《访谈》：文化战争波及维基百科，吉米·威尔士坚守立场。

嘿，等一下。这是属于你的时刻，属于你玩耍、创造、行动、穿越、探索的日子。这是你休息、滋养、成长的身体。这是你的心灵。

Hey. Hold up. This is your minute, your day to play, to make, to move, to move through, to explore. It's your body to rest, to nourish, to grow. It's your mind.

你知道吗？这是你的位置，你热爱、梦想、改变的生活。这是你理解的世界。《纽约时报》。了解更多请访问nytimes.com/yourworld。

You know? It's your place, your life to love, to dream, to change. It's your world to understand. The New York Times. Find out more at nytimes.com/yourworld.

这里是《纽约时报》的《访谈》节目，我是露露·加西亚·纳瓦罗。作为全球最受欢迎的网站之一，维基百科帮助我们定义了对几乎所有事物的共同理解。但最近，该网站已从公共事业变成了埃隆·马斯克、国会共和党人和MAGA影响者最喜欢攻击的目标，他们都声称维基百科存在偏见。在很多方面，这些关于维基百科的争论是我们当前关于共识、文明分歧、共享现实、真相、事实等那些‘简单’话题的缩影。

From The New York Times, this is The Interview. I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro. As one of the most popular websites in the world, Wikipedia helps define our common understanding of just about everything. 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. 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.

一点历史。维基百科成立于互联网的石器时代——2001年，由拉里·桑格和吉米·威尔士创立。它一直作为非营利组织运营，采用由志愿者匿名编辑的分散系统。网站制定了人们如何礼貌参与和透明修改的规则，形成了一种文明分歧的文化，使维基百科被称为互联网上最后的好地方。如今这种文化受到威胁，吉米·威尔士写了一本名为《信任七法则》的书，试图将维基百科的成功经验应用于我们日益分裂、信任缺失的世界。

A bit of history. Wikipedia was founded back in the paleolithic era of the Internet in 2001 by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. It was always operated as a nonprofit, and it employs a decentralized system of editing by volunteers, most of whom do so anonymously. 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. 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，但谈话结束后我希望他是对的。以下是我与维基百科联合创始人吉米·威尔士的对话。我想和你谈谈，因为我认为这是信任非常脆弱的时刻，而你的新书正是关于这一点。你在书中基于维基百科的工作提出了所谓的‘信任七法则’。我们将讨论这些法则，以及维基百科面临的一些威胁和挑战。

And I have to say, I did come in skeptical of his prescriptions, but I left hoping he's right. Here's my conversation with Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales. I wanted to talk to you because I think this is a very tenuous moment for trust, and your new book is all about that. In it, you sort of lay out what you call the seven rules of trust based on your work at Wikipedia. And we'll talk about all those, as well as some of the threats and challenges to Wikipedia.

但宏观来看，你如何描述我们当前的信任赤字？

But big picture, how would you describe our current trust deficit?

我区分了政治、新闻业、文化战争等领域的情况与日常生活。因为在日常生活中，人们仍然互相信任。人们普遍认为大多数人本质上是善良的，我们都是在地球上跌跌撞撞尽力而为的人类，当然也存在不可信的人。但我们在政治中看到的危机——对政客、新闻业、商业的信任缺失——源于其他原因，这是我们可以解决的问题。

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

你能成为这一领域的权威，部分原因在于你创造的事物在信任度上得分极高。你构建的东西让人们愿意与之互动。

One of the reasons why you can be an authority on this is because you created something that scores very high on trust. You have built something that people sort of want to engage with.

是的。我是说，维基百科确实还没达到我理想中的状态，但这也正是人们对我们保持一定信任的原因之一——因为我们努力保持透明。比如你有时会看到页面顶部提示‘本页中立性存在争议’或‘以下章节未引用任何来源’。人们喜欢这种坦诚。如今没多少地方会告诉你‘嘿，我们这里也不太确定’，这显示出公众确实渴望获得公正中立的信息。

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

他们渴望信任。他们需要来源。他们希望你证明自己所言非虚，诸如此类。

They they want to trust. They want the sources. They want to 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?

本质上，我们在这方面非常传统。我们看重优质信源，比如我们青睐经过同行评议的科学研究，而非哗众取宠的小报报道。我们会参考优质杂志、报纸等。通常不会把随手发的推文当作事实。在这方面我们相当无趣。

Basically, we're very old fashioned about this sort of thing. What we look for is good quality sources, so we we like peer reviewed scientific research, for example, as opposed to populist tabloid reports. You know, we look for quality magazines, newspapers, etcetera. So we don't typically treat a random tweet as a fact. And so we're pretty boring on that regard.

没错。就像你引用的出版物本身也被其他权威信源引用，当出现错误时会发布更正声明那样。

Yeah. 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.

这些都是传统意义上的好东西。需要说明的是，不同信源往往持有不同立场或政治观点，但这不影响其质量。比如我在英国伦敦生活，我们有立场偏右但质量上乘的《每日电讯报》，也有偏左但同样优质的《卫报》。

It's all the old fashioned sort of good stuff. 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. That doesn't diminish the quality of the source. So for example, I live here in London in The UK, we have The Telegraph, which is a generally right leaning, but quality newspaper. We have The Guardian, generally left leaning, but quality newspaper.

希望这些事实，当你在阅读文章并从中筛选时，应该是可靠且坚实的，但作为编辑你必须非常谨慎地梳理清楚，哪些是公认的事实，哪些是基于这些事实的观点？这，你知道，就是编辑的工作。它从不完美，也从不轻松。

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? And that's, you know, that's an editorial job. It's never perfect and it's never easy.

维基百科还以开源著称。它是去中心化的，本质上由成千上万的志愿编辑运营。应该说，并不是由谁在'运营'维基百科。

And Wikipedia also is famously open source. It's decentralized, and essentially it's run by thousands of volunteer editors. You don't run Wikipedia, we should say.

是它在支配我。

It runs me.

当编辑们对应该包含哪些事实或如何表述存在分歧时，他们如何解决争议？你们如何协调这些不同意见？

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

在最佳情况下，处理争议性议题如堕胎时，应该始终遵循这样的原则：想象一位仁慈深思的天主教神父和一位仁慈深思的计划生育活动家，他们永远无法在堕胎问题上达成一致。但正因为他们都仁慈且深思熟虑，或许能达成共识——我们可以报道这场争议。与其断言'堕胎是罪孽'或'堕胎是人权'，不如说'天主教会的立场是这样，批评者的回应是那样'，这时你就能感受到维基百科的风格。因为我相信这才是读者真正想要的。

Well, in in in the best cases, what what happens and what should happen always is take a controversial issue like abortion. 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. But probably they can come together, because I said they're kind and thoughtful, and say, okay, but we can report on the dispute. 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, you'll start to hear a little of the Wikipedia style. Because I believe that that's what a reader really wants.

