Talk:Metaverse/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

IS: mér sýnist að þessum tveimur verkefnum hefur lítið orðið ágengt.
EN: It apears to me that these two projects have made little progress.
—Zarutian 02:31 21. july 2005 (UTC)
EN: Should the description of the Metaverse be quoted directly from the book?
—Zarutian 02:34 21. july 2005 (UTC)

"There" is very much farther away from being a metaverse than second life and unlike SL it is not actively trying to implement the metaverse.

Metaverse as a Broader Term

Hi, I'm not sure exactly how this works so I hope I'm not goofing up the page by adding this section here. I wanted to say that the article seems to focus too narrowly on the origin of the word and does not contain enough information about how the word is being used more broadly by professionals involved in the development of virtual worlds and metaverse technology. There are over 4 million hits for the term "metaverse" in google, and except for the first hit which is of course this article, you can see that the term is used most often to refer to the emerging ecosystem of virtual worlds and simulated spaces on the web - not to refer to Stephenson's metaverse.

There is also a dearth of sources related to this emerging ecosystem, such as the Metaverse Roadmap, the Metaverse U Conference, etc. I feel this article does a disservice to people seeking information about how the term is used today as opposed to where the term originated.

I'd be happy to help contribute to rewriting the article, but I've heard so many stories about how Wikipedia editors are protective of the content that I was afraid to make any edits! I'm not sure exactly what the protocol is for contributing, so I guess I'll wait to see if someone replies. Thanks for your consideration and I hope I did this right!

Fleep (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just go ahead, be bold! There is no one protocol, "just" some principles and some more policies and guidelines. :-) All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, took a while but I edited the entry today with reference. Needs more work still but it's a start! Thanks for the encouragement. Fleep (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Made some structural changes today, added a new section related to developing technical standards, cleaned up a bunch of formatting, my next goal is to add acceptable references to the Timeline section. Fleep (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There Is The Metaverse - More So Then Second Life

Hi,

I seriously don't know where you got your information but There is so trying to become the Metaverse, more so then Second Life actually. In fact i'd like you to be aware that I switched from Second Life to There. I see more potential in There personally, but that is just my opinion which is soon to become known fact. I don't know why Second Life players have a problem with There. Maybe it is envy, which is completely understandable.

However, I do suggest people do research before they comment. I don't like it one bit when people slam There, but go ahead and slam Second Life all you want. I may not like Second Life too well but lets say i've had bad experiences with Linden Labs, Second Life's creators. Basically, problems above and beyond the imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel1120 (talk • contribs) 6:44 Jun 8, 2006 (UTC)


One of the problems with There is that it's a tightly controlled environment. The company that runs There exerts complete control over all content created for the world. That alone puts There at odds with Stephenson's vision of the Metaverse. Add to that the fact that There's currency is not truly liquid. You can put money into the universe, but you can't cash out. It's not a true micro-currency. Also, your invitation to try There won't gain much traction with Mac or Linux users. There is currently a Windows only environment. Linden has at least open sourced the Second Life client and so we will likely see SL clients for many different OS's and devices in the near future.

What's the deal with the Second Life trolls everywhere? "Massively multiplayer online RPGs have also added to the mix. Second Life (which is not actually a game) and There have differentiated themselves from other major players like World of Warcraft by providing a social networking space. Second Life has also begun opening up the normal MMOG architecture, turning it from a game arena into a space in which users can freely develop content and interact for their own purposes." WoW doesn't have a "social networking space"? Wtf? Can we get a slightly toned-down NPOV version of this stuff? --Psm 05:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

I propose that the article should be restructured to divided into three main sections

  1. Stephenson's fiction
  2. Implementations
  3. Other uses of "metaverse".

The material currently in the introduction should be moved to "other". The introduction should briefly mention all meanings/uses of "metaverse". 1Z 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Metaverse deserves a wider treatment. It is now a term in common usage (like internet), and when someone (say) in secondlife is told that their experience is a step towards the metaverse, they should be able to come here to find out what the "metaverse vision" is, as well as where the term came from, various implementations that have attempted to realize it, leading to SL and Croquet as the state of the art offerings.

I'll volunteer to start the restructure unless there are objections from this page

Andy Abrahamson 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nahh... I think Metaverse is taking a meaning. The origin of the word should be noted. But the word stands in its own right. User: Yesha Sivan 19:12, 10 February 2007


Second Life: correction

This is incorrect: "Second Life has also begun the process of opening up the MMOG architecture, turning it from a game arena into a space in which users can develop content and interactions for their own purposes".

To say that Second Life is tranistioning from a "game envirnoment" to something else is incorrect. Second Life is a not a game. If you wanted to reduce it to anything, you could say it's a multiuser 3d chat environment in which the environment is built by the users.

Over time, people have used the freedom within Second Life to create game-like activities within it. As opposed to the comment that was listed, it'd be more accurate to says the opposite of what was said, in other words: "Second Life has over time added game-like experiences, turning it from a space in which users can develop content and interactions for their own purposes, to a simulation that has some areas which are game arenas" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adamqkane (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Adamqkane 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) adamqkane

Hi Adam. I totally agree with your assessment of SL. Its probably just the choce of words that needs changing. The article doesnt say that Second Life is transitioning, but that Second Life is bringing the MMORG architecture into the mainstream from the "game" arena where it developed. It is the immersive architecture that is transitioning. Clumsy words for an important development. Second Life showed how the immersive idiom has uses way beyond RPG.

Andy Abrahamson 16:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

SL is "bringing the MMORG architecture into the mainstream"? Other virtual worlds have orders of magnitude more participation than SL, and SL now is the mainstream? Can the SL trolls please at least stay over on the SL page?--Psm 05:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Economics and Regulation

"Economic activity within virtual worlds cannot stay unregulated." This sounds like personal opinion and as such has no place in an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormerne (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Other meanings

Isn't metaverse the nave given to the set of all parallel universes in some science-fiction comic books, a bit like the word multiverse?

