专访：维基百科如何应对文化战争

Framer 已经提供了发布精美、生产就绪网站的最快方式，现在它正在重新定义我们设计网页的方式。

Framer already builds the fastest way to publish beautiful production ready websites, and it's now redefining how we design for the web.

随着最近推出的免费基于画布的设计工具 Design Pages，Framer 已经不仅仅是一个网站构建器。

With the recent launch of Design Pages, a free Canvas based design tool, Framer is more than a site builder.

它是一个真正的全栈设计平台。

It's a true all in one design platform.

从社交媒体素材、活动视觉设计到矢量图和图标，直至上线的网站，Framer 让创意从开始到完成全部得以实现。

From social assets to campaign visuals to vectors and icons, all the way to a live site, Framer is where ideas go live, start to finish.

立即前往 framer.com/design 免费开始创作，并使用代码 hard fork 获取一个月的 Framer Pro 免费试用。

Start creating for free at framer.com/design, and use code hard fork for a free month of Framer Pro.

好吧，凯西，现在是感恩节周。

Well, Casey, it's Thanksgiving week.

凯文，祝你和你的家人感恩节周快乐。

Happy Thanksgiving week to you and your family, Kevin.

今天还是星期二。

It's also a Tuesday.

今天确实是星期二，但我们有几件事想告诉你们。

It is a Tuesday, but we had a couple things that we wanted to tell you about.

首先是，我们想为你带来一期我们觉得你可能会喜欢的访谈节目。

The first of them is that we wanna bring you a recent episode of the interview that we really thought you might like.

是的。

Yes.

另外，我们想请一周假，回家和家人一起过感恩节。

Also, we wanted to take a week off and go have Thanksgiving dinner with our families.

哦，对啊。

Oh, yeah.

这次你们在工作室可抓不到我们了。

You're not gonna catch us in the studio this time.

上个月，我们的同事露露·加西亚·纳瓦罗采访了维基百科的联合创始人吉米·威尔士。

So last month, our colleague, Lulu Garcia Navarro, interviewed Jimmy Wales, the cofounder of Wikipedia.

他们就维基百科当前面临的各种文化战争、其运作方式、所遭遇的政治偏见指控，以及现在面临的来自人工智能和格罗科pedia（埃隆·马斯克版本的维基百科）的挑战，进行了一次非常有趣的对话。

And they had a really interesting conversation about all of the culture wars surrounding Wikipedia right now, how it operates, the political bias accusations that it has faced, the challenges they're now facing from AI and from Grokopedia, Elon Musk's version of Wikipedia.

我们应当注明，这次采访发生在Grackopedia向公众发布之前，但我们认为这场对话非常值得聆听，因此想在感恩节这一周将它带给你们。

And we should note that this interview happened just before Grackopedia was released to the public, but we thought this was a conversation well worth hearing, and we wanted to bring it to you on this Thanksgiving week.

当然。

Absolutely.

第二件事我们要告诉你们的是，Kevin，不可思议的是，自从我们发布关于有史以来100项最具标志性的技术的那期节目以来，已经整整一年了。

And the second thing we wanted to tell you is that, believe it or not, Kevin, it has been an entire year since we released our episode on the 100 most iconic technologies of all time.

在那期节目播出后，听众们表示，他们想了解更多关于科技标志性的内容。

And in the wake of that episode, listeners said, we would like to hear about more technological icons.

因此，我们很高兴地宣布，今天周五，就在这个播客频道中，我们将发布备受期待的后续内容——2025年最具标志性的50项技术。

And so we are proud to announce today that this Friday, in this very feed, we will be releasing the long awaited follow-up to that list, the 50 most iconic technologies of 2025.

是的。

Yes.

如果你在想，为什么今年只有50项？

And if you're wondering, why only 50 this year?

Casey，为什么今年只有50项？

Casey, why are only 50 this year?

因为今年并没有那么多具有标志性的技术，而且我们对什么是‘标志性’的要求非常高。

It's because there were not that many iconic technologies this year, and we have a very high bar for what counts as an icon.

而且，凯文，为了让大家稍微提前了解一下期待的内容，我们准备了一段即将在周五播出的节目片段。

And, you know, Kevin, just to give people a little teaser of what they can expect, we have a clip from this episode that's coming up on Friday.

稀土金属。

Rare earth metals.

所以这将在周五播出。

So that is coming up on Friday.

如果你在黑色星期五有长途驾驶去看望家人，要去商场购物，或者在店外排队等候

If you have a long drive somewhere to see your family on Black Friday because you're going to the mall If you're camped out in line outside

在沃尔玛外排队等待LaBooBooz开业的话。

of a Walmart waiting for the LaBooBooz to open up.

这正是一个绝佳的

This is a great thing you

收听内容。

can listen to.

顺便问一下，LaBooz上榜了吗？

And by the way, did LaBooz make the list?

只有一个办法能知道答案：本周五收听Hard Fork，祝你们节日愉快。

There's only one way to find out Hard Fork this Friday, and we hope you have a great holiday.

我们很感激你们。

We're thankful for you.

非常感激。

Very thankful.

我给我弟弟订了一份《纽约时报》的订阅。

I gave my brother a New York Times subscription.

她送了我一份为期一年的订阅，这样我就能访问所有游戏了。

She sent me a yearlong subscription so I have access to all the games.

我们会玩字谜、迷你字谜和拼字蜜蜂。

We'll do Wordle, Mini, Spelling Bee.

这让我们建立了个人联系。

It has given us a personal connection.

我们互相交换文章。

We exchange articles.

既然读了同一篇文章，我们就可以讨论它。

And so having read the same article, we can discuss it.

报道的内容、选择，不仅仅是新闻。

The coverage, the options, it's not just news.

这是一个如此多元化的平台。

Such a diversified disc.

我非常兴奋地送了他一份《纽约时报》烹饪订阅，这样我们就可以分享食谱。

I was really excited to give him a New York Times cooking subscription so that we could share recipes.

就在前几天，我们还分享了一个食谱。

And we even just shared a recipe the other day.

《纽约时报》增进了我们共度的优质时光。

The New York Times contributes to our quality time together.

