Talk:Second Life/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Second Life. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Rez originate from Tron?
I think it's a bit tenuous that Rez comes from Tron, it's more likely a neologism derived from Resource? --12.110.83.250 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- [1] same thing on the official SL wiki, however I'm not sure how to operate their wiki stuff properly to see if it was the linden that added that, or the other person. If its the linden, I'd consider it solid, if its the other person, not so much. Either way a wiki shouldn't be used as a source, unless the information is added by an official individual (like a linden, at which point it might be seen as sourcing someone's blog).--Crossmr 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
(Actually, it's an abbreviation for "resolve".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.215.195.150 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 June 2006.
- you're basing this on what? --Crossmr 02:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Based on the fact that to rez is used as slang for resolve? Or that it the original Tron derez was sort for derezolution? Seems rpetty obvious if you are playing second life and someone refers to the location resolving quickly or slowly by using the word rez then they probly mean resolve and not resource. Dalf | Talk 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- except I've never heard anyone refer to the location resolving. Just rez or rezzing. If this term does refer to something we need a credible source to base the trivia on. --Crossmr 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Based on the fact that to rez is used as slang for resolve? Or that it the original Tron derez was sort for derezolution? Seems rpetty obvious if you are playing second life and someone refers to the location resolving quickly or slowly by using the word rez then they probly mean resolve and not resource. Dalf | Talk 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. I was basing the use of the term in game based on the people I have interacted with there (who do use it to refer to whole areas resolving after you teleport in and more frequently refering to their clothign failing to rez when they change it. Origins of slang terms and nich vocabulary (And even made up words in fiction) are porblematic because (as in this case) the source is usually obvious (not sure how it could be resource, at that is a usualy noun and not a verb) but you can almost never find a citable refrence. I think the Secondlife wiki pink provided is going to be as close as we can get though we may have to say that it is "claimed" at that link. Using a refrence as a claim fomr the community and refering to the wiki or (probbly better) a fourm discussion if we can find one is going to be the best bet I assume. Dalf | Talk 09:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and I am pretty sure if you can establish the tron refrence, that the script for tron explaines derez to mean derezolution though I would have to check to be sure. Dalf | Talk 09:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Problem is, the SL wiki and SL forums can't be used as sources unless we can establish the material was written by a representitive of the company. --Crossmr 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure we can as long as we qualify the assertion the same way that link above does. We cant say that is where the word came fomr but we surly can use it as evidence that it is commonly held in the among the users of the word that this is where the word came from. Dalf | Talk 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- afraid we can't. Then it becomes original research, because it is our opinion on how common the word usage is. A credible source is required for all information on the page, especially a piece of a trivia like this. see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_of_online_sources forums links are generally only acceptable for sourcing things like company statements and only in the case where you can verify that the poster is who they say they are, much like the way it discusses sourcing blogs. If a Linden made a forum post or wrote in a blog that Rez was derived from Tron, we could use that as a source. If Joe Schmoe does it, it can't be used. Any reputable media that reports that fact would be acceptable, a gaming site like Gamespot for example would suffice, but 3rd hand information from an unknown can't be used for sourcing on wikipedia. --Crossmr 21:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Afraid I disagree, though we do seem to be discussing it in diffrent terms. I am not saying we claim that Tron is the source of the word only that it is held as such by the POPULATION OF USERS not the company in question. The link above [2] which is not a fourm positn in anyevent is more than acceptable to make such a small claim. As with many article taht relate to online activitys and groups (think Harry Potter/Lord of the rings fandoms) the articles have to discuss thes online communities and I dare say there has been litle acedemic work done on the subject of the slang of secondlife. The question is weather the refrence supports the claim and if not weather the claim shoudl be changed or if the refrence is no good at all. In anyevent the article inquestion fomr its history appears to have been edited by employees though I am not 100% sure of that yet I will poke around some more. Dalf | Talk 23:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I could be wrong but it looks liek the above