--20:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Rwatuny (talk)

Worth mentionning

Also worth are Sony's PS3 Home and ViewTerra systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.184.175 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Paper

Should we mention this: https://secure3.computer.org/cms/Computer.org/ComputingNow/homepage/2011/1111/W_IC_Hypergrid.pdf ? 109.130.202.182 (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

cosmology

www.armonpogosyan.com Samwel Pogosyan-" The Armon strukture of Metauniwerse" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.2.117 (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metaverse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metaverse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Forbes article

More Than A Trend: Entering The Metaverse Will Become A Necessity For Brands: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cathyhackl/2021/06/24/more-than-a-trend-entering-the-metaverse-will-become-a-necessity-for-brands/ 87.140.193.0 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Another data point for the abuse of the subject for marketing purposes :) Mewnst (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeesh, absolutely. WP:FORBESCON if there was any doubt that this was unusable buzzword-salad. Out of morbid curiosity, I checked, and sure enough, that article's author has a Wikipedia article herself: Cathy Hackl. I just halfway cleaned that up, but there isn't much substance underneath the self-aggrandizing. That article included some obscure "humanizing" personal details that totally lacked a source, which strongly indicates that it was a WP:COI job, meaning someone with first-hand knowledge was making the article more flattering. This is, unfortunately and predictably, very common with PR-industry people. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2021

I would like to suggest an addition to the fiction section. The novel Paridaiza (published in French in 2008 and in English translation by Snuggly Books in 2020) describes the global implementation of a Metaverse which becomes so popular that millions get addicted: https://www.snugglybooks.co.uk/paridaiza-by-luis-de-miranda/. Luis de Miranda (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The novel needs to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NNC: Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. I don't think it's available somewhere accessible, but it seems to be about a total simulation game (SAO?). Might not be worth it to include, as that is a due weight thing. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Notkc01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JBETTENC, Ljlinsc, Brianyang0618, Larrypickle1234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hot Topic Re: Facebook's Rebrand to Meta

I know this is a hot topic now that Facebook has repositioned itself as a metaverse company, and we've talked about improving the basic description of the concept for many years, but I would argue that the beginning of the article should focus on explaining what the concept means rather than criticisms about the validity or value of the concept. I added a section for Criticisms, there certainly are many and they are important to include. Fleep (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to flag a page to be watched for malicious/controversial edits? Fleep (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If the page becomes the subject of persistent vandalism, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm not sure if it's needed at this point, but I figured it would be good to ask. If someone more familiar with the process or at what point protection is appropriate wants to weigh in.. Fleep (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Added section on "Current implementations"

The "potential implementations" didn't seem properly balanced without the context of the existing technology, so I added a section with a few new sources. The Thompson source seems to be very enthusiastically promotional of Minecraft, but I figured it was reasonable to include the perspective as Minecraft is also mentioned as a metaverse in the referenced Ars Technica article in the section, and I believe I have avoided the cheerleading language. Part of the motivation for making this inclusion was the sincere need for the aspirational and hypothetical content in the page to be grounded in the context that the metaverse is already present, and the hopes of what it may be has to contend with the lame truth that it's all just video games right now. I think it's a more neutral perspective than what was present before on the page. Mewnst (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed timeline section, moved info to other parts of the page

Having a timeline of events seemed unusual, as similar pages over internet technologies (and even the page on the internet) lack a timeline section. I moved the relevant sentences around, most of them landing in the new "Current implementations" section. The VR subsection is sloppy at the moment. The desired effect was to prevent undue weight from being granted to various new developments by organizing page contents better. I hope it's helpful. Mewnst (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Major article revision in progress

Hi all,

I'm working on a major revision of this article on this page in my Userspace. I'm aiming to solve a few major problems with this article as it exists currently, per the rest of the discussion on this talk page

  1. Specificity. Metaverse refers to a school of thought about futurology, specific fictional implementations such as those by Neal Stephenson, and to proprietary implementations in the real world. I want to draw a distinction between these to avoid lending false implied consensus to certain features of a metaverse that might not be defining
  2. Recency. There are too many dead metaverse projects to talk about all of them, and most of them died without leaving any meaningful impact. We should talk only about projects that are either current or particularly influential.
  3. Concisety. The current article uses a lot of words to say not a lot. My opinion is that this article should be relatively short for now, and grow over time as metaverse development and consensus becomes more concrete.

I'm still very early and missing citations right now, but I would appreciate feedback early in the process. Please comment here if there's anything you feel I should keep in mind, and feel free to add edits you feel fit to my draft.

BrigadierG (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the importance of recency. The metaverse is simply an old idea, with a lot of old progress and old implementations. This focus on recency will risk making this article a vehicle for advertising, as the most notable recent uses of the term "metaverse" have been 1) Facebook avoiding the fallout of whistleblower findings by having a corporate name change and 2) public relations, a whole lot of public relations (especially in the case of Roblox). Your use of "consision" here has largely been to cut out the well-sourced historical implementations of the metaverse, as well as the elimination of criticisms of the abuse of the term at the hands of marketers. Your recent edits have uncritically included a lot of unneeded flavor text for Roblox and various virtual reality development, and has also eliminated much of the well-sourced criticisms of current metaverse ambitions. It has largely been a step back in article quality, and it would be best to revert it all to the old version, which I will now do. Mewnst (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Grayfell, you may be interested in reviewing the proposed BrigadierG rewrite of this article that can be found here. I have been too harsh considering the proposed changes are made in good faith, but I am partial towards the current article. Mewnst (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
You do bring up a good point with how the metaverse is now used to describe a plethora of things, and that diversity of interpretation is not reflected in the article right now and does lead to confusion for some people. Mewnst (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Mewnst Thank you for your comments. Re: recency, perhaps I swung the needle too far the other way, but I think there absolutely needs to be a shift in focus towards active projects on the current article. Just like in the present, I think historically, "metaverse" projects were primarily the brain children of miscellaneous dreamers and futurists without the sticking power to see a project through to completion. Presently, I agree with you that it's a buzzword being tacked onto often worthless projects by marketers who will similarly lack the required sticking power. My thought as to how to resolve this was trying to select for projects that were actually adopted widely, were influential in the course of metaverse development, or who on the balance of probabilities are likely to become either of the former. This is why I qualified the reach of both Roblox and OpenXR. It wasn't intended as flavour, more qualifiers that in a sea of bullshit and jargon, these were projects that actually achieved something.

