Talk:Second Life/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Grids

Should there be any references to them? 782 Naumova 12:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Content copyrights

From one the first few lines in the article:

"although they are required to offer Linden Lab an open license to it."

I have just read through the Linden Lab's terms of service, and from what I read, the above is false. However I don't speak legalese. Can someone please clarify this? SiliconeGraphox 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't really understand what is meant by an open license. Can someone please clarify this? SiliconeGraphox 08:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

An open license is a non-exclusive copyright which mean that the owner can license their copyright works to other entities aswell.

Merge in Anshe Chung

That doesn't belong in its own article, and needs more sources. Good info, though. +sj + 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not merge it into the Second Life article. Anshe has been and still is active in other virtual worlds beyond Second Life. Somebody posted a quite useful list of verifiable sources in the talk page of her wiki entry.

Slustler

i read about an in-game adult-magazine in this wired article: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,69878-0.html

Itsme 15:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

2 more competitors

I think it is a very well written article but there are at least 2 more entries to the list of competitors I feel should be added... Worlds of Warcraft & Ultima Online!

Those are MMORPGs and they don't follow the same structure as Second Life or There. Sarg 06:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What a crap registration process.

No one wants to give out real life information, yet they insist on getting it and then making you have to confirm it.

Way to go developers that's a sure way to get more people to play your game. -_-

How else would they bill their clients? Nowadays this is a common procedure. Or haven't you played WoW? Sarg 15:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual Content?

With all the diverse content, there has been a large rise in objects created to simply spam the world. Also, with hackers like DeuteriumOxide breaking down script barriers and other restrictions on usable items, latency and low framerates can drag down even the fastest of systems. Whether or not Linden Labs is aware of the issue, there has been little progress in updating the game engine to cope with such issues.

Could do with being more factual- 'even the fastest of systems', 'little progress', etc. are all subjective judgements, and examples of spam objects would also help. 'Whether or not Linden Labs is aware of the issue' seems to be an unnecessary comment.

Agreed. This has just been re-added by an anon user. Would move to remove this section again. Hardly relevent, highly subjective and jargonite ( what is a 'script barrier' and how do you break one ?? ) If this user really want to go into details, would recomend they this section it to the lsl entry. --Angelstorm 26th Apr

Agreed that it is vague and needs improvement; however, it is HIGHLY relevant. It has been brought to Linden Labs' attention on just how incredibly easy it is to exploit certain game mechanisms to do all of the above. They seem to be reacting very slowly to fix these exploits, however. I have personally seen very fast computer hardware - a 3.8 Ghz P4 with an ATi Radeon X1800 XL - brought to the point of system instability by object spamming and infinite replicating objects. Even the average user's system has severe problems, especially in the furry areas of the world, when (among other things) full-sized dragon avatars are loaded. The naming of individual hackers should be removed, and specific examples of abuse need to be provided. --68.229.229.13 (haven't yet registered) 13 May 2006

Ok, I'll leave it in for the moment, but it could do with a clean-up. It LOOKS like Linden bashing which isn't nPOV. Also, I've never seen any issues with the above and I've been in SL over a year, and I spend a lot of time in sandboxes and popular areas. --Angelstorm 09:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit, I've just noticed that this is the same user who is adding racial comments and mass reverting changes without explanation. Also the same person who is adding the glintercept link, which effectively violates users intellectual property copyright. Removing again. Sign up for a Wiki Account if you want to discuss it further. --Angelstorm 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted to the last version by 10:12, 13 May 2006 88.68.39.18 since the above user basically did a mass revert to their previous version. --Angelstorm 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Racial comments?! What the heck?! All I ever did was add the line being discussed above! I have absolutely no clue why the diff for my edit on 13 May 2006 shows all that extra stuff. I'm actually rather appalled at all the other stuff in there! Thank you for adding this information - albiet in a much stripped down fashion. Readers deserve to know the good AND the bad. Baralheia 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (formerly 68.229.229.13)

Edit: I think I know what happened. I must have edited an older revision without noticing it. I'm truly sorry, and I certainly didn't mean to revert the page back to that. Baralheia 11:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Land cost: SL land is expensive and very limited in terms of prim count and size for what is charged for it. Compared to Active Worlds, SL's land is outrageously overpriced.

