Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives (Ep. 109)

On the other hand, if you want to be the 11 millionth person who’s keeping an eye on the Donald Trump article, your contribution, while important, is probably going to be, marginally speaking, a little bit less, so I think it just depends.

另一方面，如果你想成为第 1100 万关注唐纳德·特朗普文章的人，你的贡献虽然很重要，但从侧面来说，可能会少一点，所以我认为这取决于情况。

Certainly, what we see, oftentimes, is that people who have the largest impact for the amount of time they’re spending are people who are working in smaller languages in the developing world.

当然，我们经常看到的是，在发展中国家使用较小语言工作的人，其所花费的时间影响最大​​。

If you’ve got some knowledge there, you can have a huge impact just by helping to get the community going, building the community, and so forth.

如果你在这方面有一些知识，那么你可以通过帮助社区运转、建设社区等等来产生巨大的影响。

It depends on the skill set.

这取决于技能组合。

Actually, one of the things that’s very interesting — when we first got started, we took a look at and we imported a handful of articles from the 1911 edition of Britannica, which was in the public domain.

事实上，有一件非常有趣的事情 —— 当我们刚开始时，我们看了一下，并从 1911 年版的《大英百科全书》中导入了一些文章，这些文章属于公共领域。

It was no longer under copyright so we were allowed to use it.

它不再受版权保护，因此我们被允许使用它。

We imported some articles, and you would think, “Okay, since 1911, what have we really learned about Julius Caesar?” Well, it turns out, a lot.

我们导入了一些文章，你可能会想，“好吧，自 1911 年以来，我们对朱利叶斯·凯撒真正了解了什么？”嗯，事实证明，很多。

Even on very old topics like Hamlet, scholarship has carried on, scholarship continues, new things are learned, new perspectives are generated.

即使是像《哈姆雷特》这样非常古老的话题，学术研究仍在继续，学术研究仍在继续，人们学到了新的东西，产生了新的观点。

For things like Hamlet, the impact of Hamlet on the world, of course, is still a thing that happens in the contemporary world.

对于哈姆雷特这样的事情，哈姆雷特对世界的影响，当然仍然是当代世界发生的事情。

It’s fun to think about, if we look at the Wikipedia entries from 10 years ago, what has changed in the last 10 years on some topic that you think would have been stable for the last 10 years?

想想很有趣，如果我们查看 10 年前的维基百科条目，您认为过去 10 年来一直稳定的某个主题在过去 10 年来发生了哪些变化？

It would be quite interesting to actually study that — and varied.

实际研究这一点会非常有趣——并且多种多样。

In some ways, I think that it’s quite a radical project to say, “Okay, hold on, everybody.

在某些方面，我认为这是一个相当激进的项目，“好吧，大家等等。

Why don’t we slow down?” If we’re going to talk about something like — Obamacare is my favorite example — are we for it or against it?

我们为什么不慢下来？”如果我们要谈论诸如 — 奥巴马医改是我最喜欢的例子 — 我们是支持还是反对？

Actually, before we know if we’re for it or against it, maybe shouldn’t we actually find out what it is?

事实上，在我们知道我们是支持还是反对之前，也许我们不应该先弄清楚它是什么？

Shouldn’t we just read a neutral, clear description as best as we can find to understand it before we come to some conclusion?”

在我们得出结论之前，我们难道不应该尽可能地阅读中立、清晰的描述来理解它吗？”

That, in today’s culture, may be a little bit radical, even though in another sense, obviously, it’s quite old fashioned.

在当今的文化中，这可能有点激进，尽管从另一种意义上来说，显然这是相当过时的。

Somebody said this to me on Twitter: “Why doesn’t Wikipedia have a page on this politician who’s the front runner, at the moment, to be elected to the Senate in Iowa?” I said, “Gee, I don’t know.

有人在推特上对我说：“为什么维基百科上没有关于这位目前是爱荷华州参议员竞选领先者的政客的页面？”我说：“哎呀，我不知道。

Let me go check.” What I found was this enormously convoluted, very, very Wikipedia discussion about the rules and the process, and there was a deletion a while back because she was not notable when she first announced her candidacy because she was not someone who we could find any information about.

让我去检查一下。”我发现的是关于规则和流程的极其复杂、非常非常维基百科的讨论，不久前有一个删除，因为她第一次宣布参选时并不引人注目，因为我们找不到她的任何信息。

However, she has become notable in the last several months, including national media coverage.

然而，她在过去几个月中变得引人注目，包括全国媒体的报道。

But the whole thing got caught in this web of complicated Wikipedia-ness.

但整个事情都陷入了复杂的维基百科网络中。

I cited one of our oldest rules, the ignore-all-rules rule, to say if some rule is preventing you from making Wikipedia better, then ignore that rule.

我引用了我们最古老的规则之一，即“忽略所有规则”规则，表示如果某些规则阻止您使维基百科变得更好，则忽略该规则。

At the same time, I think the social processes and the rules and thinking about how do we design them is actually, in the long run, the important part and the hard part because when I look at a situation like what we had today, I say, “Gee, this is all hopeless.

与此同时，我认为从长远来看，社会流程和规则以及思考我们如何设计它们实际上是重要的部分和困难的部分，因为当我看到像我们今天这样的情况时，我说，“哎呀，这一切都没有希望了。

We got this one badly wrong.” I’m like, “Okay, but what exactly should we change?” Because these rules are not completely random.

我们在这件事上犯了严重错误。”我想，“好吧，但是我们到底应该改变什么？”因为这些规则并不是完全随机的。

There are reasons for them.

他们是有原因的。

As somebody said, it’s like the garage band which gets nominated for deletion and requests reinstatement 15 times till people are sick of it because they’re no longer notable.

正如有人所说，这就像车库乐队一样，被提名删除并要求恢复 15 次，直到人们厌倦它，因为他们不再引人注目。

It’s actually the reason some of the procedures are in place.

这实际上是某些程序到位的原因。

It’s just to give us a mechanism for dealing with those things.

只是为了给我们一个处理这些事情的机制。

But in some cases, those procedures go wrong.

但在某些情况下，这些程序会出错。

We have to really think about, “Okay, what went wrong?

我们必须认真思考：“好吧，出了什么问题？

How do we make that better?”

我们如何让它变得更好？”

It’s a very different kind of model, as compared to moderation at Twitter or YouTube or somewhere like that, where it’s behind the scenes, invisible.

与 Twitter 或 YouTube 或类似地方的审核相比，这是一种非常不同的模式，在幕后，它是不可见的。

This is an open dialogue.

这是一次开放的对话。

It’s a chewing on ideas and so on.

这是对想法等等的咀嚼。

It’s very, very public, although often impenetrable in the sense that it’s a lot of words.

它是非常非常公开的，尽管由于文字太多而常常难以理解。

It’s a binary thing.

这是一个二元的东西。

There aren’t people who — unlike, say, famous politicians, where people do take sides.

没有人会像著名的政治家那样，人们确实会站在一边。

If you don’t like Japanese anime, you probably don’t watch it, and you don’t write about it in Wikipedia.

如果你不喜欢日本动漫，你可能就不会看它，也不会在维基百科上写下它。

That’s fairly harmless.

这是相当无害的。

It’s Japanese anime, and if the articles are not sufficiently critical, that’s probably not a huge issue.

这是日本动漫，如果文章没有足够的批判性，那可能不是一个大问题。

There are certain kinds of disputes where the amount of energy that we put into trying to keep the articles good quality is probably far out of proportion to the results, although the results are quite good.

