources because of their self-published nature, but I've read his credentials and he was, at least at one point, a professional journalist so he meets WP:V, but the blog can only be used to cite his opinion on matters, it can't be used to put forth facts.--Crossmr 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a difference between posts when he was reporting as Hamlet Linden, and when he was reporting as Hamlet Au ? eg when he was a company employee and when he wasn't.Signpostmarv 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well when he was a company employee that was when he was a professional journalist, because he was hired to write about something by LL, even if it was their product. You might look more critically at the posts he made while he was an employee as its rare for people on the payroll to be as critical about something involving the company as they should be.--Crossmr 18:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Splitting hairs- he was hired to write about the activities of the users of LL's product, not the product itself. What about cross referencing blogs or forum posts he's used to quote from ? Since I've seen from the edit history that neither blogs nor forum posts are citeable.Signpostmarv 11:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Then it becomes original research. If you're putting forth facts, theories, conclusions etc you have to base it on reliable sources. Since you wouldn't be using reliable sources you would end up violating WP:OR. While he was hired to write about the people and not the product, he was still on their payroll. So if he were to give an opinion that contracted what another reliable source said while he was on the payroll, you might not take it at face value. Anything you want to reference from him would have to be done something like this "According to Hamlet Au..." or "Hamlet Au writes..." etc--Crossmr 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Croquet Project..?

Why would the Croquet project be considered a competitor of Second Life? Just because it's 3D doesn't mean it's a competitor of them. That's like saying Mario Cart or Halo 2 is conflicting with them. Croquet has nothing to do with Second life. --71.118.168.253 06:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

because you can build a virtual 3D world in it?--Crossmr 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You can create a virtual world in "Sim City," "RollerCoaser Tycoon," or the upcomming game "Spores," too, but I highly doubt anyone would consider them compeditors of Second Life. --71.118.168.253 06:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Those are all off-line software. Croquet is online software same as SL.--Crossmr 15:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If you get into splitting hairs, Spore is an online game, but it's single player. One of the main points of spore is that it's Massively Single Player. Besides AIs that Residents have written themselves with the built in tools (the lack of a name tag is a big hint that it's not a Resident), there are no NPCs- no computer controlled players in Second Life, so any online single player game can't be compared as a competitor to SL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Signpostmarv (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 August 2006

Requirements section

Isn't this just a bloated version of what is displayed (or should be displayed) in the infobox ? Signpostmarv 02:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Notable Users

We might consider forking this section. I've done this on other articles and its benefited them. These lists can become large and unwiedly as time goes on because they potentially could become infinitely large as more and more people join a service. A nice intro paragarph than a "see list of notable users for further info" usually suffices.--Crossmr 04:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What about yanking out the text of the Resident Created Content and the Subcultures and countercultures section into a single article about Second Life Residents (eg Resident (Second Life) as I have suggested before) ? Pretty much all remaining text would refer to Second Life the 'platform' (since the list of users, the text about the groups and cultures surrounding the users, and to a certain degree, the stuff they can do in Second Life are all sort of related). Signpostmarv 17:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a perfect idea.--Crossmr 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
If there's no opposing arguments by Saturday, I suggest whoever has the time free do the move do it :-) Signpostmarv 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that since it was my idea, it'll be my job :-P Now... to track down the right template..... Signpostmarv 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Trivia /List of avatar names. Since there are now 600,000 users the fact that Doctor Who, Economists names are being used is pretty irrelevant. You could also add poets, England Cricket players, and many other categories to the list. This section should be 'pruned'. OldNol 6 September 2006

