君，已阅读到文档的结尾了呢~~
我和报纸的故事作文——所有资料文档均来源于www.downhot.com，全部是文档中的精品，绝对值得下载收藏！
扫扫二维码，随身浏览文档
手机或平板扫扫即可继续访问
我和报纸的故事作文
举报该文档为侵权文档。
举报该文档含有违规或不良信息。
反馈该文档无法正常浏览。
举报该文档为重复文档。
推荐理由：
将文档分享至：
分享完整地址
文档地址：
粘贴到BBS或博客
flash地址：
支持嵌入FLASH地址的网站使用
html代码：
&embed src='/DocinViewer-4.swf' width='100%' height='600' type=application/x-shockwave-flash ALLOWFULLSCREEN='true' ALLOWSCRIPTACCESS='always'&&/embed&
450px*300px480px*400px650px*490px
支持嵌入HTML代码的网站使用
您的内容已经提交成功
您所提交的内容需要审核后才能发布，请您等待！
3秒自动关闭窗口水墨画围墙如何制作？来自:
日分享至 :
下一篇：上一篇：其它类似问题相关文章相关帖子--水墨画围墙如何制作？1962年，查尔斯·范·多伦，后来成为不列颠百科全书的一名高级编辑， 说: 理想的百科全书应该是激进的 -- 应该不再是安全的。 但是如果你对1962年以后的不列颠百科全书的历史有所了解的话， 它是一切基本的东西: 仍然是一个完全安全，乏味的百科全书。 Wikipedia，另一方面，从一个非常激进的创意开始， 那是我们所有人去想象的一个世界 在这里地球上的每个人 都能自由访问所有人类知识的汇总。
那就是我们正在做的。所以Wikipedia -- 你看到的是它的一些示范 -- 它是一个免费授权的百科全书。由全世界成千上万的志愿者 用很多很多语言填写的。 它使用Wiki软件填写 -- 是他刚才示范过的那种软件 -- 任何人可以快速的编辑并保存， 然后它能迅速的在互联网上呈现出来。 Wikipedia的一切实际上都是由志愿者来管理的。 所以当Yochai Benkler在谈论关于组织的新方法， 他实际上是在指Wikipedia。我今天要做的 就是告诉你们一些更多的关于它内部真正是怎样工作的
Wikipedia由维基媒体基金会拥有，这个基金会是我创立的， 一个非盈利性质的组织。我们的目标，维基媒体基金会的核心目标， 是为地球上的每个人提供一个自由免费的百科全书。 如果你在想那是什么意思， 意思就是比建立一个很酷的网站更多。 我们真正对所有关于数字鸿沟，全世界贫困等问题感兴趣， 是每个地方的人们能得到他们想要的信息 来做出正确的决定。 所以我们将不得不做远超过仅仅是互联网的工作。 那也是我们要选择自由授权的使用协议的原因 因为那样允许当地企业家 -- 或者任何人想要并且能获得我们的内容 并且做任何他们想对它做的事 -- 你可以复制它，重新发布它 你还可以将它商业化或非商业化。
所以从Wikipedia这里可以为世界创造出 许多新的机会 我们从公众捐赠得到资助， 关于这个更有趣的事情 是实际上运行Wikipedia只需要多么少的钱。 所以Yochai Benkler刚才给你们看了关于一台印刷机的花费是什么的图。 我会告诉你们Wikipedia的花费是什么， 但首先我会给大家看看他有多大。 我们有超过600,000篇英文文章。 我们有包含很多很多不同语言的总计两百万篇文章。 最大的语言是德语，日语，法语。 所有西欧语言都很大。 但是只有大约三分之一的我们网站的全部流量 来自英文Wikipedia， 这让很多人吃惊。 很多人在互联网上用一个英文为中心的方式思考， 但对我们来说我们是真正的全球化的。我们有很多很多语言。 我们已经有多流行 -- 我们是一个排名前50的网站 我们比纽约时报更流行。 这是Yochai Benkler刚才谈到的地方。
这展示了Wikipedia的成长 -- 我们是蓝色的线 -- 那儿是纽约时报的。 关于这个有趣的地方是纽约时报网站是由一个巨大的， 拥有我不知道多少，成百上千的职员的企业在经营。 我们只有一名雇员， 那名雇员是我们的软件开发组长。 他也是从2005年1月以来仅有的我们的雇员， 其他所有的一切成长都在那之前。 所以服务器由一群普通的志愿者在管理， 所有的编辑工作也都是由志愿者完成。 我们组织的方式 不是像你们能想象到的任何传统的组织那样。 人们常常会问，"那么，谁负责这个？" 或者"谁做的？"答案是: 任何想要出一分力的人。 这是一件非常不寻常和混乱的事情。 我们现在在三个地方共有超过90台服务器。 这些服务器由一些在线的系统管理员志愿者管理。 我能在白天或者夜晚的任何时间上线 看到8到10个人等着我 问我问题或者关于服务器的任何事情。 你绝不可能在一个公司里面做到这一点。 你绝不可能有一群一天24小时随时待命的人 做我们在Wikipedia做的事情。
我们每个月有大约14亿次页面浏览， 它真的成为一个巨大的东西。 一切都由志愿者管理。 我们每个月总带宽的花费是大约5,000美元。 那是我们实际上的主要花费。 我们实际上可以不用雇人来做。 我们实际上 -- 我们雇佣了布莱恩因为他已经兼职和全职 在Wikipedia工作了两年， 所以我们实际上雇佣他，那样他可以过一个更为充实或更有趣的生活，有时还能去看看电影。 所以当你知道这个真正混乱的组织是什么样以后最大的问题是， 为什么它不是全是垃圾？为什么这个网站还是那么好？