读者不想只听一面之词，他们想说'等等，我真正想了解人们争论的焦点。我想理解双方立场。这里的最佳论据是什么？'

They don't want to come and get one side of the story, they want to come and say, okay, wait, hold on. I actually want to understand what people are arguing about. I want to understand both sides. What are the best arguments here?

是的。基本上每个页面都有所谓的'讨论页'标签，你可以看到讨论和争议的历史记录，这体现了网站的另一项原则——透明度。你能查看所有内容，了解谁做了什么以及他们的推理过程。

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

是的，没错。所以你知道，如果你反复看到某些内容，就要想想它为什么这么说。通常你可以去讨论页看看当时的辩论情况，然后参与进去，你可以说‘实际上我认为你们还是弄错了，这里有些更多的资料来源和信息，或许可以提出一个折中方案’之类的。根据我的经验，很多意识形态鲜明的人其实更愿意这样做，因为他们对自己的信念有信心。

Yeah, exactly. So, you know, oftentimes if you see something repeatedly, think, okay, well, why does it say that? 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, you can join in and say, oh, actually, I still think you've got it wrong. Here's some more sources, here's some more information, maybe propose a compromise, that sort of thing. 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.

我认为是那些——比如在推特上你能找到很多这样的人——他们对自己的价值观和信仰体系没那么自信，当有人反对他们时，他们会感到恐惧、惊慌或愤怒，而不是说‘好吧，这和我想的不一样，让我解释一下我的立场’，这才是更有思想根基的人会采取的方式。

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.

你说的这些其实有研究支持，2019年《自然》科学杂志上有一篇关于维基百科的研究，叫做‘极化群体的智慧’。可能反直觉的是，研究发现政治争议性强的维基百科页面最终质量更高，因为它们更有证据支撑，共识度更高。但我想问的是，当涉及到维基百科上某些特定话题时，达成共识并不容易。有些页面甚至限制了编辑权限。

What you're saying is supported, actually by a study about Wikipedia that came out in the science journal Nature in 2019. It's called the wisdom of polarized crowds. 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. But I do wanna ask about the times when consensus building isn't necessarily easy as it relates to specific topics on Wikipedia. Some pages, they have actually restricted editing privileges.

比如阿以冲突、气候变化、堕胎这些话题——限制它们并不意外。但为什么这些话题会被限制？为什么‘极化群体的智慧’在这些主题上不起作用？

So the Arab Israeli conflict, climate change, abortion, unsurprising topics there. Why are those restricted? And why doesn't the wisdom of polarized crowds work for those subjects?

通常被限制编辑的主题——我们尽量缩短这个名单——最常见的情况是某个话题突然成为新闻热点，或者某个网络大V说‘啊维基百科错了，快去改’。然后就会涌来一群不了解我们文化、不懂规则的人，他们要么搞破坏，要么就是态度恶劣。这时候我们就需要冷静处理，先保护页面。最常见的保护类型是‘半保护’，就是要求用户账号注册满——我忘记具体天数了——大概四天，并且完成10次未被封禁的编辑。让很多人惊讶的是，维基百科上99%甚至更多的页面都可以不登录直接编辑，而且会立即生效。

Well, typically the the subjects that are restricted are, we try to keep that as short as we can. 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, and we just, as a calming down, it's like, okay, hold on, just slow down, we're going to protect the page. 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. 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.

这听起来很不可思议，但恰恰说明大多数人本质上是友善的、值得信赖的，不会随便破坏维基百科。就算有人这么做，通常也只是在试验，或者他们根本不相信编辑会立即生效——‘天啊居然真的更新了，我不知道会这样’。这时候我们只能说‘是的，请别再这么做了’。

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 they're like, oh my god, it actually went live, and I didn't know it was gonna do that. It's like, yeah, please don't do that again.

这让我想到一些...

This brings me to some of

the

the

挑战。维基百科虽然建立了一个非常值得信赖的系统，但它正面临来自多方的攻击。维基百科的某种超能力也可以被视为一种弱点，对吧？因为它是由人类编辑创建的。

challenges. Wikipedia, while it has created this very trustworthy system, it is under attack from a lot of different places. And one of Wikipedia's sort of superpowers can also be seen as a vulnerability. Right? The fact that it is created by human editors.

尽管人类编辑本应是匿名的，但他们仍可能受到威胁。曾有编辑被人肉搜索，受政府施压篡改信息，有些人甚至不得不逃离祖国。我想到俄罗斯和印度发生的事，这些政府确实将矛头对准了维基百科。你认为这是个日益严重的问题吗？

And human editors can be threatened even though they're supposed to be anonymous. You've had editors doxed, pressured by governments to doctor information. Some have had to flee their home countries. I'm thinking of what's happened in Russia and India, where those governments have really taken aim at Wikipedia. Would you say this is an expanding problem?

是的，我认为是。我们看到全球范围内审查制度和信息控制的威权主义倾向在抬头，这些往往披着‘保护儿童’之类的羊皮推进控制手段。但与此同时，维基百科编辑们非常坚韧勇敢。我们认为在许多情况下，问题根源在于政客和领导人对维基百科运作方式的严重误解。很多人错误地认为它由维基媒体基金会控制——这个我创立的非营利组织虽然拥有并运营网站，但他们误以为能通过施压基金会来影响内容，这实际上根本行不通。

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

编辑社区拥有真正的知识独立性。但我确实为此担忧——身处危险环境的志愿者们的安全始终是我们最沉重的牵挂，保障他们的安全至关重要。

The community has real intellectual independence. But yeah, I do worry about it. I mean, it's always something that weighs very heavily on us is is volunteers who are in dangerous circumstances, and how do they remain safe is like critically important.

我想提一件美国刚发生的事：八月，众议院监督委员会的两位共和党议员詹姆斯·科默和南希·梅斯致信维基媒体，要求提供特定编辑的记录、通信、分析资料，以及关于以色列相关条目偏见的审查报告。他们声称这是为了调查‘受美国纳税人资助的学术机构中外国势力及个人影响美国舆论的行为’。你能谈谈对这封信的看法吗？

I wanna bring up something that just happened here in The US. 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. 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. So can you tell me your reaction to that query? Yeah.