在某些争议中，尽管结果相当不错，但我们为保持文章质量而投入的精力可能与结果远远不成比例。

I don’t mean that the results aren’t good.

我并不是说结果不好。

If you look at something like George W.

如果你看看乔治·W·布什 (George W.

Bush, and you think about, here’s this article, and it’s this long, and it’s very detailed.

布什，你想一想，这是这篇文章，这么长，而且非常详细。

Then you say, “How many human hours were spent hammering away at making this what it is today?” It’s an enormous amount of time spent doing it.

然后你会说：“我们花了多少人的时间才把它变成今天的样子？”这需要花费大量的时间。

You probably could have done it in a smaller amount of time if you just sat down four or five thoughtful people and said, “Let’s work on this.”

如果你让四五个有思想的人坐下来说：“让我们来解决这个问题”，你可能可以在更短的时间内完成这件事。

On the other hand, there’s something interesting and something valid about this open, public process where everything is open to challenge and a further debate and a further debate.

另一方面，这个开放、公开的过程也有一些有趣和有效的地方，一切都可以接受挑战，并进行进一步的辩论和进一步的辩论。

If I went to your biography in Wikipedia, it probably takes me four or five clicks.

如果我在维基百科上查看你的传记，可能需要点击四五次。

By just clicking on the first link of each thing that I come to, then you end up at philosophy.

只需点击我所看到的每件事的第一个链接，你就会到达哲学。

That’s just simply because of the genus-species nature of a definition or an explanation of something.

这只是因为某种定义或解释的属种性质。

I’m not sure that means philosophy is central in the sense you’re talking about.

我不确定这是否意味着哲学在你所说的意义上是核心。

For Wikipedia, it isn’t so much that it’s a nonprofit, although that probably has a certain impact as well, but the fact that Wikipedia does not have an advertising business model means that the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization behind Wikipedia, really faces a different set of incentives.

对于维基百科来说，与其说它是一个非营利组织，尽管这可能也会产生一定的影响，但维基百科没有广告商业模式这一事实意味着维基百科背后的组织维基媒体基金会确实面临着一套不同的激励措施。

Even as a nonprofit, you have to think in a businesslike way, and you have to say, “Well, how are we going to pay the bills?

即使作为一个非营利组织，你也必须以务实的方式思考，你必须说：“好吧，我们将如何支付账单？

And how do we achieve our mission?”

我们如何实现我们的使命？”

If you think about advertising-driven social media, the real incentive is to show you as many ads as possible, so they really obsess over time on-site, and it’s driven them to create addictive products.

如果您考虑广告驱动的社交媒体，真正的动机是向您展示尽可能多的广告，因此他们会随着时间的推移在现场真正着迷，并驱使他们创造出令人上瘾的产品。

It’s driven them, in many cases, to prioritize agitation and argumentation, in a negative sense, over education and learning and thoughtfulness.

在许多情况下，这促使他们将消极意义上的鼓动和争论置于教育、学习和深思熟虑之上。

If you went to Twitter, and you found out the three things you wanted to know, and you left, they wouldn’t get a chance to show you very many ads.

如果你访问 Twitter，发现了你想知道的三件事，然后你离开了，他们就没有机会向你展示很多广告。

But if you go to Twitter, and you see 18 people who are wrong and you’ve got to straighten them out, you might stay for hours doing this very addictive hobby.

但如果你访问 Twitter，发现有 18 个人错了，你必须纠正他们，你可能会花上几个小时做这个非常令人上瘾的爱好。

When we think about things at Wikipedia — for example, we could probably increase engagement if we use some of the very basic machine learning techniques to start showing people random promotional links to other things than Wikipedia and then have the machine learn over time how to show you links that are more interesting so that you end up staying on the site longer.

当我们思考维基百科的事情时——例如，如果我们使用一些非常基本的机器学习技术开始向人们展示维基百科以外的其他内容的随机促销链接，然后让机器随着时间的推移学习如何向您展示更有趣的链接，以便您最终在网站上停留更长时间，那么我们可能会提高参与度。

Now, it might turn out that that’s completely normal and thoughtful, in fact, if you go to a well-known economist, that it turns out that the way to keep you on the site longer is to show you other concepts of economics and economic theory.

现在，事实可能证明这是完全正常和深思熟虑的，事实上，如果你去找一位著名的经济学家，事实证明，让你在网站上停留更长时间的方法是向你展示经济学和经济理论的其他概念。

But it might turn out, and probably would turn out, the best thing to do is, when you go to look up Tyler Cowen, to show you on the sidebar links to Kim Kardashian, Donald Trump, whatever the hot topic of the day is and so on, which is not really what you want from an encyclopedia.

但结果可能是，而且很可能会是，最好的办法是，当你去查找泰勒·考恩时，在侧边栏上向你显示金·卡戴珊、唐纳德·特朗普的链接，无论当天的热门话题是什么等等，这并不是你真正想要的百科全书。

When we think about that, our incentive structure at Wikipedia is not to optimize time on-site.

当我们思考这一点时，维基百科的激励结构并不是为了优化现场时间。

It’s to say, look, every now and then, normally at the end of the year, we say, “Hey, would you donate some money?” Nobody has to donate.

这就是说，你看，时不时地，通常是在年底，我们会说，“嘿，你愿意捐点钱吗？”没有人必须捐款。

The only reason people do donate — and this is what donors tell us — is they think, “This is meaningful.

人们捐赠的唯一原因 ——这就是捐赠者告诉我们的—— 他们认为，“这很有意义。

This is important to my life.

这对我的生活很重要。

This should live.

这应该活下去。

This should exist.”

这个应该存在。”

We got a year between the time we ask you for money to become a part of your life and make it meaningful enough for you to say, “I want to click, and I want to contribute to this.” That’s just a completely different set of incentives in front of us in terms of, how do we optimize that?

从我们向你要钱来成为你生活的一部分，并让它变得足够有意义，让你说：“我想点击，我想为此做出贡献”之间，我们有一年的时间。这只是我们面前的一套完全不同的激励措施，我们如何优化它？

Or do you think there’s something intrinsic about your enterprise that it was going to be a not-for-profit, no matter who did it?

或者您是否认为您的企业本质上是非营利性的，无论是谁做的？

I used to joke it was either the best decision or the worst decision I ever made, but then I stopped even making the joke because even if I said it was a joke, I would get headlines saying, “Oh, Jimmy Wales regrets that he’s not a billionaire.” That’s not what I said, actually, and it’s only a joke anyway.

我曾经开玩笑说，这要么是我做过的最好的决定，要么是我做过的最糟糕的决定，但后来我什至不再开这个玩笑了，因为即使我说这是一个玩笑，我也会得到头条新闻说，“哦，吉米·威尔士很遗憾他不是亿万富翁。”事实上，这不是我说的，而且这只是一个玩笑。

It’s clearly a great decision, but ultimately, it didn’t have to be this way.

这显然是一个伟大的决定，但最终，它不必是这样的。

It could have been different.

情况可能会有所不同。

In fact, you could imagine several different models.

事实上，您可以想象几种不同的模型。

Let’s say that I was still in charge of everything, and instead of putting it into the nonprofit structure, I’d kept it in a for-profit structure, but it pursued — like a Craig Newmark of Craigslist — a model where I say, “Look, I’m going to maintain complete control of the stock, and I’m not going to raise venture capital money.