首先，它有多好？嗯，它真的非常好。它不是完美的， 但是它远比你想象的好的多， 给我们完全混乱的模型。 所以当你看见他对关于我的页面进行了荒谬的编辑， 你认为，哦，这显然是将要退化为垃圾。 但当我们看见质量测试 -- 还没有足够的这样的测试 我非常鼓励人们做的更多， 拿Wikipedia和传统的东西比较 -- 我们轻易获胜了。
所以一家德国杂志拿德文Wikipedia， 它比英文维基要小很多很多， 跟Microsoft Encarta和跟Brockhaus Multimedia比较， 我们全面胜利。 他们雇佣了一些专家来看文章并且比较文章的质量， 我们很高兴看到结果。 所以有很多人听说过Wikipedia布什与克里的争议。 这是一个 -- 媒体已经有些广泛的报道了这个。 它由在《红鲱鱼》的一片文章开始。 记者们给我打电话然后他们 -- 我的意思是，我不得不说 他们拼写对了我的名字，但是他们他们真正想说的是， 布什和克里的选举太有争议了， 它在分裂Wikipedia社区。所以他们引用了我说的话， "他们是Wikipedia历史上最有争议的。" 我实际上说的是，他们一点争议也没有。 所以这是一个细微的误引。文章编辑的太过沉重。 这确实是我们不得不在一些场合锁定这些文章。 时代周刊最近报道说 "极端的手段有时不得不采取， 威尔斯锁定了2004年大多数的关于克里和布什的文章。" 这发生在我告诉记者我们不得不偶尔在这儿和那儿 锁定它一点点。 所以一般的真相是争议的类型 那些你也许认为在我们Wikipedia团队中有的争议 实际上真的一点都不存在。
关于有争议话题的文章被编辑了很多， 但是他们不会在社区内引发太多争议。 之所以会这样的原因是绝大多数人理解中立的需要。 真正的分歧不是左右之争 -- 那是很多人以为的 -- 而实际上是在一群深思熟虑的人和一群愚蠢的人之间的。 在任意那些品质的一边都没有政治色彩占据垄断地位。 关于布什和克里事件的事实真相 是布什和克里的文章 在2004年不到百分之一的时间被锁定了， 并且它不是因为他们是有争议的; 只是因为有一些平常的破坏 -- 有时甚至在线上发生，人们 -- 有时甚至记者们也跟我说他们破坏了Wikipedia 并且很惊异它很快就被修复了。 我说 -- 你知道，我总是说，请不要那样做，那不是一件好事。 所以我们怎样做到这个的？ 我们怎样管理质量控制？ 怎样使 -- 它如何工作的？
有一些要素， 主要是社会政策和软件的一些元素。 所以最大也是最重要的事情是我们对待政策的中立观点。 这是我从刚开始就制定下来的， 作为一个社区的核心原则是完全不可动摇的。 这是合作的一个社会化概念， 所以我们不过多讨论真相和客观。 这样做的原因是如果我们说我们只会对一些话题报道真相， 那样对我们搞清楚要写什么没有一点好处， 因为我不同意你关于真相是什么的说法。 但我们有这个中立的专业条款， 在社区里有属于它自己的很长的历史， 它的基本原则是，当有争议问题出现的时候， Wikipedia本身不应该对其采取立场。 我们只能报道那些著名的政党说了些什么。 所以这个中立的政策对我们来说真的很重要， 因为它使得一个非常不同的团队 走到一起并真正完成一些工作。
所以我们有很多在政治，宗教， 文化背景上非常不同的贡献者。 有了这个坚定的中立政策， 从刚开始就是不可置疑的， 我们确保了人们能一起工作 文章不会成为简单的一场战争 在左和右之间反反复复。 如果你有那样的行为， 你会被要求离开这个团队。 所以实时同事审查。 网站每一个简单的改变都会在最近改变的页面里面。 所以当他作了修改，该页面就会进入到最近修改的页面中。 那个最近修改的页面同样会进入到IRC频道， 一个互联网聊天频道 那里人们监控着各种各样的软件工具。 人们可以获取RSS源进行订阅 -- 他们能收到关于修改的邮件提醒。 然后用户能设定他们自己的个人关注列表。 我的页面在很多志愿者的关注列表中， 因为它时常被破坏。 所以，经常发生的情况是有人能很快发现页面的变化， 然后他们只需要简单的恢复那个页面。
举例来说，有一个新的页面源， 你能访问Wikipedia的某个页面 然后看到每个新创建的页面。 这是非常重要的，因为很多新创建的页面 只是一些垃圾，比如ASDFASDF等，我们必须删除它们。 但这同样也是Wikipedia上的一些最有趣的事情， 一些新文章。 人们会新建一篇关于一些有趣话题的文章， 其他人会觉得有意思 然后加入并帮助把它变得好得多。 所以我们有匿名用户的编辑工作， 这是关于Wikipedia的一个最有争议也是最有趣的事情。 所以克里斯能做出他的修改 -- 他不用登陆或者什么的， 他就直接访问网站然后做出修改。 但结果是网站上只有大概18%的所有的编辑工作 是由匿名用户完成的。 另外，需要理解的很重要的一件事， 就是在网站上看到的绝大多数的编辑和修改 是来自于一个大约600到1,000人的非常紧密配合的团队 他们在不断的沟通。 并且我们有超过40个IRC频道，40个邮件列表。 所有的这些人都互相认识。他们沟通交流，我们有线下会议。
这些是完成网站大部分工作的人， 他们，在某种意义上来说，在他们做的事情上是半专业的， 我们为自己设立的标准是与 专业的质量标准持平或者更高。 我们并不总是能达到这些标准， 但那是我们一直在争取达到的。