'Outrageously overpriced' needs to be quantified. Also, comparing with a competitor here does not seem appropriate.

Actually, I think comparing with competitors is the only appropriate way to declare something overpriced. How else are we supposed to know what the "proper" value of on-line "real estate" is? But I agree that comparing with a single competitor is inappropriate — how do we know that competitor isn't just a low-cost anomaly? And whatever the comparison, we must also be certain that the land each game offers has similar intrinsic value, or else we're comparing apples and oranges. – Wisq 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Abuse Reports/ Linden Help: Many abuse reports are filed but few seem to be resolved to any effect. It seems even priority is given to cases and its been known that some people get a turn around of 30 minutes or less for minor violations while others have to wait for days. All abuse report decisions are kept private, due to privacy concerns with other customers. Lindens in game do not really seem to help with abuse issues or problems most of the time.

Very subjective and vague: 'few seem to be'; 'It seems'; 'it's been known'; 'most of the time'; 'some people'; '30 minutes or less'; 'do not really seem'... This needs to be corrected or removed.

Maintaining Neutrality

There seems to be an excessive amount of POV posts for this article's discussion. In case you have not, please review the Five Pillars of the Wikipedia in order to familiarize yourself with general guidelines in regards to articles and conduct. Flaming an article because you do not like the subject is not an acceptable Neutral POV. If you have a problem with the content, provide documentation that refutes what is being advocated. Conversely, if the article has actually turned into an advertisement and provides no relevant information to a reader, then the article should be wikified. The external link section is somewhat lengthy, but no more so than any other similar articles. When posting commentary upon the discussion page, ensure that you employ the signature feature. It will allow others to identify the poster, facilitating relevant conversation. The signature button is located at the top of the edit box, third from the right. Great job on the article so far, it is informative and provides (apparently) accurate information. --Coldbourne 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking

Much of the article seems overlinked, as per the Manual of Style. In particular, the opening paragraph has way too many, with some (like "create") repeated. This dilutes the value of links, since they no longer highlight key topics. I have looked at reducing some of the more obvious ones — duplicates, simple dictionary words, common terms, years and months that are not part of whole dates and thus are not preference-formatted, etc. — but I've got limited time and can't do the whole article. In any case, it's probably best left to someone more familiar with the subject matter to determine which ones are truly relevant and which can go. – Wisq 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I tackled one section but do not know enough about this subject to do the entire article. Hopefully current and future contributors will read the MOS, with regards to only making relevant links. RedWolf 22:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going through it now what a friggin gong show. --Crossmr 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This over-linking seems to all belong to User:Eep². I've had a look at his contrib history and he's done it in many many articles. --Crossmr 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It took a couple of very long edits, but I've removed all of the over-linking. If I've unliked anything important feel free to link it up. I'm going to keep an eye on this though, any attempts to turn it into the mess it was before will be reverted. --Crossmr 06:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation tags

I've added a number of citationneeded tags to the article. Please feel free to find the appropriate citations for the information requested. I'll see what I can find on my own but in about 2-3 weeks we should start considering any unsourced information thats been tagged now and cleaning it up. --Crossmr 06:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm

Looks fine to me. However I think i saw somewhere that it was started june 2003, but it's not in this article. --TIB 03:13, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

It went live in june 2003, but it was in beta for almost a year prior to that, and there was even an alpha version called Lindenworld for a while. --eggy

Controversy section

This appears to have been deleted - do people really feel it is inappropriate?

I thought it should be included in order to provide a balanced viewpoint.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyphz (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 November 200.

>> I forked it to a seperate document for two reasons - 1) it's noplace near NPOV or Balanced, and 2) It requires a more complex discussion than can be given here without dominating the definition. check out—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.67.225 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 November 2005.

Wah?

