Talk:Second Life/Archive 9

"Motional"
"Motional" isn't a word, and if it's part of the nomenclature of SL, then it should be defined as such in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davjosmes (talk • contribs)
 * http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=motional
 * (adj) motional (of or relating to or characterized by motion)
 * Signpostmarv 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naznomad 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First I've seen 2L. SL is used widely as an abbreviation.  See slurl.com and nwn blog for high-profile examples.  &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

Aspengrey 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I agree with the above- however, in this case, LL has in fact published metrics on their websites that makes it very easy to verify this... just as soon as I get a change. (Better yet, you could go grab them.) Aspengrey 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the expression "primary research". If you mean research that draws on primary sources, then yes, Wikipedia editors can indeed use primary sources in some circumstances. Nonetheless, the sources should be cited. There is nothing "second-rate" about that practice. However, if you mean that you want to use Wikipedia to conduct your own original research program, then that flies in the face of our policies. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original academic research. It is an attempt to draw together knowledge already available elswhere into one giant repository with appropriate acknowledgment of the sources that it draws upon. No more, no less. Metamagician3000 05:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Primary research (in a Wikipedia context) should mean research that you do yourself and provide an explanation of your evidence and how you came to the conclusion. Can you point me, Metamagician, to the stated policy that Wikipedia is only a repository for what is available elsewhere [citation required!]? The point here is not about doctoral graduates publishing their theses online, but about those items that can patently be derived by primary research that any reader of the Wiki can verify for themselves. Then they can alter the numbers if they are wrong (as I noted that the minimum number online is too high). This is simlar to the complaints of artistic academics that the criteria for research production in universities tends to overlook the fact that their research might be an original play or sculpture. My second rate comment stands, if the patently obvious has to be cited (as opposed to proved) then Wikipedia comes across as peurile and undeserving of respect. MnJWalker 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


 * The article does see, to have gone downhill somewhat. For example, the following is not acceptable, and I deleted it:


 * Early 2007 brought significant criticism of Linden Lab for hosting alleged pedophiliac concepts and groups commonly referred to as "AgePlay". Along with this came criticism of potential legalities in regard to online casinos and "RL" (real life) wealth lost by people at those casinos.  The FBI has investigated such activities, Linden Lab maintaining a defense of "L$ aren't real money".  Critics present the fact that L$ can be purchased on the Second Life website and in concept are very much like gambling "chips", with customers exhibiting very "real life" gambling addictions.  Factual reports exist of customers purchasing large amounts of L$ specifically so they can gamble at Second Life Casinos, and losing significant RL funds as a result.  Casino game designers have been known to design their machines to place the odds significantly in favor of the house, the customer having no way in which to discern such fraudulent activities.  In "real life" such systems are strongly regulated by the state, with significant fines and even criminal action against those who build machines to cheat the customer.  There are no such regulatory agencies on Second Life, Linden Lab taking their consistent stance of "let the customer beware".


 * This is all original research. If there has been a lot of criticism, we need to cite a reliable source that says so. It's not acceptable to go making unsubstantiated claims, or even to poke around in primary sources from which we try to draw contestable inferences about whether certain levels of criticism are or are not "significant", etc. That is running our own research program, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Metamagician3000 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I just deleted a whole lot more original research/POV material. We are not here to conduct our own research program, draw our own inferences about the extent of criticism, or conduct our own critique of Second Life. We are just here to report the facts contained in reliable sources and without cherry-picking them to synthesise an original picture of our own. Metamagician3000 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


 * That sounds like a subjective judgement then. You'd be well within your rights to delete it and leave only the objective dollar amount. Jeff Alexander 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I say adjust it to suit your statement, it seems to have more impact (yeah, probably subjective) if you compare it to 'real' money. Soylent.Hero 10:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

