[MUD-Dev] The Root of the Tree (was NEWS: Why Virtual Worlds ...)

[David Kennerly]

Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt wrote:

> Well, perhaps - as I stated before - the problem actually arrives
> from trying to force a heirachy onto a concept. As with most
> concepts that have very diverse members, it becomes very hard to
> make hard definitions.  Actually most concepts have this problem
> to some degree, which is why a thesaurus is not 'a tree' but
> rather 'a graph'.

Thanks for the reminder.  :)

> An umbrella term may be very hard to define, and if so (as Ola
> points out, and i agree totally) the term becomes meaningless.

The scope is broad, but so are such domains as human-computer
interaction, literature, and media studies.  Terms for broad domains
have fuzzy boundaries, but the terms for these domains are helpful.
So, too, a term is useful for our domain of discussion.  It needn't
be just one, as you point out.  Many.  Just as there are varieties
terms for red wine, the more descriptive terms for MUDs, the
merrier.  Each has its subtle hue and texture.

> I feel that using the 'Virtual World' as a good basis, and then
> explain the particular features important to the discussion at
> hand seems like a good plan, since this is what we had before, and
> it caused no problems at all :-)

I agree that since it's been used it might as well continue to be
used.  How could I not.  I type on a qwerty keyboard, speak English,
and do all sorts of conventional things just because they're
conventional.

However, the conventional definition of "virtual worlds" is
inconsistent.  Here on this list, it's usage has been consistent.
But I wasn't considering just this list's usage.  Some journalists
describe a videogame as a virtual world.  Some professors describe
any virtual environment (in the 3D user interface sense of the term,
such as a single user space made from VRML) as a virtual world.
Ocasionally the term pops up to describe books, literature, or other
exercises of imagination.

I'm not the average reader, so I don't claim to speak for everyone,
or to know what's right for everyone.  Actually, come to think of
it, the term "computer-mediated community" is more like a
pocket-size description, rather than a term.  It's certainly longer
and less sexy than "virtual world."  Yet, the term
"computer-mediated community" does capture a couple of the salient
features of our domain of discussion.

We don't usually discuss software without communities or communities
that are interfaced without software.  And I'm hard pressed to
conjure examples that don't fit within the definition of a
computer-mediated community that does fit into the discussions I've
read here (and elsewhere).  So, if our domain fits inside of this
definition and nothing outside our domain also fits inside this
definition (as is the case with "virtual worlds"), then although
it's longer and less awe-inspiring, it is more accurate.

Having said all that, I still follow the conventions of language.
The term's history is more important than it's implicit definition.
"Virtual worlds" has certainly stuck in many circles of discussion,
so to that extent, I use it.  And of course when I want to sound
important, why would I say "computer-mediated community" (or
MUD--for that matter) when I could say "virtual world"?

David
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev