Second Life vs. Pat Conroy, the e-book Long Tail, and good parenting
February 18th, 2007David Rothman (The e-book guy) has some harsh words about Second Life.
"[S]hould public libraries plan to splurge millions in tax money to reduce the number of hours that children spend with parents? Have SL boosters in the library world really thought this through sufficiently? And how about all the constructive questions that Rochelle Hartman, an ALA councilor, has raised? Tell me, SL fans. Is this expensive service really what the schools and libraries need when basic digital and educational divides persist? Compared to alternatives, will it encourage more traditional literacy and sustained thought? And how about SL’s effect on The Long Tail about which so many e-bookers are fond?"
No comment from me. I haven’t tried SL and probably won’t. Just no time. 
February 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I’m no great friend of Second Life (tried it, didn’t like it, won’t go back), and I’m surprised at the amount of library attention given to something that apparently has around a quarter million active users (or maybe half a million if you’re generous–there’s some good second-level research on the real numbers, and any way you look at it they’re on the order of one-tenth of one percent of the population).
On the other hand, I sure don’t see any plans to spend “millions in tax money” on library places in SL, and SL’s only expensive if you want it to be–other than time, of course. I’m not sure why Rothman feels the need to wildly overstate an argument against, but it’s consistent with his attitudes toward anyone who disagrees with him, even a little, on ebooks (sez “Darth Crawford”).
I think the SL experiments are interesting, as long as librarians recognize that they’re only experiments and they’re dealing with a tiny portion of their more privileged patrons.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
1. Walt is right to say active users of SL, but the total number of accounts registered is now supposedly 3 million–a big increase from the 1 million in October 2006. SL’s interface is horrible for many users, but technical changes could grow the number of actives in a hurry. We need to think NOW about the issues that VR use raises.
2. Although I believe that librarians should be on SL to experiment, I think it’s being overdone in terms of the time the experimenters are devoting to it. Walt might be saying as much when he expresses surprise over “the amount of library attention” SL has gotten.
3. There are virtual real estate and bandwidth costs in the long run–high enough to have scared at least one K-12 group from participating.
4. The big issue, to me, is what happens if SL-type services get built into our school and library systems. Will VR displace text more than it should and also soak up time that parents and children could better spend with each other in Real Life? At least one major foundation is keen on VR for education. So, yes, ultimately, when it comes to costs for schools and libraries, we could be talking about millions if enough other organizations agree.
5. If only the same effort could go instead toward staider things like e-books (with good hardware and software ergonomics) and old-fashioned mentoring to address digital divide issues!
6. Darth, you disagree with me more than “a little” with on e-books, but that’s hardly the real issue here.
Let me emphasize again that some wonderful things could be done in SL–I just think it’s gotten too much attention from well-meaning and dedicated people who could better spend the time on other matters.
Thanks,
David Rothman | drNOSPAMteleread.org