所以这个紧密团队是真正关心这个网站的人， 这些是我见过的一些最聪明的人。 当然，这么说是我的工作，但是这绝对是事实。 这种为撰写百科全书的乐趣所吸引的人 往往都是相当聪明的人。
工具和软件: 有很多工具可以让我们 -- 让我们，我的意思是我们团队 -- 去自我监控和监控所有工作。 这是一个关于平面地球的一页历史的例子， 你能看到一些做过的改动。 这个页面的好处在于你可以迅速的看一眼这个 然后发现，哦 OK，我现在理解了。 当有人来看到 -- 他们看到有人， 一个匿名的IP，对我的页面作了编辑 -- 这听起来很可疑 -- 这个人是谁？有人查看页面时， 他们能迅速看到发生了改变的地方用红色突出显示了出来， 然后发现，OK，好吧，这些字被改了，类似于这样的事情。 所有那是我们能用来非常快速的监控每个页面历史的一个工具。
我们团队里面做的另外一件事 就是我们保持所有的一切都是可扩展的。 大多数社会规则和工作方法 在软件里都保持完全可扩展。 所有的那些素材都在Wiki页面上。 软件里没有任何东西是执行了这些规则的。 我在这里举出的例子是关于删除页面的投票。 所以，我之前提到的，人们输入ASDFASDF -- 它需要删掉。像那样的情况，管理员直接删除。 对于这样的情况不会存在大的争议。 但是你可以想象在很多其他有问题的地方， 这足够著名值得在百科全书中记录吗？ 这信息是证实了的吗？它是个恶作剧吗？它是真的吗？它是怎样怎样？ 所以我们需要一个社会化的方法来验证这个的答案。 所以在社区内就相应出现了一种方法 那就是为要删除的页面进行投票。 并且我们这里拿出来的特例，它是一部电影， "Twisted Issues," 第一个人说， "现在这应该是一部电影。它在Google测试上惨败。" Google测试是，你在Google上查看看是否它在上面， 因为如果有些东西在Google上都没有的话，它很可能完全不存在。 这不是一条完美的规则，但这是快速搜索的一个很好的起点。 所以有人说，"请删除它。删除它 -- 它不值得注意。" 然后有人说，"等等，等等，我找到它了。 我在一本书上找到它了，'电影恐怖视频指南: 你必须看的20部地下电影。" 哦，好吧。所以又有另一个人说，"把它清理掉吧。" 有人说，"我在IMDB上找到它了。保留，保留，保留。"（注: IMDB是世界上最大的电影数据资料库网站） 对这种情况有意思的是软件就是 -- 这些投票只是 -- 他们只是作为文本键入到一个页面。 与其是它是一个真正的投票不弱说它是一个对话。 事实是当一天结束的时候 一名管理员可以来到这个页面看一下然后说， 好吧，18个删除，2个保留，我们会删除它。 但在其他情况下，这个可能是18个删除和2个保留，并且我们可能会保留它， 因为如果那两个认为要保留的人说，"等一下，等一下。 其他人没看到这个但是我在一本书上找到了它， 并且我找到了一个描述它的链接页面，我明天会清理它， 所以请不要删除它，"那么它会保留下来。 它也跟这些人是谁和谁在投票有关。 就像我说的，这是一个紧密结合的组织。 这儿往下，最底部，"保留，真的电影，"里克·凯。
里克·凯是一名很有名的维基人士 他对故意搞破坏和恶作剧的情况做了大量的工作 并且投票删除。 他的话在社区里很有份量 因为他知道他在做什么。 所以这些全部是怎样管理的？ 人们真的很想知道，好吧，管理员，类似那样的。 所以Wikipedia的管理模式，社区的管理， 是一个非常令人困惑，但是却是一个协商一致的可行的组合体 -- 意味着我们尝试不对文章的内容进行投票， 因为主流观点不一定是中立的。 一定程度的民主，所有的管理员 -- 这些是能删除页面的人， 那并不代表他们有权力删除页面， 他们仍然需要遵守所有的规则 -- 但是他们是被选出来的， 他们由社区推选出来。有时人们 -- 那些在互联网上随机转悠的人 -- 喜欢通过指责我说我自己指定管理员 来表达对百科全书内容的偏见。 我往往嘲笑它，因为实际上我并不知道他们是怎样选出来的。 有大量的高级知识分子。 所以当我提到的时候你能得到一点提示，比如， 里克·凯的话能比一个我们不知道的人更有份量。
我有时跟安吉拉这么讲，她刚重新当选 从社区被推选到董事会 -- 到基金会的董事会， 通过超过反对派两倍的票数。 我总是让她尴尬因为我说，好吧，安吉拉，比如说， 可以因为在Wikipedia做任何事而离开， 因为她是那样受仰慕和那样权威。 但讽刺的是，当然，安吉拉能这么做是因为她是一个 你知道绝对不会破坏Wikipedia任何规则的人。 我也喜欢说她是唯一的一个 真正了解Wikipedia的所有规则的人 知道我在社区里充当着一个君王的角色 我曾经在柏林描述过这个然后第二天报纸的 头条说，"我是英格兰的女王。" 那并不是我真正说的，但是 -- 关键点是我在社区的角色 -- 在免费软件世界里有很长的 -- 有一个存在时间很长的仁慈的独裁者模型的传统。 所以如果你看看大多数主要的免费软件项目， 他们有一个人来负责 这个大家都认同的人就是那个仁慈的独裁者。 嗯，我不喜欢仁慈的独裁者的任期， 而且我认为这不是我在理想世界里的工作或者角色 去成为由世界编辑汇总的全部人类知识的未来的独裁者。 它是不合适的。 但是仍然有一个需求需要一定程度的君主制， 一定程度的 -- 有时我们不得不做出一个决定， 我们不想过多的陷入困境 在正式决策过程中。
所以作为为什么会这样的例子 -- 或者这怎样能很重要， 我们最近遇到一个情况，一个新纳粹网站发现了Wikipedia， 他们说，"哦好吧，这很可怕，这是犹太人阴谋的一个网站 我们想要那些我们不喜欢的文章删除掉。 我们看见他们发起了一个投票进程，所以我们将发送 -- 我们有40,000会员而且我们将把这个投票发给他们 他们将通过一起投票来删除这些页面。" 那么，他们设法让18个人出面。 那是给你的新纳粹数学。 他们总是认为他们有40,000会员但实际上他们只有18个。 但是他们设法让18个人以一个相当荒谬的方式来投票 去删除一个完全有效的文章。 显然，投票以85票对18票结束， 所以对我们的民主处理流程来说没有真正的危险。 另一方面，有人说，"但是我们将要做什么？ 我的意思是，这可能会发生并且如果一些真正有组织的群体 参与进来并想要投票怎么办？" 我说，"那么去他的，我们就改变规则。" 那是我在社区的工作: 去声明我们不会允许我们的开放 和自由区降低了内容的质量。 所以只要人们相信我在我的角色发回的作用， 那么就有我的一个位置。 当然，因为免费授权，如果我做的不好， 志愿者会很乐意参与然后离开 -- 我不会告诉任何人要做什么。
所以这里最终关键的地方是理解Wikipedia是怎样工作的， 理解我们的Wiki模型是我们工作的方式是很重要的， 但我们不是狂热的网站无政府主义者。事实上，我们的 -- 我们关于社会方法论是非常灵活的， 因为社区最终的激情动力就是追求工作的质量， 而不一定是我们用来产生内容的流程。 谢谢大家。 (掌声)
本·桑德斯: 是的，你好，我是本·桑德斯。 吉米，您刚才提到公正是Wikipedia成功的一个关键。 它震撼了我，因为很多 用来教育我们小孩的教科书都存在固有偏见。 您发现有老师在使用Wikipedia吗？ 另外，您怎样看待Wikipedia在改变教育？
吉米·威尔斯: 是的，所以很多老师现在开始使用Wikipedia了。另外 -- 有一个关于Wikipedia的媒体故事，我认为是错误的。 它建立在博客对阵报纸的故事基础上。 故事是，有这样疯狂的事情，Wikipedia， 但是大学生们讨厌它老师们也讨厌它。那最终被证明不是真的。 我最后一次收到一个记者的Email说， "为什么大学生们讨厌Wikipedia?" 我用我的哈弗大学的电子邮件地址发送给他， 因为我最近在那里任命了一名同事。 我说，"其实，不是所有大学生都讨厌它。" 但是我认为会有很大的冲击。 并且我们实际上有一个项目 一个我个人真的很兴奋的项目， 就是Wiki书籍的项目， 它是一个用所有语言创造教科书的尝试。 那是一个大得多的项目; 它将需要用20年左右的时间去实现。 但是那个项目的一部分是去完成我们的使命 就是给地球上的每个人提供一本百科全书。 我们不是要用美国在线式光盘来给他们发垃圾信息。 我们的意思是我们要给他们一个他们能使用的工具。 并且对于世界上的很多人来说， 如果我给你们一本大学级别的百科全书， 它不会给你带来任何好处 没有一整套的很多的扫盲材料 来帮你建立起你真正能使用它的观点。 所以Wiki书籍项目就是那样做的一个尝试。 并且，我认为我们将真正看到一个巨大的 -- 它可能甚至不是来自我们， 但不断的有各种各样的创新在进行。 但是免费授权的教科书是教育业里将要发生的下一个大事件。
Jimmy Wales on the birth of Wikipedia
In 1962, Charles Van Doren, who was later a senior editor of Britannica, said the ideal encyclopedia should be radical -- it should stop being safe. But if you know anything about the history of Britannica since 1962, it was anything but radical: still a very completely safe, stodgy type of encyclopedia. Wikipedia, on the other hand, begins with a very radical idea, and that's for all of us to imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
And that's what we're doing. So Wikipedia -- you just saw the little demonstration of it -- it's a freely licensed encyclopedia. It's written by thousands of volunteers all over the world in many, many languages. It's written using Wiki software -- which is the type of software he just demonstrated -- so anyone can quickly edit and save, and it goes live on the Internet immediately. And everything about Wikipedia is managed by virtually an all-volunteer staff. So when Yochai is talking about new methods of organization, he's exactly describing Wikipedia. And what I'm going to do today is tell you a little bit more about how it really works on the inside.
So Wikipedia's owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which I founded, a nonprofit organization. And our goal, the core aim of the Wikimedia Foundation, is to get a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. And so if you think about what that means, it means a lot more than just building a cool website. We're really interested in all the issues of the digital divide, poverty worldwide, empowering people everywhere to have the information that they need to make good decisions. And so we're going to have to do a lot of work that goes beyond just the Internet. And so that's a big part of why we've chosen the free licensing model, because that empowers local entrepreneurs -- or anyone who wants to, can take our content and do anything they like with it -- you can copy it, redistribute it and you can do it commercially or non-commercially.
So there's a lot of opportunities that are going to arise around Wikipedia all over the world. We're funded by donations from the public, and one of the more interesting things about that is how little money it actually takes to run Wikipedia. So Yochai showed you the graph of what the cost of a printing press was. And I'm going to tell you what the cost of Wikipedia is, but first I'll show you how big it is. So we've got over 600,000 articles in English. We've got two million total articles across many, many different languages. The biggest languages are German, Japanese, French. All the Western European languages are quite big. But only around one-third of all of our traffic to our web clusters to the English Wikipedia, which is surprising to a lot of people. A lot of people think in a very English-centric way on the Internet, but for us we're truly global. We're in many, many languages. How popular we've gotten to be -- we're a top 50 website and we're more popular than the New York Times. So this is where we get to Yochai's discussion.
This shows the growth of Wikipedia -- we're the blue line there -- and then this is the New York Times over there. And what's interesting about this is the New York Times website is a huge, enormous corporate operation with -- I have no idea how many, hundreds of employees. We have exactly one employee, and that employee is our lead software developer. And he's only been our employee since January 2005, all the other growth before that. So the servers are managed by a rag-tag band of volunteers, all the editing is done by volunteers. And the way that we're organized is not like any traditional organization you can imagine. People are always asking, "Well, who's in charge of this?" or "Who does that?" And the answer is: anybody who wants to pitch in. It's a very unusual and chaotic thing. We've got over 90 servers now in three locations. These are managed by volunteer system administrators who are online. I can go online any time of the day or night and see eight to 10 people waiting for me to ask a question or something, anything about the servers. You could never afford to do this in a company. You could never afford to have a standby crew of people 24 hours a day and do what we're doing at Wikipedia.
So we're doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly, so it's really gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers. And the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about 5,000 dollars. And that's essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee. We actually -- we hired Brian because he was working part-time for two years and full-time at Wikipedia, so we actually hired him so he could get a life and go to the movies sometimes. So the big question when you've got this really chaotic organization is, why isn't it all rubbish? Why is the website as good as it is?
First of all, how good is it? Well, it's pretty good. It isn't perfect, but it's much, much better than you would expect, given our completely chaotic model. So when you saw him make a ridiculous edit to the page about me, you think, oh, this is obviously just going to degenerate into rubbish. But when we've seen quality tests -- and there haven't been enough of these yet and I'm really encouraging people to do more, comparing Wikipedia to traditional things -- we won hands down.
So a German magazine compared German Wikipedia, which is really much, much smaller than English, to Microsoft Encarta and to Brockhaus Multimedia, and we won across the board. They hired experts to come and look at articles and compare the quality, and we were very pleased with that result. So a lot of people have heard about the Wikipedia Bush-Kerry controversy. This is a -- the media has covered this somewhat extensively. It started out with an article in Red Herring. The reporters called me up and they -- I mean, I have to say they spelled my name right, but they really wanted to say, the Bush-Kerry election is so contentious, it's tearing apart the Wikipedia community. And so they quote me as saying, "They're the most contentious in the history of Wikipedia." What I actually said is, they're not contentious at all. So it's a slight misquote. The articles were edited quite heavily. And it is true that we did have to lock the articles on a couple of occasions. Time magazine recently reported that "Extreme action sometimes has to be taken, and Wales locked the entries on Kerry and Bush for most of 2004." This came after I told the reporter that we had to lock it for -- occasionally a little bit here and there. So the truth in general is that the kinds of controversies that you would probably think we have within the Wikipedia community are not really controversies at all.
Articles on controversial topics are edited a lot, but they don't cause much controversy within the community. And the reason for this is that most people understand the need for neutrality. The real struggle is not between the right and the left -- that's where most people assume -- but it's between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks. And no side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on either of those qualities. The actual truth about the specific Bush-Kerry incident is that the Bush-Kerry articles were locked less than one percent of the time in 2004, and it wasn't because t it was just because there was routine vandalism -- which happens sometimes even on stage, people -- sometimes even reporters have reported to me that they vandalize Wikipedia and were amazed that it was fixed so quickly. And I said -- you know, I always say, please don't do that, that's not a good thing. So how do we do this? What -- how do we manage the quality control? What makes a -- how does it work?
So there's a few elements, mostly social policies and some elements of the software. So the biggest and the most important thing is our neutral point of view policy. This is something that I set down from the very beginning, as a core principle of the community that's completely not debatable. It's a social concept of cooperation, so we don't talk a lot about truth and objectivity. The reason for this is if we say we're only going to write the truth about some topic, that doesn't do us a damn bit of good of figuring out what to write, because I don't agree with you about what's the truth. But we have this jargon term of neutrality, which has its own long history within the community, which basically says, any time there's a controversial issue, Wikipedia itself should not take a stand on the issue. We should merely report on what reputable parties have said about it. So this neutrality policy is really important for us, because it empowers a community that is very diverse to come together and actually get some work done.
So we have very diverse contributors in terms of political, religious, cultural backgrounds. By having this firm neutrality policy, which is non-negotiable from the beginning, we ensure that people can work together and that the entries don't become simply a war back and forth between the left and the right. If you engage in that type of behavior, you'll be asked to leave the community. So real-time peer review. Every single change on the site goes to the recent changes page. So as soon as he made his change, it went to the recent changes page. That recent changes page was also fed into IRC channel, which is an Internet chat channel that people are monitoring with various software tools. And people can get RSS feeds -- they can get e-mail notifications of changes. And then users can set up their own personal watch list. So my page is on quite a few volunteers' watch lists, because it is sometimes vandalized. And therefore, what happens is someone will notice the change very quickly, and then they'll just simply revert the change.