所有这些信息都触手可及。

You have all of that information at your fingertips.

它丰富了我们的关系，拓宽了我们的视野。

It enriches our relationship, broadening our horizons.

这是一份非常酷且贴心的礼物。

It was such a a cool and thoughtful gift.

我们在读同样的内容。

We're reading the same stuff.

我们在做同样的饭菜。

We're making the same food.

我们想法一致。

We're on the same page.

与你关心的人建立更深层的联系。

Connect even more with someone you care about.

了解更多关于将《纽约时报》订阅作为礼物的信息，请访问 nytimes./gift。

Learn more about giving a New York Times subscription as a gift at nytimes./gift.

来自《纽约时报》，这是访谈。

From the New York Times, this is the interview.

我是露露·加西亚·纳瓦罗。

I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro.

作为全球最受欢迎的网站之一，维基百科帮助定义了我们对几乎所有事物的共同认知。

As one of the most popular websites in the world, Wikipedia helps define our common understanding of just about everything.

但最近，该网站从公共事业变成了埃隆·马斯克、国会共和党人和MAGA意见领袖的热门攻击目标，他们都声称维基百科存在偏见。

But recently, the site has gone from public utility to a favorite target of Elon Musk, congressional Republicans, and MAGA influencers who all claim that Wikipedia is biased.

在许多方面，这些关于维基百科的争论是我们当前正在展开的更大讨论的缩影——关于共识、文明分歧、共享现实、真相与事实，所有这些看似简单的话题。

In many ways, those debates over Wikipedia are a microcosm of bigger discussions we're having right now about consensus, civil disagreement, shared reality, truth, facts, all those little easy topics.

先说点历史。

A bit of history.

维基百科由拉里·桑格和吉米·威尔士于2001年互联网的远古时代创立。

Wikipedia was founded back in the paleolithic era of the Internet in 2001 by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales.

它一直以非营利组织运营，采用志愿者主导的去中心化编辑系统，大多数编辑者都是匿名的。

It was always operated as a nonprofit, and it employs a decentralized system of editing by volunteers, most of whom do so anonymously.

网站有明确的规则，要求人们以礼貌的方式互动，并确保修改过程透明，这催生了一种文明分歧的文化，使维基百科被一些人称为互联网上最后的净土。

There are rules over how people should engage on the site cordially and how changes are made transparently, And it's led to a culture of civil disagreement that has made Wikipedia what some have called the last best place on the Internet.

现在，随着这种文化受到威胁，吉米·威尔斯撰写了一本名为《信任的七条规则》的书，试图将维基百科成功经验应用于我们日益两极分化、信任匮乏的世界。

Now with that culture under threat, Jimmy Wales has written a book called the seven rules of trust, trying to take the lessons of Wikipedia's success and apply them to our increasingly partisan trust depleted world.

我必须说，我最初对他的建议持怀疑态度，但离开时却希望他是对的。

And I have to say, I did come in skeptical of his prescriptions, but I left hoping he's right.

以下是我和维基百科联合创始人吉米·威尔斯的对话。

Here's my conversation with Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales.

我想和你聊聊

I wanted to talk to you

因为我认为现在正是信任岌岌可危的时刻，而你的新书正是关于这一点。

because I think this is a very tenuous moment for trust, and your new book is all about that.

在书中，你提出了所谓的‘信任的七条规则’，这些规则源于你在维基百科的工作经验。

In it, you sort of lay out what you call the seven rules of trust based on your work at Wikipedia.

我们也会讨论这些规则，以及维基百科所面临的各种威胁和挑战。

And we'll talk about all those as well as some of the threats and challenges to Wikipedia.

但从宏观角度看，你会如何

But big picture, how would you

你如何描述我们当前的信任赤字？

describe our current trust deficit?

我认为我需要区分政治、新闻、文化战争等现象与日常生活之间的不同。

I think I draw a distinction between what's going on maybe with politics and journalism, the culture wars and all of that, and day to day life.

因为我认为在日常生活中，人们仍然彼此信任。

Because I think in day to day life, people still do trust each other.

人们普遍认为大多数人本质上是善良的，我们都是在这颗星球上努力生活的普通人，当然也确实存在不可信的人。

People generally think most people are basically nice, and we're all human beings bumping along on the planet trying to do our best, and obviously there are definitely people who aren't trustworthy.

但我们在政治、对政客的信任、对新闻业的信任、对商业的信任方面所看到的危机，其根源来自其他地方，而且是可以解决的。

But the crisis we see in politics, trust in politicians, trust in journalism, trust in business, that is coming from other places and is something that we can fix.

你之所以能在这方面具有权威性，原因之一是你创造了一个信任度极高的东西。

One of the reasons why you can be an authority on this is because you created something that scores very high on trust.

你打造了一个人们愿意参与的平台。

You have built something that people sort of want to engage with.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，我认为维基百科还没有达到我期望的水平。

I mean, I I do think Wikipedia isn't as good as I want it to be.

所以我认为，人们之所以对我们有一定信任，是因为我们努力保持高度透明。

And so I think that's part of why people do have a certain amount of trust for us, because we try to be really transparent.

你知道，有时你会在页面顶部看到通知，写着：本页面的中立性存在争议，或以下部分未引用任何来源。

You know, you see the notice at the top of the page sometimes that says, the neutrality of this page has been disputed, or the following section doesn't cite any sources.

人们喜欢这种做法。

People like that.

如今，很少有地方会告诉你：嘿，我们对此也不太确定，这表明公众确实渴望获得客观、中立的信息。

Not many places these days will tell you, hey, we're not so sure here, and it shows that the public does have a real desire for unbiased, sort of neutral information.

他们希望信任，希望看到来源，希望你能证明你所说的内容等等。

They want to trust, they want the sources, they want you to prove what you're saying and so forth.

维基百科如何定义事实？

How does Wikipedia define a fact?

在这方面，我们的做法非常传统。

Basically, we're very old fashioned about this sort of thing.

我们寻找的是高质量的来源，比如同行评审的科学研究，而不是通俗小报的报道。

What we look for is good quality sources, so we like peer reviewed scientific research, for example, as opposed to populist tabloid reports.