我们对其中合理的部分作出了回应。这显然源于对维基百科运作方式的严重误解——将‘内容偏见’作为国会调查对象本身就荒谬至极。至于那些暗箱操作的指控，我们根本无可奉告。维基百科编辑们不过是一群善良的极客而已。

I mean, you know, we've given a response to the parts of that that were reasonable. I mean, we feel like is there's a deep misunderstanding or lack of understanding about how Wikipedia works. You know, ultimately, the idea that something being biased is a proper and fit subject for a congressional investigation is frankly absurd. And so, you know, in terms of asking questions about cloak and dagger whatever, we're not going to have anything useful to tell them. I'm like, I know the Wikipedians, they're like a bunch of nice geeks.

是的。我是说，美国的传统基金会作为'2025计划'的发起方，已经公开表示要人肉你们的编辑。我的意思是，你们如何保护员工免受这种威胁？

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. I mean, how do you protect people from that?

我是说，这对传统基金会来说很尴尬。我记得他们曾经在学术上备受尊敬，如果他们真认为这是正确的前进方向，那只能说明他们大错特错了。

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

但右翼似乎确实存在针对维基百科的这种运动，我想知道你认为这种现象为何会发生。

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.

很难说。动机各不相同，人群也各不相同。有些人可能是出于真诚的担忧——如果他们觉得维基百科存在偏见，比如埃隆·马斯克就说过维基百科有偏见，因为它严格规定只能引用主流媒体，而主流媒体本身就有偏见。这确实是个有趣的问题和批评，当然值得媒体等各方反思，但这其实也算不上什么新闻，反而挺有意思的。

I mean, it's hard to say. There's a lot of different motivations, a lot of different people. Some of it would be, you know, genuine concern if they see that maybe Wikipedia is biased, or, you know, 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. Okay, I mean that's an interesting question, interesting criticism. Certainly, I think worthy of some reflection by everyone, the media, and so on and so forth, but it's hardly, you know, it's hardly news to anybody, and actually that interesting.

还有世界各地其他人——不仅限于美国——事实本身是具有威胁性的，如果你的政策与事实相悖，那么当人们只是陈述事实时，你可能会感到非常不适。这永远会是个难题。但我们绝不会说什么'也许科学根本不可信'，或者'新冠疫苗害死了半数人口'这样的鬼话——根本没有这回事。

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. And I don't know, that's always going to be a difficulty. But we're not about to say, gee, you know, maybe science isn't valid after all. Maybe the COVID vaccine killed half the population. No, it didn't.

这种说法太疯狂了，我们绝不会刊登。所以他们必须学会接受现实。

Like, that's crazy, and we're not going to print that. And so they're going have to get over it.

我想谈谈最近维基百科的一个争议案例——关于查理·柯克的刺杀事件。参议员迈克·李曾称维基百科'邪恶'，因为其页面将柯克描述为极右翼阴谋论者等。就在我们谈话时，我发现这个描述已从维基百科移除。左翼认为这个描述是准确的，而右翼则认为这个描述始终存在偏见。

I wanna talk about a recent example of a controversy surrounding Wikipedia, and that's the assassination of Charlie Kirk. 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. And I went to look at the time that we're speaking, and that description is now gone from Wikipedia. Those on the left would say that that description was accurate. Those on the right would say that that description was biased all along.

你如何看待这种紧张局势？

How do you see that tension?

嗯，我是说，我认为正确的答案是必须全面处理这个问题。你得说，看，这个人——关于查理·柯克最不具争议性的评价可能就是‘他是个争议人物’了，我想没人会反对这点。可以说，好吧，这个人物对许多人来说是伟大的英雄，却被另一些人视为恶魔。他持有这些观点，其中许多与主流科学思想不合拍，又有许多与宗教思想非常契合，诸如此类。

Well, I mean, I think the the correct answer is you have to address all of that. 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. I don't think anybody would dispute that. And to say, like, okay, this was a figure who was a great hero to many people and treated as a demon by others. 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.

如果我们工作做得好——我认为这次我们做到了——就应该把这些都描述清楚。比如也许你对查理·柯克一无所知，只听说‘天啊这个人被暗杀了’。他是谁？这到底是怎么回事？那么，你就该来了解所有这些。

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. Like maybe you don't know anything about Charlie Kirk, you just heard, oh my god, this man was assassinated. Who was he? What's this all about? Well, should come and learn all that.

你应该了解他的支持者是谁、为何支持他，他提出了哪些论点，以及他说过哪些激怒人们的话。这些正是认识这个世界的一部分。所以，除非我们...

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. That's that's just part of learning what the world is about. So, think, unless those we

那些用词——‘极右翼’和‘阴谋论者’——在你看来是错误的用词，维基百科的批评者们说得有道理。

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

这个嘛，我不...这取决于具体的批评内容。如果批评是说‘这个词在这个页面上出现了十七分钟’，我会说：你得先理解维基百科的运作方式。这是个过程，是场讨论。

It well, I don't it depends on what they depends on the specific criticism. So if the criticism is this word appeared on this page for seventeen minutes, I'm like, you know what? That's you gotta understand how Wikipedia works. It's a process. It's a discourse.

这是场对话。但就他被知名人士称为阴谋论者这点而言，这是他历史的一部分。这是客观存在的事实，维基百科不一定要这样称呼他，但我们绝对应该记录所有这些。

It's a dialogue. But to the extent that he was called a conspiracy theorist by prominent people, that's part of his history. That's part of what's there, and Wikipedia shouldn't necessarily call him that, but we should definitely document all of that.

你提到埃隆·马斯克对维基百科的抨击。他称之为'觉醒百科'。他现在正试图创建自己的版本叫'格罗克百科'，并声称要剔除意识形态偏见。我想知道，你认为他这类攻击行为对公众信任维基百科整体有何影响？因为正如我们在新闻领域所见，当足够多的外部力量告诉人们不要信任某事物时，人们确实会失去信任。

You mentioned Elon Musk, who's come after Wikipedia. He calls it Wokepedia. He's now trying to start his own version of Wikipedia called Grokopedia, and he says it's going to strip out ideological bias. I wonder what you think attacks like his do for people's trust in your platform writ large. 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。我认为对许多人而言，他们对埃隆·马斯克的信任度极低，因为他总是发表疯狂言论。所以从这个角度看，当他攻击我们时，人们反而会捐更多钱——虽然这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。我在书里也说过，也曾告诉过马斯克：即便你认同他的观点，这种攻击也是适得其反的。因为他错误地让人们相信维基百科已被觉醒活动家占领，这会导致两种结果：我们非常欢迎那些友善理性的保守派加入，也希望更多有思想、有学识——哪怕对时代精神某些方面持异议的人——来共同完善维基百科。

Well, you know, it's very hard to say. 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. So to that extent, you know, when he attacks us, people donate more money, 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. 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. You're 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, come and join us, and let's make Wikipedia better.

