The battle for Wikipedia's soul

北影厂彪哥

来自: 北影厂彪哥 2008-03-08 11:20:37

×
加入小组后即可参加投票
  • 盲|我愛你六月和十二月

    盲|我愛你六月和十二月 (BLESS。) 2008-03-08 11:38:52

    So does it matter if it includes trivia?
    咱小老百姓就关心trivia~
    好长。。随便断章取义了一下

  • J.D.Scavenger

    J.D.Scavenger (魔法使い) 2008-03-10 09:21:07

    让我想到了大众传播里一些类似的问题
    忽然让长时间置身于主流大众媒体中的“乌合之众”们成为发信者 是否能指望所传播的信息的内容在短时间内有所变化呢

  • lecter

    lecter 2008-03-10 17:00:42

    Internet就是这样,内容太太太丰富了 :(

  • houyhnhnm

    houyhnhnm 2008-03-13 00:37:08

    闲来无事,把该文翻译了一遍,供大家参考

    保卫维基
    2008年3月6日
    《经济学家》杂志
    由网民自愿贡献内容的流行在线百科网站,容量无限。包含琐碎条目是否会对其造成影响呢?
    它是史上最丰富的百科全书,是“用户生成内容”的最杰出范例。它包含在线志愿者用250种语言编纂的超过九百万篇文章。但如今,两种截然不同的前景摆在”维基百科”面前,“维基”的网站定位正面临艰难的选择。一种前景是囊括人类的全部知识,哪怕是最琐碎的知识;而另一种前景则是采取严格的编辑制度,删除琐碎的条目,以此树立网站作为可信资料来源的名声。维基的内部正就这两种相悖的前景进行着一场激烈的讨论。“保留派”认为过严的编辑标准会挫伤志愿者们贡献条目的积极性,而“删除派”则认为维基条目应更审慎选择。
    IT IS the biggest encyclopedia in history and the most successful example of “user-generated content” on the internet, with over 9m articles in 250 languages contributed by volunteers collaborating online. But Wikipedia is facing an identity crisis as it is torn between two alternative futures. It can either strive to encompass every aspect of human knowledge, no matter how trivial; or it can adopt a more stringent editorial policy and ban articles on trivial subjects, in the hope that this will enhance its reputation as a trustworthy and credible reference source. These two conflicting visions are at the heart of a bitter struggle inside Wikipedia between “inclusionists”, who believe that applying strict editorial criteria will dampen contributors' enthusiasm for the project, and “deletionists” who argue that Wikipedia should be more cautious and selective about its entries.
    举例来说,皮卡丘,这一源自日本电子游戏的虚构角色。在英文维基(拥有超过二百万的条目,是维基各语言版本中最丰富的一个)中,可查阅到近五百个皮卡丘的资料,其详尽程度足以让许多真实人物的条目相形见绌。但如果你在维基中搜索波兰“团结工会”领导人的资料,结果则寥寥无几,而且内容相当贫乏。
    Consider the fictional characters of Pokémon, the Japanese game franchise with a huge global following, for example. Almost 500 of them have biographies on the English-language version of Wikipedia (the largest edition, with over 2m entries), with a level of detail that many real characters would envy. But search for biographies of the leaders of the Solidarity movement in Poland, and you would find no more than a dozen—and they are rather poorly edited.
    保留派相信,只要维基放松其相对严格的编辑控制,让所有人都可以就任何话题添加文字,皮卡丘和“团结工会”条目的详略悬殊自然会消失。他们认为,既然维基是一个在线百科,就不应像对待传统储存介质的百科全书一样对其人为限制。(他们的一个口号是“维基不印在纸上”)
    Inclusionists believe that the disparity between Pokémon and Solidarity biographies would disappear by itself, if only Wikipedia loosened its relatively tight editorial control and allowed anyone to add articles about almost anything. They argue that since Wikipedia exists online, it should not have the space constraints of a physical encyclopedia imposed upon it artificially. (“Wikipedia is not paper”, runs one slogan of the inclusionists.)
    他们认为,为电视剧某一集中出现的人物编纂条目这样的举动并无害处。毕竟多数用户都是通过搜索检索到维基的内容,添加这些细微的主题并不会对这些用户造成不便。即便将皮卡丘的条目数由500缩减至200,用户也并不会对创建波兰工会领导人的条目更感兴趣。保留派理想中的维基应包含用户所能创建的所有主题,只要每个话题都有哪怕几个人感兴趣。