我们关注的是有品质的杂志、报纸等，通常不会把一条随机的推文当作事实。

You know, we look for quality magazines, newspapers, etcetera, so we don't typically treat a random tweet as a fact.

在这方面，我们相当乏味。

And so we're pretty boring on that regard.

是的。

Yeah.

这就像是你引用的出版物会被其他可信的来源引用，并且在出错时会发布更正。

It's sort of like the publication that you cite gets cited by other reputable sources, that it issues corrections when it gets things wrong.

这些都是老派但优秀的东西。

It's all the old fashioned sort of good stuff.

我认为重要的是，当我们审视不同来源时，它们往往从不同的视角或政治立场来看待问题。

And I think it's important to say, when we look at different sources, they will often come to things from a different perspective or different political point of view.

这并不会降低来源的质量。

That doesn't diminish the quality of the source.

例如，我住在英国伦敦，这里有《每日电讯报》，这是一份总体偏向右翼但质量很高的报纸。

So, for example, I live here in London in The UK, we have The Telegraph, which is a generally right leaning, but quality newspaper.

我们还有《卫报》，总体偏向左翼，但也是一份高质量的报纸。

We have The Guardian, generally left leaning, but quality newspaper.

希望当你阅读文章并从中提炼信息时，事实是可靠且扎实的，但作为编辑，你必须非常谨慎地分辨：哪些是各方公认的事实，哪些是对这些事实的个人观点？

Hopefully the facts, as you read the articles and glean through it, the facts should be reliable and solid, but you have to be very careful as an editor to tease out, okay, what are the facts that are agreed upon here, and what are the things that are opinions on those facts?

这，你知道的，是一项编辑工作。

And that's, you know, that's an editorial job.

这从来都不是完美的，也从来都不容易。

It's never perfect and it's never easy.

维基百科也以开源著称。

And Wikipedia also is famously open source.

它是去中心化的，本质上由成千上万的志愿者编辑运营。

It's decentralized, and essentially, it's run by thousands of volunteer editors.

我们应当说，你并不运营维基百科。

You don't run Wikipedia, we should say.

它在支配着我。

It runs me.

当这些编辑在哪些事实应被包含或如何撰写某内容上存在分歧时，他们是如何解决争议的？

How do those editors fix disputes when they don't agree on what facts to be included or on how something is written?

你们是如何协商这些差异的？

How do you negotiate those differences?

在最好的情况下，发生并应该发生的是：以堕胎这样的争议性议题为例。

Well, in in in the best cases, what what happens and what should happen always is take a controversial issue like abortion.

显然，如果你想象一位仁慈而深思熟虑的天主教神父和一位仁慈而深思熟虑的计划生育活动家，他们永远不会在堕胎问题上达成一致。

Obviously, if you think about a kind and thoughtful Catholic priest and a kind and thoughtful Planned Parenthood activist, they're never going to agree about abortion.

但他们很可能能够达成共识，因为我说过他们是仁慈且深思熟虑的，他们会说：好吧，至少我们可以报道这场争议。

But probably they can come together, because I said they're kind and thoughtful, and say, okay, but we can report on the dispute.

因此，与其声称堕胎是罪恶或堕胎是人权，不如说：天主教会的立场是这样，而批评者则如此回应。

So rather than trying to say abortion is a sin or abortion is a human right, you could say, Catholic Church position is this, and the critics have responded thusly.

你会开始听到一点维基百科的风格，因为我相信这才是读者真正想要的。

You'll start to hear a little of the Wikipedia style, because I believe that that's what a reader really wants.

他们不想来只获取故事的一方观点。

They don't want to come and get one side of the story.

他们希望来 saying，等等，别急。

They want to come and say, okay, wait, hold on.

我真正想了解人们争论的焦点是什么。

I actually want to understand what people are arguing about.

我想了解双方的观点。

I want to understand both sides.

这里最好的论点是什么？

What are the best arguments here?

是的。

Yeah.

基本上，每个页面都有一个名为‘讨论’的标签，你可以查看讨论和争议的历史，这与网站的另一个原则——透明度——相关。

And basically, every page has what's called a talk tab where you can see the history of the discussions and the disputes, which relates to another principle of the site, which is transparency.

你可以查看一切，了解是谁做了什么以及他们的理由是什么。

You can look at everything and see who did what and what their reasoning was.

是的，没错。

Yeah, exactly.

所以，你知道，当你在维基百科上看到某些内容时，你可能会想：好吧，为什么它会这样写？

So, you know, oftentimes if you see something in Wikiti, you think, okay, well, why does it say that?

通常你可以进入讨论页，看看当时的争论是什么样的，然后你也可以参与其中，说：其实我觉得你们还是错了。

Often you'll be able to go on the talk page and read sort of what the debate was and how it was, and you can weigh in there, and you can join in and say, oh, actually, I still think you've got it wrong.

这里有一些更多的资料，一些额外的信息，也许可以提出一个折中方案，诸如此类。

Here's some more sources, here's some more information, maybe propose a compromise, that sort of thing.

根据我的经验，结果发现，无论哪一方的意识形态强烈的人，实际上更愿意这样做，因为他们对自己的信念很有信心。

And in my experience, it turns out that a lot of pretty ideological people on either side are actually more comfortable doing that because they feel confident in their beliefs.

我认为，那些人——比如你在推特上会发现很多这样的人——对自己的价值观和信仰体系并不那么自信，当别人与他们意见相左时，他们会感到恐惧、恐慌或愤怒，而不是说：好吧，这和我想的不一样，让我来解释一下我的立场，这才是真正有思想根基的人会采取的态度。

I think it's the people who, and you'll find lots of them on Twitter, for example, they're not that confident in their own values and their own belief system, and they feel fear or panic or anger if someone's disagreeing with them, rather than saying, okay, look, that's different from what I think, let me explain my position, which is where your more intellectually grounded person will will come from.

你所说的实际上得到了2019年发表在《自然》科学期刊上的一项关于维基百科的研究支持。

What you're saying is supported, actually, by a study about Wikipedia that came out in the science journal Nature in 2019.