There.com is another online game usually compared to Second Life (one I prefer, but that point is moot), and does not promote greifing. What's your source for this information? Are we talking about the same link? Viridis 23:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• haha, well, obviously not ;) I thought you were referring to another link that the person before you also broke. I hadn't noticed that he messed with the 'There' link too. Sorry for the confusion :) Sarg 15:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, Hello! This Is Like An Ad...

Hello,

Before I begin know that I am extremely biased especially when it comes to Second Life. I don't believe I could dislike Second Life any more, but I couldn't love There any more either. Just a note, I switched from Second Life to There. Lets just say Linden Labs gave me a bad taste in my mouth. Plus, can you believe I spent 9 months in Second Life? 9 months! I'm extremely lucky I even left with my sanity.

However, this article reads like an ad. Like an ad stright from Linden Lab's PR department, and I know how dirty they work. The links section is an ad just by itself. Personally, I get a laugh out of looking at that link section. It is so funny to read the blogs of Second Life members. They actually believe they are building the Metaverse. More like building the worlds largest virtual sex club! But actually, it is quite sad too. Seeing how many poor pethetic souls Linden Labs has taken advantage of, boy oh boy!

Peronally, I think someone should clean up this article. More like wipe it off the face of the internet. People are giving Second Life too much credit. Yes, the company is a fraud and Linden Labs CEO is the devil himself but Second Life certainly isn't the Metaverse or even close to it. Ah, ignorance is so funny. All too funny actually! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joel1120 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 8 June 2006.

Trivia: C20 economists

Who are/were the C20 economists? What does "C20" mean? Ehn 15:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize now—much later—that "C20" means "20th century". I see that the article has been clarified. Thanks! Ehn 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Some of the sections in this article are simply flawed. For example, the section which is now correctly tagged, comparing second life land costs to the land costs in AW. It is like comparing apples to oranges, or me adding a section to the Halflife 2 article bashing the game because you can't fly a plane in it. The way land is implemented in both games is 100% completly different, which makes the entire criticism absurd. Also I love the bias in the line after it "A number of people deliberately speculate on the land market for profit, leaving other people who just want to build resentful of being forced to pay extra money to a middle man", forced??? how are you ever forced to buy land baron land? So I plan on removing most of the section now. Please don't re-add it in it's current state, it's blatantly slanderous and has no basis in fact, and obviously personal research. Seraphim 01:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Land implementation is precisely the point of why SL's land is so much more ridiculously expensive than Active Worlds', Seraphim. The comparison is valid. The way land is implemented in SL and AW (which aren't games, by the way) are NOT completely different; in fact, they're more SIMILAR than different. Readding the comparison back until you offer more proof. -Eep² 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop marking your edits as minor. Re-adding an entire section is not a minor edit. --Crossmr 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

and if the language of that section isn't cleaned up it will be removed. See WP:WEASEL --Crossmr 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, adding a SMALL section IS a minor edit, Crossmr. Get over yourself. -Eep² 06:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits are generally considered to be things such as spelling or grammar corrections. Adding a new section, no matter how small, generally would not be considered a minor edit. Baralheia 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

neither is a minor edit over-linking several dozen words. --Crossmr 14:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section again, here's my listing of all the differences. The first and most major difference is what the server programs actually do. SL's servers do much much more, and are more processor intensive then the AW servers: server side havoc physics, and scripts are huge, also the integration with the server and the asset server is extremely important, also the sim keeping track of the changes of objects you build and move ingame, and updating the asset server back is key. Also the chat functions, with determining if an im is going out of sim or in sim, or handling sim crossings of characters with multiple scripted attachments. It's much much much much more processor intencive then a AW world which is simply a database with a chat room server stuck ontop of it.

Next is the actual service you get for owing a sim/world. In AW you can build stuff... and that's about it. In SL if you own a private island you get complete control over the sim, you can lease out the land, you can change the settings of the sim, including the user amount, you can set it private/non private at will, you get priority service through the SL concierge, in AW you get none of that. It's either private or non-private, with a set amount of visitors.

