There are a couple of reports about SL in the media again. One good, one bad.

Over on Terra Nova there is a summary of a Forbes article about Wells Fargo leaving SL and "how clunky they found it." I will admit I've not read the whole article - I'm feeling disinclined to sign up to another potential source of spam, which is a requirement - but if the best "OMG SL Sucks" company they can find left 18 months ago after failing to implement their plans - one has to wonder what a bank was planning to do in SL anyway - then you do have to wonder just how much they felt the need to write a bad piece, and why?

Meanwhile, Sarah Everts writes an excellent piece about attending a science presentation in SL for Chemical And Engineering News and talks about other science education in SL (in the interests of disclosure I've worked with all of the people she mentions in various ways, and made the chemistry she talks about). Not to steal her thunder, her article ends with one of the most insightful comments I've seen from a new resident in a long time:

"Despite feeling like a klutz, I am a definite Second Life convert. The draw is not simply its educational potential for visualizing complex concepts or for allowing geographically distant students to form a classroom community. And it's not just that the site allows researchers to network at a poster session without the time and financial cost of attending a real-world conference.

I like Second Life because it reminds me of the awkward early days of the Internet. Like knowing a gawky, smart teenager, I'm curious to see how Second Life turns out when it grows up."