Occasionally this blog hosts guest posts. Today, Tim Handorf writes about the experiences of one university in Second Life. We all know that Second Life, the virtual reality world that has become basically indistinguishable from our increasingly unreal physical worlds, is a powerful tool for learning. In fact, it's pretty much a powerful tool for everything, considering the small but growing number of Second Life millionaires. The fact that there are, as of January 2010, 18 million registered Second Life users demonstrates the power of the virtual world to connect, educate, and enhance our daily lives in an almost revolutionary manner.
But, of course, as is true of the "real" world, Second Life does not come without its problems. Most recently, the brick-and-mortar university Woodbury was booted off Second Life —thousands of students were affected—by the virtual world's moderators, a company called Linden Lab. What's interesting is that Woodbury was torn down from the site for the second time, the first time being in 2007
What's even more fascinating about this whole scenario is that Linden Lab did not specify, really, what terms of agreement Woodbury had violated, although this was the accusation. Linden Lab has remained largely silent in the press, a silence that has infuriated many. What Woodbury University is so upset about is the suddenness of the Second Life ban. In a matter of minutes, the virtual university was destroyed, some professor and student accounts were blocked, and thousands of dollars and years of time were essentially thrown away.
Although Linden Lab has not been forthcoming about the problems with Woodbury, users and the media alike speculate that it has to do with the university's too lenient openness. For example, the university's buildings were largely student-created, and it has few restrictions on who can associate with the campus. A supposed result of the university's openness was its attraction of users known as "griefers", usually young or middle aged men who vandalize Second Life property, like placing swastikas in different places. Apparently, because of its acceptance of various people, Woodbury had become a hotbed of these "griefers."
While it is understandable that Second Life moderators would want to control activity that denigrates the efficient functioning of a world rife with useful applications pertaining to the real world, it seems that their measures were a bit too extreme. After all, Woodbury University had fully utilized the educational tools that Second Life provides, and students and professors alike had reaped many intellectual rewards from the process. The university paid good money for it, too. The prime culprit in this debacle, I believe, is the unwillingness of many in the Internet community to fully embrace transparency. Linden Lab should explicitly state their reasoning behind the banning of Woodbury and the two institutions should work out a compromise that doesn't leave so many in the e-learning community without a resource to turn to.
By-line:
This guest post is contributed by Tim Handorf, who writes on the topics of online college rankings. He welcomes your comments at his email Id: tim.handorf.20@googlemail.com.
But, of course, as is true of the "real" world, Second Life does not come without its problems. Most recently, the brick-and-mortar university Woodbury was booted off Second Life —thousands of students were affected—by the virtual world's moderators, a company called Linden Lab. What's interesting is that Woodbury was torn down from the site for the second time, the first time being in 2007
What's even more fascinating about this whole scenario is that Linden Lab did not specify, really, what terms of agreement Woodbury had violated, although this was the accusation. Linden Lab has remained largely silent in the press, a silence that has infuriated many. What Woodbury University is so upset about is the suddenness of the Second Life ban. In a matter of minutes, the virtual university was destroyed, some professor and student accounts were blocked, and thousands of dollars and years of time were essentially thrown away.
Although Linden Lab has not been forthcoming about the problems with Woodbury, users and the media alike speculate that it has to do with the university's too lenient openness. For example, the university's buildings were largely student-created, and it has few restrictions on who can associate with the campus. A supposed result of the university's openness was its attraction of users known as "griefers", usually young or middle aged men who vandalize Second Life property, like placing swastikas in different places. Apparently, because of its acceptance of various people, Woodbury had become a hotbed of these "griefers."
While it is understandable that Second Life moderators would want to control activity that denigrates the efficient functioning of a world rife with useful applications pertaining to the real world, it seems that their measures were a bit too extreme. After all, Woodbury University had fully utilized the educational tools that Second Life provides, and students and professors alike had reaped many intellectual rewards from the process. The university paid good money for it, too. The prime culprit in this debacle, I believe, is the unwillingness of many in the Internet community to fully embrace transparency. Linden Lab should explicitly state their reasoning behind the banning of Woodbury and the two institutions should work out a compromise that doesn't leave so many in the e-learning community without a resource to turn to.
By-line:
This guest post is contributed by Tim Handorf, who writes on the topics of online college rankings. He welcomes your comments at his email Id: tim.handorf.20@googlemail.com.
Image source
No comments:
Post a Comment