Next i'm gonna explain some of the biased numbers in the chart. First you completly fail to mention that if you buy mainland land you don't get charged any setup fee. Second you fail to mention the smaller plots of land that you can buy, and the 512sqm that are included in your basic $9.95 a month. Third, you fail to mention how tiering works, especially how if you own multiple sims you don't pay the full $195/mo for each of them. Fourth, you fail to mention that sure it's 40,000 virtual square meters, but the size of items are huge, making that 40,000 meters seem alot smaller. Fifth, you fail to mention that in SL you can actually generate profit with your world to offset the high tier costs. And lastly you fail to mention the fact that AW servers are limited to a max of 20 users.

The land in the 2 games are completly different, it's the same reason why games like Guild Wars aren't compared to games like World Of Warcraft when it comes to simultanious online users, or player base. Sure they are both technically the same style game, but the underlying service is so different that they aren't comparable in the least. Seraphim 19:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Way to NOT read the info carefully enough, Seraphim. Yes, SL servers do more than AW servers do, but the principle is the same. You forgot about AW's object server which is equivalent to SL's asset server. The AW world server keeps track of object position, rotation, and other properties [1] and is constantly pulling content from the object server. An AW world also keeps track of chat and telegrams (AW's version of SL IMs), handles teleports (since worlds aren't connected together like SL is), etc--oh, and bots. The principle is the same.

You can do a LOT more in AW than just build stuff. In fact, an AW world is FAR more customizable than an SL sim is--PERIOD. Can an SL sim change its gravity (across the whole sim, not per object), cloud layers, water layers (not just depth like in SL), and, oh, about a bajillion other things? [2]. AW worlds can be ownable by anyone who decides to cover however much land they want to build on--and there are permissions for others to build on one's covered land. It's cruder than SL's land parcel system but it's similar enough. An AW world can be made private at will too.

The chart is based on a FULL SL sim and a comparably-sized AW world--not a PART of a sim. I didn't know about owning multiple worlds reduces the monthly fee so that's worth mentioning in the comparison. However, it still requires paying more upfront (setup costs). If you mean AW object ("item") sizes are "huge", they can be just about any size the modeller WANTS them to be--UNLIKE SL's limited prim scaling between 1cm and 10m. 40,000m2 is 40,000m2--PERIOD. Object/model size is irrelevant. As for profit, AWers have sold their objects (presumably to help pay for the MUCH less cost of the world compared to an SL sim). However, AW wasn't designed to be an economy so that point is moot too. An AW world isn't limited to a max of 20 users--you're thinking of SL sims which have a limit. AW worlds can hold hundreds of users just fine.

The land in the virtual environments (they're not games--you should know this by now) is more similar than different, actually. The thing about comparison is that it works for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. If you can't compare something, you're just not thinking relatively enough.

I suggest you get a clue about AW worlds before you rant and rave about things you don't know, Seraphim. Here are some helpful links for you:

• World Server Help
• Active Worlds Help

Oh and I'm re-adding the section back...again.

-Eep² 06:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't even begin to explain how wrong you are. First off we are talking about worlds, not universes, for worlds the max usercount is defined by the annual registration fee that you pay, which can be found here where it clearly shows, that the max user amount is 20, that's per world, universes and galservers are higher. Also the Object server is exactly what I was describing, it holds the objects, and all the world server needs to know is which object is located where on the world plot, the world server does no tracking of object information other then the object's center location. Also the reason the AW worlds are so customizable is that they barely do anything, basically think of it this way, SL sims are close to MMORPG servers, and AW worlds are close to Counter-Strike servers. They are completly different. It's FUD. Seraphim 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right about AW world user limits; I don't know what I was thinking. However, not all worlds are limited to that size so it IS possible to increase that limit (which still wouldn't bring the cost of an AW world anywhere near to that of an SL sim). You are wrong about the world server not keeping track of more than just object position--especially in AW 4.1 with it's new "global" command that also makes the world server track object clicks/bumps too. Property dumps show:

Each line of a propdump file corresponds to one object in the world. A typical line might look like this:

123456 974027887 900 -150 13300 1800 0 0 11 10 18 arch04m.rwxEnter Herebump noise welcome

The first column gives the citizen number of the owner of the object. The second column gives the time the object was built, in "Unix" time (seconds since January 1, 1970.) The third, fourth, and fifth columns give the x, y, and z positions of the object, in centimeters. The sixth column gives the yaw (the Y-axis rotation) of the object, in tenths of a degree. The seventh and eight columns give the tilt (X-axis rotation) and roll (Z-axis rotation) of the object. The tilt and roll fields are new in Active Worlds 3.3.