wiki is not edatable, and is maintained by the company. In anyevent I Cant fireout how to edit it or sign up (or login) Dalf | Talk 23:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- afraid we can't. Then it becomes original research, because it is our opinion on how common the word usage is. A credible source is required for all information on the page, especially a piece of a trivia like this. see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_of_online_sources forums links are generally only acceptable for sourcing things like company statements and only in the case where you can verify that the poster is who they say they are, much like the way it discusses sourcing blogs. If a Linden made a forum post or wrote in a blog that Rez was derived from Tron, we could use that as a source. If Joe Schmoe does it, it can't be used. Any reputable media that reports that fact would be acceptable, a gaming site like Gamespot for example would suffice, but 3rd hand information from an unknown can't be used for sourcing on wikipedia. --Crossmr 21:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure we can as long as we qualify the assertion the same way that link above does. We cant say that is where the word came fomr but we surly can use it as evidence that it is commonly held in the among the users of the word that this is where the word came from. Dalf | Talk 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Problem is, the SL wiki and SL forums can't be used as sources unless we can establish the material was written by a representitive of the company. --Crossmr 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Its either on the two pages I listed or this one WP:CITE that mentions that other wikis are not acceptable as primary or secondary sources for sourcing information, so while its not a forum, its still not an acceptable citation. I would make the concession that IF the material was verifiably added by a Linden, we could apply the blog test to it and use the information, however if you look at the page history on that entry [3] it shows edits by a linden, and some other person. I can find no way to show a diff on that page to see who added the information about Tron. --Crossmr 01:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It says that wikis are not acceptable because they can be edited by anyone. That wiki does not appear to be open to the public for editing (or apparently even users of the service). I looked and I could not find a page stating who exactly the editor communit was and I admit we should probly figure that out. I do still maintain that for the purposes of making statments about a group of people, statmens made by that group of people are usable, I think if you look at the articles about the various fictional fandoms on wikipedia that there are few hard and fast rules on wikipedia, in situations where it is reasonable I suspect every rule has an exception. The use of the term to mean bring an object into the world or out of (rahter than the usage I listed above "to resolve" does corrospond directly to the usage in Tron stating that the usage is the same can be documented acceptably though woudl not be relavent without a link. I was only arguing that also stating that users of the system have noticed the similar usage and assumed a link (regardless of wether or not the link is real) is supported by that wiki and could be supported by fourm postings if they exist. THe reason that it is not a problem with WP:CITE in this case is that the citation is not being used to support that truth of the information only being used to support that the citation exists (i.e. the simialr usage has been observed by users). Dalf | Talk 04:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- and as I said, that becomes WP:OR if we draw a conclusion that we cannot properly source, and just say "well everyone uses that term" its unnacceptable for inclusion on wikipedia. You also can't source major opinion on a service like SL. You could source someone's random blog post claiming that rez refers to tron, or that they feel a number of their friends believe that rez originates from Tron, or we could say "Hey I've seen lots of people say that in the program so it must be true". Whether or not its true is really a moot point, its whether or not it can be sourced properly. Do I believe its true? likely. but that isn't how wikipedia runs. Fandom is also being cracked down on from what I've seen. Unverifiable information is being tagged for clean up or removal. Most of their information can be sourced though from episodes, scripts, etc which is acceptable. In this case if you can confirm that a linden added that information and not that other user (while users can't edit it now, it may have been editable at one point by random non-lindens like a regular wiki) then it can be used as a source. The cite is being used to support the truth of the statement. We're making the statement that Rez comes from Tron and we need something credible to back that up. If we can't source it, then we remove it, and let the link to the trivia cite cover it, which isn't part of wikipedia. --Crossmr 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well its mostly a moot point since we disagree on the application of both WP:CITE and WP:OR in general but basically agree on this specific point. If the refrence in question comes from Linden then its ok, all the rest is hypothetical since I dont have a refrence to a fourm or blog posting. I think one of the rules you are forgetting is that strict unbending application of the letter of the rules is not what wikipedia is about (Which is why the rule