但如果那些人认为'这里只会是一群疯狂的觉醒活动家'，他们就会离开。而另一方面，那些疯狂的觉醒活动家则会觉得'太好了，我找到归宿了，可以肆无忌惮地写文章抨击我厌恶的一切'。

But if those people think, oh no, it's just going be a bunch of crazy woke activists, they're going go away. And then on the other side, the crazy woke activists are gonna be like, great. I found my home. I don't have to worry about whatever. I can come and write rants against the things I hate in the world.

我们其实也不想要这些人。

We don't really want them either.

你说曾和埃隆·马斯克讨论过此事。你们何时进行的对话？谈话内容是怎样的？

You said you talked to Elon Musk about this. When did you talk to him about it, and and what was that conversation like?

我们这些年有过多次交流。他有时会发短信给我，我偶尔也会联系他。私下的他更为谦逊安静——这也在意料之中，毕竟他的公众形象非常张扬。

I mean, we've had various conversations over the years. You know, he texts me sometimes. I text him sometimes. He's he's much more respectful and quiet in private, but that you would expect. It's got a big public persona.

你们最后一次这样的交流是什么时候？

When was the last time you had that exchange?

这是个好问题。我不知道。我想上次选举后的那个早晨，他给我发了短信。我祝贺了他。

That's a good question. I don't know. I think the morning after the last election, he texted me that that morning. I congratulated him.

显然，最近发生的这场争论是因为他做的手势被以不同方式解读，而且他对维基百科上的描述方式感到不满。

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。之后我收到了他的消息。我是说，那个案例我反驳了，因为我去查了维基百科怎么说。它非常客观地写道：他做了这个手势，引发大量新闻报道，许多人将其解读为这样，而他否认这是纳粹礼。

Yeah. I heard from him after that. I mean, that case, I pushed back because I went to check like, oh, what does Wikipedia say? And it was very matter of fact. 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.

这就是全部事实，是历史的一部分。我不明白为什么你会对这样的呈现方式感到不满。如果维基百科说埃隆·马斯克是个纳粹，那确实大错特错。但如果说他做了这个手势引发广泛关注，有些人说看起来像纳粹礼——这没错。

That's the whole story, it's part of history. I don't see how you could be upset about it being presented in that way. If Wikipedia said, you know, Elon Musk is a Nazi, that would be really, really wrong. But to say, look, he did this gesture and it created a lot of attention, and some people said it looked like a Nazi. Yeah.

这就很好。这就是维基百科该有的样子，它就应该这么做。

That's great. That's that's what Wikipedia is. That's what it should do.

你认为埃隆·马斯克是出于善意吗？你说私下里他友善亲切，但公众形象却截然不同。

Do you think Elon Musk is acting in good faith? You're saying that in private, he's nice and cordial, but his public persona is is very different.

要知道，我觉得揣测埃隆·马斯克脑子里想什么是徒劳的，所以我不会尝试。

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.

我不是要逼你回答这个问题。我只是想引用你说过的话，就是人与人之间是友善的，对吧？我们都是善良的，应该以善意相待。

I I don't mean to press you on this. I'm just trying to refer to something that you said, which is people human to human are nice. Right? That we're good. That we should assume good faith.

所以你的意思是，埃隆私下相处时很可爱，但他正在攻击你们的机构，并可能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.

嗯，我是说，我不认为他有他自以为的那种力量，或者很多人认为他能伤害维基百科的那种力量。我的意思是，一百年后我们还会在这里，而他不会。所以我认为只要我们保持维基百科的本质，人们依然会爱我们。他们会说，你知道吗，维基百科很棒，世界上所有的噪音和那些人的咆哮都不是真正重要的。真正重要的是真实的人类知识、真诚的讨论、真正解决我们这个时代的难题，这才是极其宝贵的。

Well, I mean, I 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. I mean, we'll be here in a hundred years, and he won't. So I think as long as we stay Wikipedia, people will still love us. 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. The real thing is genuine human knowledge, genuine discourse, genuinely grappling with the difficult issues of our day, that's actually super valuable.

世界上有很多噪音。我希望埃隆能重新审视并改变主意。那会很好，但我会对任何人都这么说。同时，我认为我们不必过分纠结或过度担心这件事。毕竟我们不依赖他的资金支持，就是这样。

So there's a lot of noise in the world. I hope Elon will take another look and change his mind. That'd be great, but I would say that of anybody. And you know, in the meantime, I don't think we need to obsess over it or worry that much about it. You know, we don't depend on him for funding, and yeah, there we are.

我听到你说，你们的部分策略就是坚持既定路线，做维基百科该做的事。那么你认为维基百科需要做出哪些改变来保持准确性和相关性？

I hear you saying that part of your strategy here is just to stay the course, do what Wikipedia does. Are there changes that you do think Wikipedia needs to make to stay accurate and relevant?

我认为从长远来看，我们在保持技术同步方面必须下功夫。你看，现在大型语言模型崛起，这项技术令人惊叹但也存在严重缺陷。我的看法是，目前没有任何人工智能能胜任撰写维基百科词条的工作。对于非常著名的大主题它或许能勉强应付，但稍微冷门些的内容就会出现灾难性的幻觉问题。不过与此同时，我对如何利用这项技术支持我们的社区很感兴趣。

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. You know, we've got this rise of the large language models, which are an amazing, but deeply flawed technology. 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. It can do a passable job on a very big famous topic, but anything slightly obscure and the hallucination problem is disastrous. But at the same time, I'm very interested in how can we use this technology to support our community?

有个想法是，拿一个简短条目输入参考资料——可能只有五个来源——然后问AI：条目中是否有内容缺乏资料来源支持？或者资料来源中是否有应该被维基百科收录但尚未收录的内容？如果可能的话给出几条建议。我试过这个方法，效果还行。它还需要改进，并不完美。但如果我们只是反应过激地说'天啊我们讨厌AI'，就会错失这个机会。而如果我们走向另一个极端，狂热地爱上AI并开始用它做所有事情，我们就会失去信任，因为会引入大量AI幻觉导致的错误等等。

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? And give me a couple suggestions if you can find anything. As I've played with that, it's pretty okay. 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. And if we go crazy, like, oh, we love AI, and we start using it for everything, well, we're gonna lose trust because we're gonna include a lot of AI hallucinated errors and so on.