The ninth, tenth, and eleventh columns are the lengths of the object name, the object description, and the object action. The final column is the actual contents of the name, description, and action concatenated together.

AW worlds do more than you think (or are willing to admit). In fact, in some ways, AW worlds do MORE than SL sims. Pretty much anything a bot does (via the AW SDK), a world server does, monitoring every time an avatar/object changes position (plus calculating encroachment if the world uses an object registry), rotation, chats, etc (see a worlds log file for more info). SL sims and AW worlds are NOT completely different; you just can't seem to fathom their similarities. The land cost criticism is STILL valid. I love how your counter for my point about AW only keeping track of object positions is that "You are wrong about the world server not keeping track of more than just object position--especially in AW 4.1 with it's new "global" command that also makes the world server track object clicks/bumps too." and then in your next line you post a dump that shows that i'm exactly right, the dump is all position information, + identification information. Compare that to sl, where the sim tracks object shape, physics, script, on top of all the other information your listing, oh and it handles object transforms so you can actually build and mold objects in real time in game. AW basically uses glorified pointers.

My argument is simple, and it's apparently lost on you. They aren't comparable because the SL sim does TONS more work then an AW world. I still like my comparison, of a AW world being equal to a counterstrike/quake 3 server, and a SL sim being a mmo server (not shard, the servers that make up the shards).

Here are some great numbers, "Pentium II CPU 300mhz or equivalent, 64MB RAM, Microsoft Windows 98, Me, 2000, or XP, DirectX 8.1 or later, Windows Media Player 6.4 or later, D3D video card with at least 8MB and the latest drivers. Those are the min requirements to run an AW world, SL has at max 2 sims per cpu core, (4 per server, the servers are dual core).

How about this? Why don't you put the same chart on the AW page and complain about AW charging you money to let you use your own server, with zero overhead on their end. Seraphim 23:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mauz's Running A World - more info

-Eep² 12:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Since they are both hosting virtual worlds obviously they have some similarities, and your correct, they are not completly different, however they are too different to do a straight up comparison like your attempting to do. Apples and Oranges are both fruits, but you can't critisize an apple for not being orange enough, it's not a valid complaint. The land pricing criticism is still in the article, so it's not like it's a pov issue, however the chart is complete FUD.

I agree with Seraphim on the bias of this section and that it is unneccessary to the article. --Crossmr 14:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put this on Wikipedia:Current_surveys#Articles to get some additional objective opinion. --Crossmr 14:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I also believe this section is biased and was the one to add the original NPOV tag to it. I should note, however, that Eep does know what he's talking about; there is an extensive comparison at http://www.tnlc.com/eep/compare/. Yet, that doesn't mean his comparison should be placed in this article at this particular location. Perhaps a new article should be created to compare these VR environments? --Quintin3265 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The only comparison I see there is a basic features comparison. I don't see any indepth comparison of features like and it becomes extremely obvious from that link that he's trying to push his own work into this article for whatever reason. --Crossmr 03:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem jealous, Cross. I'm not pushing my work; I'm simply pushing the truth. You just can't seem to face facts when they're shoved right in front of your face (complete with references). Who's REALLY biased? Look in the mirror... But you're right about my comparison; I don't extensively compare SL and AW feature-by-feature, side-by-side. However, I've written about how AW and SL compare (which includes BOTH similiarities AND differences, by the way) on my SL page and linked to an SL forum post I made comparing the two from my AW improvements page. -12:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is jealous of you. The facts are you're not comparing like things and you can't source this criticism. Its your opinion that this is a criticism of SL but you haven't sourced anything appropriate to show its needed here. And forums don't count as credible sources for wikipedia. --Crossmr 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It bears noting that even if forums were credible sources, the comparison would still fall under the No Original Research (NOR) policy, which specifically forbids (among other things) any "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source".