pages are not protected). You come much closer to my stance though when you mention blogs (which on the "open internet" I would view as much more suspect as a refrence to secondlife players than a posting or article by a user hosted n a second life server). In anyevent as I said in the case of this piece of information you are probbly right we should not (without more evidence) say that it came from Tron. The fact that they are used in both cases essentally the same way can be sourced and could probbly be worked into the article as trivia one only need watch the movie or find a copy of the script to verify that the usage is essentally the same, but again that is trivia and not really needed in the article. Dalf | Talk 06:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- For guidelines yes. Guidelines can be bent. however policies, like OR and proper citation can't be bent. Policies have to have strict adherence, and while they can still be edited, there are enough people watching them that if someone tried to change them to something they're not supposed to be it would be reverted. There are certain policies that apply to sources on what can and can't be used to cite information on wikipedia. forums is one of them, because you can't verifiy anyone, blogs are similar in a sense, but as it states you can accept blogs if you can verify that the person posting it is reputable. These exist for the reason that you couldn't just go and create a blog or forum thread to turn around and say "hey there is proof of my point". --Crossmr 06:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well as I said we shoudl agree to disagree on this. Policies are still editable, if you are going ot make major changes you do need to get a consensus on the talk page or you will be reverted but it has and does happen. Your refrence to OR totally misses the point though as its a question of weater verifable statments fomr a group of people can be used as a refrences about statments bade by tha group of people or not. So it is a question for WP:CITE not WP:OR, but like I said we can be quite happy not agreeing on this point and more relavent is the issue at hand. Speaking to that, I have also been able to verify that any registered SL user can edit that wiki (seems I just needed to log in and then go back there). That said there are only two editors of that file the first has the lst name Linden though I dont know if non-employess can use that lastname. Also the diff between the two versiosn shows nothing, unlike you I do not think the polocy is clear on this issue but since it is not 100% claear and because its trivia I am not prepared to fight over it. Dalf | Talk 07:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- For guidelines yes. Guidelines can be bent. however policies, like OR and proper citation can't be bent. Policies have to have strict adherence, and while they can still be edited, there are enough people watching them that if someone tried to change them to something they're not supposed to be it would be reverted. There are certain policies that apply to sources on what can and can't be used to cite information on wikipedia. forums is one of them, because you can't verifiy anyone, blogs are similar in a sense, but as it states you can accept blogs if you can verify that the person posting it is reputable. These exist for the reason that you couldn't just go and create a blog or forum thread to turn around and say "hey there is proof of my point". --Crossmr 06:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well its mostly a moot point since we disagree on the application of both WP:CITE and WP:OR in general but basically agree on this specific point. If the refrence in question comes from Linden then its ok, all the rest is hypothetical since I dont have a refrence to a fourm or blog posting. I think one of the rules you are forgetting is that strict unbending application of the letter of the rules is not what wikipedia is about (Which is why the rule pages are not protected). You come much closer to my stance though when you mention blogs (which on the "open internet" I would view as much more suspect as a refrence to secondlife players than a posting or article by a user hosted n a second life server). In anyevent as I said in the case of this piece of information you are probbly right we should not (without more evidence) say that it came from Tron. The fact that they are used in both cases essentally the same way can be sourced and could probbly be worked into the article as trivia one only need watch the movie or find a copy of the script to verify that the usage is essentally the same, but again that is trivia and not really needed in the article. Dalf | Talk 06:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- and how are you going to verify those statements a group has made? By looking at it yourself and drawing that conclusion. That is original research. In order for that group opinion to be used on wikipedia, you need a source for it. For example, if Wired wrote an article on SL and mentioned that point, it could be used as a source. Its a question for this one WP:V which spells out what online stuff can and can't be used and in what context. Regardless of whether or not anyone can edit that page (which currently they can't), this policy has to be followed to the letter, and includes "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus" as much as common sense could say "Yes I've seen a lot of people use it in game" you can't get around this policy. Now there is a blog I know that Slashdot has referenced a couple of times, someone who writes regular stories about