"Linden's Second Life numbers and the press's desire to believe Email This Entry" http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/12/26/lindens_second_life_numbers_and_the_presss_desire_to_believe.php http://news.com.com/Counting+the+real+Second+Life+population/2100-1043_3-6146943.html
 * Well, how do you want to measure it? They count the number of accounts, the number of accounts used in the last 2 months, and the amount of logged in people on the front page. Other than that, what counts as a SL resident? Do you have to login every day? What if you log in a few times a week? What if you're taking a break from SL during the exams period (which includes many people). I spent nearly a month not logging in at all, then started logging in every day again. Was I a resident during that break? IMO, the only right thing to say here is facts: X accounts total, Y accounts active during a given period, Z are logged in right now. Other than that, the actual amount of people that could be classified as "active users" can't be determined, because "active user" is hard to define precisely. Dale Glass 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they can do much better. LL does hold the number of active residents which they define as residents who logged in for more than a certain number of hours in the last month, yet they do NOT publish these. We know they hold this information because they publish other information based on that, such as Active Residents by Country. My opinion is that figure would be in the region of 750,000 or less but no way to be sure. That sort of figures are substantially lower than the number of registered accounts, which I guess is why they're holding that back for now. At the moment, they give information on users logged in last 7 days, which is pretty useless as it includes those who register, log in once and never come back. Plus, as Dale said, a user might not have logged in the last seven days but still count as active as long as they clock more than 1 hour (or something like that) in a month. --Javit 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussions about which figures LL could release are perhaps vaguely interesting, but honestly better suited to the SL forums than this page. Without any verifiable information, all we can do is report the LL figures. Cheers --Pak21 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that obsessing on this is pretty much pointless. There's no denying that SL is used by many people. Whether the actual active user base is 7 million or 750K doesn't matter that much. It's definitely far from deserted, and you can easily log in and see that a good part of the people using it have been around for months or years. Dale Glass 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * no, i think it is very important, the whole relevance of second life is based on how actually useful it is to a lot of people. if you claim your users is more than 10 times your active something is seriously wrong. let alone when those numbers pale when compared to other games like world of warcraft or even starcraft where nightly you can log in and check how many people are actually on.  the entire supposed popularity is what pushes technology ignorant companies to jump at investing in this second life.  as for defining what is an active user, its really not that hard, you just have to set a certain period of consistent usage activity. say half a year.  while you would miss people that only log in 10 minutes once a year its safe to say your numbers would give a general idea of useful population.  another relevant figure would be how many users that started the service long ago are still active or simply have abandoned their accounts.  frankly i don't believe its the only purpose of wikipedia to parrot company claims.  lindin lab has a vested interest in fluffing their numbers to get companies with technologically retarded leadership to invest out of a fear of missing the next big thing.

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

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

sexual activity
No mention of the real-world investigation into 'virtual sex crimes'? http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/REPOSITORY/706030389/1013/NEWS03 64.126.24.11 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bah, sensationalism. You can't "rape" anybody in SL. First, because rape is a physical crime and SL at best can provide a simulation that's absolutely nothing like the real thing. Second, because nobody can really force you into it anyway, you must approve the offer to animate your avatar, can stop any animations in progress, teleport away or logout at any time. Nobody can really force you into it, although they can trick you. In any case, arguing that rape is possible in SL is on the same level as saying you're committing actual murder in a FPS. SL also has plenty tools to deal with that sort of thing from inside, so no, no real-world intervention is needed. Dale Glass 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect.
 * animation scripts, llSitTarget, and an invisible prim overlaid over someone else's furniture can be used to position an unsuspecting avatar into a sexual situation against their will. They can of course escape just by standing up, teleporting away or logging off; whereas rape is generally typified by violence and control over another against their will rather than the sex itself, it is a hell of a lot easier to escape such situations in Second Life.
 * So yes, it's sensationalism and fear mongering for the most part, but forcing peeps to do things against their will is possible- if only for a couple of seconds.
 * Signpostmarv 12:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, quite correct, I just didn't go into details. That's what I meant by that they can trick you into it. Dale Glass 17:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably "sexual harassment," if anything. Noting that it's not a cool thing to do, and it's probably imoral by most normal standards... but, at any rate, I don't think it can/should be considered "rape" Soylent.Hero 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * You'd be perfectly justified in removing those from the article then. Jeff Alexander 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Second Life/Archive 1 for my thoughts on the matter.
 * Signpostmarv 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it might behoove us to take another look at Entropia for this "competitor" section. Perhaps it isn't notable enough yet, but it's recognition in reliable sources is growing, and it is not just an MMORPG.  Specifically, the studio producing it is adamant that it is "not a game," including this in the EULA. Further, it has such things as user-owned "property" in-world, and a currency which can be directly exchanged for USD.  Please take a look at what Wikipedia has to say in the article, and in some of the sources within, and see if you agree that Entropia might be worth a mention as a newer competitor with Second Life.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  10:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * See Talk:Second Life/Archive 1
 * Back when I wrote the list, Entropia Universe met the requirements.
 * Signpostmarv 13:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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


 * There's a difference between "it works" and Linden Lab saying "we will give a rough guarantee that our software will run on that platform".
 * Signpostmarv 10:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is now officially supported. Frodo Halfpint (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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