假设我仍然负责一切，我没有将其纳入非营利结构，而是将其保留在营利性结构中，但它追求的是“就像 Craigslist 的克雷格·纽马克一样”的模式，我会说，“听着，我将保持对股票的完全控制，而且我不会筹集风险投资资金。

I’m going to run it as a very profitable hobby and get some donations.

我将把它作为一项非常有利可图的爱好来经营，并获得一些捐款。

Or maybe I’ll stick a little ad here or there, but I’m not going to try to monetize like crazy.”

或者也许我会在这里或那里贴一个小广告，但我不会疯狂地尝试赚钱。”

That’s possible, although hard to really imagine, just as Craigslist is hard to really imagine.

这是有可能的，尽管很难真正想象，就像 Craigslist 很难真正想象一样。

It’s like, Craig’s made a ton of money, but he could have made 10 tons of money.

就好像克雷格赚了很多钱，但他本可以赚 10 吨钱。

He’s just the person for whom a ton is plenty.

他就是一个拥有很多东西的人。

It’s an interesting question, really.

这确实是一个有趣的问题。

But the things that I would say that we focus on and think a lot about are, really, it’s about community health.

但我想说的是，我们关注并思考很多的事情实际上是关于社区健康的。

How do we make sure that the community is happy, productive, not full of trolls, thoughtful, kind, all of those great Wikipedia values?

我们如何确保社区快乐、富有成效、不充满恶搞、体贴、友善，以及所有这些伟大的维基百科价值观？

Which are like all communities, all groups of people.

就像所有社区、所有人群一样。

We have a certain set of values that we aspire to, and we live up to them to a lesser or greater extent on a day-to-day basis.

我们有一套我们所追求的价值观，并且我们在日常生活中或多或少地践行着这些价值观。

How do we make sure that we are still mostly doing, already, things that we’re mostly getting right, knowing that it can’t be perfect?

我们如何确保我们仍然在做大部分已经做对的事情，尽管我们知道它不可能完美？

Financially, I feel like we’re okay.

从经济上来说，我觉得我们还好。

The fundraisers do very well.

筹款活动做得很好。

We’re very conservative with money, so I think that, as an immediate threat or an obvious threat, not so much.

我们在金钱方面非常保守，所以我认为，作为直接威胁或明显的威胁，没有那么多。

Although technology shifts, and so, will the technology move people to voice assistance where they don’t actually come to Wikipedia, but they just get the information from us and end up not donating money?

尽管技术发生了变化，但该技术是否会让人们转向语音协助，而他们实际上并没有访问维基百科，但他们只是从我们这里获取信息，最终却没有捐款？

That’s a possibility.

这是一种可能性。

Obviously, there are other potential threats, but I feel confident that we can defeat them.

显然，还有其他潜在威胁，但我有信心我们能够击败它们。

But as I say, I’m a pathological optimist.

但正如我所说，我是一个病态的乐观主义者。

There’s a lot of noise these days about repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, without which Wikipedia couldn’t exist.

最近有很多关于废除《通信规范法案》第 230 条的声音，没有它维基百科就不可能存在。

It’s completely impossible.

这是完全不可能的。

I can talk more about that.

我可以多谈谈这一点。

I can talk for an hour about that if we wanted to.

如果我们愿意的话，我可以谈论一个小时。

But because we’ve got some noise around that, not only from the right — Donald Trump has been tweeting all caps, “REPEAL SECTION 230.” I’m not sure he even knows what it is — but from the left as well because people are concerned about the power of the big tech companies, and they wonder if Section 230 has something to do with that, and so on and so forth.

但因为我们对此有一些噪音，不仅来自右翼——唐纳德·特朗普一直在推特上大写，“废除第 230 条。”我不确定他是否知道这是什么，但也来自左派，因为人们担心大型科技公司的力量，他们想知道第 230 条是否与此有关，等等。

So, I think that is under threat, and I think that that is a serious threat to anything that’s open on the internet.

所以，我认为这受到了威胁，而且我认为这对互联网上开放的任何内容都是严重威胁。

If you try to characterize religion as either right- or left-wing, typically, in the US, you would tend to say right-wing, but if you look at the current pope and certain elements of the church’s positions, you would say they’re pretty left-wing in other ways.

如果你试图将宗教描述为右翼或左翼，通常在美国，你会倾向于说是右翼，但如果你看看现任教皇和教会立场的某些要素，你会说他们在其他方面相当左翼。

I don’t think they easily fit into that, but the broader point is, can an organization maintain an explicit set of values over a very long period of time that is neither left- nor right-wing in its nature?

我认为它们不容易融入这一点，但更广泛的一点是，一个组织能否在很长一段时间内保持一套明确的价值观，而其本质上既不是左翼也不是右翼？

I think so.

我想是的。

Certainly, it seems possible to me.

当然，在我看来这是可能的。

I think about quality publications that matter, and so I think about the Wall Street Journal tending to be a bit more on the right, and the New York Times tending to be a bit more on the left.

我认为高质量的出版物很重要，所以我认为《华尔街日报》倾向于偏右一点，而《纽约时报》则倾向于偏左一点。

Then you think, yes, but where does Breitbart fit into that?

然后你会想，是的，但是布赖特巴特新闻网在哪里适合这个呢？

Where do some of the new media publications fit into that?

一些新媒体出版物在哪里适合这个？

And where do people who believe that all of those things are part of some sort of the elite conspiracy to hide the truth about pedophiles or whatever?

那些相信所有这些事情都是某种精英阴谋的一部分以掩盖恋童癖或其他什么真相的人在哪里？

It becomes hard.

它变得很难。

I think it’s very hard when you have people who have given up on the concept of objectivity, the concept of neutrality.

我认为当有人放弃客观性、中立性的概念时，这是非常困难的。

That isn’t necessarily just on the right.

这不一定只是在右边。

Certainly, when we think about postmodernism and some of the critiques of the ideas of neutrality and objectivity that come from that end of the world, it’s a deeper philosophical question, I would say.

当然，当我们思考后现代主义以及来自世界末日的一些对中立性和客观性思想的批评时，我想说，这是一个更深层次的哲学问题。

I said at the time to the community, to volunteers, that there was a period of time when it became fashionable to write very easy, cheap news stories about something horrible on eBay.

我当时对社区和志愿者说，曾经有一段时间，在 eBay 上写一些非常简单、廉价的新闻报道来描述可怕的事情变得很流行。

You say, “Oh, no, someone’s selling their baby on eBay.” Or they’re selling their soul on eBay, or they’re selling their baby’s soul on eBay, or they’re selling a gun or whatever.

你说：“哦，不，有人在 eBay 上卖掉他们的孩子。”或者他们在 eBay 上出卖自己的灵魂，或者他们在 eBay 上出卖孩子的灵魂，或者他们在卖枪或其他什么。

After a little while, people realized actually, it’s not legal to sell your baby on eBay.

过了一段时间，人们意识到实际上，在 eBay 上出售你的孩子是不合法的。

It’s against the rules of eBay.

这违反了 eBay 的规则。

And if somebody posted as a joke, it just gets taken down.

如果有人发帖作为玩笑，它就会被删除。

Over time, the media, more broadly, got bored of writing a story like, “Oh no, someone vandalized Wikipedia.”

随着时间的推移，更广泛地说，媒体厌倦了写这样的故事，“哦，不，有人破坏了维基百科。”

I remember one case in particular when a famous celebrity — what was her name?