这项研究被称为‘两极化人群的智慧’。

It's called the wisdom of polarized crowds.

也许出人意料的是，它指出，政治上有争议的维基百科页面最终质量更高，意味着它们更具实证基础，也更容易达成共识。

Perhaps counterintuitively, it says that politically contentious Wikipedia pages end up being of higher quality, meaning that they're more evidence based, they have more consensus around them.

但我确实想问问，在维基百科上某些特定主题的共识建立并不总是那么容易的时候。

But I do wanna ask about the times when consensus building isn't necessarily easy as it relates to specific topics on Wikipedia.

有些页面实际上限制了编辑权限。

Some pages, they have actually restricted editing privileges.

比如阿以冲突、气候变化、堕胎——这些都不足为奇。

So the Arab Israeli conflict, climate change, abortion, unsurprising topics there.

为什么这些页面会被限制？

Why are those restricted?

为什么‘两极化人群的智慧’在这些主题上不起作用？

And why doesn't the wisdom of polarized crowds work for those subjects?

通常，被限制的主题我们都会尽量保持最少。

Well, typically the the subjects that are restricted are, we try to keep that as short as we can.

最常见的案例是，当某件事在新闻中引起巨大关注，或者某个网络大V说‘维基百科错了，去改一改’，于是我们就会迎来一波不了解我们文化、不熟悉规则的人，他们只是在破坏或粗鲁地胡闹，诸如此类。

The most common type of case is if something's really big in the news, or if some big online influencer says, ah, Wikipedia's wrong, go and do something about it, And, you know, we get a rush of people who don't understand our culture, don't understand the rules, and they're just vandalizing, or they're just sort of being rude, and so on and so forth.

我们只是为了平复局势，会说：好了，别急，慢下来，我们会保护这个页面。

And we just, as a calming down, it's like, okay, hold on, just slow down, we're going to protect the page.

还有一些页面，我们最常见的保护类型是半保护，这意味着你必须拥有一个账号至少四天左右（我记不清具体数字了），并且做过十次编辑且没有被封禁。

And then there are pages where, you know, the most common type of protection we call semi protection, which just means you have to have had an account for, I forget the exact numbers, it's something like four days, and you have made 10 edits without getting banned.

通常情况下，这也是让很多人感到惊讶的地方：维基百科上大约99%甚至更多的页面，你甚至不需要登录就可以编辑，并且会立即生效。

Now typically, and this is what's surprising to a lot of people about Wikipedia, like 99% of the pages, maybe more than 99%, you can edit without even logging in, and it goes live instantly.

这听起来令人难以置信，但它恰恰说明大多数人本质上是善良的、值得信赖的，人们并不会随意来破坏维基百科；即使有人这么做了，往往也只是出于好奇尝试，或者根本不知道会这样——他们会说：天啊。

That's like mind boggling, but it kind of points to the fact that most people are basically nice, most people are trustworthy, people don't just come by and vandalize Wikipedia, and often if they do, it's because they're just experimenting, or they didn't believe that would it's like they're like, oh my god.

它真的上线了，我根本没想到会这样。

It actually went live, and I didn't know it was gonna do that.

是啊。

It's like, yeah.

请不要再这样做了。

Please don't do that again.

这让我想到了一些挑战。

This brings me to some of the challenges.

维基百科虽然建立了一个非常可信的系统，但却正受到来自多个方面的攻击。

Wikipedia, while it has created this very trustworthy system, it is under attack from a lot of different places.

维基百科的一项超级能力，同时也可能被视为一种脆弱性。

And one of Wikipedia's sort of superpowers can also be seen as a vulnerability.

对吧？

Right?

它是由人类编辑创建的。

The fact that it is created by human editors.

尽管编辑本应是匿名的，但他们仍可能受到威胁。

And human editors can be threatened even though they're supposed to be anonymous.

你已经见过编辑被人肉搜索，被政府施压篡改信息。

You've had editors doxed, pressured by governments to doctor information.

有些编辑不得不逃离自己的祖国。

Some have had to flee their home countries.

我想到了俄罗斯和印度发生的情况，这些国家的政府确实将矛头对准了维基百科。

I'm thinking of what's happened in Russia and India, where those governments have really taken aim at Wikipedia.

你会说这是一个不断扩大的问题吗？

Would you say this is an expanding problem?

是的，我会这么说。

Yeah, I would.

我认为，我们正目睹全球范围内出现越来越多专制倾向的审查和信息控制行为，而这些行为往往披着羊皮，打着保护儿童或其他类似借口来推进这种控制。

I think that we are seeing all around the world a rise of authoritarian impulses towards censorship, towards controlling information, and very often these come, you know, as a wolf in sheep's clothing, because it's all about protecting the children or whatever it might be that, you know, you move forward in these kind of control ways.

但与此同时，维基百科编辑们非常坚韧和勇敢，我们相信，在许多情况下，政治家和领导者对维基百科的运作方式存在真正的误解。

But at the same time, you know, the Wikipedians are very resilient, and they're very brave, and one of the things that we believe is that in many, many cases, what's happened is a real lack of understanding by politicians and leaders of how Wikipedia works.

很多人有一个非常奇怪的假设，认为维基百科实际上是由维基媒体基金会——也就是我创立的、拥有并运营该网站的慈善机构——所控制的。

A lot of people really have a very odd assumption that it's somehow controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the charity that I set up that owns and operates the website.

因此，他们认为可以通过施压我们来达到目的，但实际上我们是无法被这样施压的。

Therefore, they think it's possible to pressure us in ways that it's actually not possible to pressure us.

这个社区拥有真正的思想独立性。

The community has real intellectual independence.

但没错，我确实为此感到担忧。

But yeah, I do worry about it.

我的意思是，志愿者身处危险境地这件事始终让我们深感沉重，如何保障他们的安全至关重要。

Mean, it's always something that weighs very heavily on us, is volunteers who are in dangerous circumstances, and how do they remain safe is like critically important.

我想提一下最近在美国发生的一件事。

I want to bring up something that just happened here in The US.