There's a new pages feed, for example, so you can go to a certain page of Wikipedia and see every new page as it's created. This is really important, because a lot of new pages that get created are just garbage that have to be deleted, you know, ASDFASDF. But also that's some of the most interesting and fun things at Wikipedia, some of the new articles. People will start an article on some interesting topic, other people will find that intriguing and jump in and help and make it much better. So we do have edits by anonymous users, which is one of the most controversial and intriguing things about Wikipedia. So Chris was able to do his change -- he didn't have to log in or anything, he just went on the website and made a change. But it turns out that only about 18 percent of all the edits to the website are done by anonymous users. And that's a really important thing to understand, is that the vast majority of the edits that go on on the website are from a very close-knit community of maybe 600 to 1,000 people who are in constant communication. And we have over 40 IRC channels, 40 mailing lists. All these people know each other. They communicate, we have offline meetings.
These are the people who are doing the bulk of the site, and they are, in a sense, semi-professionals at what they're doing, that the standards we set for ourselves are equal to or higher than professional standards of quality. We don't always meet those standards, but that's what we're striving for.
And so that tight community is who really cares for the site, and these are some of the smartest people I've ever met. Of course, it's my job to say that, but it's actually true. The type of people who were drawn to writing an encyclopedia for fun tend to be pretty smart people.
The tools and the software: there's lots of tools that allow us -- allow us, meaning the community -- to self-monitor and to monitor all the work. This is an example of a page history on flat earth, and you can see some changes that were made. What's nice about this page is you can immediately take a look at this and see, oh OK, I understand now. When somebody goes and looks at -- they see that someone, an anonymous IP number, made an edit to my page -- that sounds suspicious -- who is this person? Somebody looks at it, they can immediately see highlighted in red all of the changes that took place, to see, OK, well, these words have changed, things like this. So that's one tool that we can use to very quickly monitor the history of a page.
Another thing that we do within the community is we leave everything very open-ended. Most of the social rules and the methods of work are left completely open-ended in the software. All of that stuff is just on Wiki pages. And so there's nothing in the software that enforces the rules. The example I've got up here is a Votes For Deletion page. So, I mentioned earlier, people type ASDFASDF -- it needs to be deleted. Cases like that, the administrators just delete it. There's no reason to have a big argument about it. But you can imagine there's a lot of other areas where the question is, is this notable enough to go in an encyclopedia? Is the information verifiable? Is it a hoax? Is it true? Is it what? So we needed a social method for figuring out the answer to this. And so the method that arose organically within the community is the Votes For Deletion page. And in the particular example we have here, it's a film, "Twisted Issues," and the first person says, "Now this is supposedly a film. It fails the Google test miserably." The Google test is, you look in Google and see if it's there, because if something's not even in Google, it probably doesn't exist at all. It's not a perfect rule, but it's a nice starting point for a quick research. So somebody says, "Delete it, please. Delete it -- it's not notable." And then somebody says, "Wait, wait, wait, wait, I found it. I found it in a book, 'Film Threat Video Guide: the 20 Underground Films You Must See." Oh, OK. So the next persons says, "Clean it up." Somebody says, "I've found it on IMDB. Keep, keep, keep." And what's interesting about this is that the software is -- these votes are just -- they're just text typed into a page. This is not really a vote so much as it is a dialogue. Now it is true that at the end of the day an administrator can go through here and take a look at this and say, OK, 18 deletes, two keeps, we'll delete it. But in other cases, this could be 18 deletes and two keeps, and we would keep it, because if those last two keeps say, "Wait a minute, wait a minute. Nobody else saw this but I found it in a book, and I found a link to a page that describes it, and I'm going to clean it up tomorrow, so please don't delete it," then it would survive. And it also matters who the people are who are voting. Like I say, it's a tight knit community. Down here at the bottom, "Keep, real movie," Rick Kay.
Rick Kay is a very famous Wikipedian who does an enormous amount of work with vandalism, hoaxes and votes for deletion. His voice carries a lot of weight within the community because he knows what he's doing. So how's all this governed? People really want to know about, OK, administrators, things like that. So the Wikipedia governance model, the governance of the community, is a very confusing, but a workable mix of consensus -- meaning we try not to vote on the content of articles, because the majority view is not necessarily neutral. Some amount of democracy, all of the administrators -- these are the people who have the ability to delete pages, that doesn't mean that they have the right to delete pages, they still have to follow all the rules -- but they're elected, they're elected by the community. Sometimes people -- random trolls on the Internet -- like to accuse me of hand-picking the administrators to bias the content of the encyclopedia. I always laugh at this, because I have no idea how they're elected, actually. There's a certain amount of aristocracy. And so you've got a hint of that when I mentioned, like, Rick Kay's voice would carry a lot more weight than someone we don't know.