我是说这很有趣，因为维基媒体每年都会发布这份全球趋势报告，探讨可能影响维基百科工作的因素。关于2025年，报告写道：‘我们看到低质量的AI内容正被大量生产，不仅用于传播虚假信息，更成为快速致富的手段。这些内容正在淹没互联网，而可靠的人工生产的高质量信息正逐渐变成稀缺资源。’嗯。我读到大型语言模型的爬虫基本上已经拖垮了你们的服务器，因为它们过度使用了维基百科的内容。

I mean, that's interesting because Wikimedia writes this yearly global trends report on what might impact Wikipedia's work. And for 2025, it wrote, We are seeing that low quality AI content is being churned out not just to spread false information, but as a get rich quick scheme. And it is overwhelming the internet high quality information that is reliably human produced has become a dwindling and precious commodity, end quote. Mhmm. I read that crawlers from large language models have basically crashed your servers because they use so much of Wikipedia's content.

这确实让我思考，人们是否会直接用这些大型语言模型来解答问题，而不是去源头——也就是你们这里获取信息？

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?

其实这个问题从它们诞生起就存在。我们尚未看到实质证据表明这种情况正在发生。我个人经常使用AI，但用法不同——应用场景不同。怎么用？比如我喜欢烹饪，这是我的爱好。我自认为厨艺不错，经常会向Chaji（可能是AI助手）询问食谱。

Well, you know, this has been a question since they began. 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 How? See, I like to cook. It's my hobby. I fancy myself as being quite a good cook, and I will often ask Chaji for a recipe.

我也会向它索要带食谱的网站链接。有时它会编造链接，这有点滑稽。我还建议除非你本身就会做饭，否则要谨慎使用chatjibouti（可能指某AI工具）来学烹饪，因为一旦出错就是大错特错。不过维基百科在这方面毫无用处——它本来就不收录食谱。

I also ask it for links to websites with recipes. It sometimes makes them up, so that's a bit hilarious. And I also suggest be careful using chatjibouti for cooking unless you actually already know how to cook, because when it's wrong, it's really wrong. But, Wikipedia would be useless for that. Wikipedia doesn't have recipes.

这完全是不同于百科全书的知识领域。所以我并不太担心这个。我更担忧的是，在这个新闻业承受巨大经济压力的时代，出现了新的竞争对手——那些为搜索引擎优化而批量生产的低质量内容，它们与真人撰写的内容竞争，甚至进一步削弱了特别是地方新闻的商业模式生存能力，这才是我真正忧虑的。虽然这不直接关乎维基百科，但用极低成本就能生成看似可信的文本...是的，这种情况在我看来很不妙。

Like, it's a completely different realm of knowledge than encyclopedic knowledge. So, yeah, I'm not that worried about it. 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. That that doesn't seem good to me.

作为记者，我也认为这绝对不是什么好事。我记得曾有人希望当互联网被垃圾信息淹没时（这甚至发生在AI出现之前，那时只有水军农场和标题党），可信的信息源能因此受益。但现实恰恰相反。维基百科、新闻机构、学术组织都在面临同样的困境。如果如你所说人们最终仍希望信任所获信息，为什么你认为这些机构在本应蓬勃发展的时代反而举步维艰？

It definitely doesn't seem good to me either as a journalist. 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. And instead we've seen that the opposite has happened. Wikipedia, news organizations, academic institutions, they're all struggling with the same thing. 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?

我认为重要原因在于新闻媒体未能很好地坚持事实并避免偏见。很多媒体（并非全部）变得更具党派性，这是短视行为。书里也提到这点，有些新闻从业者主张放弃客观性原则而选择站队等等。我认为这是重大错误，且有大量证据支持。维基百科广受欢迎，人们特别看重这点——如果感觉我们存在偏见，他们会非常失望。

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

我是说，我之前举过这个例子，因为我住在英国，会看这些报纸。但你知道，如果你看《每日电讯报》和《卫报》关于气候变化的报道，我甚至不用读就能告诉你哪家报纸会持什么立场。它们都没能很好地履行‘我们不该在议题上选边站，而是该陈述事实并理解对方观点’的职责。回归这种价值观至关重要，否则如何赢得公众信任？

So I mean, I gave the example earlier, because I live in The UK, I 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. 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. Returning to that value system is hugely important, because otherwise, how are you going to get the trust of the public?

你说这话让我有些意外，因为维基百科也面临过对其可信度的类似攻击。你声称自己中立可信，采用的系统公平公正，但仍有不少人完全质疑这点。我认为这回应了当今时代对记者和新闻业常见的全面抨击——我们业内人士会认为这是抹杀事实的更大阴谋的一部分。这类攻击在维基百科、学术机构和媒体上都出现过。

I guess I'm surprised at you saying this because Wikipedia has been faced with similar attacks on its own credibility. And you say that you are neutral and credible, and that the system that you employ is fair. And yet there are people who completely dispute that. And so I think what the response to what is a very common, broadside against journalists and journalism in this era that they have taken aside, those of us on the inside would say it is part of a larger project of discrediting facts. And we've seen those attacks on Wikipedia, we've seen them on academic institutions, and we've seen them on the media.

这些本质上是一回事。所以我很想请你解释：为什么发生在维基百科上就不公平，发生在新闻机构上就公平？

They are all part of the same thing. So I'd love you to tease out why it's unfair when it happens to Wikipedia, but it's fair when it happens to journalistic institutions.

要么对两者都公平，要么都不公平，取决于具体情况。维基百科历史上就有人对我说过‘维基百科在这个话题上很有偏见’，而我的回应总是‘那我们来查证看看，努力做得更好’

Well, it's either fair or unfair for both, depending on what the actual situation is. So, you know, there have been cases in the history of Wikipedia when somebody said to me, wow, Wikipedia is really biased on this topic. And I say the response should be, wow, let's check it out. Let's see. Let's try and do better.

如果我们发现自己在某些领域存在偏见，那么我们需要做得更好。我认为许多媒体机构并未做到这一点。相反，他们正在迎合现有受众，我理解其中的原因。这种现象的出现与商业模式有关，与获取网络点击量等有关。这还涉及到，在没有足够财务资源的情况下，你不得不在短期内竭力争取每一分钱，而不是说，不，我们要着眼长远，尽管可能会有少数人取消订阅。

If we find that we have been biased in some area, then we need to do a better job. And I think that for many outlets, that isn't happening. Instead, what's happening is pandering to an existing audience, and I understand why. The reason why that's happened, it has to do with the business model, has to do with getting clicks online, and so on and so forth. It has to do with the fact that without sufficient financial resources, you have to kind of scrap for every penny you can get in the short run, rather than saying, no, we're going take the long view, even though a few people may cancel.