今年八月，众议院监督委员会的两位共和党议员詹姆斯·康默和南希·梅斯致信维基媒体，要求提供有关特定编辑的记录、通信、分析，以及关于以色列局势的任何偏见审查。

In August, James Comer and Nancy Mace, two Republican representatives from the House Oversight Committee, wrote a letter to Wikimedia requesting records, communication, analysis on specific editors, and also any reviews on bias regarding the state of Israel, in particular.

他们的理由是——我这里直接引用——他们正在调查由外国势力和学术机构中的个人所进行的活动，这些机构接受美国纳税人资金资助，试图影响美国公众舆论。

The reason, and I'm gonna quote here, is because they are investigating the efforts of foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by US taxpayer dollars to influence US public opinion.

那么，你能告诉我你对这一要求的反应吗？

So can you tell me your reaction to that query?

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，我们已经对其中合理部分作出了回应。

I mean, you know, we've we've given a response to the parts of that that were reasonable.

我的意思是，我们认为他们对维基百科的运作方式存在严重误解或根本不了解。

I mean, we what we feel like is there's a deep misunderstanding or lack of understanding about how Wikipedia works.

你知道，最终，认为某事存在偏见就足以成为国会调查的正当对象，这简直是荒谬的。

You know, ultimately, the idea that something being biased is a proper and fit subject for a congressional investigation is frankly absurd.

所以，关于那些间谍行动之类的问题，我们也没什么有用的信息可以告诉他们。

And so, you know, in terms of asking questions about cloak and dagger whatever, we're not going have anything useful to tell them.

我觉得，我认识那些维基人，他们就是一群可爱的极客。

I'm like, I know the Wikipedians, they're like a bunch of nice geeks.

是的，我的意思是，美国的遗产基金会——也就是‘2025计划’的策划者——已经表示他们想要曝光你们的编辑。

Yeah, I mean, the Heritage Foundation here in The United States, which was the architect of Project twenty twenty five, have said that they want to dox your editors.

我的意思是，你们该如何保护人们免受这种威胁？

I mean, how do you protect people from that?

这真是遗产基金会的耻辱。

I mean, it's embarrassing for the Heritage Foundation.

我记得他们曾经是有智力尊严的，如果他们认为这才是正确的前进方向，那他们就大错特错了。

I remember when they were intellectually respectable, and that's a shame that if that's what they think is the right way forward, they're just badly mistaken.

但似乎右翼确实存在一股针对维基百科的运动，以这些理由发难，我想知道你认为为什么会发生这种情况。

But it does seem that there is this movement on the right to target Wikipedia over these types of concerns, and I'm wondering why you think that's happening.

我的意思是，很难说。

I mean, it's hard to say.

有各种不同的动机，有各种不同的人。

There's a lot of different motivations, a lot of different people.

其中一些可能是出于真正的担忧，如果他们觉得维基百科有偏见，比如我见过马斯克说过，维基百科有偏见，因为他们有一套严格的规则，只引用主流媒体，而主流媒体本身就有偏见。

Some of it would be, you know, genuine concern if they see that maybe Wikipedia is biased, or, you know, I have seen, for example, Elon Musk has said, Wikipedia is biased because they have this really strong rules about only citing mainstream media, and the mainstream media is biased.

好吧，我的意思是，这是一个有趣的问题，一个有趣的批评。

Okay, I mean that's an interesting question, interesting criticism.

当然，我认为这值得所有人、媒体等进行一些反思。

Certainly, I think worthy of some reflection by everyone, the media, and so on and so forth.

但这对任何人来说都算不上什么新闻，实际上还挺有意思的。

But it's hardly, you know, it's hardly news to anybody, and actually that interesting.

然后，世界各地的其他人——不只是美国，但事实本身可能构成威胁，如果你的政策与事实相悖，那么人们只是陈述事实就会感到非常不舒服。

Then other people, you know, in various places around the world, not speaking just of The US, but you know, facts are threatening, and if you and your policies are at odds with the facts, then you may find it very uncomfortable for people to simply explain the facts.

我不知道，这始终会是一个难题。

And I don't know, that's always going be a difficulty.

但我们不会说，嘿，也许科学根本就无效。

But we're not about to say, gee, you know, maybe science isn't valid after all.

也许新冠疫苗杀死了半数人口。

Maybe the COVID vaccine killed half the population.

不，根本没有。

No, it didn't.

这太疯狂了，我们不会刊登这种内容。

Like, that's crazy, and we're not gonna print that.

所以他们只能接受这一点。

And so they're gonna have to get over it.

我想谈谈一个关于维基百科的最近争议案例，那就是查理·柯克的遇刺事件。

I wanna talk about a recent example of a controversy surrounding Wikipedia, and that's the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

你知道，参议员迈克·李指责维基百科邪恶，因为其页面将柯克描述为极右翼阴谋论者，还有其他一些对页面的不满。

You know, Senator Mike Lee called Wikipedia wicked because of the way it had described Kirk on its page as a far right conspiracy theorists among other complaints that they had about the page.

我查了下我们说话时的页面，发现那个描述现在已经从维基百科上消失了。

And I went to look at the time that we're speaking, and that description is now gone from Wikipedia.

左翼人士会说，这个描述是准确的。

Those on the left would say that that description was accurate.

右翼人士会说，这个描述从一开始就是有偏见的。

Those on the right would say that that description was biased all along.

你怎么看待这种紧张关系？

How do you see that, that tension?

我的意思是，我认为正确的做法是必须应对所有这些情况。

Well, I mean, I think the correct answer is you have to address all of that.

你必须说，看，这是一位人物，我认为关于查理·柯克最没有争议的说法就是他本身就是一个有争议的人物。

You have to say, look, this was a person, I think the least controversial thing you could say about Charlie Kirk is that he was controversial.

我想没有人会否认这一点。

I don't think anybody would dispute that.

所以说，这是一个被许多人视为英雄、却被其他人视为恶魔的人物。

And to say, like, okay, this was a figure who was a great hero to many people and treated as a demon by others.

他持有这些观点，其中许多与主流科学思维相悖，但又与宗教思想高度一致，等等。

He had these views, many of which are out of step with, say, mainstream scientific thinking, many of which are very much in step with religious thinking, and so on and so forth.

