Quantifying SL: What’s the benefit?
As many of you may know Jenkins, Shirky, and Coleman have been having a round-about blog-based debate about the perceptions of Second Life and the inflated user numbers. To read Henry Jenkins’ latest post (which does a great job of summarizing the bigger points of Shirky’s latest comments too) go here.
To get you caught up, though, the debate basically looks like this:
Shirky says: The numbers are inflated. Second Life isn’t a big deal.
Jenkins says: The numbers may be inflated but they aren’t that important. What is important is the cultural change that SL is evoking.
I’ve been following the debate pretty closely and I have to say that both sides have valid, important points but I’d like to take a step back and consider whether we’re even arguing over the most important aspect of the debate at hand.
I’d like to ask Clay Shirky: If Second Life isn’t important, if it’s just inflated propaganda then why have you invested so much time and effort debunking it? You’re a busy man, a great writer, and a well-respected techno-informed guy. If Second Life is a blip on the radar then move on to focus on something that you think IS world changing? Otherwise, you’re time spent on it leads me to believe that you think there is something worth talking about beyond thumbing your nose at those who you think have been somehow fooled by a marketing scheme.
The bigger question that I think is important here is “What is it about SL, in the larger picture, that makes folks like Shirky, Jenkins, and Coleman perk up their ears and start writing 1000 word blog entries about it?” The debate itself, its form, the level of participation in the argument, is what may be most notable. I can’t remember another topic as of late that has garnered such fervent debates. If Second Life is merely an empty promise then why is it worth all this wrangling and spittle?
For me, the answer is that it’s so much more than the numbers, the argument, and the economy. It’s about a new form of critical stance that people are taking on regarding technology. The whole debate is a sign that we’ve matured in our outlook. We’re no longer blinded by “bells and whistles.” We have enough choices in our range of participatory culture that we can take the time to critique and evaluate what’s available rather than jumping on the nearest bandwagon to stay afloat with the advances.
So keep at it. Keep debating. Debate topics other than SL as well. Continue the conversation and continue to model how we should all be thinking about the ramifications of the technologies we embrace. No matter how vitriolic the conversation becomes, there are folks listening and learning.