    Surely there is no harm, they argue, in including articles about characters from television programmes who only appear in a single episode, say? After all, since most people access Wikipedia pages via search, the inclusion of articles on niche topics will not inconvenience them. People will not be more inclined to create entries about Polish union leaders if the number of Pokémon entries is reduced from 500 to 200. The ideal Wikipedia of the inclusionists would feature as many articles on as many subjects as its contributors were able to produce, as long as they were of interest to more than just a few users.
    删除派则认为,维基未来的成功取决于内容的紧凑及条目的质量。他们理想中的维基可能会包含“团结工会”最重要五位领导人的简历和最重要的五个皮卡丘的资料,一旦超此限度,维基内容的质量和品牌的信誉都将受损。他们认为过度琐碎的条目会降低维基的严肃性,故而应当删除。
    Deletionists believe that Wikipedia will be more successful if it maintains a certain relevance and quality threshold for its entries. So their ideal Wikipedia might contain biographies of the five most important leaders of Solidarity, say, and the five most important Pokémon characters, but any more than that would dilute Wikipedia's quality and compromise the brand. The presence of so many articles on trivial subjects, they argue, makes it less likely that Wikipedia will be taken seriously, so articles dealing with trivial subjects should be deleted.
    游戏规则
    在实际操作中,琐碎和重要的标准却难以掌握。比如你如何判断下列两篇文章:一篇题为“乔治•沃克•布什绰号列表”(被保留),另一篇题为“史上曾开枪伤人的副总统”(被删除)?抑或是这两篇:一篇是“娜塔莎•德姆吉娜:号称拥有透视眼的俄国女孩”(被保留),另一篇是:“论当代社会中小丑的作用”(被删除)?
    In practice, deciding what is trivial and what is important is not easy. How do you draw editorial distinctions between an article entitled “List of nicknames used by George W. Bush” (status: kept) and one about “Vice-presidents who have shot people” (status: deleted)? Or how about “Natasha Demkina: Russian girl who claims to have X-ray vision” (status: kept) and “The role of clowns in modern society” (status: deleted)?
    为了判断一个话题是否值得被保留(或按照维基客的术语说,这个话题的“可关注度”如何),人们制定了各种标准。一篇刊登在国际刊物上的文章显然比一篇地方小报上的消息可靠;能在Google中搜索出十个吻合条目的也比只能搜索出一个的可信。诸如此类。这些规则在判断某些特定话题时都派上用场,比如判断色情明星(能登上《花花公子》可让你同时荣登维基,而低成本小电影的角色则无此荣幸)和外交官(使馆馆长值得关注,而临时代办则无关紧要)的可关注度。
    To measure a subject's worthiness for inclusion (or “notability”, in the jargon of Wikipedians), all kinds of rules have been devised. So an article in an international journal counts more than a mention in a local newspaper; ten matches on Google is better than one match; and so on. These rules are used to devise official policies on particular subjects, such as the notability of pornographic stars (a Playboy appearance earns you a Wikipedia mention; starring in a low-budget movie does not) or diplomats (permanent chiefs of station are notable, while chargés d'affaires ad interim are not).
    就连维基的创始人,吉米•威尔士,都为这些难以把握的标准犯难。去年夏天,他为自己在南非时曾光顾过的一家餐馆创建了一个条目。该条目很快进入了删除的备选名单,因为在Google里关于该餐馆的结果寥寥无几,编辑因而判断该条目可关注度不够。在一阵讨论和媒体报道(当然,让这家餐馆声名大振)之后,该条目最终被保留,但由此也引发了人们对编辑合理性的质疑。
    Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has himself fallen foul of these tricky notability criteria. Last summer he created a short entry about a restaurant in South Africa where he had dined. The entry was promptly nominated for deletion, since the restaurant had a poor Google profile and was therefore considered not notable enough. After a lot of controversy and media coverage (which, ahem, increased the restaurant's notability), the entry was kept, but the episode prompted many questions about the adequacy of the editorial process.
    目前,文章的保留或删除是由维基最积极的编辑和管理员(维基约1000名最积极的供稿者)讨论决定的。比如你创建了一个只有几个字的新条目,如果某位维基精英认为该条目没有达到维基可关注度的标准,很可能就将其列入“迅速删除”列表(意味着该条目将被立即删除)或是“常规删除”列表(意味着五天内如无申诉,该条目将被删除)。(为了避免被删除或恶意修改,很多争议性较大的条目,如大屠杀、伊斯兰、恐怖主义或布什等,可被锁定,无法进行编辑或删除。)