我特别记得一个例子，一位著名名人 ——她叫什么名字？

Anna something.

安娜的东西。

She married a really old guy for his money and so on.

她嫁给了一个非常老的男人，因为他的钱等等。

Anyway, she died of a drug overdose, and somebody vandalized Wikipedia and wrote something terrible about her.

无论如何，她死于吸毒过量，有人破坏了维基百科并写了一些关于她的可怕内容。

It was a huge story the day she died because she had a drug overdose, this very famous tabloid-y person.

她死的那天是一个大新闻，因为她吸毒过量，这个非常有名的小报人物。

One of the journalists said, “Does this show something deeply wrong with the Wikipedia model?” And I said, “It shows something deeply wrong with what’s going on in journalism, that this celebrity dies and I get eight phone calls about vandalism in Wikipedia.

一位记者说：“这是否表明维基百科模式存在严重错误？”我说，“这表明新闻业正在发生严重的错误，这位名人去世了，我接到了八个关于维基百科破坏行为的电话。

That’s absolutely not the point.”

这绝对不是重点。”

There have been times when I felt, “Oh, that’s actually not fair.” But in general, we’ve been treated well.

有时我会觉得，“哦，这实际上不公平。”但总的来说，我们受到了很好的对待。

I think, certainly over time, a lot of the worst fears that people had about Wikipedia, that it was just going to degenerate into a troll fest or something like that, haven’t proven true.

我认为，随着时间的推移，人们对维基百科的许多最严重的恐惧，即它会退化为巨魔盛宴或类似的东西，并没有被证明是正确的。

I would say in recent years, once we’ve seen how bad social media can be, we’ve been treated very, very nicely.

我想说，近年来，一旦我们看到社交媒体有多么糟糕，我们就会受到非常非常好的对待。

I would say that the areas where we struggle the most — and I alluded to this earlier, talking about a thing that I just happened to be involved with this morning — we’ve become very bureaucratic in a certain kind of way.

我想说的是，我们最困难的领域——我早些时候提到过这一点，谈论我今天早上碰巧涉及的一件事——我们在某种程度上变得非常官僚化。

We’ve got a lot of history.

我们有很多历史。

We’ve got a lot of rules.

我们有很多规则。

We’ve got a lot of procedures.

我们有很多程序。

They’re all there for a reason.

他们的存在都是有原因的。

They all arguably do more good than harm, and yet, it is hard for people, new people to get involved.

可以说，它们都是利大于弊，然而，人们、新人很难参与其中。

It’s hard for people to understand certain things.

人们很难理解某些事情。

A good example was, we got a little bit of negative press because a famous author wrote quite a .

一个很好的例子是，我们受到了一些负面报道，因为一位著名作家写了相当多的文章。

.

。

.

。

it was actually, I thought, quite an amusing piece about how something about his ideas was wrong in Wikipedia, and he emailed us a correction to say, “No, that’s not what I think.” He got something back saying, “Do you have a source?” He was like, “What better source can I have for what I think?” It’s amusing and funny, and it’s like, “Oh, isn’t that terrible?

我认为，这实际上是一篇非常有趣的文章，讲述了他的想法在维基百科中的某些内容是错误的，他通过电子邮件给我们更正说，“不，那不是我的想法。”他收到回信说：“你有消息来源吗？”他说，“对于我的想法，我还能有什么更好的来源呢？”这很有趣，而且就像，“哦，那不是很糟糕吗？

Wikipedia won’t accept an author’s own words.”

Wikipedia won’t accept an author’s own words.”

Except that the issue was, he emailed us from a random-sounding Gmail address.

但问题是，他用一个听起来很随意的 Gmail 地址给我们发了电子邮件。

There was no proof it was actually him.

没有证据证明那确实是他。

He had a blog.

他有一个博客。

He could have easily written a post to his blog, explaining something.

他本可以轻松地在他的博客上写一篇文章来解释一些事情。

It was actually more subtle than that.

实际上比这更微妙。

It was like, “No, we actually do care what he thinks, and we’re not out to do this.” But because he didn’t understand Wikipedia — by the way, it’s not his job to understand Wikipedia; I’m not saying that at all — we had an outcome that was okay, not optimal.

就像是，“不，我们确实关心他的想法，但我们不会这么做。”但因为他不懂维基百科 ——顺便说一句，理解维基百科不是他的工作；他的职责是理解维基百科。我根本不是这么说的——“我们的结果还不错，但不是最佳的。”

Like, how do you actually make it easy to edit Wikipedia on a mobile device?

Like, how do you actually make it easy to edit Wikipedia on a mobile device?

It’s quite difficult, and we look at things for mobile participation.

It’s quite difficult, and we look at things for mobile participation.

Like, is there a way for people to quickly do a spelling fix or something like that?

比如，有没有一种方法可以让人们快速修复拼写或类似的事情？

Then the content — it’s written largely on the desktop, and therefore there is a divide in a sense between reading and writing, but that probably doesn’t matter so much because I think the reading experience for Wikipedia on mobile is perfectly fine.

然后内容 ——主要是在桌面上写的，因此阅读和写作之间存在某种意义上的鸿沟，但这可能并不重要，因为我认为移动端维基百科的阅读体验非常好。

In some ways it’s better because the scan distance for reading is a little shorter, but it probably could be a little more optimized for reading on mobile devices.

在某些方面它更好，因为阅读的扫描距离更短，但它可能可以针对移动设备上的阅读进行更优化。

The difference is — let’s say you’re a university professor, and your university says, “Actually, as a part of your evaluation, we are interested in our professors being involved in public dialogue, in public debate.

区别在于，假设你是一名大学教授，你的大学说：“实际上，作为你评估的一部分，我们对我们的教授参与公共对话、公共辩论感兴趣。

And actually, if you can contribute knowledge to Wikipedia and show us that, we consider that a positive thing, and you’ll get a good review based on that.”

事实上，如果你可以向维基百科贡献知识并向我们展示这一点，我们认为这是一件积极的事情，你将因此获得好评。”

Then, in some sense, they’re being paid to edit Wikipedia, but they are not being paid in the same way that the PR department of the university would be paid to make the university look good.

然后，从某种意义上说，他们获得报酬来编辑维基百科，但他们的报酬方式与大学公关部门的报酬方式不同，因为他们是为了让大学看起来更好而获得报酬。

In fact, they probably wouldn’t have much interest in making sure that page about the university itself is good.

In fact, they probably wouldn’t have much interest in making sure that page about the university itself is good.

That’s paid editing, but not paid advocacy editing.

That’s paid editing, but not paid advocacy editing.

Paid advocacy editing is really the problem.

付费宣传编辑确实是个问题。

In that case, people are of different minds.

在这种情况下，人们的想法是不同的。

I’m quite a hardliner on this.

我对此持强硬态度。

I just think it’s not something people should be doing at all.

我只是认为这根本不是人们应该做的事情。

In fact, I think what we need to do to cope with it is have better mechanisms that are less combative for people who have a conflict of interest to actually contribute constructively by not editing pages, but by making suggestions in some organized fashion that will actually be paid attention to.

事实上，我认为我们需要做的就是建立更好的机制，让那些有利益冲突的人不那么好斗，通过不编辑页面，而是通过以某种有组织的方式提出实际上会受到关注的建议来真正做出建设性贡献。

But that gives rise to a lot of other problems.

但这会引发许多其他问题。

One of the problems is, there’s the old saying, which I should know who said it, but it’s very hard to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.