而这些正是我们如果做好本职工作——我认为我们这次确实做到了——所要描述的所有内容。

And those are the kinds of things that, if we do our job well, which I think we have in this case, we're going to describe all of that.

也许你对查理·柯克一无所知，只是听说：天啊，这个人被暗杀了。

Like maybe you don't know anything about Charlie Kirk, you just heard, oh my god, this man was assassinated.

他究竟是谁？

Who was he?

这到底是怎么回事？

What's this all about?

那就应该来了解这一切。

Well, should come and learn all that.

你应该了解他的支持者是谁，他们为什么支持他，他提出了哪些论点，以及哪些话激怒了人们。

You should learn like who his supporters were and why they supported him, what are the arguments he put forward, and what are the things he said that upset people.

这仅仅是了解世界本质的一部分。

That's just part of learning what the world is about.

所以，那些出现的词语——极右翼和阴谋论者——在你看来是不恰当的，维基百科的批评者是有道理的。

So those words that were there, far right and conspiracy theorists, those were, in your view, the wrong words, and that the critics of Wikipedia had a point.

嗯，这要看具体情况，取决于他们提出的批评是什么。

It well, I don't it depends on what they it depends on the specific criticism.

如果批评是说某个词在这一页上出现了十七分钟，那我会说，你得理解维基百科是如何运作的。

So if the criticism is, this word appeared on this page for seventeen minutes, I'm like, you know what, that's you got to understand how Wikipedia works.

这是一个过程，一种讨论，一场对话。

It's a process, it's a discourse, it's a dialogue.

但既然他被一些知名人士称为阴谋论者，那这就是他历史的一部分。

But to the extent that he was called a conspiracy theorist by prominent people, That's part of his history.

这是存在的事实，维基百科不一定要这样称呼他，但我们绝对应该记录下这一切。

That's part of what's there, and Wikipedia shouldn't necessarily call him that, but we should definitely document all of that.

你提到了埃隆·马斯克，他一直批评维基百科。

You mentioned Elon Musk, who's come after Wikipedia.

他称它为‘Wookipedia’。

He calls it Wookipedia.

他现在正试图创建一个名为‘Grokapedia’的维基百科替代版本。

He's now trying to start his own version of Wikipedia called Grokapedia.

他说这将消除意识形态偏见。

And he says it's going to strip out ideological bias.

我想知道，你认为他这样的攻击对人们对你平台整体信任度有何影响？

I wonder what you think attacks like his do for people's trust in your platform writ large.

因为正如我们在新闻界所见，如果足够多的外部人物告诉人们不要相信某物，人们就不会相信。

Because as we've seen in the journalism space, if enough outside actors are telling people not to trust something, they won't.

嗯，这很难说。

Well, you know, it's very hard to say.

我的意思是，对很多人来说，他们对埃隆·马斯克的信任度极低，因为他总是说些疯狂的话。

I mean, I think for many people, their level of trust in Elon Musk is extremely low, because he says wild things all the time.

因此，在某种程度上，当他攻击我们时，人们反而会捐更多的钱。

So to that extent, you know, when he attacks us, people donate more money.

所以，这并不是我最喜欢的筹款方式，但事实是，很多人对这种行为反应非常负面。

So, you know, that's not my favorite way of raising money, but the truth is a lot of people are responding very negatively to that behavior.

我在书中提到过一件事，也当面对埃隆·马斯克说过：这种攻击方式是适得其反的，即使你同意埃隆·马斯克的观点，因为一旦他成功让公众误以为维基百科已被觉醒主义者掌控，就会发生两件事。

One of the things I do say in the book, and I've said to Elon Musk, is that type of attack is it's counterproductive even if you agree with Elon Musk, because to the extent that he has convinced people falsely that Wikipedia has been taken over by woke activists, then two things happen.

我们非常欢迎你们这样温和、有思想的保守派，也希望有更多像你们这样富有智慧、可能对时代精神持有不同看法的人加入。

Your kind and thoughtful conservatives who we very much welcome, and we want more people who are thoughtful and intellectual and maybe disagree about various aspects of the spirit of our times.

欢迎加入我们，一起让维基百科变得更好。

Come and join us, and let's make Wikipedia better.

但如果这些人认为，哦，不，这里只会变成一群疯狂的觉醒激进分子，他们就会离开。

But if those people think, oh no, it's just going to be a bunch of crazy woke activists, they're going to go away.

而在另一端，那些疯狂的觉醒激进分子会想，太好了，我找到家了。

And then on the other side, the crazy woke activists are going be like, great, I found my home.

我不用再担心任何事了。

I don't have to worry about whatever.

我可以来这里写一些针对我痛恨的世界事物的发泄性文章。

I can come and write rants against the things I hate in the world.

我们其实也不想要他们。

We don't really want them either.

你说你跟埃隆·马斯克谈过这件事。

You said you talked to Elon Musk about this.

你是什么时候和他谈这件事的？那次谈话是怎样的？

When did you talk to him about it, and and what was that conversation like?

我的意思是，这些年来我们有过各种对话。

I mean, we've had various conversations over the years.

你知道，他有时会给我发短信。

You know, he texts me sometimes.

我有时也会给他发短信。

I text him sometimes.

他在私下里要更加尊重和安静，这你也能理解。

He's he's much more respectful and quiet in private, but that you would expect.

他有一个强大的公众形象。

It's got a big public persona.

你最后一次和他交流是什么时候？

When was the last time you had that exchange?

这是个好问题。

That's a good question.

我不知道。

I don't know.

我想是在上一次选举后的第二天早上，他给我发了条短信。

I think the morning after the last election, he texted me that that morning.

我向他道贺了。

I congratulated him.

显然，最近发生的那次辩论是因为他做出的一个手势，这个手势被以不同方式解读，而他对维基百科上对它的描述感到不满。

Obviously, the debate that happened more recently was because of the hand gesture that he made that was interpreted in different ways, and he was upset in the way that it had been characterized on Wikipedia.

是的，之后我从他那里听说了这件事。

Yeah, I heard from him after that.

我的意思是，在这件事上，我进行了反驳，因为我去查了维基百科上是怎么说的。

I mean, that case, I pushed back because I went to check like, oh, what does Wikipedia say?

