This is the fourth post in a series produced for studying purposes. I realise now that I’ve been posting more about study than not-study. I might have to remedy this.
The Second Life project was our last, best hope for peace.
It failed.
(With apologies to JMS)
A few years ago, everyone was talking about Second Life and how it would revolutionise the way that libraries and educators would interact with their clients and students. It seemed everybody was jumping on board the Second Life bandwagon. It even appeared in the New Media Consortium’s Horizon Report as recently as 2007.
Before I continue on this rant, I must point out that I was never a big fan of Second Life. When I first logged in, I was confronted by an ugly and difficult-to-use interface. Despite having blisteringly fast (at the time) ADSL, the world would slowly load at a pace that was quite infuriating to a player of World of Warcraft and EVE Online.
I applaud the courage and gumption of my colleagues that dived in head-first and had a good play with Second Life. I applaud those that managed to avoid the anachronism of real-world architecture and actually realised that people could fly when they decided to make their buildings. Too often, however, someone would think that it was a Really Good Idea ™ to put a roof on a building that will never get wet.
Now, my lack of respect for people that failed to think using a new paradigm when encountering a world that doesn’t obey the laws of physics that we’re used to, my problem with Second Life as a tool for interacting with people that are far away really comes down to one thing:
It’s much faster to exchange information using any number of other communications tools, including Skype (video chat allows for body language) and your humble web page (which can transmit information at much greater bandwidth).
My dislike of Second Life must now be quite evident to you, dear reader, so I think I should perhaps talk on a more theoretical level. What of virtual worlds in general?
Currently, virtual worlds are mostly used as environments for massively-multiplayer online games like the aforementioned World of Warcraft and EVE Online. They are incredibly successful because they have a very limited scope in what they permit the user to do (generally killing things and doing missions/quests with other players).
Virtual worlds have the potential for incredible applications in teaching things like physics, where you could have a sandbox simulation that permits you to change the laws of physics (What happens if you change gravity of turn it off entirely? Not something you can easily do in the real world).
When it comes down to it, libraries are really about one thing: helping people find information. Frankly, I don’t see the use of virtual worlds in doing that. There are many other emerging technologies that will allow us to engage with our clients much more effective.