In a Wikipedia article, even if you are armed with facts (world prices in each game), you cannot use those to push a point of view. Aside from the NOR policy itself, this starts to fall under the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy as well. In fact, the three content policies (NOR, NPOV, and Verifiability) have a fair bit of overlap, and it could be argued that the land cost comparison violates all three.

Please, try to respect the policy and the community, even when you disagree with them. The other editors aren't trying to gang up on you; we all just want what's best for Wikipedia. There are policies I (mildly) disagree with, but they've been decided by the community, and we all need to respect that. Otherwise, we just end up making a big mess. — Wisq 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have changed my opinion on this matter. I am not sure whether these policies are enforced sufficiently to justify the removal of a section based on them. It seems to me that the amount of original research in an article has to be very high in order for the article to be deleted. There are many cases in AFD where articles on original concepts suffer fierce debate. For example, Nice guy syndrome, an article for which there are zero verifyable sources other than some Internet forums, somehow survived three consecutive votes for deletion.
• As you said, "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". In Nice guy syndrome, we don't even have a single valid source for the rumination and theories contained within, yet the article has not been deleted. Most people would agree that scattered Internet forum references to the "syndrome" are not "reputable sources." In Second Life, on the other hand, Eep does cite valid sources: the prices taken from the companies themselves. Few would argue that the companies' websites themselves are unreliable sources for their prices.
• In both instances, we are establishing a case, but in the former, there is no attribution to a reputable source, while in the latter, thereis.
• The precedent set by the non-deletion of Nice guy syndrome makes it impossible to justify the removal of Eep's content. We would be setting a double standard. --Quintin3265 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately we can't use a bad precedent to justify continuationg of that behaviour. The result of the AFD debate on Niceguy syndrome wasn't a keep, it was a no-concensus which is easy to generate on wikipedia when you have a few interested people hit an AFD. Most of the keeps asked for a cleanup so it could be brought up to standards, and if it isn't, I could see this article being nominated again and easily being removed with the logic that the keep acknowledged that the article isn't good in its current state, and that since no one is taking the initiative to clean it up, it should be removed until such a time that someone wants to write a proper article. The term itself is notable as it is often talked about and used in popular culture. However in this case Eep is making a comparison of land prices between AW and SL however the basis for it is faulty. The land isn't the same thing, and there are other differences as pointed out above. Not to mention if you follow Eeps own links you'll notice he lists numerous bans from SL related wikis and forums for his behaviour. So I wouldn't exactly trust his objectivity in forming conclusions about comparisons between SL and anything. He uses weasel words to claim opinions that he can't properly source. The niceguy article and the inclusion of this biased comparison aren't really the same thing at all.

• As stated he's comparing apples and oranges with his chart. So while the numbers are taken from the websites, the conclusions he's drawing with this numbers, and the simple fact that he claims this as a criticism of SL (which I haven't seem a reputable source indicate that the price of SL land compared to AW land is a criticism) is the bias here. --Crossmr 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is governed by policies, not common law. If there are articles that violate policy and are not properly dealt with, then either the articles still need work, or the policy needs official debating. Using one policy failure to justify silently ignoring the policy itself is not a proper course of action.

The land cost comparison is particularly important (to omit, that is) because it compares a product negatively against a competitor. Although not personally libellous against any individual, it could still potentially place Wikipedia in an awkward position. Citing a reputable news source would be appropriate; publishing potentially damaging original research is not. — Wisq 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, finish talking about these changes in the Talk page here before doing anymore reverts. Please leave the mentioned content alone until a consensus is reached. There was almost a violation of the Three-revert_rule due to quick reverts. Please also keep your cool when voicing your opinion about edits made. Also note the policy on Resolving disputes Thank You. ZyphBear 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)