Second Life’s Anshe is on fire when it comes to PR. At the same time as s/he graces the cover of Business Week -leading this story on virtual economies, a fight has broken out on wikipedia about whether s/he should even have this entry.
I hardly know where to start with the questions that all this raises, so I’ll just list a bunch and you can jump in where you want.
First, I think this is more evidence of the WoW Wave that I wrote about a month or so ago. When TerraNova started, virtual currencies were still 'out there'. The fact of Castronova’s paper was as controversial as the content. These days – who has not covered virtual currency? What’s more since writing the blog post the phone and the emails have not slowed down with people from all kinds of odd places suddenly deciding that they need a virtual world and they need it now, but could I please tell them what exactly one is. The way it looks there certainly are going to be a raft of new project hitting development houses and possibly a few innovations along the way. Though whether this generation of virtual world designers and fans with recognize these products as ‘real’ virtual worlds is another matter.
Next up we have a set of what might be seen as nested questions about knowledge and the nature of Wikipedia. At the top level the Anshe discussion is yet another example of the contested nature of wikipedia. Is wikipedia a valid source of information? Is self-promotion or personal criticism a valid use? Should any reference to SL's sex industry be made at all or is wikipedia stricktly PG?
Getting deeper we might question whether it is possible to make true assertions about Anshe – here Ludlow’s philosophical work on the nature of truth assertions about fictional characters is an interesting guide (From Sherlock and Buffy to Klingon and Norrathian Platinum Pieces: Pretense, Contextalism, and the Myth of Fiction).
Linking back to the physical / virtual / legal. For some time I’ve been banging on about the nature of identity online. In the past I’ve speculated about virtual identity being just as important as physical identity – for certain commercial and thus legal purposes. Notions of right of publicity applying to avatars just as they might to TV stars and their characters, such as Norm from Cheers (see: Wendt v. Host International, Inc., 197 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 1999)), seemed a fancy when I started to argue about their application in this context. But this I think is one of the first steps carved into the stone of slowly shifting custom and practice that calls for identity in online spaces to be taken seriously and separate from the property rights in artifacts, and for the evaluations of virtual spaces as ones where rights such as free speech and privacy might to get a wider airing than the just those legal scholars such as Crawford and Balkin that have ‘got it’.
Ren, interesting questions. No doubt Virtual Worlds are one of the major news fads of 2006. You can't look at a tech or gaming magazine without seeing people questioning the implications of virtual worlds. Now Business Week jumps into the mix with this cover. While things are sure only to get more interesting for the future of virtual worlds, these stories seem to be a running fad and have a definite "WOW" factor to them. First the explosion of WOW has brought MMOG's into places they haven’t been before (I.E my 56 year old dad's home office.) Second, people are shocked because they don't understand that these are virtual worlds, they still consider them games. It amazes them that this sort of thing is going on inside of games.
Your questions about Wikipedia, sparks the old debate of "What is Wikipedia, can it be trusted for accurate information." Well, Wikipedia definitely has some serious issues as our congress so kindly pointed out for us. Trust in online environments is such a heated subject, and Wikipedia keeps coming under the gun (probably because it no longer works as intended). My take is, when you post on Wikipedia you engage in a system of trust, people will take advantage of these systems for personal gain (It's the kind of world we live in.) Since Wikipedia is open to everyone the accuracy of a Wikipedia post ends up being who is more determined not whose evidence is more accurate. Personally I think Wikipedia was a great idea and a great experiment in online trust showing that it is going to be a tough nut to crack.
Posted by: Travis Ross | Apr 21, 2006 at 16:23
The headline on Business Week seems to imply that it's possible to make real money in these 'virtual' spaces, which, when you sit right down and think about it, is pretty darned amazing.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Apr 21, 2006 at 20:08
"Personally I think Wikipedia was a great idea and a great experiment in online trust showing that it is going to be a tough nut to crack."
The great thing about Wikipedia is not that it's great or accurate (it's obviously not, at least compared to something like the Brittanica) but that it's done the experiment. And of course if someone was willing to commit the time and effort to move forward with Wikipedia's successor they would have the Wiki experience to draw off of in planning improvements.
Posted by: lewy | Apr 21, 2006 at 20:21
The headline on Business Week seems to imply that it's possible to make real money in these 'virtual' spaces, which, when you sit right down and think about it, is pretty darned amazing.
For centuries writers sold various fantasies through their books/writings for the reader to escape to - and made real money FROM virtual worlds... Essentially, its the same thing - similar transactions, - just different delivery medium... - Books - they are one-way text-based MUDS or communication systems with limited feedback...
Posted by: Alex | Apr 22, 2006 at 18:24
The amazing part is that it's on the cover of an established business magazine. After Dibbell's gig, we really should've known this for quite a long while.
Posted by: Michael Chui | Apr 22, 2006 at 18:56
Many American's jobs are "virtual" - we generate email to develop clients, we feed databases for CRM or order fulfillment, we work in "call centers", we generate WORD documents as decision memoranda that in turn result in emails of polices that determine the course of multi-billion dollar corporations.
What is different between a day trader and a gold farmer?
Money is the ultimate "virtual" item and no one questions it at all - all currencies are "virtual".
The biggest surprise is that we are still separate the real and the "virtual". Men (and women) have built empires of the imagination out of the dreams and brains of their fellow men (and women). Publishing, entertainment, finance, insurance are all built on an ephermal foundation of shared imagined space.
What is new is the rather quaint notion that these virtual worlds have some meaningful existence apart from reality... it is either an act of supreme hubris or overwhelming ignorance.
The interesting problems that we all face in this field are the real interesections of these "consensual spaces" and reality, not the imagined separate "reality" of the virtual.
Posted by: Steven Davis | Apr 23, 2006 at 18:36
great post, Steven
Posted by: Grax | Apr 24, 2006 at 19:25
What I find interesting about all this isn't the fact that virtuality is encroaching 'reality' (OMG MAKE MONEY NOW), but more the process by which mainstream users find the tools useful in their lives.
Comparisons to the internet in the early 90's aside, I've always been excited about online ventures with far-reaching implications. I believe Secondlife is one of these ideas, although it isn't clear if they'll remain the top mover in this space for long.
Living 'in-world' for me has only been an extension to my real life, not a replacement. Those that are opposed to using this medium for their benefit and enjoyment have always confused me. They'll sit for hours, passively, in front of a television, and that's okay -- but active participation in a shared human experience isn't?
Boggles my mind.
Posted by: Maxx Monde | Apr 25, 2006 at 09:11
Well, of course you can make real money in virtual worlds. But you can lose it, too, because the risks are enormous. The costs are staggering, too, sometimes. All kinds of patterns/rules that don't apply in RL occur in Second Life, and you're always trying to get a bead on them, then they change. SL is like staging a play, there's the high-school drama, or the Broadway show, or the blockbuster Hollywood production, the humble 5152, the half sim, the private island. The levels from amateur to professional (or pseudo-professional) are many, and the gulf is widening in places and closing in others. Don't quit that day-job yet, though.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 28, 2006 at 03:21