Official statements that require login to view

I can sort of understand saying that a link cannot be used as a reference if it requires a login to view, but ruling it out because it's on a forum despite the statement being from a company employee, and thus an undeniable official statement o_O ? That's kinda odd. Signpostmarv 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's something that is in the process of being addressed I believe. Currently forums are unuseable as a source for anything. They're just not considered reliable. Personally, I'm neither here nor there as long as the identity of the individual making the statement can be verified, but thats not a majority view point. The other issue we have here, is that non-company employees can be made lindens. So for joe six pack, without further digging its not obvious whether or not this person is a company employee speaking for the company.--Crossmr 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Uhh, as far as I can tell, if a Resident's last name is "Linden" then they are a company employee. Once they stop being a company employee, they don't have access to that name any more. The Linden in this case was Robin Linden e.g. Robin Harper, who I believe has been with Linden Lab since the company was formed. How are you forming this opinion that anyone with Linden for a last name is not a company employee ? Signpostmarv 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The link we're using as a source for Feted Inner Core led me to believe that not everyone with a Linden last name is a company employee. I also recall hearing that discussed in world as well that not everyone with a Linden last name actually works for Linden. Its something you can ask at WP:RS. To me, if you can credibly identify who the person is, it should be allowed, but currently guidelines don't permit it, I've been working on a proposal for blogs Wikipedia:Guidelines for Citing Self-published Blogs, and it could be extended in theory to cover this type of post to a forum. But its far from gotten any kind of concensus at this point.--Crossmr 02:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you're referring to James Wagner Au, you'll notice that he was under contract as Hamlet Linden[8], and once the contract was up, he created a new account- Hamlet Au[9]. Anyone with a Linden last name is under the employ of Linden Lab. Once they're no longer under contract, their use of the Linden account is revoked. Plain and simple. BTW, to me this sounds like arguing that the world is curved but having to state that the world is flat untill you can get proof. Rules are good, but rules can be really stupid. Signpostmarv 02:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'm referring to the text of the story on the Feted Inner Core where it mentioned something about non-employees becoming Lindens, ... to graduating older players to becoming Lindens. It says they are possibly graduated to become Lindens, doesn't say specifically employees. As far as rules, you're free to argue it, as moot as it is in this case, on WP:RS. But as a general rule they don't accept forums as sources for anything here. I'd like to see an exception made for statements made by people who own the forums.--Crossmr 03:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you've checked Linden Lab's Employment section [10], you'll have noticed that part of the requirements for some of the positions is a preference for applicants to have had experience in Second Life. Torley Wong is one such person who went through the process of being a Resident to being a Linden [11]. Signpostmarv 08:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Any statements by company employees should be seen as valid statements, regardless of the media those statements were carried upon, be they website, press release, blog, forum, or used napkin. As long as said statement is available to the public of course :-P Signpostmarv 08:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Virtual Communities Catagory List question

Why doesn't Second Life appear in the Virtual Communities List? If someone could add the code for it to appear there, I think that would be great. Magnum Serpentine 9-20-06

MySpace is a virtual community. Second Life is a virtual world, thus it is listed in the virtual world communites sub category of virtual communities. Signpostmarv 18:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What defines something as a competitor to Second Life

Seeing Habbo Hotel added to the list of competitors seems a little strange.

To me, to be listed a competitor to Second Life, the service/product/blah needs to meet at least a few of the following requirements:

  • (Added by Signpostmarv 06:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)) Be a Virtual World
  • Real time interaction with other users of the service/product/blah over a network (local or internet)
    • (Added by Signpostmarv 03:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)): Concurrency (total number of users connected to service and/or server) equal to or greater than Second Life
  • User-created content
  • No NPCs other than those as user-created content
  • real-world economy with virtual currency (e.g. the ability so sell virtual currency for real cash and put it into your real bank account)

As near as I can tell, Habbo Hotel only meets one of these requirements.

Entropia Universe meets two, as does Active Worlds.

Ya get the idea.

Thoughts ? Signpostmarv 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your definition of "competitor" is a little restrictive, to the point of only allowing SL clones. I like this definition from Barron's: "Seller of a product or service whose product or service can be used to fill or satisfy a consumer need (real or imagined) in a market where other sellers offer products that will also fill or satisfy the same need." Now, obviously, this would make virtually anything a competitor to SL, as the "need" that is being filled is quite vague, but I think there are clear "major competitors", which is what I think the section should be called. What games do people leave SL for? What games do people come to SL from? —Trevyn 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard of many people who have actually used SL (discounting anyone who just picked it up and dropped it) "leaving" it for anything else, but I've heard of people leaving the Sims Online and There to come to SL.
Signpostmarv 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the restrictiveness, name things that match only one of those requirements that could be considered a competitor. Or things that match none of the requirements. Those are some of the defining characteristics of SL, and thus for something to compete with SL, it must have something that SL has and possibly something it doesn't.
Signpostmarv 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that most MMORPGs are similar enough to be considered competitors, and they only meet the first of your requirements. Text-based MUDs meet 2-3. —Trevyn 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
A lot of MMORPGs now include the ability for users to create weapons, items and clothing, however that's pushing it. Let me add another to the list. New one rules out things online versions of Neverwinter Nights (You can't have as many people on one server at once. A single module compared to a single sim perhaps, but a module in NwN can be much biger than 16 acres) as a competitor now. Signpostmarv 03:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Updated the list of "requirements" after deleting Meez

Cutting down article bloat

Article size is currently about 37Kb. Methinx the next thing that could be taken out of the main article and put in another one are the two business & organisations sections. If it is agreed that the business & organisations sections are to get shipped off to another article next, what would the title of the article be ? If you think there are any other suggestions for shipping sub sections off to full articles/stubs, now would be a good time to say so.

