Virtual Worlds and Gaming
I have been “born” in Second Life, although so far I have not left Orientation Island, and my accomplishments have been limited to 1) sitting in a chair 2) making my legs longer 3) taking a torch off the wall and then putting it back again, and 4) wearing a party-hat. As is probably evident from that thrilling list, and at the risk of losing my geek cred: I am not a gamer, and have very little experience with virtual worlds. One of my former roommates used to play a lot of World of Warcraft, but all he seemed to do was run. And sometimes fly. When I tried to fly in Second Life, I bumped my head.
The readings this week focused a lot on using these kinds of games as tools for learning and teaching. Richard Van Eck's description of the Digital Native generation was a little disconcerting, especially the part where he notes that they (we?) are, “disengaged with traditional instruction.” His overview of using games like Civilization to teach students, reminded me of the time when, in junior high, my best friend and I attended a school-sponsored workshop on “military strategy and combat” that consisted of us playing Risk for two days. Good times.
I had difficulty taking this article (and this approach) seriously. Not all students will respond to this form of teaching-- and, like the criticisms of libraries joining facebook-- do your users really want to hang out with you? I agree that librarians cannot ignore gamers and virtual worlds. But I'm not sure it make sense to market services through games like Second Life—are patrons really in Second Life looking to interact with librarians and find information? Diana Oblinger's article and Ameet Doshi's article were better because they addressed specific applications and audiences.
Henry Jenkins has a number of interesting points, among them a somewhat pessimistic view of the life cycles of virtual worlds. He states that, “Second Life may outlive them all for several reasons: people feel a deeper investment in Second Life as a community.” But he also quotes danah boyd, who believes that Second Life is not web 3.0 and that we are not destined for a all-virtual/only virtual life.
In short: I, librarian-to-be agree that the rise of virtual worlds will have an impact on how people access and interact with information and that we should continue to keep abreast of these changes and (where appropriate) incorporate them into how we deliver information to our users. But, I, library-user, remain somewhat reluctant to immerse myself in them.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with your point that we have to be aware, and that from a library user you are relunctant, but when I think of the Doshi article, and how her examples have reached out and gathered users, I think there is room for librarians to improve and go out and do the outreach, and incorporate some new ideas/tools in the library. Also, the gaming world, is different or even tricky, the key I believe is using it to your advantage. Sort of tricking people, but in the same time, bringing them into the library, and hopefully learning something new, or even getting a book out and reading that book, cause they want to know more about ancient times, etc. All part of the learning curve, and the quest for knowledge.
my 2cents :p
I agree that users of these immersive technologies are probably not looking for library or librarian contact, which would make our presence there gauche at best. Not being a gamer myself, these sites can be challenging - but a worthy challenge, which can help us to continue learning new means of engaging with users. The skills we pick up in these environments as we experiment - not as part of an agenda to disperse library-related information - can take information literacy in exciting new directions. We'd be wrong to absolve ourselves of any responsibility to continue researching.
[Shannon]
Post a Comment