问题之一是，有句老话，我应该知道这句话是谁说的，但是当他们的薪水取决于他们不理解它时，很难让人们理解某些东西。

If you’re being paid to spruce up the page about your boss, and your idea of what’s neutral filling in the gaps and our idea might be substantially different simply because you come to it with an advocacy bias, and that’s problematic.

如果你受雇来美化关于你老板的页面，那么你关于什么是中立的填补空白的想法和我们的想法可能会大不相同，仅仅因为你带着倡导偏见来到它，这是有问题的。

I think what works for people is if they come in in good faith and talk to the community.

I think what works for people is if they come in in good faith and talk to the community.

That’s by far the most effective way to get things done.

That’s by far the most effective way to get things done.

But we also know there are people who are doing paid editing, and it’s something that we basically disapprove of because we also see the abuses of it, where people go around trying to charge people a lot of money, pretending things that aren’t true about what they can get done, and so on and so forth.

但我们也知道有人在做付费编辑，这是我们基本上不赞成的事情，因为我们也看到了它的滥用，人们试图向人们收取很多钱，假装他们可以完成的事情不真实，等等。

One of the things that is really important to us — we do a lot of what we call “not voting.” It’s voting, but it’s really a straw poll.

对我们来说真正重要的事情之一是我们做了很多我们所说的“不投票”。这是投票，但实际上是一次稻草民意调查。

The votes — typically, they’re not the final word, and if somebody comes into a discussion and pretends to be five different people, arguing that something should be deleted, and there are two actual different people arguing that it should be kept, that’s deceptive.

投票 ——通常来说，它们并不是最终的决定，如果有人参与讨论并假装是五个不同的人，争论某些内容应该被删除，而实际上有两个不同的人争论应该保留它，这是欺骗性的。

It kind of skews the balance.

这有点扭曲了平衡。

People who are reviewing that say, “Well, I think we should keep it, but I see there are five people here with a different opinion, so maybe I’m wrong.” That bulking up your impact by double-voting on something, by pretending to be different people, is super problematic.

正在评论的人会说：“好吧，我认为我们应该保留它，但我看到这里有五个人持不同意见，所以也许我错了。” That bulking up your impact by double-voting on something, by pretending to be different people, is super problematic.

The other problematic sock puppeting is a sock puppet to conceal your conflict of interest.

The other problematic sock puppeting is a sock puppet to conceal your conflict of interest.

I remember we had one notorious case of a PR firm that had engaged in quite a lot of problematic editing.

我记得我们有一个臭名昭著的案例，一家公关公司进行了大量有问题的编辑。

One of their accounts — it made a lot of edits and pretended to be a retired fellow who was a car collector.

One of their accounts — it made a lot of edits and pretended to be a retired fellow who was a car collector.

There were all these pictures of old cars and so on.

There were all these pictures of old cars and so on.

They had a whole persona created that seemed like a lovely chap who just liked to edit Wikipedia, but in fact, it was just somebody at the PR firm who was giving a cover, and I think that kind of deception is problematic.

他们创建了一个完整的角色，看起来像是一个可爱的小伙子，只是喜欢编辑维基百科，但事实上，这只是公关公司的某个人在提供掩护，我认为这种欺骗是有问题的。

The good examples of multiple accounts would be someone who wants to edit in a controversial area.

多个帐户的好例子是想要在有争议的领域进行编辑的人。

As an example, let’s say you’re a well-known person, and suppose you took an interest in our entries on pedophilia, not because of any prurient interests but simply because you think this is actually an important topic of social impact.

举个例子，假设您是一个名人，假设您对我们有关恋童癖的条目感兴趣，不是因为任何淫荡的兴趣，而是因为您认为这实际上是一个具有社会影响力的重要话题。

Well, you probably wouldn’t necessarily want to be known at your university as the guy who edits the pedophilia articles on Wikipedia.

好吧，你可能不一定希望在你的大学里被认为是编辑维基百科恋童癖文章的人。

That’s just not easy for people to be open about, even if you’re doing all the right things.

即使你做了所有正确的事情，人们也不容易公开谈论这一点。

So you might say, “Yes, I actually want to edit in some areas of World War II history under this identity, but I’m going to do some work over here, and I really prefer it not to be tied back to my real-life identity.” And that’s kind of okay, as long as you’re not voting in elections with two accounts and things like that.

所以你可能会说，“是的，我实际上想以这个身份编辑二战历史的某些领域，但我要在这里做一些工作，而且我真的不希望它与我的现实生活身份联系在一起。” And that’s kind of okay, as long as you’re not voting in elections with two accounts and things like that.

As an example, I live in the UK, but I’m registered to vote in Florida.

As an example, I live in the UK, but I’m registered to vote in Florida.

So I registered for a mail-in ballot.

所以我注册了邮寄选票。

I got an email saying, “Here’s your ballot information, blah, blah, blah.” I can look up my ballot — not how I voted, but I can look up my home address, which I normally try to keep very, very secret.

我收到一封电子邮件，上面写着：“这是你的选票信息，等等，等等。” I can look up my ballot — not how I voted, but I can look up my home address, which I normally try to keep very, very secret.

I probably shouldn’t even mention this because trolls will now know where to go look for it.

I probably shouldn’t even mention this because trolls will now know where to go look for it.

But my home address is there, and all you need is my name and my date of birth, and you can get my home address.

但我的家庭住址在那里，你只需要我的名字和出生日期，就可以得到我的家庭住址。

And I’m like, “That’s not really necessary for public transparency.” Or is it?

我想，“这对于公共透明度来说并不是真正必要的。”或者是吗？

It’s a good question.

这是一个好问题。

I think we need to struggle with some of those questions.

我认为我们需要努力解决其中一些问题。

Right to be forgotten — my biggest beef with right to be forgotten in the UK, currently, is that Google can be forced to take down links to content that is perfectly legal on a publisher’s website.

被遗忘权——目前，我对英国被遗忘权最大的不满是，谷歌可能会被迫删除出版商网站上完全合法的内容的链接。

In fact, the case that got this all underway is a link to a newspaper article, which is still online, but Google is not allowed to link to it, and there’s no judge involved.

事实上，引发这一切的案件是一篇报纸文章的链接，该文章仍然在线，但谷歌不允许链接到它，而且没有法官参与。

When we think about this in an American First Amendment context, what you would say is, it wouldn’t do.

When we think about this in an American First Amendment context, what you would say is, it wouldn’t do.

It wouldn’t pass First Amendment scrutiny to say, “Oh, no, it’s perfectly legal to publish this magazine.

如果说“哦，不，出版这本杂志是完全合法的”，就不会通过第一修正案的审查。

It’s just not legal to offer it in stores.” Like you’re not allowed to.

在商店里提供它是不合法的。”就像你不被允许那样。

You have to hide it.

你必须隐藏它。

We would say, “Hold on a second.

我们会说：“等一下。

That’s just not right.”

那是不对的。”

That is a violation of the freedom of expression if you can’t distribute your content because, clearly, if you’re not findable in Google, that’s a problem.

如果你无法分发你的内容，那就是对言论自由的侵犯，因为很明显，如果在谷歌中找不到你，那就是一个问题。

Nobody’s going to read the piece.

没有人会读这篇文章。

There’s no easy right of appeal.

没有简单的上诉权。

You could appeal to Google, and I do believe Google’s doing the best they can to balance people’s privacy interests with freedom-of-expression interests, but I don’t think it’s Google’s job.