My problem with the existing criticism is twofold - firstly, I think they rely too heavily on a specific interpretation of what a metaverse is. Consider the following from the current article: "Since metaverse developments may be made to algorithmically tailor virtual worlds based on each person's beliefs...". This is a wildly speculative interpretation, I'm not even sure what this means. Secondly, I don't think I actually removed much in this department, I just tightened up the prose. There may well be room for improvement here though I acknowledge.

Perhaps there is room for compromise here. What do you feel are the most essential parts of the history of metaverse tech that are not mentioned? I'm inclined to suggest that a lot of the standards listed under "technologies" are not just dead, but didn't even achieve enough to be worth mentioning at all? On topics like Roblox, I think mention of recent criticism regarding its creator economy probably should be included given the ties that has to the roots of metaverses. BrigadierG (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot give this change the attention it deserves at the moment. At a glance these changes appear to be an improvement but that said, I do see some red flags.
One issue I do see here is that, while we all seem to agree that "metaverse" is now being used as a buzzword, it's not really up to us to make that decision. For buzzwords, being too vague isn't a bug, it's a feature. Naturally, sources will have a hard time pinning-down what "metaverse" means, so the article will also have to be frustratingly vague. The best we can do for readers is to find sources which explain this vagueness and summarize those sources. A lesser option is to summarize conflicting definitions as conflicting with as little editorializing as possible ("sources have variously described the metaverse as...").
We should not jump from sources that define the metaverse as "A" to sources about "A" that link it to "B", as that would be WP:SYNTH. If sources do not describe the metaverse as "B", then neither can we, even if sources indirectly support this. Ideally, every statement is backed-up by a reliable source, and every single source will directly discuss "the metaverse" in unambiguous terms. For example, if https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerfolk.133.529.0329 doesn't specifically discuss the "metaverse" than it probably should not be cited. (That is just an example, since it is behind a paywall, so I cannot verify it.)
Another, related issue is that opinion sources should not be used for subjective statements without clear attribution (for example "Joe Schmo, writing for the Lunchmeat Times in 2021, said the metaverse..."). This will also future-proof the article a little bit, since it's much clearer how relevant an opinion is if the article also mentions the time and place the opinion was expressed. This standard will also keep WP:FARTs (like Elon Musk's prolific personal opinions) in context, or at least make them more obvious to readers. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:FART pretty much summarises my feelings on the article as it is currently. Currently the closest things we have to recognisable experts on the subject are either A) Professional pot stirrers (Elon Musk), B) Primarily profit motivated and are trying to sell snake oil (Anyone talking about "virtual real estate"), C) Obscure ideologues trying to start yet another doomed metaverse technical standard, or D) Miscellaneous random tech journalists writing opinion pieces. None are particularly reliable, and the consequence is a long series of frighteningly irrelevant statements about what the metaverse could be used for without any consistent encyclopaedic thread linking them.

I'm going to go away to the drawing board in response to these well-founded criticisms of my work so far and hopefully write something that does a better job of summarising thought, and isn't toeing the line with WP:SYNTH. Thank you. BrigadierG (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that the "Technology" section needs a rewrite, or that the term and related technologies need to be elaborated better in some similar section. I don't think the "Implementations" or "Criticisms and concerns" sections deserve as much of a vigorous change, even if they have their faults. I did some lede editing in the meantime that might be an improvement. Mewnst (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the criticism section, WP:CRITS may be helpful background reading. To briefly summarize the issue with these sections, for various reasons it's almost always better to include these criticisms organically throughout the article. Among other reasons, NPOV is better maintained by providing these criticisms as context, instead of lumped together in a single section. Sometimes this isn't practical though. In this case it's still better to include a section than it would be to leave-out important content completely. (For WP:BLPs the standard is obviously much higher). Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Ready Player One

@Mewnst: Hello. I don't know why you keep removing the tag requesting sources for the Ready Player One section. Please add a citation for this section before removing the tag.

All content should be supported by reliable sources. For WP:IPC content, we need reliable, independent sources to directly explain why that content is encyclopedically significant. In this case, it may seem obvious, but this, at best, a reason to keep the content until a source is found. Sources are not optional. If a source explains why this franchise is encyclopedically significant, please summarize and cite that source. If, instead, this is merely an editor's summary of the franchise, it should be rewritten to directly explain the relevance to the topic, and it will still need a reliable source. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That was done when I removed the sentence preceding the tag that extraneously mentioned the sequel, and I now am aware that the tag was relevant to the entire paragraph. Sorry for the mistake, it should have stayed. Mewnst (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @BrigadierG: Hello. Regarding this edit: It's reasonable to treat "the OASIS" as an example of the metaverse, but this is still original research. We need to explain to readers why it is an example.
If we take this for granted, we open up the article to include every cyberpunk novel/movie/comic/video game published in the past thirty years that mentions VR and hacking, which is most of them. Instead, we really do need a reliable source to explain the connection to the metaverse for us. I don't think anyone doubts that these novels and the movie exist, nor is the specific date all that important. We still must uses reliable independent sources to explain to reader how it matters to the topic of this encyclopedia article. Again, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content explains this somewhat. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Time for edit protection?

