NYTimes.com on SL Distance Education
Christine Lagorio has a (mostly) accurate piece on SL in distance education in the NYTimes.com today. It's a bit boilerplate, but I still found myself (again, mostly) liking it.
She does the "dramatic opening anecdote" showing a "danger" that never really gets addressed.
She hits the easy targets, making mention of SL/DE efforts by NYU, Ball State, Pepperdine, Harvard - the "usual suspects" for this sort of article - no stretch there.
Not a single SLurl to DE locations is included. This is normal practice for the Times. If you see a blue, underlined link in an article, it almost always leads to another Times article, not the subject of the link. Sigh. This is especially annoying when the author mentions such things as the Ball State SL dorms or Second Life education listserv - but doesn't include any sort of navigation.
I suppose that what chafed me most was this entry:
Streaming real-time audio is difficult? In SL? Come down to any SL club or movie theatre (streaming video!) and see that disproved on a regular basis.
Perhaps Lagorio meant that holding simultaneous real-time voice-chat for 20 users is difficult. Well, good. In RL classes, we generally frown upon having 20 simultaneous chatters. Still, I'm really not sure what she meant. I can only read what she wrote.
So, why did I like the article? For an author who I suspect doesn't spend time in SL, she does a good job of capturing the essence of the opportunity (and difficulty) at hand. When it comes to MSM writers, that may be the best we can hope for - for now.
One note: As I was adding links to this post, I came across Intellagirl's blog entry for the Times article. Interesting that she mentions the article, but doesn't make much comment about it. Sarah (Intellagirl) is an avid SL grad researcher and blogger, so her lack of comment makes me curious. Hmm. Sarah? ;-)
Another note: Agh! I can't believe I missed this:
No it's not. It may have 2+ million registrations, but definitely not two million users. Alts? Dissatisfied users? Multi-registered griefers?
Definitely not two million.
She does the "dramatic opening anecdote" showing a "danger" that never really gets addressed.
She hits the easy targets, making mention of SL/DE efforts by NYU, Ball State, Pepperdine, Harvard - the "usual suspects" for this sort of article - no stretch there.
Not a single SLurl to DE locations is included. This is normal practice for the Times. If you see a blue, underlined link in an article, it almost always leads to another Times article, not the subject of the link. Sigh. This is especially annoying when the author mentions such things as the Ball State SL dorms or Second Life education listserv - but doesn't include any sort of navigation.
I suppose that what chafed me most was this entry:
For example, Second Life isn’t conducive to traditional lecturing, since streaming real-time audio is difficult.
Streaming real-time audio is difficult? In SL? Come down to any SL club or movie theatre (streaming video!) and see that disproved on a regular basis.
Perhaps Lagorio meant that holding simultaneous real-time voice-chat for 20 users is difficult. Well, good. In RL classes, we generally frown upon having 20 simultaneous chatters. Still, I'm really not sure what she meant. I can only read what she wrote.
So, why did I like the article? For an author who I suspect doesn't spend time in SL, she does a good job of capturing the essence of the opportunity (and difficulty) at hand. When it comes to MSM writers, that may be the best we can hope for - for now.
One note: As I was adding links to this post, I came across Intellagirl's blog entry for the Times article. Interesting that she mentions the article, but doesn't make much comment about it. Sarah (Intellagirl) is an avid SL grad researcher and blogger, so her lack of comment makes me curious. Hmm. Sarah? ;-)
Another note: Agh! I can't believe I missed this:
Much of Second Life, now occupied by some two million users
No it's not. It may have 2+ million registrations, but definitely not two million users. Alts? Dissatisfied users? Multi-registered griefers?
Definitely not two million.
posted by Prof. G. at
10:53 AM (permalink)
2 Comments:
I didn't critique the article much because, frankly, it's just nice to see something positive written about SL lately.
I think that the article was fair and enthusiastic (both of which have been missing from much of SL coverage lately). Considering the intended audience for the NYT ED Life suppliment, current and potential college students, I thought the article was great. It provided the level of content that this audience needs and will understand. If it was in the Chronicle for Higher Ed I would expect a much different article.
So there you go, my two cents.
Sarah
By
Sarah, at 10:09 AM
Hey there Sarah,
Thanks for writing. This NYTimes.com article deserves more critical review than it has been getting.
Frankly, I have been biting my tongue over on the SLED listserv. Folks just seem so happy about the coverage, I didn't want to be a wet blanket.
But seriously, even for an intended audience of "current and potential college students" (and perhaps profs?) can we at least agree that a NYTimes.com/CBSNews.com reporter should have caught the "two million users" PR hype?
Perhaps it's because I teach journalism, but I'm disappointed that this sort of major error in fact (regarding a continuing public controversy in the SL community) slipped into the article.
In RL I belong to and attend the conventions of IRE (Investigative Reporters and Editors) and NICAR (the National Institute for Computer Assisted Reporting). Through those organizations, I have made the acquaintance of several NYTimes folks (generally nice people, BTW), including technology reporters. I suspect that they would be kicking themselves over falling for bogus PR numbers.
Ah well. Back to the SLED list! Thanks again.
Larry
By
Prof. G., at 10:35 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home