你可以向谷歌求助，我确实相信谷歌正在尽最大努力平衡人们的隐私利益和言论自由利益，但我不认为这是谷歌的工作。

I don’t think that we want to have a company, however well intentioned, to be tasked in society with deciding those kinds of issues where, really, if something is such an egregious privacy violation that it should be censored, boy, I really want to have a judge involved.

我不认为我们希望有一家公司，无论意图多么好，在社会上承担决定这类问题的任务，真的，如果某件事如此严重侵犯隐私，应该受到审查，孩子，我真的希望有一名法官参与其中。

I think that is something that we need to not have handled at the company level.

I think that is something that we need to not have handled at the company level.

On things under- and overrated

关于被低估和高估的事情

Yet, at least for me, what I feel was important as well was not just the high-tech piece of it, but it is Southern in a good way.

然而，至少对我来说，我觉得重要的不仅仅是它的高科技部分，而且它是南方的一个很好的方式。

People are very polite.

人们很有礼貌。

People are friendly.

人们很友好。

It’s an openness of culture, which I think has served me very well with Wikipedia because I’m basically just friendly to people, and that’s actually very helpful.

这是一种文化的开放性，我认为维基百科对我很有帮助，因为我基本上对人们很友好，这实际上非常有帮助。

So underrated.

如此被低估。

Probably by today, people think, “Oh, Black-Scholes — that’s like a little toy model that doesn’t actually show anything.” That’s underrating it, but maybe at the beginning when people thought it was the Second Coming, that was probably overrated.

也许到了今天，人们会想，“哦，布莱克-斯科尔斯 ——这就像一个小玩具模型，实际上并没有显示任何东西。” That’s underrating it, but maybe at the beginning when people thought it was the Second Coming, that was probably overrated.

But her epistemology is very interesting.

但她的认识论很有趣。

I’m not an expert, but I used to be quite keen on this area, and I read a lot, and I thought a lot.

我不是专家，但我曾经对这方面很热衷，读了很多书，也思考了很多。

I think there’re some real insights, interesting insights there about concept formation that have not been appreciated by people who just think, “Oh, she wrote these long, ranting novels about capitalism.” I think there was more to her thinking than most people realize, so underrated.

我认为其中有一些关于概念形成的真正见解、有趣的见解，但那些只是想“哦，她写了这些关于资本主义的长篇咆哮小说”的人并没有意识到这些见解。我认为她的想法比大多数人意识到的要多，因此被低估了。

That you wouldn’t necessarily know because once she chewed on the idea long enough, she has quite a flamboyant and dramatic way of presenting them, as if she’s just ranting to you about the world as she sees it.

你不一定知道这一点，因为一旦她对这个想法思考了足够长的时间，她就会以一种相当华丽和戏剧性的方式来呈现它们，就好像她只是在向你咆哮她所看到的世界。

I think that’s problematic.

我认为这是有问题的。

I think it would be better if her public image were more about, “Let’s be thoughtful and think and reflect on complicated ideas because the simple answers are probably not the correct answers.”

我认为，如果她的公众形象更多地是“让我们深思熟虑，思考并反思复杂的想法，因为简单的答案可能不是正确的答案。”

Look, if we’re going to have the government intervene in something, we need to be very thoughtful about that because we know very well from economics that many interventions don’t work the way most people think they work, and they actually can cause a lot more harm than good.

看，如果我们要让政府干预某件事，我们需要对此深思熟虑，因为我们从经济学中非常清楚地知道，许多干预措施并不像大多数人认为的那样起作用，而且它们实际上可能造成弊大于利。

Something very simple, like the classic example, would be, “Let’s raise the minimum wage to $40 an hour.” I think most people get that actually probably isn’t a great idea.

非常简单的事情，就像经典的例子一样，“让我们把最低工资提高到每小时 40 美元。”我想大多数人都明白这实际上可能不是一个好主意。

That isn’t actually going to help poor people very much at all.

这实际上根本不会给穷人带来太多帮助。

Maybe a few of them, but mostly not.

也许其中有一些，但大多数不是。

I guess, through my life, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve become more a centrist or a gradualist.

我想，在我的一生中，随着年龄的增长，我变得更加中间派或渐进主义者。

When I was 21, I might have been, “Crush the state and eliminate all this, and freedom is fantastic.” Now, I’m really saying, “Look, if you’re going to get anywhere, and you’re going to improve the state of the world, and you’re going to avoid authoritarian tendencies, and you’re going to avoid overreach by government, you’re going to have a prosperous society, you need to be very thoughtful about how you change rules, very thoughtful about how you get somewhere.”

当我 21 岁时，我可能会说，“粉碎国家并消除这一切，自由真是太棒了。”现在，我真的想说，“听着，如果你想取得任何成就，你要改善世界状况，你要避免专制倾向，你要避免政府的过度扩张，你就会拥有一个繁荣的社会，你需要深思熟虑如何改变规则，深思熟虑如何实现目标。”

My classic example would be zoning laws.

我的典型例子是分区法。

If you overnight eliminate all zoning laws, I’m not sure you would get to the same place you would have gotten to had you had a more market-oriented solution from the beginning because zoning laws, in some ways, roughly replicate what a more market-oriented system might’ve come to.

如果你一夜之间废除所有的分区法，我不确定你是否会达到与从一开始就有一个更加以市场为导向的解决方案一样的地方，因为分区法在某种程度上大致复制了一个更加以市场为导向的系统可能会达到的结果。

I don’t know, I guess I’m a gradualist in that sense.

我不知道，我想从这个意义上说我是一个渐进主义者。

We don’t have to really deal with some very complicated edges around what advocacy is crossing lines that are just too offensive because, really, at Wikipedia, you’re not supposed to be advocating for any particular thing at all, except for how do we make Wikipedia better?

我们不必真正处理一些非常复杂的边缘问题，围绕哪些倡导跨越了太冒犯性的界限，因为实际上，在维基百科，你根本不应该倡导任何特定的事情，除了我们如何使维基百科变得更好？

How do we describe these ideas fairly?

我们如何公平地描述这些想法？

If you come into Wikipedia with some sort of an agenda, however mild, that’s probably not the right thing to do.

如果你带着某种议程进入维基百科，无论多么温和，这可能不是正确的做法。

For us, these kinds of things — we don’t say, “Oh yes, people should be allowed to say whatever they want.” “Oh, but what if it’s so offensive?” They have to deal with that.

对于我们来说，这类事情 ——我们不会说，“哦，是的，应该允许人们畅所欲言。” “哦，但是如果这太令人反感怎么办？”他们必须处理这个问题。

It’s really hard because the point of Facebook and Twitter is to just post whatever you think and your ideas, and therefore, you’re going to find some people who have completely horrific ideas.

这真的很难，因为 Facebook 和 Twitter 的目的就是发布你的想法和想法，因此，你会发现一些人的想法完全可怕。

Given that they’ve got a very difficult problem, what I would say is, they need to really think harder about the model that they’re using for moderation, which I think doesn’t scale very well.

鉴于他们遇到了一个非常困难的问题，我想说的是，他们需要更加认真地思考他们用于审核的模型，我认为该模型的扩展性不太好。

Hiring people in sweatshop conditions to make content judgements or trying to get AI — which is not really ready to judge the nuances of human conversation — to do it, neither of those is scaling very well.