There has been a simply ridiculous amount of blogspam, vandalism, self-promotion, and general COI editing being attempted on this article lately. I count no less than 16 attempts at WP:DISRUPTIVE editing in the last month, of which the majority is blogspam and self-promotion. Something tells me this is only going to get worse. BrigadierG (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Also maybe there should be an editnotice to clarify that all content must be have sources that directly address the connection between the topic and the term/concept of a 'metaverse'? Thanks Facebook -.- SWinxy (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Per https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Metaverse December saw 152 edits, which is down from 245 in November.
If spam or outright vandalism starts slipping through the cracks, request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
It looks like at least some of the edits made recently were made in good faith even if they were not helpful or if the sources were not usable. Make sure spam is malicious and not merely just an attempt to improve the article. If you notice that a website is being spammed repeatedly over time, or to multiple articles, please use the big red button at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. This is especially helpful if it's being done by multiple accounts, as reporting this kind of spam can identify paid editors, sock farms, and similar shenanigans.
For reference, WP:AIV is the place to report more generic vandalism. Unless it is extreme content (such as a serious WP:BLP violation) it's probably not worth reporting one-off vandalism.
Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong etymology

Can we have a section where we explain the etymogloy of the word. It is a copy of the word universe, uni for one, and verse for turning. The word metaverse is composed of meta and verse which mean to turn after, but it makes no sense, as the universe is already one. The question is, after what, and turning what? When you say universe and you say turning one it means: this is the only one we are turning, the only thing we have. Metaverse is a redundant word that makes no sense, it sounds fancy. Hopefully someone can ome with a better explanation than mine. TudorTulok (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The etymology of the word is, objectively, whatever Neal Stephenson says it is. It doesn't have to be coherent as with language that evolves, Metaverse is strictly constructed. BrigadierG (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed Decentraland from page for a few reasons

I previously relocated the mention of Decentraland from a pointless timeline section to something somewhat more relevant, but I decided to check via the Who Wrote That? tool where the original mention came from on an older version of the article. I found that this IP address from Buenos Aires, Argentina made the first mention of Decentraland in the article. Decentraland's entire developer team is in Buenos Aires, Argentina. This is one reason why I removed it. The other reason is that the "reference" that was tacked onto it was simply a direct link to the project website. There are also several more notable metaverse projects that would warrant inclusion before Decentraland (IMVU or Webkinz or even EVE Online, for example), but none of those are included because there's no reason to have coat racks or lists. And, even though Decentraland is mentioned quite a bit in crypto-y circles, it has an active player count that's lower than a flash game after 2020. Proof of concepts shouldn't be given more weight than established metaverse works that have been in use for over a decade and continue to be used by several thousands more people. Mewnst (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow Mewnst, excellent catch. "Virtual land" just *oozes* scam. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Given the frequency of self-plugs here, perhaps we need to clearly establish what it means to be a notable project. For instance, I'm somewhat inclined to pull the reference to South Korea's "metaverse alliance" for being a WP:FART. How do we assess this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.251.37.248 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This can likely be limited by prioritizing works that have been released to wide use that have a more organic interest instead of a smattering of coverage from PR-fueled crypto/tech outlets. It's a strange thing, there are plenty of old interactive chat rooms that have a very strong claim for being metaverses, but no sane media outlet is going to write about Club Penguin or Habbo. Those projects are way past their prime, and were only relevant when "metaverse" wasn't a buzzword that would be used to describe them. The history of how the concept has been manifested is due for a revisit; but until then, we might as well cut everything out except Second Life. As-is, Second Life still competently encapsulates the subject. It perfectly fits the description. It's a well-known example with lots of press. It's also very shitty and only depressed, internet-addicted nerds turn to it as a last resort for socialization. Every other future metaverse will be exactly like it, only with better graphics and more dizzying virtual reality and more internet addiction and increasingly complicated virtual economy scams from antisocial teenagers. Mewnst (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Compassion is a skill worth cultivating. Consider that not everybody has the same options you do:
  • Stewart, Stephanie; Hansen, Terri S.; Carey, Timothy A. (November 2010). "Opportunities for People with Disabilities in the Virtual World of Second Life". Rehabilitation Nursing. 35 (6): 254–259. doi:10.1002/j.2048-7940.2010.tb00056.x.
  • French, Kristen (February 2017). "First They Got Sick, Then They Moved Into a Virtual Utopia | Backchannel". Wired. Retrieved 22 January 2022.
I'm not defending Second Life. For most, it was filled with hype and nothing else, but for some people it was, and apparently still is, valuable and basically irreplaceable. Really, you shouldn't be making this personal, especially not here. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and yeah, removing Decentraland was a good call. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Fourth paragraph, first line, "discribed" should be "described." Actually, that whole paragraph could use some cleaning up. SkyhillZero (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done did some minor copyediting to that paragraph. —GMX(ping!) 22:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Multiplayer Gaming vs. Metaverse

To the uninitiated, as I presume literally everyone to ever speak on this subject must be, the metaverse has existed for decades in the form of multiplayer video gaming. From Doom multiplayer to GTA V Online, people have gathered together by the millions to complain about just how tragically awful this experience actually is. That people honestly believe what is being sold will be an on the ground reality, is nonsense. That you will be able to attend a top music concert for example, and gather a similar experience to the real thing? You are being sold a Musk-esque collection of lies (Remember people on Mars by 2022? Yeah.. that's next month right?) Multi User anything that returns live feedback is a continuing nightmare to this very minute, and your enthusiasm for such only parallels the level of lying required to do one thing... dominate your attention now. (I have been running online multiplayer games for twenty years, across two dozen different systems. Peaking at over 70k uniques per month.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.175.141 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the subject itself. I make that mistake sometimes, but the general chat and personal relevance is still off-topic. Mewnst (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

