Better Citizenship Through WoW?
Better Citizenship Through WoW?
February 11, 2009
Can playing World of Warcraft make you a better citizen of the real world?
Perhaps.
A study by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Constance Steinkuehler found that WoW players were more likely to listen to and reason things out with their fellow Azeroth residents.
Steinkuehler spoke on the benefits of digital worlds at a museum in Madison last night. As reported by the Capital Times, her remarks included:
Learning how to navigate [the online world's] diversity is "in the big scheme of life" about citizenship, she said...
Video games... push social norms and practices because those things are necessary to succeed at highly complex MMOGs like World of Warcraft, Steinkuehler said...
Her work included analysis of message boards where World of Warcraft players get together... She found that 65 percent of the discussion was "evaluative" vs. 30 percent "absolutist" -- "My idea is right and not open to discussion" -- and 5 percent "relative" -- it's just opinion and no one is right.
In contrast, she said studies have found that the U.S. population is only 15 percent evaluative, 50 percent absolutist and 35 percent relativist...
Steinkuehler likened the efforts of gamers to President Obama's neighbor-to-neighbor tool where, for example, volunteers surveyed their neighborhoods and updated the campaign's database.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Eh, based on what I've seen, she must ignored 90% of the whining and complaining that normally goes on.
Side note, the title just made catchphrases from Starship Troopers flood through my mind. "Service guarantees citizenship!"
i take it she stayed out of trade chat (my guess is shes only talking about group chat)
WTF? You make mention about Obama in article but if we dare to speak ill of Obama it cannot be posted? If you don't want people to mention your Lord God and Savior then maybe you shouldn't mention him by name of put at the bottom of the screen, thou shall not speak lords name (obama) in vain.
I smell bias
*SNIP*
EZK: Please Don't post off topic comments.
No, you were making an off topic post about the lack of obama themed games being reported on the site, while many republican themed games are being reported on.
Had you comment actually been pertenant to the mention of Obama in the article, I wouldn't have cared less if you were mentioned.
But as it stands, your post was a complete "Why aren't you posting what I think you should be posting" type comment.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Guess they don't take into account gen and trade chat spam. Had to turn every public channel off just to enjoy the expansion again.
I swore I read it as "Better censorship though WOW".....
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Isn't it possible that WOW just attracts people who listen a little better or intend to work together. I mean most people I talk to who play MMOs join because there's other people there.
I agree with the biased comment. Who is back this study I wonder. Not to be overly paranoid, but honestly. This must be a bit of a stretch. From my personal experience studies need to be evaluated from a credibility perspective before they can be considered viable. I mean, I wish video gaming was going to make society a better place, but let's be honest. Well, perhaps the Wii is going to improve our world, but that isn't really a gaming machine. Is it???
I'm new!
My sites Dora The Explorer & Buy Tel Domain & Dot Tel Domain
"analysis of message boards"
So not the in-game chat.
She apparently hasn't been to the Barrens Chat...or Trade chat. I mentioned on a previous article the anal epidemic that struck the trade chat (and thus trading stopped...not that there wasn't much trading going on in the first place).
there's also the amount of people complaining about being nerfed or nerfing other classes, the amount of people calling each other names and the amount of useless chat that goes on.
This is why i stick to my guild chat. Much more awesome and fun.
And again, she used the MESSAGE BOARDS - not ingame chat.
And the former is arguably a much more hospitable place - even for the maturity (or lack of) of WoW's playerbase.
I can't agree that the official WoW message boards are that hospitable. It's filled with trolls, flamers and flamebaiters- just like any loosely moderated forum on the Internet.
I also think her analysis is flawed. She is taking her numbers only from the people who actively participate in discussions- thus, she sees a lot of people willing to talk and listen: the evaluatives, with the only absolutists and relativists she's seeing and using in her study being the vocal ones.
She has to consider that those two latter viewpoints are likely to simply not say anything, especially on Internet forums. For her study to be accurate, she has to follow up on those who only read through threads without posting anything and try to get their actual opinions.
Furthermore, an MMO like WoW is a naturally evaluative environment. Most of the discussion is about gameply, strategy, tactics- what works and what doesn't in the game. Most of the dissent can easily be empirically tested out in the game. And since it's a computer game, there's also math that can be checked and followed to prove or disprove one's point.
This is a far cry from the full range of human opinion, which includes religion, politics, morality, etc. where such things cannot be determined by experimentation and objective analysis.
As a PC gamer and WoW player, it's nice to hear good news, but even that should be taken with a grain of salt.
As for Barrens and Trade Chat, I just ignore it as much as I can, trying to focus only on stuff that's relevant- helpful info or opportunities for commerce. But it can be pretty hard not to notice the crap that usually goes on in there. Even the serious discussions can be painful.