你知道吗？我只是在鼓励我们所有人说，让我们加倍努力于此。让我们真正、非常严肃地对待保持可信度的必要性。

And you know, I just I'm encouraging us all to say, you know what? Let's double down on that. Let's let's really, really take very, very seriously the need to be trustworthy.

广告过后，吉米和我再次谈到，他认为维基百科成功的部分原因在于利润甚至不在考虑范围内。

After the break, Jimmy and I speak again about how he thinks part of Wikipedia's success is the fact that profit isn't even on the table.

我发过最成功的一条推文，我记得是《纽约邮报》记者在埃隆抱怨维基百科时发的，建议他直接买下维基百科。而我只回复了'非卖品'。

The most successful tweet I ever had, I think it was a New York Post journalist tweeted to Elon, you should just buy Wikipedia when he was complaining something about Wikipedia. And I just wrote not for sale.

你好，我是朱丽叶，也是乔艾尔。

Hi. I'm Juliette. I'm Joelle.

我们来自《纽约时报》游戏团队。

We're from the New York Times games team.

我们来这里和玩家们聊聊我们的游戏。

And we're here talking to fans about our games.

你玩我们游戏时是什么感觉？

What's your vibe when you're playing one of our games?

这让我觉得我是在用一种非常高效的方式拖延时间。

It makes me feel like I'm procrastinating in a really productive way.

它刚好挠到了我大脑的痒处。

It just scratches an itch in my brain.

你有固定的习惯吗？

Do you have a routine?

我和男友异地恋。我们每晚都会视频通话，共享屏幕。我们先玩connections，然后是mini，最后是strands，永远按这个顺序。

I'm doing long distance with my boyfriend. We'll call every night and share our screen. We do connections, the mini, and then strands. Always in that order.

哇，你最喜欢哪个环节？

Wow. Do you have a favorite?

最喜欢mini环节。我们试着在30秒内完成，虽然很少成功，但这是我们的目标。

The mini. We try and get it under thirty seconds. We rarely get it under thirty, but that's always the goal.

人们真的会计时，但玩Spelling Bee时我会给自己一整天时间。

Folks will really time themselves, but with Spelling Bee, I give myself all day.

我通常在孩子们睡觉时玩这个。

I play it when my kids are going to bed.

你们会一起玩吗？

Do you guys play together?

我女儿会玩。她喜欢玩Wordle。

My daughter plays. She likes playing Wordle.

如果你哪天错过了，还有存档可以看。

If you ever miss a day, there's also archives.

知道这个真是太好了。

That's so great to know.

而且你还能用它来建立社交关系。

And you have it for connections as well.

天啊，帮帮我。我怕是每天从早到晚都要做这个了。

Lord, help me. I'm just gonna be doing that all day, every day.

《纽约时报》游戏订阅用户可完整体验所有游戏和功能。立即访问nytimes.com/games获取特别优惠。

New York Times game subscribers get full access to all our games and features. Subscribe now at nytimes.com/games for a special offer.

嗨。你好。我在回想我们第一次的对话，我在思考维基百科诞生的那个时代。那是在社交媒体出现之前，在我们目睹戏剧性两极分化之前，在互联网被政治武器化之前。和你聊完后，我仍然不确定维基百科的创建经验是否适用于今天。

Hi. Hello. So I was thinking about our first conversation, and I was thinking about the moment that Wikipedia was created in. A time before social media, before sort of the dramatic polarization that we've seen, before the political weaponization of the Internet that we've seen. I'm still after talking to you sort of not sure that the lessons of how Wikipedia was created apply to today.

所以我想问问你，你觉得维基百科现在还能以同样的方式被创建并存在吗？

And so I I wanted to ask you, do you think Wikipedia could be created now and exist in the same way that it does?

是的，我认为可以。我觉得那些经验教训是永恒的。

Yeah. I do. I I yeah. I think it could. And I I actually think that the lessons are pretty timeless.

与此同时，确实，我们必须承认现在的互联网已经不同了，出现了新的问题，来自社交媒体等等的新问题，以及我们所处的这种高度政治化的文化战争环境，确实不同了。但我不认为这是人类永久的改变，我们只是正经历一个非常疯狂的时期，仅此而已。

At the same time, yeah, it's it's absolutely valid to acknowledge the Internet is different now, and there's new problems, new problems that come from social media and all the rest and the, you know, the aggressively politicized culture wars that we live in, that is different. But I don't think that's a permanent change to humanity. I think we're just going through a really crazy era, and, here we are.

为什么你认为互联网没有朝着维基百科的方向发展？你知道的，那种为共同利益合作、有趣、极客精神的创造时刻，用你描述的那些词汇。

Why do you think the Internet didn't go the way of Wikipedia? You know, collegial, working for the greater good, fun, nerdy, all the words that you use to describe that moment of creation.

嗯，你知道，我年纪够大，经历过Usenet时代的互联网成长。那是个巨大的留言板，有点像现在的Reddit，但设计上就是分布式、无法控制、大部分无法监管的，而且臭名昭著地有毒。那时候就有质疑，人们第一次意识到匿名性可能带来的问题——躲在化名和键盘后毫无责任的人可能非常恶劣。那也是我们第一次看到垃圾邮件，记得早期垃圾邮件出现时大家都惊呼：天啊这是什么鬼东西。

Well, I you know, the thing is I'm old enough that I sort of grew up on the Internet in the age of Usenet, which was this massive message board, kinda like Reddit today, except for not controlled by anyone because it was, by design, distributed and uncontrollable, unmoderatable for the most part, and it was notoriously toxic. There was some skepticism then, and and that was when it, you know, it first was recognized, I suppose first recognized, that anonymity can be problematic, that people, you know, behind an alias, behind their keyboards, no accountability can be just really bad and really vicious. And, you know, that's when we first started seeing spam. I remember some of the early spam, and everybody was like, oh my god. What's this Spam.

你知道吗？这很糟糕。所以我觉得有些问题就是人性问题。只不过现在程度比那时更严重了——我们生活在线上。

You know? It's terrible. So I think some of these things are just human issues. But now they've you know, that's to a larger degree than then. We live online.

它随时都在我们口袋里。

It's in our pocket all the time.

它一直在我们口袋里。是的，所以影响显然更大。

It's in our pocket all the time. Yeah. So, obviously, the impact is much more.

