Talk:Second Life

Article reliability. Keep/clean up/delete?

I think this article needs a full clean up or else be deleted. Does anyone want to vouch for it being kept? An example of something probably not acceptable on Citizendium is the section on Parody which references a blog comment purporting to be from Linden Labs giving permission for the parody website to continue. However, there is no reason to accept this was a genuine post from Linden Labs as it could have been posted by anyone. I don't really see this section as encyclopaedic or very useful anyway so I have removed it. There may be others. --Mark Jones 21:51, 28 October 2007 (CDT)

I agree that it needs to be cleaned up. I honestly thought others would work on the article, but it hasn't happened in some months. I'm now trying to get it up-to-date and more "encyclopedic." Ross A. Perkins 14:13, 29 October 2007 (EST)

(Sorry I moved your comment to keep with the current Citizendium convention of "bottom-posting"). Thanks for doing the clean up. I started to do it but then after finding that suspect reference and realising the amount of work it would take to go through them all properly I realised I didn't have the heart for it. Citizendium is about to make a major announcement of its presence to the world so I thought it would be better to have a good, reliable article up here or none at all.

A lot of the Wikipedia article may have been quite useful after being checked. The recent version at Wikipedia has been updated somewhat since May—perhaps a useful approach to writing a new article would be to follow through some of the references there and write a totally new article from the best ones.

Just on a minor formatting note, it is probably better to put incomplete sections or notes to contributors in between comments <!-- like this --> so that contributors can see them when they edit but ordinary readers can't. It just looks better that way. Good luck with the new article, Ross! --Mark Jones 06:30, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Apropos of nothing, does anyone of an MMPORG that uses the actual world map, or a significant part of it, as the playground? --Larry Sanger 09:27, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

I would think that copying material generated from a corporate entity for use as your own private playround would enter the realm of infringement, especially since you have to pay to use SL to it's fullest capability (and you can make money in its virtual economy for that matter too). --Robert W King 10:15, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Metadata/Classification

I have placed this under Games Workgroup and Video Games Subgroup, whilst leaving it under Computers and Education also. I realise that whether or not to call this a game is heavily debated, so if people disagree this may need changing. --Chris Key 21:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an acceptable additional classification as there are plenty of games to be played within Second Life (though not very good ones, as I recall), though I acknowledge that gaming is not its primary purpose. I think some who argue against this classification are being a little over precious about it all.

I suppose it is more than just a game, but it depends a great deal on how each person approaches and uses it. To some, it's an escape into a fantasy world, to other it's just a 3D chat room, to some it's another marketing tool for their business, to some it's an outlet for their design and creative skills. For many, it's just a lot of hot air and hype ;-). Mark Jones 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A possible source of figures and text

... can be found here. Related: A seminar series and a Periodic System in SL. --Daniel Mietchen 00:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)