雇佣在血汗工厂条件下进行内容判断的人，或者试图让人工智能（AI 还没有真正准备好判断人类对话的细微差别）来做到这一点，这两种方法都无法很好地扩展。

None of those works very well, as opposed to what I think is really more important: put more power into the hands of the community.

这些都不是很好，与我认为真正更重要的事情相反：将更多权力交到社区手中。

Now, what does that look like for Wikipedia?

现在，维基百科看起来是什么样的？

We know that.

我们知道这一点。

What does that look like for Facebook?

Facebook 的情况是什么样的？

That’s a hard problem.

这是一个难题。

I don’t have a simple solution for them.

我对他们没有简单的解决方案。

The one thing about Facebook that I think is really, really interesting is, because of the structure of ownership of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg has probably one of the strongest CEO positions of any company.

关于 Facebook，我认为非常非常有趣的一件事是，由于 Facebook 的所有权结构，马克·扎克伯格可能是所有公司中最强势的首席执行官职位之一。

It would be very difficult for anybody to oust him as CEO.

任何人都很难罢免他的首席执行官职务。

Therefore, he can make decisions that would be death to a CEO who has to really panic about quarterly results.

因此，他做出的决定对于一位必须对季度业绩感到真正恐慌的首席执行官来说可能是致命的。

He can say, “Look, I’m going to make some decisions that are going to reduce engagement on Facebook, but that are going to prevent a situation where the whole world thinks we’re destroying Western civilization.

他可以说，“听着，我将做出一些决定，这些决定会减少 Facebook 上的参与度，但这将防止出现全世界都认为我们正在摧毁西方文明的情况。

We’re going to maybe make half the money we were going to make, but in the long run, it’s good for shareholder value because we can demonstrate that if we carry on our current path, everybody’s starting to hate us, and that’s not good for business.”

我们可能会赚到原本要赚的钱的一半，但从长远来看，这对股东价值有利，因为我们可以证明，如果我们继续目前的道路，每个人都会开始讨厌我们，这对企业不利。”

He could do that.

他可以做到这一点。

He has the power to do that, and nobody could really fire him for that.

他有能力做到这一点，没有人能真正因此解雇他。

That means, I say, hold him responsible in a way.

我说，这意味着让他在某种程度上负责。

I hold all CEOs responsible for doing morally right things, but it’s a little easier to understand if you’re at a company that says, “Look, if I know what we’re doing isn’t great for the world, but it’s not illegal, and if I stop doing it, I’m going to get fired because the shareholders will revolt.” Then, it’s like, “Yes, you’ve got a tough problem.”

我认为所有首席执行官都有责任做道德上正确的事情，但如果你所在的公司说：“听着，如果我知道我们正在做的事情对世界不利，但它并不违法，如果我停止这样做，我就会被解雇，因为股东会反抗，那就更容易理解了。”然后，就像是，“是的，你遇到了一个棘手的问题。”

Mark — he doesn’t need any more money.

马克——他不需要更多的钱了。

He’s got plenty, and therefore, he is in a position where he could make decisions that are best for Facebook in the long run.

他拥有很多，因此，从长远来看，他可以做出对 Facebook 最有利的决定。

I am not suggesting that he violate any fiduciary duties, but he could take a long view in a way that most CEOs, unfortunately, can’t.

我并不是建议他违反任何信托义务，但他可以以一种长远的眼光来看待，不幸的是，大多数首席执行官都做不到。

But if they are willing to take seriously the idea — and I think they do take this idea seriously — that it isn’t up to Facebook to be the judge of what’s true or not.

但如果他们愿意认真对待这个想法（而且我认为他们确实认真对待这个想法），那么 Facebook 就无法判断什么是真实的，什么是虚假的。

I think that’s something that they don’t want that responsibility.

我认为这是他们不想承担的责任。

Yet, because it’s a place where disinformation is being shared in a way that is damaging the world and is problematic, they also have to take responsibility.

然而，由于这是一个以破坏世界且存在问题的方式分享虚假信息的地方，他们也必须承担责任。

It’s like, where do they draw the line?

就像，他们的界限在哪里？

I always remind people, if we had a different set of historical facts, and five years ago — I think it’s longer than that now — ten years ago, Facebook can suddenly say, “We’ve actually decided to start shaping the public conversation by deciding what news is of quality or not, and we’re going to deemphasize things that we think are low quality.” We would all have freaked out and said, “Oh my God, it’s Orwellian.

我总是提醒人们，如果我们有一套不同的历史事实，五年前 ——我认为比现在更长——十年前，Facebook 可以突然说，“我们实际上已经决定开始通过决定哪些新闻的质量来塑造公众对话，我们将不再强调那些我们认为质量低下的事情。”我们都会吓坏了，说：“天哪，这是奥威尔式的。

Facebook is now trying to decide for us what’s true and what’s not true.”

Facebook 现在正试图为我们决定什么是真的，什么是假的。”

Now, suddenly we’re in this opposite universe, where everybody’s demanding, “Facebook, you must do something.

现在，我们突然来到了一个相反的宇宙，每个人都要求“Facebook，你必须做点什么。

There’s disinformation on your platform.” They’re in a tough spot, so I don’t know.

你们的平台上有虚假信息。”他们处境艰难，所以我不知道。

The Supreme Court, good, yes, I don’t know.

最高法院，好，是的，我不知道。

They better have some power.

他们最好有一些权力。

Otherwise I’m not sure.

否则我不确定。

For me, when I was young, I had a very unusual educational upbringing.

对我来说，当我年轻的时候，我受到了非常不寻常的教育成长。

Sometimes it’s reported it was Montessori.

有时据报道这是蒙台梭利。

It wasn’t technically Montessori, but it was very open, and we had lots of free time.

从技术上讲，它不是蒙特梭利，但它非常开放，我们有很多空闲时间。

I basically spent a lot of time reading the encyclopedia.

我基本上花了很多时间看百科全书。

Incredibly valuable just to have time to explore, be encouraged in following your curiosity, as opposed to rigidly sitting in rows and meeting testing standards and all of that.

仅仅有时间去探索，鼓励追随你的好奇心，而不是严格地坐在一排并满足测试标准等等，这都是非常有价值的。

Having said that, I’m not opposed to having standards for schools, and tests are a good way of measuring that.

话虽如此，我并不反对为学校制定标准，而测试是衡量标准的好方法。

But I think you need to really focus a lot on creativity because if we look forward, the world faces a lot of problems, and we’re going to need a lot of innovation to solve some of these problems.

但我认为你需要真正关注创造力，因为如果我们展望未来，世界将面临很多问题，我们将需要大量创新来解决其中一些问题。

Actually, I was disappointed to read something today, and I haven’t followed up, so I don’t know what the general public conclusion is.

其实我今天看到一些东西很失望，而且我也没有跟进，所以我不知道公众的结论是什么。

He had promised $100 million to help people who had been disenfranchised in the state of Florida because they had not paid some fines or some sort of fees to the government.

他承诺提供 1 亿美元来帮助佛罗里达州那些因未向政府缴纳罚款或某种费用而被剥夺公民权的人。

Therefore, their right to vote had not been restored even though they had met all other conditions.

因此，尽管他们满足了所有其他条件，但他们的投票权并未恢复。

He was going to donate a lot of money.

他打算捐出很多钱。

Then I saw an NGO who said, actually, the money never showed up.

然后我看到一个非政府组织说，实际上钱一直没有出现。

A lot of other people donated, but he didn’t, and they were unhappy with him.