I give this talk sometimes with Angela, who was just re-elected to the Board from the community -- to the Board of the Foundation, with more than twice the votes of the person who didn't make it. And I always embarrass her because I say, well, Angela, for example, could get away with doing absolutely anything within Wikipedia, because she's so admired and so powerful. But the irony is, of course, that Angela can do this because she's the one person who you know would never, ever, ever break any rules of Wikipedia. And I also like to say she's the only person who actually knows all the rules of Wikipedia, so ... and then there's monarchy and that's my role on the community, so ... I was describing this in Berlin once and the next day in the newspaper the headline said, "I am the Queen of England." And that's not exactly what I said, but -- the point is my role in the community -- within the free software world there is long -- There's been a longstanding tradition of the benevolent dictator model. So if you look at most of the major free software projects, they have one single person in charge who everyone agrees is the benevolent dictator. Well, I don't like the term benevolent dictator, and I don't think that it's my job or my role in the world of ideas to be the dictator of the future of all human knowledge compiled by the world. It just isn't appropriate. But there is a need still for a certain amount of monarchy, a certain amount of -- sometimes we have to make a decision, and we don't want to get bogged down too heavily in formal decision-making processes.
So as an example of why this has been -- or how this can be important, we recently had a situation where a neo-Nazi website discovered Wikipedia, and they said, "Oh well, this is horrible, this Jewish conspiracy of a website and we're going to get certain articles deleted that we don't like. And we see they have a voting process, so we're going to send -- we have 40,000 members and we're going to send them over and they're all going to vote and get these pages deleted." Well, they managed to get 18 people to show up. That's neo-Nazi math for you. They always think they've got 40,000 members when they've got 18. But they managed to get 18 people to come and vote in a fairly absurd way to delete a perfectly valid article. Of course, the vote ended up being about 85 to 18, so there was no real danger to our democratic processes. On the other hand, people said, "But what are we going to do? I mean, this could happen and what if some group gets really seriously organized and comes in and wants to vote?" Then I said, "Well fuck it, we'll just change the rules." That's my job in the community: to say we won't allow our openness and freedom to undermine the quality of the content. And so as long as people trust me in my role, then that's a valid place for me. Of course, because of the free licensing, if I do a bad job, the volunteers are more than happy to take and leave -- I can't tell anyone what to do.
So the final point here is that to understand how Wikipedia works, it's important to understand that our Wiki model is the way we work, but we are not fanatical web anarchists. In fact, our -- we're very flexible about the social methodology, because it's ultimately the passion of the community is for the quality of the work, not necessarily for the process that we use to generate it. Thank you. (Applause)
Ben Saunders: Yeah, hi, Ben Saunders. Jimmy, you mentioned impartiality being a key to Wikipedia's success. It strikes me that much of the textbooks that are used to educate our children are inherently biased. Have you found Wikipedia being used by teachers, and how do you see Wikipedia changing education?
Jimmy Wales: Yeah, so a lot of teachers are beginning to use Wikipedia. Another -- there's a media storyline about Wikipedia, which I think is false. It builds on the storyline of bloggers versus newspapers. And the storyline is, there's this crazy thing, Wikipedia, but academics hate it and teachers hate it. And that turns out to not be true. The last time I got an e-mail from a journalist saying, "Why do academics hate Wikipedia?" I sent it from my Harvard email address, because I was recently appointed a fellow there. And I said, "Well, they don't all hate it." But I think there's going to be huge impacts. And we actually have a project that I'm personally really excited about, which is the Wiki books project, which is an effort to create textbooks in all the languages. And that's a it's going to take 20 years or so to come to fruition. But part of that is to fulfill our mission of giving an encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. We don't mean we're going to spam them with AOL-style CDs. We mean we're going to give them a tool that they can use. And for a lot of people in the world, if I give you an encyclopedia that's written at a university level, it doesn't do you any good without a whole host of literacy materials to build you up to the point where you can actually use it. And so the Wiki books project is an effort to do that. And I think that we're going to really see a huge -- it may not even come from us, there's all kinds of innovation going on. But freely licensed textbooks are the next big thing in education.
北京优视米网络科技有限公司&&Umiwi版权所有&&&&京ICP备号
广告招商热线：010-&&商务合作热线：010-6