我是说，我特别想到了维基百科，也许它为何走了不同的道路。你们选择在某个时刻让它成为非营利组织，选择不利用维基百科的成功牟利。这让我思考，OpenAI最初也是为公共利益开源的，类似维基百科。而现在它已转型为价值数十亿美元的企业。

I mean, I think I was thinking about Wikipedia in particular, and maybe why it went a different way. In that you chose at a certain point to make it a not for profit. You chose not to sort of capitalize on the success of Wikipedia. And it made me wonder about, OpenAI started as an open source for the greater good project, kind of like Wikipedia. And they've now shifted into being a multi billion dollar business.

我很想听听你对OpenAI这种转变的看法。但更广泛地说，你认为金钱因素是否也改变了这个等式？

I'd love to know your thoughts on that shift for OpenAI. But more broadly, do you think that the money part of it also changed the equation?

是的。我认为这在很多方面确实有影响，我并不反对营利。你知道，营利公司本身没什么问题。但即使是非营利组织，也需要所谓的商业模式，得想办法支付账单。

Yeah. I mean, I I do think it made a difference in in lots of ways, and I'm not against for profit. You know, I'm not you know, there's nothing nothing wrong with for profit companies. But even as a nonprofit, you do have to have a business model, so to speak. You've gotta figure out how you're gonna pay the bills.

对维基百科来说情况还好。事实上我们不需要数十亿美元来运营维基百科。我们需要服务器和数据库，需要支持社区等等。就维基百科的发展而言，我们如此以社区为先、由社区驱动——如果董事会主要由担心盈利能力的投资者组成，就不可能有这种模式。而且我认为这对保持我们的知识独立性很重要。

And for Wikipedia, that's not too bad. The truth is we don't require billions and billions and billions of dollars in order to operate Wikipedia. It's, you know, we need servers and database, and we need to support the community and all all these kinds of things. I would say in terms of the development of Wikipedia, and how we're we're so community first and community driven, You wouldn't really necessarily have that if the board were made up largely of investors who were worried about the profitability and things like that. Also, I think it's important today for our intellectual independence.

正如我们讨论过的，我们正遭受各种攻击。有趣的是，实际上有件事永远不会发生——我发过最成功的推文，是《纽约邮报》记者在马斯克抱怨维基百科时@他说'你该直接买下维基百科'，我只回复'非卖品'。这条很火。但它确实是非卖品。你知道吗？我当时想...

We're under attack in various ways, as we've talked about. And, you know, what's interesting is, you know, one of the things that isn't going to happen actually, the the most successful tweet I ever had, I think it was a New York Post journalist, tweeted to Elon, you should just buy Wikipedia when he was complaining something about Wikipedia, and I just wrote not for sale. That was very popular. But it isn't for sale. And and, you know, I just thought, you know what?

你知道，我幻想自己会拒绝马斯克300亿美元的报价——如果我真拥有整个维基百科的话。但真的面对300亿... 呃，300万呢？

You know, I I would like to imagine myself as a person who would say to Elon, no. Thank you for a $30,000,000,000 offer if I owned the whole thing. But would I, you know, actually, 30,000,000,000? You know? 30,000,000?

是啊，我没兴趣。30岁。你懂吗？所以这事不会发生，因为我们是个慈善机构，我不拿工资，董事会也不拿工资，就这样。

Yeah. I'm not interested. 30. You know? And so that's not gonna happen because we're a charity, and I don't get paid, and the board doesn't get paid, and all of that.

我确实认为这种独立性很重要——我们不会那样思考问题。我们甚至对那方面毫无兴趣。

And I do think that's important for that independence that that we're not we don't think in those terms. We're not even interested in that.

自从我们上次交谈后，维基百科的联合创始人拉里·桑格接受了塔克·卡尔森的采访，这在美国右翼圈子里引起了很大关注。

Since we last spoke, the co founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, has given an interview to Tucker Carlson that's getting a lot of attention here in The United States on the right.

而且

And

他对维基百科有很多话要说，而且大多不是好话。过去他曾称其为历史上最有效的建制派宣传工具之一。需要说明的是，他认为维基百科存在自由主义偏见。在这次采访和他的Ex动态中，他主张对网站进行改革，包括公开维基百科领导层身份和废除来源黑名单。我想听听你的看法。

he has had a lot to say about Wikipedia, and not a lot of it's good. In the past, he's called it one of the most effective organs of establishment propaganda in history. And we should say that he believes Wikipedia has a liberal bias. And in this interview and on his ex feed, he's advocating for what he's calling reforms to the site, which include reveal who Wikipedia's leaders are and abolish source blacklists. And I just wonder what you make of it.

嗯，我还没看。我受不了塔克·卡尔森，所以估计得硬着头皮去看。因此我无法具体评论这事。但你知道，那种认为所有来源都同等有效、维基百科优先考虑主流媒体和优质报刊杂志并做出判断是错误的想法，我完全不会为此道歉。不过确实，这个问题...

Yeah. I haven't watched it. I can't bear Tucker Carlson, so I'm gonna have to just suck up and watch, I suppose. So I'm not I can't speak to the specifics, in that sense, but, you know, the the idea that everything is an equally valid source and that it's somehow wrong that Wikipedia tries to prioritize the mainstream media and quality newspapers, magazines, and make judgments about that is not something I can in any way apologize for. But, you know, there there's no question.

我有个基本信念：维基百科应该时刻准备接受批评并做出改变。如果批评指出维基百科存在某种偏见或系统缺陷，我们就该认真对待。我们应该思考：有没有办法改进维基百科？我们的编辑人员构成合理吗？

Like, one of my sort of fundamental beliefs is that Wikipedia should always stand ready to accept criticism and change. And so to the extent that a criticism says, oh, Wikipedia is biased in a certain way, and that these are the flaws in the system, well, we should take that seriously. We should say, okay. Like, is there a way to improve Wikipedia? Is our mix of editors right?

与此同时，我也在想，你知道吗？一百年后我们仍会在这里，我们正在为长远设计一切。我认为我们能持续那么久的唯一方式，不是迎合当下这种狂热的群体情绪，而是坚守我们的价值观，保持我们的可信度，认真对待建设性批评并努力改进。所以，除了坚持做好我们的事并尽力做到最好之外，我不知道还能做什么。

At the same time, I I also think, you know what? We're gonna be here in a hundred years, and we are designing everything for the long haul. And the only way I think we can last that long is not by pandering to this sort of raging mob of the moment, but by maintaining our values, maintaining our trustworthiness, being serious about trying to make things better if we've got legitimate criticism. And so, you know, other than the fact that, okay, we're just gonna do our thing, and we're gonna do it as well as we can, I don't know what else we can do?