而且内容非常客观。

And it was very matter of fact.

上面写着：他做了这个手势，引起了大量媒体报道，许多人将其解读为这样，而他否认这是纳粹礼。

It said, he made this gesture, it got a lot of news coverage, many interpreted it as this, and he denied that it was a Nazi salute.

这就是整个故事，它是历史的一部分。

That's the whole story, it's part of history.

我不明白你为什么会因为这种表述方式感到不满。

I don't see how you could be upset about it being presented in that way.

如果维基百科说，埃隆·马斯克是纳粹，那就会非常、非常错误。

If Wikipedia said, you know, Elon Musk is a Nazi, that would be really, really wrong.

但如果说，看，他做了这个手势，引起了大量关注，有些人说它看起来像纳粹礼。

But to say, look, he did this gesture, and it created a lot of attention, and some people said it looked like a Nazi.

是的。

Yeah.

这很好。

That's great.

这就是维基百科该有的样子。

That's that's what Wikipedia is.

它就应该这么做。

That's what it should do.

你认为埃隆·马斯克是出于善意行事的吗？

Do you think Elon Musk is acting in good faith?

你说他在私下里友善而亲切，但他的公众形象却截然不同。

You're saying that in private, he's nice and cordial, but his public persona is is very different.

你知道，我想试图揣测埃隆·马斯克心里在想什么是徒劳的，所以我不会去尝试。

You know, I I think it's a fool's errand to try and figure out what's going on in Elon Musk's mind, so I'm not gonna try.

我并不是想在这方面逼你。

I I don't mean to press you on this.

我只是想提及你之前说过的一句话，那就是人与人之间相处时是友善的。

I'm just trying to refer to something that you said, which is people human to human are nice.

对吧？

Right?

我们本质上是善良的。

That we're good.

我们应该假设他人是出于善意的。

That we should assume good faith.

所以你的意思是，埃隆在一对一的情况下很可爱，但他却在攻击你的机构，可能正在削弱对维基百科的支持。

And so you're saying that Elon one on one is lovely, but he is attacking your institution and potentially draining support for Wikipedia.

我的意思是，我不认为他拥有自己以为的，或者很多人以为的那样能损害维基百科的力量。

Well, I mean, I I don't think he has the power he thinks he has or that a lot of people think he has to damage Wikipedia.

我的意思是，一百年后我们还在，而他不会在了。

I mean, we'll be here in a hundred years, and he won't.

所以我认为，只要我们坚持做维基百科，人们就会继续爱我们。

So I think as long as we stay Wikipedia, people will still love us.

他们会说，你知道吗，维基百科真棒，世界上所有的噪音、这些人的咆哮，其实都不是真正的东西。

They will say, you know what, Wikipedia is great, and all the noise in the world and all these people ranting, that's not really the real thing.

真正有价值的是真实的人类知识、真实的对话、真正直面我们时代艰难问题的过程，这才是极其宝贵的。

The real thing is genuine human knowledge, genuine discourse, genuinely grappling with the difficult issues of our day, that's actually super valuable.

所以世界上充满了噪音。

So there's a lot of noise in the world.

我希望埃隆能重新审视一下，改变他的想法。

I hope Elon will take another look and change his mind.

那很好，但我对任何人都会这么说。

That'd be great, but I would say that of anybody.

你知道，与此同时，我认为我们没必要对此过度纠结或太过担心。

And you know, in the meantime, I don't think we need to obsess over it or worry that much about it.

你知道，我们并不依赖他提供资金，就这样吧。

You know, we don't depend on him for funding, and yeah, there we are.

我听到你说，你们的策略部分在于坚持现状，继续做维基百科该做的事。

I hear you saying that part of your strategy here is just to stay the course, do what Wikipedia does.

你们认为维基百科需要做出哪些改变，才能保持准确性和相关性？

Are there changes that you do think Wikipedia needs to make to stay accurate and relevant?

我认为，当我们考虑长远时，必须跟上技术的发展。

Well, I think what we have to focus on when we when we think about the long run, we also have to keep up with technology.

你知道，现在大型语言模型兴起，这是一项了不起但存在严重缺陷的技术。

You know, we've got this rise of the large language models, which are an amazing, but deeply flawed technology.

因此，我的看法是：我确信，如今没有任何人工智能有能力撰写一篇维基百科条目。

And so the way I think about that is to say, okay, look, I know for a fact, like, no AI today is competent to write a Wikipedia entry.

它在非常知名的大主题上还能应付得过去，但只要稍微冷门一点，幻觉问题就会变得灾难性。

It can do a passable job on a very big famous topic, but anything slightly obscure and the hallucination problem is disastrous.

但与此同时，我非常感兴趣的是，我们如何利用这项技术来支持我们的社区？

But at the same time, I'm very interested in how can we use this technology to support our community?

一个想法是，拿一个简短的条目，把参考资料输入进去，也许这个短条目只有五个参考资料，然后问AI：条目中有没有任何内容是没有参考资料支持的？或者参考资料中有没有什么内容可以加入维基百科但还没被加入？

One idea is, you know, take a short entry and feed in the sources, maybe it's only got five sources in a short, and just ask the AI, is there anything in the entry that's not supported by the sources, or is there anything in the sources that could be in Wikipedia but isn't?

如果你能找到什么，就给我一两个建议。

And give me a couple suggestions if you can find anything.

当我尝试过这个方法后，感觉还不错。

As I've played with that, it's pretty okay.

它还需要改进，也不完美，但如果我们只是惊呼‘天啊，我们讨厌AI’，就会错失利用它的机会。

It's it needs work, and it's not perfect, but if we react with just like, oh my god, we hate AI, then we'll miss the opportunity to do that.

如果我们走另一个极端，狂热地爱上AI，开始用它来做所有事情，那我们就会失去信任，因为我们将会加入大量由AI幻觉产生的错误。

And if we go crazy, like, oh, we love AI, and we start using it for everything, well, we're going to lose trust because we're going to include a lot of AI hallucinated errors and so on.