3D virtual worlds and the metaverse: Current status and future possibilities

To who ever feels they have some time for some editing. Please check the mega publication 3D virtual worlds and the metaverse: Current status and future possibilities.<ref name="dionisio2013-metaverse">{{cite journal | last = Dionisio | first = John David n. | last2 = Burns III | first2 = William G. | last3 = Gilbert | first3 = Richard | title = 3D Virtual Worlds and the Metaverse: Current Status and Future Possibilities | journal = ACM Computing Surveys | volume = 45 | issue = 3 | pages = 34:1 - 34:38 | publisher = ACM | date = 2013 | doi = 10.1145/2480741.2480751}}</ref> An author copy is available from http://www.proseproject.info/pdfs/Virtual%20Worlds%20and%20the%20Metaverse%20-%20in%20Press.pdf --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to include this under a new section with heading Metaverse and society A couple in Tamil Nadu hosted their meta verse wedding to enable their loved ones celebrate together with them during the pandemic. [1] Amitized (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/southcinema/tamil-nadu-couple-successfully-hosts-first-metaverse-wedding-reception-watch/ar-AATESi5?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

Metaverse =/= online games and social media platforms

To be honest, I wanted to challenge the perception of metaverse as computer games and community platforms such as Second Life. If one were to come up with such a definition then the metaverse would also be any MMO, or platform like Steam, Epic Games or Facebook. All of these networks are a kind of hub, which makes it possible to connect to various virtual 3D worlds (understood, as it seems, by the authors as any application based on 3D graphics). I think only the second sentence proposed currently is true, that when we talk about metaverse we are talking about a future iteration of the Internet where instead of websites and browsers we would be using XR technology. 84.205.172.58 (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Many sources expand how a metaverse is defined. The word has many uses, and the page reflects that. Recently, "metaverse" has been expanded to describe any old virtual world that introduces a broad range of social media-like experiences, so that includes many social video games. It has even been tied to child labour simulators like Roblox, so its confusing nature is inevitable. Mewnst (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsupported use of 4D in introductory definition

"A metaverse is a network of 4D virtual worlds focused on social connection"

None of the referenced material for this sentence include a definition of "4D."

Most of the material specifically gives voice for differing definitions ranging from internetworked persistent 3D worlds (Ball), to online spaces with a connection to the real world (Koster).

"4D" is neither well defined nor appropriate for inclusion in the primary introductory definition for Metaverse; whereas interconnected virtual spaces with a focus on social connection and maintaining digital self *are*.

I think the subsequent sentences defining hypothetical technology handle the VR/Full Dive hopes adequately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottenio (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cottenio: Hello. The change from 3D to 4D appears to have been either vandalism or test edits or similar. It was made several hours ago by an anonymous editor at the same time as similar nonsensical fudging of numbers. I have reverted to a previous version. Generally when you see something like this, especially in the lead, it's a good idea to check the article's history to see if any recent activity explains it.
More specifically, as I'm sure you're aware, the term "metaverse" is infamously hard to pin-down and prone to misuse as a buzzword. More reliable sources (especially independent ones) are always welcome. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Grayfell Thanks for the heads up! Glad it was just vandalism; I'll check history next time.
Following up on your comment about additional sources, here's an excellent deep-dive on Metaverse planning from 2006.
You'll note in the glossary section that they spend a lot of time exploring possible definitions for the Metaverse and that "3D" is an optional label. I think there's a strong case to be made that the Metaverse can be defined without 3D as a core attribute in the leading definition. Another example of this thinking is by Raph Koster, a strong proponent of 2D virtual worlds in the Metaverse. Cottenio (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sword Art Online as one of the fictions

Sword Art Online is one of the important fictions about the metaverse in my opinion. Sword Art Online should be included in this wiki page at the fictional section since they feature "SAO," "AAO," and "GGO." They are all metaverse virtual worlds, and the storyline mostly happens inside the virtual world. Furthermore, SAO is really popular. According to MyAnimeList.org, they are currently ranked as the 5th popular anime in the world. MAL Rewrite. “Sword Art Online.” MyAnimeList.Net, myanimelist.net/anime/11757/Sword_Art_Online. Accessed 4 Apr. 2022. Anonymous Unknown Userr (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty examples of metaverses in media. Snow Crash itself is arguably derivative in many ways. I am familiar with SAO, but it fits somewhere in the crowded field of metaverse media alongside Tron, Cyberchase, and The Matrix. It's not quite due to mention all of them, just like it's not due to list off every video game that claims to be a metaverse and has social functions. This is an article on metaverses, not a coat rack for everything related to the subject. Mewnst (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Game references

I think Project Entropia and There are good video game callouts as early metaverse projects. Both were very ahead of their time. 24.243.48.89 (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I've heard of Entropia Universe from the People Make Games piece in 2020. The bar for inclusion/mention in this article is having a source connect it to the 'metaverse'. Do you know of any reliable source that makes an explicit connection between the two? SWinxy (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ready Player One

I reverted the removal of Ready Player One because it is mentioned a lot in secondary sources.

https://time.com/6116826/what-is-the-metaverse/ https://www.theverge.com/22588022/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-ceo-metaverse-interview https://www.theverge.com/22701104/metaverse-explained-fortnite-roblox-facebook-horizon

Almost every article that mentions the origins of the Metaverse cite Snowcrash and Ready Player One reliably, and none others consistently that I can see. For this reason I think it is important enough to be mentioned, even though this article definitely shouldn't be a coatrack and I agree with the removal of South Park.

BrigadierG (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Metaverse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UnidentifiedX (talk · contribs) 15:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


Hello! The GA assessment will now begin, please allow 3-5 days for the review to be finalised.