    As things stand, decisions whether to keep or delete articles are made after deliberations by Wikipedia's most ardent editors and administrators (the 1,000 or so most active Wikipedia contributors). Imagine you have just created a new entry, consisting of a few words. If a member of the Wikipedia elite believes that your submission fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, it may be nominated for “speedy” deletion—in other words, removed right away—or “regular” deletion, which means the entry is removed after five days if nobody objects. (To avoid deletion or vandalism, many highly controversial articles, such as the entries on the Holocaust, Islam, terrorism or Mr Bush, can be “locked” to prevent editing or removal.)
    如果你创建的条目被选定要删除,你可以提出申述,这就意味着你必须添加信息。此外,维基还有一个“仲裁委员会”,拥有裁决争议的权力,可以解决管理员无法解决的纠纷。
    If your article is selected for deletion, you may choose to contest the decision, in which case you may be asked to provide further information. There is also a higher authority with the ultimate power to rule in controversial cases: the Arbitration Committee, which settles disputes that the administrators cannot resolve.
    条目合理性的讨论往往持续数周,比条目本身更耗费精力和大量储存空间。此种讨论中往往使用大量令外人费解的缩写和引用,代表那些冷僻的规则和方针,比如“WP:APT”(“避免华而不实的语言”——指的是那些仅扩充条目,却不提供任何实质信息的内容)和“WP:MOSMAC”(维基百科涉及到马其顿共和国及希腊共和国马其顿省的一系列指导原则。)讨论中的阵营变化或是幕后动作也屡见不鲜。某些条目作者会采取“马甲策略”,编造大量内容,伪装成多个用户在讨论,以让造成某观点受支持的假象。
    Debates about the merits of articles often drag on for weeks, draining energy and taking up far more space than the entries themselves. Such deliberations involve volleys of arcane internal acronyms and references to obscure policies and guidelines, such as WP:APT (“Avoid Peacock Terms”—terms that merely promote the subject, without giving real information) and WP:MOSMAC (a set of guidelines for “Wikipedia articles discussing the Republic of Macedonia and the Province of Macedonia, Greece”). Covert alliances and intrigues are common. Sometimes editors resort to a practice called “sock puppetry”, in which one person creates lots of accounts and pretends to be several different people in a debate so as to create the illusion of support for a particular position.
    结果就是,网络新手很快就会在维基百科卡夫卡式的复杂内部架构中迷失。根据2006年的一项估计,关于条目管理和编辑政策的条目是维基条目里数目增长最快的,约占到其总内容的四分之一。或许这也正显示了维基百科的成熟程度的重要性:一个如此庞大的项目需要有规则来规范其运作。依据Andrew Lih的观点,规则的无限扩大、某些熟谙规则的维基客利用规则来赢得讨论,这也带来一种危险。他曾是删除派一员,如今则是保留派的支持者,目前正在创作一本关于维基百科的专著。这些维基百科上自封的“删除派”守护者们,一边删除任何不合自己标准的内容,一遍用一堆缩写来证明自己的合理。他们的行为如今被称为“维基法官”。
    The result is that novices can quickly get lost in Wikipedia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy. According to one estimate from 2006, entries about governance and editorial policies are one of the fastest-growing areas of the site and represent around one-quarter of its content. In some ways this is a sign of Wikipedia's maturity and importance: a project of this scale needs rules to govern how it works. But the proliferation of rules, and the fact that select Wikipedians have learnt how to handle them to win arguments, now represents a danger, says Andrew Lih, a former deletionist who is now an inclusionist, and who is writing a book about Wikipedia. The behaviour of Wikipedia's self-appointed deletionist guardians, who excise anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms, is now known as “wiki-lawyering”.