这很有趣，因为维基媒体每年都会发布一份全球趋势报告，分析可能影响维基百科工作的因素。

I mean, that's interesting because Wikimedia writes this yearly global trends report on what might impact Wikipedia's work.

对于2025年，报告写道：‘我们正看到低质量的AI内容不仅被用来传播虚假信息，还被用作一夜暴富的手段。’

And for 2025, it wrote, quote, we are seeing that low quality AI content is being turned out not just to spread false information, but as a get rich quick scheme.

它正在淹没互联网上高质量的、由人类可靠生产的信息，而这类信息正变得越来越少、愈发珍贵。’

And it is overwhelming the internet high quality information that is reliably human produced has become a dwindling and precious commodity, end quote.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我读到过，大型语言模型的爬虫因为大量使用维基百科的内容，几乎把你们的服务器搞崩溃了。

I read that crawlers from large language models have basically crashed your servers because they use so much of Wikipedia's content.

这让我忍不住想，人们会不会直接用这些大型语言模型来回答问题，而不是来访问你们这个源头呢？

And it did make me wonder, will people be using these large language models to answer their questions and not going to the source, which is you?

嗯，自从它们出现以来，这一直是个问题。

Well, you know, this has been a question since the since they began.

我们还没有看到任何切实的证据表明这一点，而我个人经常使用AI，不过我的使用方式不同，应用场景也不同，而且

We haven't seen any real evidence of that, and I use AI personally quite a lot, and I use it in a different way though, different use cases, and

怎么个不同法？

How?

你看，我喜欢做饭。

See, I like to cook.

这是我的爱好。

It's my hobby.

我自认是个不错的厨师，经常向Che Gipitif要食谱。

I fancy myself as being quite a good cook, and I will often ask Che Gipitif for a recipe.

我也会问它一些有食谱的网站链接。

I also ask it for links to websites with recipes.

它有时会编造食谱，这还挺搞笑的。

It sometimes makes them up, so that's a bit hilarious.

我还建议，除非你本来就会做饭，否则别用Chajabi茶来烹饪，因为一旦出错，后果会很严重。

And I also suggest be careful using Chajabi tea for cooking, unless you actually already know how to cook, because when it's wrong, it's really wrong.

但维基百科对这个没用。

But Wikipedia would be useless for that.

维基百科没有食谱。

Wikipedia doesn't have recipes.

这完全是不同于百科全书式知识的另一个领域。

Like, it's a completely different realm of knowledge than encyclopedic knowledge.

所以，是的，我对此并不太担心。

So, yeah, I'm not that worried about it.

但我确实担心，在当今新闻业承受巨大财务压力的时期，出现了一种新的新闻业竞争者——那就是为搜索引擎优化而大量生产的低质量内容，用以与真正由人类撰写的内容竞争，这种现象进一步削弱了尤其是地方新闻业的商业模式，这让我非常担忧，这虽然不是直接关于维基百科的问题，但确实关乎一点：生成看似可信的文本现在非常便宜。

I do worry about, you know, in in this time when journalism has been under incredible financial pressure, and there's a new competitor for journalism, which is sort of low quality churned out content produced for search engine optimization to compete with real human written content, to the extent that that further undermines the ability for the business model of particularly local journalism is something that I'm very worried about, then that's a big problem, and it's not directly about Wikipedia, but it is about, you know, it's very cheap to generate very plausible text that yeah.

这在我看来并不好。

That that doesn't seem good to me.

作为记者，这在我看来也绝对不好。

It definitely doesn't seem good to me either as a journalist.

我只是记得，曾经有一种希望，认为当互联网被垃圾内容淹没时（这甚至是在人工智能出现之前，当时只是所谓的水军农场和点击诱饵），这反而会利好值得信赖的信息来源。

I just recall that there was this hope that as the Internet got flooded with garbage, and this is even before AI, this was just, you know, kind of troll farms and and clickbait, that it would benefit trustworthy sources of information.

但事实恰恰相反。

And instead, we've seen that the opposite has happened.

维基百科、新闻机构、学术机构，都在面临同样的问题。

Wikipedia, news organizations, academic institutions, they're all struggling with the same thing.

如果正如你所说，人们最终还是希望信任他们所获取的信息，那为什么在这样一个时代，他们反而在挣扎呢？

Why do you think that they are struggling in an era where they should be flourishing if what you say is true, that people ultimately do want to trust the information that they're getting?

我认为其中一个重要原因是，新闻媒体并没有很好地坚持事实、避免偏见。

Well, I mean, I think that a big piece of it is that the news media has not done a very good job of sticking to the facts and avoiding bias.

我认为很多新闻媒体——并非全部——已经变得更加党派化，这背后有其原因，而且是短视行为。

I think a lot of news media, not all of it, but a lot of news media has become more partisan, and there are reasons for it, and it's short termism.

你甚至会在书中看到一些相关内容，有些新闻界人士主张我们应该放弃客观性，转而公开站队等等。

And you'll even see there's some stuff in the book about this, some arguments by some people in journalism that objectivity is we should give up on it and be partisan and so on and so forth.

我认为这是个巨大的错误，而且有大量的证据支持这一点。

I think that's a huge mistake, and I think there's lots of evidence for that.

你知道，维基百科非常受欢迎，人们之所以看重它，其中一个原因就是，如果他们觉得我们有偏见，就会感到非常失望。

You know, Wikipedia is incredibly popular, and that's one of the things people say about Wikipedia that they really value, and they're really disappointed if they feel like we're biased, and so on and so forth.

所以我之前举了个例子，因为我住在英国，会读这些报纸，但如果你看看《每日电讯报》和《卫报》关于气候变化的报道，我甚至不用读就能猜到哪家报纸会持什么立场。

So I mean, I gave the example earlier, because I live in The UK, read these papers, but, you know, if you look at The Telegraph and you look at The Guardian on an issue related to climate change, I can already tell you before we start reading which attitude is going to come from which paper.

它们都没有很好地做到一点：实际上，我们的职责不是站在问题的某一边，而是描述事实、理解对方的观点等等。

Neither of them is doing a very good job of saying, actually it's not our job to be on one side of that issue or the other, it's our job to describe the facts and to understand the other side, and so on and so forth.