SL, if he has ever written about Rez in his blog, that would suffice depending on how he's written it. Unfortunately I can't recall right off who it is that writes it, but if you check Slashdot you might be able to find it. --Crossmr 15:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would say if you are writing about an online only community, and you are able to link directly to the community, and you are claimming that they do X and you can link to them doing X than far form being original research it is a primary source. That is they statments are instances of the claimed act and therefor they are the verification. I dont see how linking to a person doing somethign you claim they are doing is somehow worse than linking to some random person blogging and saying they do it. You are refering to policies about making hard science refrences and I am talking about a much smaller set of assertions, specifically non-scientific facts about things or events that can be linked directly too. Forexample you would not I suspect need a reputable source to tell you that Uncyclopedia was a satiirical site you coudl simply link to it and people could verify it themselves [4]. In anyevent I don't know why you are getting so worked up as I said in this case I agree with you and you will note I have not edited the article on this point at all. Do I suspect as you said above that a link to some guys blog or some other source coudl be found? Yea, but as you stated further up doing suff like that in the fandom is being cracked down on, you would have to edsablish the guy or his blog as actually knowing somethign about the subject first before it could be used as a source. Dalf | Talk 19:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not getting worked up about anything, simply debating a point. Whether we're referencing hard science, or something thats happening in an online community, it has to be sourced. You can't just link to the community and say "Hey you go figure out where I got the information from". WP:V doesn't go out the window because you suddenly are talking about something like a web comic, online community, etc. If you can link to specific pages, like an about page that you can ascertain was written by the community creator, etc. Thats fine. Linking to forum posts though isn't. There is a crack down on what can and can't be linked to. Almost any part of the second life site can be used to cite information, but the forum, can't be used to cite information. This section of WP:RS is linked directly from the WP:V Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. I would make the concession that in the case of a verifiable representative of say a company or community make a public statement or press release, you could likely bend that slightly, but any further than that and you're going to find people aren't going to accept it as a source. Don't forget that forums generally aren't representative of communities as a whole (unless the community is only based on the forum), but even still you're drawing conclusion about their behaviour by saying they're doing this, or they believe this, etc. Someone did find us a verifiable source, so for this matter we're covered.--Crossmr 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The wiki's hosted on the secondlife servers are not wiki's in the sence that WP:RS talks about. The wiki's WP:RS talks about are wikipedia style wiki's that anyone can go in and edit without being subject to review. The sl history wiki, and the official lsl wiki are official Second Life support webpages, edits to the pages are approved by the lindens, and usually the content is written by the lindens themselves. Anything you see on those wiki's has been approved by the people at linden labs, therefore it is valid when it comes to WP:RS. WP:RS is written by wikipedians with our ideals of what a wiki should be in mind, what the SL wiki's are, are moderated development wiki's where the pages are all ownwed by LL. It's completly different.
- Your also misrepresenting WP:RS just a bit, it's the comments posted by other users on blogs that can't be sourced, if your claiming that somebody refers to spawning objects in sl as rezzing them, it's perfectly valid to show that that person actually does refer to spawning objects as "rezzing" by linking to their blog page, the primary/secondary source ban on items like this applies to using the actual content and "facts" posted by the blogger/poster which is unacceptable, simply using someone's blog posts to show what they commonly post is ok. Seraphim 17:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the lindens approved the content. I just knew that something was written by a linde, and something written by someone not a linden, but I couldn't figure out a way to show which was which. That clears up its usage. As to the blogs, while you can link and say "This person believes this" you can't base a claim that the population of a community does something based on what a random blogger writes. --Crossmr 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, that's why you find and ref atleast 3 blogs and say "some". Seraphim 01:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- WP:WEASEL no you don't. Who are these some? 3 random people? what do they matter in scheme of the entire Second Life population. This is exactly why you don't source Blogs and Forum postings. --Crossmr 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually yes you do. Re-read WP:WEASLE about how to fix weasel words, "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts." in this case stating that some second life residents say something, or