    Lih和其它保留派人士担心这些都会妨碍大众为维基百科贡献内容,早期充满友好氛围的维基百科也将逐渐充斥着敌对和倾轧。已有证据显示,维基信息库的扩展速度正在放缓。2007年10月的一项非官方数据表明,维基的用户活跃度正在降低,这一数据是依据每月中某条目的编辑次数和内容改变次数来计算的。而维基的官方数据已有一年没有采集并公布了,可能这些数据也显示了维基百科发展的隐忧。
    Mr Lih and other inclusionists worry that this deters people from contributing to Wikipedia, and that the welcoming environment of Wikipedia's early days is giving way to hostility and infighting. There is already some evidence that the growth rate of Wikipedia's article-base is slowing. Unofficial data from October 2007 suggests that users' activity on the site is falling, when measured by the number of times an article is edited and the number of edits per month. The official figures have not been gathered and made public for almost a year, perhaps because they reveal some unpleasant truths about Wikipedia's health.
    这也可能是因为维基客们已采完了“触手可及的果实”,已就所有最常见的话题编纂了条目(这也又一次证明了维基的成熟)。一个主要由非专业、手头只有搜索引擎作为研究工具的志愿者们组成的团体,它所能创建和编辑的信息量是有限的。要为“团结工会”这样的专业内容创建条目,远不是为皮卡丘创建条目所能企及,它需要作者和编辑的专业素养。如果某条信息在网上并不存在,它的可关注度同样也非依据Google所能判断的。
    It may be that Wikipedians have already taken care of the “low-hanging fruit”, having compiled articles on the most obvious topics (though this could, again, be taken as evidence of Wikipedia's maturity). But there is a limit to how much information a group of predominantly non-specialist volunteers, armed with a search engine, can create and edit. Producing articles about specialist subjects such as Solidarity activists, as opposed to Pokémon characters, requires expert knowledge from contributors and editors. If the information is not available elsewhere on the web, its notability cannot be assessed using Google.
    一个维基百科上的新条目要想被保留下来,你必须对其做“反删除处理”,确保该条目有足够的网络支持(比如Google的吻合条目数),以向日益苛刻的维基客们证明其重要性。这也将创建维基条目的门槛大大提高,极少有人能够掌握。许多曾经活跃的用户最终都出现在“消失的维基客”名单中,随着越来越多的人不再贡献条目,该名单还在不断增长。这也提醒人们,作品被删的挫败感让很多人放弃维基。
    To create a new article on Wikipedia and be sure that it will survive, you need to be able to write a “deletionist-proof” entry and ensure that you have enough online backing (such as Google matches) to convince the increasingly picky Wikipedia people of its importance. This raises the threshold for writing articles so high that very few people actually do it. Many who are excited about contributing to the site end up on the “Missing Wikipedians” page: a constantly updated list of those who have decided to stop contributing. It serves as a reminder that frustration at having work removed prompts many people to abandon the project.
    Google近来也宣布将进军维基领域。它推出一个名为“Knol”的产品,允许任何人就任何话题创建条目。Knol有一个评价系统,条目越受欢迎,排名越靠前。这一手段基于个人主义而非集体协作(Google会与作者分享广告收益)。毫无疑问,这一产品在未来的发展过程中也将遭受争议,产生难以预料的后果。但即便Knol并不是某些人所想像的维基终结者,它也会促使维基百科重新思考其编辑政策。
    Google has recently announced its own entry into the field, in the form of an encyclopedia-like project called “Knol” that will allow anybody to create entries on topics of their choice, with a voting system that means the best rise to the top. Tellingly, this approach is based on individualism rather than collaboration (Google will share ad revenues with the authors). No doubt it will produce its own arguments and unexpected consequences. But even if it does not turn out to be the Wikipedia-killer that some people imagine, it may push Wikipedia to rethink its editorial stance.

  • 卡嘉

    卡嘉 (你值得爱,你不需要为此做些什么) 2008-03-13 00:44:03

    我想起Radiohead message board这一条目于2004年被删除。。。

  • 爱慕肚滑

    爱慕肚滑 2008-03-13 01:35:53

    巴比伦塔

你的回应

回应请先 , 或 注册

107410 人聚集在这个小组
↑回顶部