  1. Comprehension:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  2. Verifiability:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has left no comments here Fail Fail
  3. Comprehensiveness:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  4. Neutrality:
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Fail Fail
  5. Stability:
    6. Notes Result
    Keeping an eye on the article due to the semi-protection lock Pass Pass
  6. Illustration:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Comments

Hello! Unfortunately this article has been flagged for copyright infringement by Earwig. You have failed to cite this source or attempt to reword the sections. Under the WP:GAFAIL, this article has subsequently failed section 2. If you have reworded these mistakes, please submit another GA request for a reassessment. Further information can be found here: Report

Resubmitting with note that the source is actually plagiarised from this Wikipedia page and not the other way around. I personally wrote the majority of the content that has been often word-for-word lifted from here, I'm sure some cursory archive.org digging will affirm this. BrigadierG (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
So uh, this is rather problematic. The Wayback Machine has actually not archived the page this article allegedly ~85% plagiarises, impossible to see edit history. I'll instead defer to several reasons that make it very likely that my claim about non-plagiarism is credible:
  1. It's not a mystery who wrote it. Feel free to do a wikiblame, the contributions that have been allegedly plagiarised are spread across several users, including myself, @Mewnst @Grayfell and others. It'd be strange if we all plagiarised the same article.
  2. Quality of "plagiarised" source is really very poor and includes numerous spelling errors ("Despite what Zuckerbegr says")
  3. Said site would not qualify as a reputable source on wikipedia, they are tiny - not even indexed by the Wayback Machine
BrigadierG (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Search-engine-optimized spam sites ripping content from Wikipedia is nothing new. I concur with your analysis of the claimed plagiarism.
Regarding the GA evaluation, I don't think this page warrants a GA status. The high visibility of the metaverse is still a new phenomenon, and many good sources that productively analyze the topic have yet to be made or have not surfaced above the advertising deluge and think pieces. The existing literature on metaverses is typically poor quality, even when from reliable sources, and only so much can be done to balance it all out. Much of the well-sourced material of this page is in the "Criticism" section, and it's not balanced out well by substantive descriptions of the subject matter because most of those, as of today, are churned out by public relations hacks. That said, it's been a few months since I've dug in to this, I'll check out some newer media. Mewnst (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that "cryptolife.report" produces any original content. The articles I looked at are paraphrased from other articles on the web (typically unreliable crypto outlets such as Coindesk). For individual news articles, this is often with credit as a "source", however the Metaverse overview this article is supposedly plagiarizing is not formatted in the same way and doesn't provide any author or source info. Due to the sites behavior, as well as the lack of attribution to the overview, it is clear to me that this Wikipedia article is the main source for the 'cryptolife.report' article, and not the other way around. As Mewnst mentions, this type of churnalism is too common. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. The plagiarism has been ruled out, but the ‘neutrality’ section is still an issue. UnidentifiedX (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible to be clearer about which way you feel the article is exhibiting poor neutrality? We've tried to make sure that this article adheres to WP:DUE with regards to how much attention each major metaverse project is given respectively, and to balance the competing definitions regarding "a metaverse" vs "the metaverse". I'm not looking to litigate the GA review per se, just try to understand the main ways you think the article could become more neutral. I think this is a different criticism to Mewnst as an NPOV problem rather than verifiability. BrigadierG (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

Reference to singular virtual worlds as "Metaverses" (plural) changed to "Metaverse destinations". In relation to the IEEE Virtual Worlds Standard group definition (simplified), "the Metaverse is the ecosystem by which all virtual worlds and adjacent supporting technologies exist to create a spatial computing platform." As per original coinage in Snow Crash, such was pre-internet view and assumed a monolithic world that would be the singular destination. In light of actual historical narrative, we find that the Metaverse will and is currently, following the Internet WWW trajectory model instead. Therefore the linguistics for this should reflect these truths in that virtual worlds exist within the greater Metaverse ecosystem and they are destinations.

The reasoning for this request is to ensure that the language used for referring to the Metaverse does not convey a winner take all mentality, or encourage it, but instead an interoperable ecosystem of collaboration versus proprietary siloed experiences. As such, the language used to describe the Metaverse should reflect this narrative shift as self-evident fact. Virtual worlds are therefore "Destinations within the Metaverse", and not Metaverses themselves. Such would therefore include augmented reality, virtual reality and adjacent technologies which enable the ecosystem of spatial computing ecosystem which may include but not limited to artificial intelligence, IoT, and so on.

Reasoning: You wouldn't call every website an Internet (many Internets). The Internet is the ecosystem by which all the content exists interoperable, and websites are destinations. Therefore, it stands to reason that the Metaverse as spatial computing evolution of the Internet is also the ecosystem and content are destinations within it.

Source: Author William Gerard Burns III, IEEE Virtual Worlds Standard Group, ACM https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2480741.2480751, Tony Parisi et al) Aeonix Aeon (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Because of the unfortunate circumstances of language changing all the time, "metaverse" has been turned into a great many things by a great number of powerful forces. There can't be a single definition without being egregiously misrepresentative of the subject matter. Much literature exists around the creation of a hypothetical "winner-take-all" centralized metaverse (or, "The Metaverse"). There's also a bunch of far more colloquial uses that define metaverses as "anything like Second Life," a definition that you seem to also be challenging. You're not the first; there are good points in challenging that use case and keeping metaverses as a strictly hypothetical topic for now, but so much literature makes that definition a valid inclusion. On top of that, there are even more pointless, abusive, public-relations-fueled uses of the term that describe metaverses as "Web3CryptoVaguelyInnovativeBigThing."
Novel definitions of a metaverse should not be included until there is significant literature that uses that novel definition. Otherwise, this article would be plagued with the abusive marketing camp vying to get their free advertising on a high traffic Wiki page. Mewnst (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
"'Metaverse' has been turned into a great many things by a great number of powerful forces." (above) That's a good appreciation of the situation. It might be worth using in the heading on the article page. The technical definition is, roughly, a 3D virtual world to which a large number of simultaneous users can make persistent changes. The marketing definition is, roughly, "some kind of next big thing after smartphones". The cryptocurrency community definition is, roughly, "some kind of distributed ownership system that involves a blockchain". Did I miss any others? I don't see any way to reconcile those other than to list and cite each one separately. John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Standards section