some second life residents belive something is a concrete fact. Since i've linked to 3 blogs of various secondlife citizens all saying X then it is a fact that some secondlife citizens say X. It's impossible to argue that no secondlife citizens say X since sources have been shown. Seraphim 08:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- WP:WEASEL no you don't. Who are these some? 3 random people? what do they matter in scheme of the entire Second Life population. This is exactly why you don't source Blogs and Forum postings. --Crossmr 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, that's why you find and ref atleast 3 blogs and say "some". Seraphim 01:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the lindens approved the content. I just knew that something was written by a linde, and something written by someone not a linden, but I couldn't figure out a way to show which was which. That clears up its usage. As to the blogs, while you can link and say "This person believes this" you can't base a claim that the population of a community does something based on what a random blogger writes. --Crossmr 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not getting worked up about anything, simply debating a point. Whether we're referencing hard science, or something thats happening in an online community, it has to be sourced. You can't just link to the community and say "Hey you go figure out where I got the information from". WP:V doesn't go out the window because you suddenly are talking about something like a web comic, online community, etc. If you can link to specific pages, like an about page that you can ascertain was written by the community creator, etc. Thats fine. Linking to forum posts though isn't. There is a crack down on what can and can't be linked to. Almost any part of the second life site can be used to cite information, but the forum, can't be used to cite information. This section of WP:RS is linked directly from the WP:V Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. I would make the concession that in the case of a verifiable representative of say a company or community make a public statement or press release, you could likely bend that slightly, but any further than that and you're going to find people aren't going to accept it as a source. Don't forget that forums generally aren't representative of communities as a whole (unless the community is only based on the forum), but even still you're drawing conclusion about their behaviour by saying they're doing this, or they believe this, etc. Someone did find us a verifiable source, so for this matter we're covered.--Crossmr 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but the source still has to be some sort of authority on the subject. Just because Joe Schmoe, Larry Dingbat, and Dorris Halfwit said x in their blogs doesn't mean its any kind of credible or meaningful source. Do we know if these 3 people are who they claim to be? Can we be sure these 3 bloggers aren't a competitor making statements to try and taint them? Can we be sure these bloggers aren't the person trying to get the information included in the article and trying to create sources? As it stated in WP:V the person you're referencing usually has to be some kind of expert on the subject. Just because you can always find someone who says x doesn't mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. We don't collect every last shred of everything that someone says about a subject. We need a sourceable indication that a significant part of a group believes something in order for it to be considered encyclopedic. --Crossmr 17:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would say if you are writing about an online only community, and you are able to link directly to the community, and you are claimming that they do X and you can link to them doing X than far form being original research it is a primary source. That is they statments are instances of the claimed act and therefor they are the verification. I dont see how linking to a person doing somethign you claim they are doing is somehow worse than linking to some random person blogging and saying they do it. You are refering to policies about making hard science refrences and I am talking about a much smaller set of assertions, specifically non-scientific facts about things or events that can be linked directly too. Forexample you would not I suspect need a reputable source to tell you that Uncyclopedia was a satiirical site you coudl simply link to it and people could verify it themselves [4]. In anyevent I don't know why you are getting so worked up as I said in this case I agree with you and you will note I have not edited the article on this point at all. Do I suspect as you said above that a link to some guys blog or some other source coudl be found? Yea, but as you stated further up doing suff like that in the fandom is being cracked down on, you would have to edsablish the guy or his blog as actually knowing somethign about the subject first before it could be used as a source. Dalf | Talk 19:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Citations on information
I've had citation requests on a number of paragraphs for some time now. I'm going to give them another 48 hours which will be a reasonable amount of time to wait in addition to the time we've been waiting already. We do not keep unsourced information indefinitely.--Crossmr 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
"It is similar to There, another such world created around the same time, in that one of its primary focuses is socialization, but the similarity ends there."
