Talk:Virtual reality

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdinh (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Abeerjanakat. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nickkauf (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ecdaniel. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zsengr410 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Killersrampage, MiguelG16 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Brigpaulson15, Kbarlow18, 10658513uvu, Jessica Cragun, Aewlarsen, Marypolatis.

Virtual Reality page

It was mentioned on this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality in section 3.1, that elements of virtual reality go as far back as the 1860's, and then follows up with this by mentioning Antonin Artaud. I believe he was not born until the late 1890's. So if it is a matter of that editor referencing the two sentences together or not, it comes of as such when reading. I don't feel comfortable editing the section, and I apologize if this is the incorrect way to make note of an "error" in an article, but like I said I do not feel comfortable changing anything directly myself, whether or not it needs to be corrected.

a-ha

I know the band is famous for their smash-hit "Take On Me", but there have been too many "VR" concerts in that past 2 years to make this one notable enough for this article. If anyone disagrees please take it up in talk. I would suggest a separate "VR Concerts" page for everyone looking to preserve the experience for posterity ;-)

VR cameras

Cameras with one lens use the fisheye principle. For this technique, cameras film at an angle of 360°x235° so that no complete 360-degree image is produced. A black spot in the image on the VR glasses can be seen. Other camera models have two lenses, which are mounted close to each other. These VR cameras produce a fully spherical and gapless image. With this technique, the images are stitched together using special software. As of 2019, 360-degree cameras with two lenses had problems sewing the two images together. This means that the seam that is supposed to join the two images together is often still visible. Other camera models have more than two lenses. As with dual lens cameras, these are stitched using camera software. In addition, 360-degree images can be created by connecting several cameras. Camera rigs are usually used to attach six conventional action cams, available in different versions and connect several individual cameras. The rigs are constructed like a cube, with cameras placed in this cube and record the surroundings in all directions. If several "normal" cameras are combined in a network, these are referred to as mosaic-based cameras. Each of these cameras records a small area of the surroundings, and the individual images are then joined together like mosaic stones to form an omnidirectional overall image. The number of cameras to be used depends on the focal length of the lenses used; the smaller the focal length, the larger the angle of view and the fewer cameras are required.

New editor contributions

Hello, regular editors at Virtual reality,

Recently, Thad Norberg (talk · contribs) made this edit to the article, introducing new information about a particular project at Autodesk. The way it was worded, made it look pretty WP:PROMO to me, but I was a bit on the fence about it. The fact that this was this editor's first ever contribution to Wikipedia, kind of tipped the balance for me, and I reverted, along with a welcome message at the user's talk page.

I prefer that regular editors here make the call, about whether this change is for the better or not, and whether the wording needs to be changed to make it both neutral, proportionate in weight to the rest of the article, and without that kind of PROMO-ey flavor it had. I've invited Thad Norberg here to make his case. Previous bits of discussion about this topic can be found both at User talk:Thad Norberg#Virtual reality, and at my Talk page in this discussion. Pinging top editors @Seazzy, Arthur Rubin, OnBeyondZebrax, SNAAAAKE!!, Jak1715, DXBari, Smojarad, Mriveralee, Me, Myself, and I are Here, and DroidBishop:. I won't contribute further unless pinged; whatever you folks decide is fine by me. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, hello regular editors at Virtual reality:

As mentioned to Mathglot (talk · contribs) in response to his reversion, I consider the seminal work of Autodesk in achieving the first VR implementation on a PC in 1988 to be an important and neglected part of the early history of VR, perhaps neglected because the time frame is pre-internet. The Autodesk video I linked, from the Timothy Leary (!) archives and hosted at the Internet Archive, provides a good perspective of the state of VR technology of that era. Equally important in my opinion is the subsequent work of the ex-Autodesk personnel at Sense8 Corporation, also hitherto neglected in the article. Sense8 became the VR industry leader in the 1990s, was the first to implement texture mapping on a PC, had its WorldToolKit SDK product widely used by government labs, industry, and academia, (I cited a couple of papers, there are a lot) and was acquired in a public stock swap in 1998. Mathglot (talk · contribs) said he reverted because he considered my contribution WP:PROMO, but given these things happened 30 years ago and are (or certainly should be, IMHO) part of the historical record, I fail to see what he thinks they are advertising. In my opinion the Autodesk and Sense8 work is more historically significant than some of the other developments mentioned in the article (examples: Virtual Environment Theater and Angels). I am keen to hear the opinions of the regular editors, thanks. Thad Norberg (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Presumably this made Mathglot a bit suspicious because it's all sourced to first party promotional material instead of a third party source.