我认为你和拉里确实创造了一些美好而持久的东西。我确实好奇这是否会成为我们未来的一部分，因为我对我们所有人的去向感到某种绝望和恐惧。我猜你会说我要相信一切最终都会好起来。但我确实担心可能不会。是的。

I think you and Larry did build something beautiful that has endured. I do wonder if it's going to be part of our future, because I feel some despair about where we're all headed and some fear. And I guess you'll just say that I have to trust that it's all gonna end up okay. But I do worry that it might not. Yeah.

我是说，现在有太多值得担忧的事情。你知道，我不能忽视所有这些。我可以试着让你稍微振作一点。但是，你知道，我们刚刚看到唐纳德·特朗普在谈论内部敌人，并暗示军队应该在城市里做什么？

I mean, there's there's so much right now to worry about. And, you know, I can't dismiss all that. I can try and cheer you up a little bit. But, you know, I You have. You know, we just saw Donald Trump talking about the enemy within and suggesting the military should be in cities doing what?

射杀民众。他简直...难以置信。另一方面，我觉得他只是在虚张声势，做唐纳德·特朗普那一套，但你不得不担心。

Shooting people. He doesn't I it's unbelievable. On the other hand, I sort of think he's just as blustering and being Donald Trump and all that, but you have to worry.

这并没有让我振作起来。我得直接告诉你。这...这很公平。很公平。我得告诉你，作为鼓舞士气的话...

That didn't cheer me up. I gotta tell you right there. That that that's Fair enough. Fair enough. Gotta I gotta tell you, like, as a pep talk.

相当糟糕。相当糟糕。

Pretty low. Pretty low.

我想我们要...

I think we're gonna

会没事的。不过确实，现在日子不太好过。

be alright. But it's yeah. It's a it's a rough time.

好的。你上次在维基百科看了什么页面？你想查什么内容？

Okay. What was the last page you read on Wikipedia, and what were you trying to find out?

哦，这问题问得好。我能花点时间查一下吗？当然。显示完整历史记录。搜索维基百科。

Oh, that's a good question. Can I take a second to look? Sure. Show full history. Search Wikipedia.

现在我要跳过'按编辑次数排序的维基人列表'，那只是工作内容。我要查的是——啊想起来了，这个很有趣。海军上将雨果·皮尔逊爵士1912年去世，他曾经拥有我在乡下的那栋房子。

Now I'm gonna skip over list of Wikipedians by number of edits. That's just me doing work. I'm gonna look oh, I know. This is fun. Admiral sir Hugo Pearson, who died in 1912, used to own my house in the countryside.

我发现了这件事，还在eBay上找到他的照片并订购了。我本来想查些信息，但文章里关于我房子的内容很少，因为他住过就搬走了。不过我很着迷，甚至考虑要替换掉AI语音助手——我现在用Alexa，你知道的，就像别人用'嘿Google'那种。

And I I found this out, and and there's a picture of him, which I've I found on eBay and ordered. And I was trying to remember something, and there's nothing about my house in the article because he was there, and then he moved away. And but I love it, and I'm thinking of making a replacing the AI voice assistant. I use Alexa. You know, people use okay Google or whatever.

我想自己做一个，而且想把它设计成角色，就做成雨果·皮尔逊的幽灵形象。总之这就是我的研究内容。不确定什么时候能实现，现在忙着宣传新书之类的事。但等有空了，我打算二月份回家宅一个月，好好捣鼓这些极客玩意儿。

I wanna make my own, and I want to have it be a character, and the character will be the ghost of Hugo Pearson. Anyway, that's what I was researching. I'm not sure I'll ever get around to it. I'm I'm, like, really busy promoting my book and things like that. But, when I get spare time, I dream of, sort of being a geek, and I'm gonna go home in February maybe and just work all month playing in my house.

你这种极客精神实在太棒了。非常感谢你的时间，我真的很感激。

You are a geek in the best possible way. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

哦，谢谢。是的，一切都很顺利。

Oh, thank you. Yeah. It's been great.

这位是吉米·威尔士。他的新书《信任的七条法则：构建持久事物的蓝图》将于10月28日出版。要观看本次访谈及更多内容，请订阅我们的YouTube频道youtube.com/@theinterviewpodcast。本次对话由怀亚特·奥姆制作，安娜贝尔·培根编辑，阿菲姆·夏皮罗混音。

That's Jimmy Wales. His new book, the seven rules of trust, a blueprint for building things that last, comes out October 28. To watch this interview and many others, you can subscribe to our YouTube channel at youtube.com/@ symbol the interview podcast. This conversation was produced by Wyatt Orm. It was edited by Annabelle Bacon, mixing by Afim Shapiro.

原创音乐由丹·鲍威尔、罗温·尼米斯托和玛丽安·洛萨诺创作。摄影由菲利普·蒙哥马利完成。我们的高级预约制作人是普里娅·马修，高级制作人是塞斯·凯利。执行制作人是艾莉森·本尼迪克特。本次访谈视频由保拉·努多夫制作。

Original music by Dan Powell, Rowan Nimisto, and Marian Lozano. Photography by Philip Montgomery. Our senior booker is Priya Matthew, and Seth Kelly is our senior producer. Our executive producer is Alison Benedict. Video of this interview was produced by Paola Nudorf.

摄影指导由泽布迪亚·史密斯和丹尼尔·贝特曼担任，音频由索尼娅·埃雷罗负责。剪辑由艾米·马里诺完成。布鲁克·明特斯是播客视频的执行制作人。特别感谢莫莉·怀特、罗里·沃尔什、罗南·巴雷利、杰夫·米兰达、尼克·皮特曼、麦迪·马谢洛、杰克·西尔弗斯坦、保拉·舒曼和萨姆·杜尔尼克。下周，大卫将与安东尼·霍普金斯爵士畅谈他的新回忆录及87年人生感悟。

Cinematography by Zebediah Smith and Daniel Bateman, audio by Sonia Herrero. It was edited by Amy Marino. Brooke Minters is the executive producer of podcast video. Special thanks to Molly White, Rory Walsh, Ronan Barelli, Jeff Miranda, Nick Pittman, Maddie Masiello, Jake Silverstein, Paula Schumann, and Sam Dulnik. Next week, David talks with sir Anthony Hopkins about his new memoir and what he's learned in his 87 years.

当你活到某个年纪。他正在经历。你有抱负。你有伟大的梦想，一切都很美好。然后远处的山丘上站着死神。

You get to a certain age in life. He's going through. You got ambitions. You got great dreams, and everything's fine. And then on the distant hill is death.

你会想，好吧，现在是时候醒来好好生活了。

And you think, well, now is the time to wake up and live.

我是露露·加西亚·纳瓦罗，这里是《纽约时报》的访谈节目。

I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro, and this is the interview from The New York Times.