That's not NPOV... --64.12.116.5 Oct 26, 2004
- How is it not NPOV exactly? --Sgeo | Talk 13:04, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- It's comparison with a simular world. --Ice 02:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It'd be POV if the article referred to either of them being better or worse than the other. However, the text only refers to There as a way of categorizing Second Life -- a comparison which is factually valid, as both products do share a number of features. --216.21.133.125 21:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
NPOV could possibly be argued in the other section, the nature of the macintosh port as 'inferior' is an individual's point of view in itself. Note should also be made about the Linux client currently in alpha development with the Linux user's community. --Ice 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ego Trouble
I think there is a large potential for this to all get out of hand. There are quite a few people willing to toot their own horns for no good reason. Also, beyond all that, the Links section at the bottom is fast becoming a blasted Classified ad. I'm not going to touch it, but I think someone should. We don't need 50 links with people trying to add revenue off of a wiki page, or random residents plastering blog links. There are nigh on 200,000 residents now, and this article will soon end up far too personal. Perhaps someone should wipe the lists, add SL's blog list page, link snapzilla, and link the Metaverse. That covers everyones blog, and you'll get a fine amount of advertising out of there, without ending up with a link list that is longer than the article itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soylent.hero (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 April 2006.
- I agree the link section should be kept in check. I try to keep any blatant spam links out of the list.--Crossmr 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Archive
Page is getting long. Any discussions that have no timestamps from the last 30 days will be archived by werdnabot. This is pretty automatic and will required little user interaction. If anyone notices an archive page getting long (over 32KB) you can easily switch the code to point to Archive2, Archive3, etc its pretty self explanatory.--Crossmr 06:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I assume that any thread that's accidentally auto archived or in the latest auto-archive cycle but someone wants to reply to should be pulled back out per standard practice? Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course if such a need arises, though really if the thread is that old the users involved in the previous discussion may no longer be here and it might be best to create a new discussion and summarize the old one if necessary. This also shouldn't archive any sections that don't have replies. If someone asks a question and doesn't get a reply for 30 days it shouldn't be archived. I believe I set it up correctly to only archive sections with 2 signed comments. After the initial archiving, any sections that didn't get archived properly because of sig issues (which I encounter on old talk pages sometimes) myself or someone else can move into the archive by hand.--Crossmr 07:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Premium rate changes
Whats the purpose of not combining changed information onto old information. When people are reading the article it reads as:
Premium - The only differences between these accounts and First Basic accounts (aside from the fee) are the ability to own land (Basic account holders can rent), a L$500/week Stipend and a L$1250 signup bonus.
It is stated again in a later part:
Premium memberships receive a stipend every week regardless of logging in or not, with those registered before Friday July 21st 2006 recieving L$500/week and those registered on or after recieving L$400/week [10].
But since it is after July 21st, 2006, it's proper etiquette to put the current information in place of old information.
Cheers, Ddahlberg 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Version
They release new versions every few months, 1.11.1 is the old one, there is a new one, 1.11.2 (4) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.10.192 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 August 2006
Alleged "residents"
Having a section entitled "Notable people who became Second Life Residents" is POV and misleading to the reader. It makes the article read like an advertisement for the game, implying that these notable people "live" in the game in some sense. I understand that this is the terminology preferred by the company (of course) but it is nevertheless marketing fluff and nonsense. I would further note that all of the claims without reliable sources should be removed, including me, but I didn't touch that because it is about me, and the last thing I need is a round of stupid news stories claiming that I am trying to cover up participation in the notorious Berkman Center of Harvard Law School.--Jimbo Wales 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- on one hand it is the terminology used internally, by the users themselves, and the language used in the rest of the article, on the other the use of "Residents" does indeed imply that the person referenced is relatively active and currently "residing" there (as opposed to having quit SL, or never having actually held an account in the first place, in which case they wouldn't be "residing")
- SL does not fit the basic criteria of a game, having no rules, character development, victory conditions, story, tasks or prepared challenges
- The section is meant to be a list of notable people who have accounts for Second Life currently or in the past, and each reference to a person is supposed to have a reliable source
- The use of "Players" would imply that Second Life was a game
- Taking these into account (once any unverified people have been removed), "Notable people who have been users of Second Life at some point" is probably more accurate.