很多人都捐了，但他没有捐，他们对他很不满意。

I don’t know about that.

我对此一无所知。

Actually, if I stepped back, probably defeating Donald Trump isn’t how I would if I had one chunk of $100 million.

事实上，如果我退后一步，如果我有一大笔 1 亿美元，我可能不会想击败唐纳德·特朗普。

For me, it’s about how do we think about restoring a sense of decency and thoughtful public engagement where we have an election, and I look at the policies and I say, “I’m going to vote for this person because I agree with that policy.” You say, “I’m going to vote for the other person because I disagree on that policy.”

对我来说，这是关于我们如何考虑在选举中恢复正派感和深思熟虑的公众参与，我看着这些政策，然后说，“我会投票给这个人，因为我同意这项政策。”你说：“我要投票给另一个人，因为我不同意这项政策。”

Then we have an interesting conversation about the policy, and we may not agree, but we feel at the end of the day, we’ve chewed on some ideas.

然后我们就政策进行了一次有趣的对话，我们可能不同意，但我们觉得最终我们已经考虑了一些想法。

Whereas today, it’s the ranting and the scandal-mongering and all of that.

而今天，充斥着咆哮、散布丑闻等等。

It’s not healthy.

这不健康。

It’s not really giving us leadership that we need.

它并没有真正给予我们所需的领导力。

The fame — I’ll give an example of someone who I know reasonably well, Sean Parker.

名气 ——我举一个我相当熟悉的人肖恩·帕克（Sean Parker）的例子。

He is both famous and a billionaire.

他既是名人，也是亿万富翁。

I think if he were given the option to choose to give up one or the other, he would definitely give up being famous because the grief he has gotten in his life around his extravagant wedding and things like that are completely not aligned with the things he’s interested in.

我想，如果让他选择放弃其中之一，他肯定会放弃出名，因为他生活中因奢侈婚礼之类的事情而遭受的悲伤与他感兴趣的事情完全不相符。

He’s super interested in cancer research, and he donates money there.

他对癌症研究非常感兴趣，并在那里捐款。

Whenever I talk to him, he’s really passionate about certain areas of medicine, not because he’s trying to make money — it’s just that’s what he’s interested in.

每当我和他交谈时，他真的对某些医学领域充满热情，并不是因为他想赚钱 ——这只是他感兴趣的事情。

That makes him happy, and being famous on the side is actually annoying.

这让他很高兴，而在旁边出名其实很烦人。

That’s me assessing him.

这是我对他的评价。

I haven’t actually asked him that, but .

我实际上并没有问过他这个问题，但是。

.

。

.

。

Other people — I think they’re just lost souls, and they just want power and then attempt to be happy, and maybe it doesn’t make them happy.

其他人 — 我认为他们只是迷失了灵魂，他们只是想要权力，然后试图快乐，也许这并不能让他们快乐。

It’s a hard question.

这是一个很难回答的问题。

I remember a few years ago, I was on a street corner in New York City.

我记得几年前，我在纽约市的一个街角。

I was just about to go into the UN.

我正要进入联合国。

It was during General Assembly.

那是在大会期间。

The street was blocked off, and then an enormous motorcade went by: hundreds of motorcycles, New York police, then the Secret Service, Trump, and more hundreds of more motorcycles.

街道被封锁，然后一支庞大的车队驶过：数百辆摩托车，纽约警察，然后是特勤局，特朗普，还有数百辆摩托车。

I thought, for a man who probably — and I don’t believe in diagnosing people with medical conditions without knowing — but probably qualifies for some sort of medical diagnosis of narcissism, “This can’t be good for him, but he must fucking love it.” COWEN: How happy are people who seem to have power but cannot, in fact, exercise it, due to constraints?

我想，对于一个可能“而且我不相信在不知情的情况下诊断患有健康状况的人”但可能有资格进行某种自恋的医学诊断的人来说，“这对他来说可能没有好处，但他一定非常喜欢它。”考恩：那些看似拥有权力但实际上由于限制而无法行使权力的人有多幸福？

Other people, though, may have come to that situation in a way that they expected to have power and they don’t, so then they must be quite unhappy.

然而，其他人可能会以一种他们期望拥有权力的方式遇到这种情况，但他们没有，所以他们一定很不高兴。

Are you, in fact, the American — now partly British — sage in the background of Wikipedia who underpins the whole thing, even when or perhaps because you do nothing?

事实上，你是维基百科背景下的美国人（现在有部分英国血统）的圣人，支撑着整个事情，即使是在你什么都不做的时候，或者也许是因为你什么也没做？

I do think that it is a complicated matter that I give a lot of thought to, and which I have given a lot — it’s not a new idea.

我确实认为这是一个复杂的问题，我考虑了很多，并且付出了很多 ——这不是一个新想法。

How do we construct systems and models and procedures and processes in the community that strive for maintaining our values in the long run and improving the encyclopedia and building something that we value?

我们如何在社区中构建系统、模型、程序和流程，以长期维护我们的价值观、改进百科全书并构建我们重视的东西？

I think we’ve done a pretty good job of that.

我认为我们在这方面做得很好。

We struggle at times, as I say, with excessive bureaucracy, but people are aware of that, and so on and so forth.

正如我所说，我们有时会与过度的官僚主义作斗争，但人们意识到了这一点，等等。

For me, I think the hard bits and the complicated bits are probably around the interface between the community and the Wikimedia Foundation.

对我来说，我认为困难和复杂的部分可能是社区和维基媒体基金会之间的接口。

I’m not so sure that we have a long-term settlement of those issues that I feel confident can maintain without a lot of effort, not just on my part, but on the part of core people who are around to make sure that the foundation is both able to act as necessary, but doesn’t become .

我不太确定我们是否能长期解决这些问题，我相信这些问题无需付出很多努力就能维持下去，不仅是我自己，还有周围的核心人员，他们确保基金会既能够按照需要采取行动，又不会成为必要的行动。

.

。

.

。

Imagine that they’re going to pursue a model like a Twitter or Facebook moderation model, where they’re going to take on all the jobs of moderation, which, frankly, wouldn’t scale or wouldn’t work.

想象一下，他们将追求像 Twitter 或 Facebook 审核模型这样的模型，他们将承担所有审核工作，坦率地说，这无法扩展或不起作用。

That’s the area where I do feel I’ve got some work to do still.

我确实觉得在这方面我还有一些工作要做。

I could tell you — this is not announced yet, but as this won’t go out until November, it will be announced — I got this goofball idea that I’m really excited about, and I’m having fun with, which is, I’m putting together a system so that children can visit Santa Claus.

我可以告诉你 — 这还没有宣布，但由于要到11月才会发布，所以会宣布 — 我有了这个让我非常兴奋的愚蠢想法，而且我很开心，也就是说，我正在构建一个系统，以便孩子们可以拜访圣诞老人。

This is why I’ve got the Santa background here.

这就是为什么我在这里有圣诞老人背景。

Children can visit Santa Claus virtually this year because people shouldn’t be going to shopping malls and stand in long lines to sit on an old man’s lap with coronavirus going around.

今年，孩子们几乎可以拜访圣诞老人，因为人们不应该在冠状病毒肆虐的情况下去购物中心排长队坐在老人的腿上。

So you can sign up and visit Santa Claus.

这样您就可以报名并拜访圣诞老人。

That’s what I’ve been working on this week, and I’m having a lot of fun with it.

这就是我本周一直在做的事情，而且我从中得到了很多乐趣。