Hi, I removed the most recent edit that re-added a standards section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metaverse&oldid=1058712530

Past versions of this article also included a standards section. The problem is that over two decades, a lot of people have said a lot of things that never materialised. We could list the dozens of times someone announced something and nothing came of it, but for now I think the goal should be if they actually publish a standard which is notable enough to get its own Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that decision, though should a singular ref be added to There have been several virtual environment standardization projects.? SWinxy (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps. Given that the Khronos Group have been one of the few to actually publish a standard for AR/VR that has been at least slightly influential, it's probably one of the more notable examples. Certainly more so than some of the existing refs that went nowhere.
A secondary source covering the history of attempts to standardise, but I'm not sure that's been done. BrigadierG (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

According to Staticker, investments in the metaverse industry, in 2021, is expected to be around $50 billion. Atulb91 (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Added total investment in metaverse in 2021. Atulb91 (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Metaverse is a useless term coined by corporations

"Metaverses" are just MMOs to most, and the term is not as commonly used as you might think. I'd suggest the entry be moved to just a mention on the MMO article. 78.148.59.213 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think this is the case, I suggest raising a deletion proposal on Articles for Deletion BrigadierG (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Literature

  • Matthew Ball: The Metaverse, And How It Will Revolutionize Everything, Juli 2022, ISBN-10: ‎1324092033[1] 2A02:2455:460:DA00:C4F3:F4CC:9723:6A41 (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    Matthew Ball is recognised as a metaverse expert by matthew ball and not a single RS I've ever seen BrigadierG (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/charliefink/2022/07/06/book-review-the-metaverse-and-how-it-will-revolutionize-everything-by-matthew-ball/

Massive Problems: Usage of the Term, Misclassified, Unnotable examples, Dated

As someone who has been writing about metaverse topics for over a year, I can only cringe each time I end up at this Wikipedia article. (Even worse when Google highlights the opening sentence in its search results.) Let me start with what this article gets right: the science fiction roots of the term. Seems good enough. Now let's get into what is wrong with the article:

USAGE: The article focuses on "The Metaverse". A singular all-encompassing entity. That's the science fiction perspective. The real-world perspective is of "a metaverse". Second Life is a metaverse. VRChat is a metaverse. JanusVR is a metaverse. People don't build the metaverse, they build a metaverse, because there is competition in the real-world.

MISCLASSIFICATION: The article is classified under science fiction. Perhaps that is only true if we're talking about "The Metaverse". But that isn't the title of this article. The title is metaverse, which also includes "a metaverse" or even "metaverses". These are real things which exist and people are continuing to build. The real-world aspect of this article is overtaking the significance of the science-fiction meaning.

UNNOTABLE EXAMPLES: Now that we're actually calling things "a metaverse", the idea of a timeline virtual environments inspired by The Metaverse is rather unnotable. I question the value of dedicating so much of an article to this timeline.

DATED: The entire article is out of date. The majority of the references are before 2010. I'm not sure I or anyone else care about all the failed attempts to create technical standards, except those involved in the attempts. "Many of these working groups are still in the process of publishing drafts and determining open standards for interoperability" is flat-out wrong. The lead sentence is from the Metaverse Roadmap, which as best as I can determine, which is completely dead. On the topic of usage, I mentioned VRChat and JanusVR. They and other modern-day examples (High Fidelity is another) are missing.