- With the inclusion of "at some point", it'd probably also make sense to include the dates their accounts were created and (where appropriate) the dates when they quit. --Signpostmarv 12:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm also assuming that stripping out ever other reference to "Residents" would need to be replaced with "users" as well. --Signpostmarv 13:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- No if you're talking about what users are doing in the program use resident its the internal language. I think this solitary change is fine so that we don't give the impression these individuals are currently active when they may not be.--Crossmr 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Residents (and not users, players, members or whatever) is the official term used by SL and should thus be used in the description of SL too. LHOON 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Residents is our term for "citizenship" it's exactly analagous to calling a citizen of Great Britain a Briton, or of the US as an American and so forth is correct. If you think it's too confusing then including a comment to that effect is the way to go, not trying to define some other term. I also think you'll find that Torley coined the term BEFORE she became a Linden and it spread from her, a lovely example of a meme at work, although that might be my mistaken memory. --Eloisepasteur 07:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that the entire section should be removed as pointless fancruft. It seems no more relevant to me that these people have played this game than that they have all also played Doom, or Chess.--Jimbo Wales 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- After almost making a horrendous screwup (by looking at the section above the one that's being discussed), I agree and I would suggest putting any such list in SL's (semi-official?) history wiki instead. It's certainly not of any use in Wikipedia.
- Whatever is done, I would also suggest not using the word "game" as it is inaccurate - it's like saying that television shows are movies, i.e. Second Life itself is a medium, and they are different types of media even though they may be similar in many aspects. —AySz88\^-^ 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be totally removed so much as it should be restructured. Putting aside your references to SL as a game, you are right in what you say about the information in it's current state is irrelevant. Stating that people I've never heard of (Anna Krenz, DJ Unknown, Tod Maffin) being Residents is about as useful as whether Joi Ito is [[5]] or Alliance. What is usefull to know is that Lawrence Lessig encouraged Linden Lab to give Second Life's Residents IP Rights, Wagner James Au and Peter Ludlow's efforts towards exposing what's happening in Second Life to the "outside" world, and how business/organisations like Creative Commons (Lessig, Doctorow, Ito, Garlick, the BBC, American Apparel, Coca Cola (pushing it on that one), Disney, 20th Century Fox have been involved in Second Life. Yes, on one hand you could percieve a company's or organisation's interactions with Second Life's Residents as "marketing fluff". But the fact they're dealing with the Residents, and not the company is important. What these people, companies and organisations are doing is important and shows that Second Life is not just some other virtual world.
- To put it simply, the information should remain, but not as a list. The people and Residents that have done bugger all towards contributing to Second Life should be ignored (and also, technicalities that it's Philip Rosedale not Philip Linden that has done more for SL be corrected). Since the article is already pushing it's limits, it makes sense to me (and I'm hoping others) that the list should be expanded into more detail over to Resident (Second Life).Signpostmarv 01:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The statements made by Robin Linden Login Required support the idea that if a person hasn't done much else than log on a couple of times, then the term "Resident" shouldn't be used in association with them:
Robin Linden (in response to the question: Just wondering, who coined the term "Resident" and why ?)It was pretty early in the development of Second Life. One of my jobs was to come up with the different words we wanted to use, including the name! The naming discussions were usually between me, Philip, Hunter and Peter (both of whom aren't here any more) with feedback from everyone else.
When it came to what to call the people in the world, we knew we didn't want to call them 'users', although that would be the most typical thing for software. However, the word 'users' doesn't do a very good job of describing the two-way nature of Second Life, where the people involved are providing content and contributing to the experience.
We also thought about 'members' (boring!), 'citizens' (too political!), and 'players' (too game-y).
'Residents', however, seems most descriptive of people who have a stake in the world and how it grows.
Signpostmarv 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've changed the title again. It just didn't sound right. If they're on this list it means they had an account and were in the game at least once I'm assuming. As such saying they "may" have played the game isn't correct otherwise we could just put a phonebook in that list and claim any one of those people "may" have played the game at some point. I've changed the title to be factually accurate and added a disclaimer at the top of the list indicating that we're not stating that these people can currently be found in the community. We were dancing around trying not to peg someone as active who might not be way too much and it made it sound a bit silly.--Crossmr 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)