Signpostmarv 03:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oookay, so it's currently 42Kb. I'm thinking Businesses and Organisations (Second Life) with {{org-stub}} and {{Business-stub}}. Although to fit in with the spelling on the Wikipedia, it should probably be Businesses and Organizations (Second Life) with a #REDIRECT Businesses and Organisations (Second Life). That would take off about 7Kb btw. Signpostmarv 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite stripping out the requirements section after moving the content to the infobox, the size of the article is still increasing. Another candidate I'm proposing is Second Life/Businesses and Organizations. Signpostmarv 06:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Another option- move Second Life#Issues_and_criticisms to Second Life/Issues and criticisms, since it is the largest section in the article. Signpostmarv 05:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Just an extra note for article size references; At the time of writing:
Since I've noticed the filesize of the article has been steadily increasing since the 29th of September (it's now 51kb btw), and since I've been commenting about the state of the situation every so often, if nobody disagrees, I'll be moving Second Life#Issues and criticisms to Second Life/Issues and criticisms near the end of the week, since it is the largest section in the article, since it's not significant enough to move to it's own article (as perhaps, the Businesses section might be).
Signpostmarv 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Teen Second Life client snapshots

Snapshots for the Teen Grid, and the Teen Grid client can be procured via Teen SL photos, so if anyone wants to find a citation comparing the main grid client with the teen grid client, that'd be the place to look. Or ask. Signpostmarv 23:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviation for "Square Metres"

I believe the proper way to represent the unit "square metres" is "m2" (or if you don't do superscripts "m^2".) Someone keeps systematically editing the land sales section to show "square metres" as "2metre". Aside from the fact that the letter "m" is the standard metric system abbreviation for "metre", I believe the power goes after the unit, not before. User:TimothyHorrigan Timothy Horrigan 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I believe that someone is me. I'm not too sure about the representation, although with afterthought, I do agree it is m2, not 2metre. Bad habit of mis-interpretation of spoken forms of abbreviation, sorry. Signpostmarv 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Issue has been taken care of. [12] [13]
Signpostmarv 05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

DOWN!?!?!

I just made an account, but it's down! When will it be back online? Einstein runner 02:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

For updates regarding downtime, see [14]. For general updates see [15] Signpostmarv 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
A note: Once you've left Help Island, you're not allowed to go back (logging out doesn't count) Signpostmarv 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Protect article and/or block User:Msbjustice

I'm getting rather sick of editing the article to correct for User:Msbjustice FUD edits, lack of wikification edits, and vandalism edits. I'm also getting rather sick reverting User:Msbjustice's attempts to cover up the request to have Second Life Lawsuit : Bragg v. Linden, et al deleted.

I request that the article be protected and/or User:Msbjustice be blocked.

Signpostmarv 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I too request that User:Signpostmarv be blocked from editing those pages that Msbjustice has edited as he is attempting to provide his own color of facts and issues rather than objective reporting. The article created by Msbjustice has been adequately edited but Signpostmarv continues to repost it for deletion despite that no one else pays him / her any attention. The previous unsigned comment was placed in the body of the request by User:Msbjustice on 18:04, 8 October 2006

I request that the article provided by Msbjustice, and edited by same be protected and/or User:Signpostmarv be blocked.

Msbjustice 15:58, 8 October 2006

I also don't appreciate personal attacks being made against me and having the request interfered with. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Life&action=history Signpostmarv 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Campaigning to have someone banned is liable to get both of you blocked for incivility. Take it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and stop flame warring on an article talk page. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

tsl map

the map is redicculiosly out of date The previous unsigned comment was added 02:42, 9 October 2006 by 65.96.212.206

It might be, but a) getting a hold of screenshots from Teen SL requires knowing someone on the Teen Grid, or breaking the TOS. I'll see if I can get one of the Lindens to provide some fresher content. Signpostmarv 00:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Usage of terms in Second Life#Pornography

  1. Without spliting hairs into what is defined by each term (between Escort and Prostitute), the term most associated with sex work in Second Life is Escort. Compare Search for escort with Search for prostitute
  2. Sex with animals is bestiality. Sex with furries is sex with someone who just happens to be wearing an animal suit.
    • If someone has the appearence of an animal and they are roleplaying in the context of an animal, it is bestiality. Or just interspecies sex. Not sure how sex between two different species is covered :-P
    • If someone has the appearence of an animal and they aren't roleplaying in the context of an animal, it is just sex with someone in an animal suit. Take into account the usage of the term Outfit in the user interface and documentation.[16]

Signpostmarv 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unknown-importance computer and video game articles

Just wondering what "qualifies" Second Life to be included in this category. Signpostmarv 06:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Life#Linden Lab Lawsuit

Uhh... last time I checked, neither personal blogs or forums could be used as sources. The full article link is not a full article. It's an aggregator linking to a short post on a personal blog. Btw, I'm keeping away from editing this section unless I see something grossly wrong with it.

Signpostmarv 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Life#Group_Names_with_.22SL.22

This section seems to be mostly false, since the Second Life TOS only refers to Resident Names, not group names. Section 2.3

Since I don't want to get stuck into an edit war with people again, I'm only flagging it for sources etc etc, and strongly advising that someone else check it out whether it needs deleting.

Signpostmarv 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)