At this point, I think we should be bold and go for an almost complete rewrite. The problem seems to be in anchoring them on solid references. (My own personal hesitation is in knowing that I'll be attacked by a rabid band of wikilawyers.) Thoughts? Jmccorm (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@PBZE: Here's a comment from seven years ago that, among other things, discusses the issue with using "the metaverse" and favors the language "a metaverse." I agree with them, and have edited the article with this user's input in mind. Please follow the BRD cycle and consult this here talk page before continuing to assert language to use the term "the metaverse." Mewnst (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mewnst: I do not agree. The "metaverse", as it is most commonly meant, does not exist in the real world. The majority of sources discuss "the metaverse" as a hypothetical future, not something existing in the present. This is reflected in phrases like "the first attempt at a metaverse", "Facebook is trying to build the metaverse", "the metaverse would", and others. The form "a metaverse" is rarely used. The metaverse, similar to Web3, is widely viewed as an idea for the future (science fiction), not something that exists now, despite both the metaverse and Web3 having smaller-scale versions in the present.
The "real-world perspective" is not the primary perspective and should not be emphasized, as the science fiction meaning is still the most notable. The "metaverse" concept has received the most publicity because of Facebook rebranding themselves as "building the metaverse"; sources discuss the "metaverse" as the science fiction concept Facebook says it is working to build, not virtual reality platforms as they currently are. People who believe in the metaverse envision it as a widely encompassing system similar to the Internet, and various criticisms of the metaverse, including monopolistic control, and that it could be even worse for privacy than existing social media, rest on this definition as well.
Additionally, the "metaverse" is criticized because of its infeasibility, or unlikeliness to actually become a real thing. This is part of why Facebook's rebranding is viewed as an unsubstantiated publicity stunt. Changing the term "metaverse" to mean something that actually exists in the real world is unsupported by sources, and falsely implies that a "metaverse" is widely viewed as a real thing and not bullshit, therefore violating WP:NPOV.
As an example, this NYT article is used as a source in this Wikipedia article. It uses the term "metaverse" in the science fiction and utopian ideal sense, and uses the form "the metaverse", defining it as "a digital second life to the general public, allowing people to have immersive social experiences in digital worlds" while saying "The metaverse doesn’t yet exist". It criticizes the concept's feasibility, in part, due to an existing lack of infrastructure and openness that would be required for the metaverse to exist without being monopolistic—a criticism that would not make sense if the definition of "metaverse" is looser than it really is. PBZE (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm somewhat persuaded that "the metaverse" is the right term, but @PBZE I'd be careful about singular definitions when trying to define a term like this. Truth be told, a lot of different people have described "metaverse" as a lot of different things and a lot of different contexts. We could obviously play ping pong with sources where you send one that talks about the hypothetical metaverse and I send you one where Roblox is described as "a metaverse", but there's a shortage of experts here. Most of the sources here are just the opinions of a random technology journalists at best, and at worst a paraphrasing of some corporate PR man with a hype agenda. One of the biggest limiters on this article's quality is the shortage of experts in the space.
For curiosity, I put "the metaverse", "a metaverse", and "metaverses" into google's ngram viewer and the results were unsurprising - "the metaverse" is the most popular term, but only by about 30%. I think for that reason we should shift the ordering of the two definitions that are currently in the article, but not erase references to "a metaverse". Whatever we do, this article needs to reflect that the term is nebulous and is used in a lot of different ways by a lot of different people. I'm gonna have a stab at incorporating @PBZE's work into the lead and then we can work from there. BrigadierG (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair. In simply checking the titles of a lot of cited works in this article, it's very common to see the use of "the metaverse" along with "the Metaverse" and "[Company]'s metaverse" and just plain "metaverse" without "a" or "the." I shouldn't have fought a return to the more common language, as keeping clear about the many uses of "metaverse" without falling into promoting the term's abusers on a highly visible page are the chief concerns. Mewnst (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
It's a problem. The amount of hype in 2021-2022 around the term "metaverse" is substantial. There are a large number of people and organizations who want to get in on the next big thing, but haven't actually implemented much. I'd suggest primarily discussing systems into which one can actually log, with some comment on the hype. John Nagle (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely true, this article is so old and outdated that it only serves to further the misuse of the word and continuing confusion about what it actually means.

From what I've noticed it's become generally subjective as to what it means which is really bad.

I see a Metaverse as a huge tightly interconnected place with hundreds of players visible at the same time over vast distances.

Tightly interconnected being that no matter what platform, VR brand you use and game you use you should be able to get to it.

I could help you rewrite it while talking in Discord although I lack experience in Wikipedia. MasterLands (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I went WP:BOLD and submitted a major revision to address these problems BrigadierG (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Created Talk Archive Page

Given that this Talk page is rather busy and active, I followed the H:ARC process to create a Talk archive page with much older conversations. I copied over conversations from 2018 and earlier that did not have recent replies. I left all the older conversations that had replies from 2021 or 2022. The new archive page can be found at Talk:Metaverse/Archive 1. It is also searchable in the "Archive" search box in the Talk header. - Dyork (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

New RS available from US Congressional Research Service

For BrigadierG and others actively editing this article, the US Congressional Research Service recently published a new report, The Metaverse: Concepts and Issues for Congress, that may be useful as a RS. It contains an analysis of the current state of the terminology, technologies, major companies, and potential policy issues. It also has many footnotes linking out to other sources. Anyway, just passing it along in case it is helpful, as I unfortunately do not have time right now to help with updating this article myself. - Dyork (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

oooooooo let's put that in a 'Further reading' section SWinxy (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a wonderful source. It does so many things we've been looking for an RS for for a long time, such as succinctly nailing down the likely characteristics of Metaverses in bullet-point form much more strictly than Random Tech Journalist #335. I'll take a look and see what can be added. Thank you for this. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The yardstick for inclusion of software and standards

I want to try and drive some kind of consensus regarding the minimum standard for mentioning a certain technology or standard in this article. Back when I rewrote this article a while back, it was littered with dead standardisation projects and technologies that had pootled out of existence without achieving anything. I can see the slow creep of indiscriminate lists of 3D file formats back into this article and want to nip it in the bud early. Here's a few ideas for the inclusion yardstick.

Firstly, on notability:

1. The technology/standard must pass WP:GNG

2. The technology/standard or its creator must pass WP:GNG

3. The technology/standard must have achieved significant adoption


And secondly on Metaverse connection:

1. A WP:RS linking the technology/standard to the metaverse

2. A WP:PRIMARY or WP:RS linking the technology/standard to the metaverse

3. A WP:RS linking the technology/standard to key components of the metaverse (eg. 3d, or interoperability)

Would appreciate comments on which of these is most appropriate. BrigadierG (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Very much like this. I would say that the notability should be based on if the thing has an article, which is a proxy of GNG. 'Significant adoption' is nebulous and I wouldn't be opposed if it were up to editors to determine that. For the connection, absolutely an RS to explicitly link the software/standard to the metaverse with metaverse-like components. SWinxy (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Since it seems like we're the only two editors active on this article for now, I guess the WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is up to us. Personally, my vote is for 3 and 2 respectively. What are your thoughts? BrigadierG (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ruizhouruizhou (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ruizhouruizhou (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2022

In the section "Snow Crash, 1992", the word gargoyle should point to "gargoyle (monster)" rather than "gargoyle" (an architectural element) 93.72.49.123 (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 07:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

In the subsection "Feasibility" under top-level section "Criticism and concerns", add quotation marks to the following exerpt (change implemented below):

"for the past year, Mark Zuckerberg has struggled to find the best way to achieve the metaverse. Unfortunately, he failed." [70]

The current version of the page does not have them, and they should be added for both readability's sake and consistency with the prior two quotations. 94.174.167.37 (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metaverse/Archive_1&oldid=1210749858"