I don't think it's a WP:PROMO problem. Both the Autodesk Cyberspace project and WTK are pretty much dead in the water. At a certain point promotional material becomes a historical document, so long as we take it with a grain of salt.

I guess the only remaining question is whether it's notable or just trivia. We could probably find sources for WTK's notability. The autodesk thing is probably more just trivia, but personally I'd leave it in. It's an interesting and provides context, but if someone removes it because it's trivia I wouldn't fight over it.ApLundell (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, the Autodesk Cyberspace project got significant worldwide press at the time of its announcement and demonstration, as one might imagine of something so radical coming from a major company. Here's a relatively recent Wired article that reprints in full the 1990 article by John_Perry_Barlow, which mentions the Autodesk project 11 times in a fairly detailed way. I can dig to find more major press references, if that is necessary for Autodesk's project to be considered non-trivial and permissible for inclusion.Thad Norberg (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I take it from the lack of further comments that none of the regular editors of this article object to my addition, so I shall once again make the change and also include a reference to the Barlow article in Wired, which I hope is generally regarded as WP:RS.Thad Norberg (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

Virtual Reality is something that is really interesting, especially since it is used in so many ways. I am impressed with the author because they gave a clear understanding of what virtual reality is in the lead section. I like how the article is organized because it gives information about how virtual reality first started, versus how it is today. I like how the author gives information about how virtual reality can be used not only for entertainment purposes but for medical purposes as well. The only improvement that is needed for this article is adding citations to some statements that don’t have a citation, or the citation needs updating. Brigpaulson15 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

My family recently has been obsessed with Virtual Reality. This was a very interesting read for me. I learned a lot about the origins and how virtual reality games and technology has shifted. My only constructive criticism for this article would be to include more on the health and safety part. This might not be the fault of the author, more and more studies are being done all the time I am sure. I guess the future can only tell what kind of effect video gaming like this will have on our society. I would also add more to the privacy portion of the article. Overall this was a great insightful article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Cragun (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

I found this article to currently be the most well informed and articulated! I have always found Virtual Reality interesting and I think this article was up to date and has plenty of information about the topic. One thing that I think could really add to this article are more images. I am a visual learner so I am very excited when I see all the images on the Wikipedia pages. I think that there is a lot of information to go over and look through to add and update this page! - Tonilynn Ludwig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10658513uvu (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

Share the Love • First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I think this article is very well written. It includes so many things that anyone might want to know about virtual reality. It has a great amount of sources to back up its claims and to allow further study into the subject. • What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? For the most part I believe this article is very well written and is very informative, if I had to give a suggestion for improvement it would just to go over each paragraph and try to shorten it as much as possible. Sometimes when articles are too long or give too much information it makes it hard to read and hard to stay focused on the overall subject so if its possible to shorten any of the long paragraphs I think that could improve the article a little bit. • What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? See above. Kbarlow18 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think this was by far the best article that I have reviewed for this class. I think it has a solid foundation as to what Virtual Reality is and where it stands today. I love how right after that the article just jumps into the history of the Virtual Reality with other hyperlinks to help support what the article is stating. I would just quickly suggest that you proof-read the article to make any punctuation or spelling correction that you may need. Other than that I really do enjoy this article but that may be because it is something that I am interested in reading about. I feel like I always favor these types of articles. - Mary Polatis