ADM-201 dump PMP dumps pdf SSCP exam materials CBAP exam sample questions

维基百科:我们信任何种信息? – 译学馆
未登陆,请登陆后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

维基百科:我们信任何种信息?

Truth Isn't Black and White: 3 Requirements Every Fact Should Meet | Katherine Maher

貌似是莫伊尼汉说过 你决定了自己的想法但不能决定实际情况
Was it Moynihan who said you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts?
维基百科注重的不是真相或实际 而是可靠的 能够反复验证的
The thing that Wikipedia focuses on is not truth nor facts, it’s reliable verifiable
信息
information.
我们要说的是 当世界公认什么是可靠的信息
And what we would say is that as the world’s consensus changes about what is reliable verifiable
改变了 我们得到的信息也改变了
information the information for us will change too.
我为此举出的例子(可能没什么争议)
So the example I like to use (because it seems a bit difficult to dispute at this point in
是地心说与日心说的对抗
time) is helio- versus geocentrism.
如果维基百科回到几百年前 我们大概会有一篇
If Wikipedia had been around a couple hundred years ago we probably would have had an article
论述太阳绕着地球转的文章 因为那就是我们所理解的
that says that the sun revolves around the Earth because that was what we understood
当时的事实
to be true.
我们不再能理解 这实际上要归功于科技的进步 但是如果
We no longer understand that to be true thanks to advances in science and physics, but if
明天我们醒来 发现时间真的颠覆了
tomorrow we were to wake up and learn that in fact time being relative really does upend
我们看待世界的方式 维基百科就必须跟进
the way that we think about the world Wikipedia would have to evolve in order to describe
来描述这样的变化
that.
所以说 我们并不是在追求真理 我们只是在试图了解
So we’re not really in the business of truth or facts, we’re in the business of what is
什么是已知的 什么是大众公认的 科学的或不科学的
known, and what has been determined through consensus—scientific consensus or otherwise.
我认为这就就足以说明该如何理解我们所
And I think that that actually provides some clarity on how to understand what information
看到的信息
you’re looking at.
我认为维基百科由一个很特别的地方 在于它只提供给大众
One thing that I think is really unique about Wikipedia is there’s only one version for
一种版本
the whole public.
而不会像博物馆一样陈列各种不同结论
There’s no feed that’s curated for you or for me.
我们所看到的都是同一个版本的文章
We all are looking at the same version of the article.
而且我认为这是一种力量 因为这样一来就使得编辑和贡献者们不得不
And I think that’s actually a strength, because it forces editors and it forces contributors
达成关于新闻稿叙述 历史史实叙述
to come to some sort of common understanding of what the narrative of a story, what the
以及什么事真实情况的某种共同理解
narrative of history, what the facts actually are.
哈佛大学经济学专业在今年早些时候做了个调查
And research has been done by the Harvard School of Business just earlier this year
调查显示参与带有党派偏见编辑维基百科的人们
that shows that people who enter into editing Wikipedia with a highly partisan prospective
倘若他们一直从事于此 会倾向于变得更中立
tend to actually become more neutral if they stick around over time.
因此你可以打开并编辑一个政治家的页面 如果你是个
So you might enter in to edit the article of a politician’s page, and if you are particularly
特别有政治敏感的人 抑或是对那个政治家有特别观点 如果你了解维基百科的运行方式
political or have a perspective on that politician, if you actually learn how Wikipedia works
继续编辑 似乎维基百科的编辑们采取一种
and continue to edit what it seems is that Wikipedia editors start to take on a more
中立的语言 并以中立的方式更多地展示事实 而不是观点
neutral tone and engage in more neutral ways presenting more facts than opinion.
当下 我发现网上有很多地方能使得人们少些偏见
Now, there’s not a lot of places on the Internet that I think make people less partisan or
或者说更加专注于对话 讨论和咨询 这就是
more oriented around conversation and discussion and inquiry, and so that in and of itself
类似维基百科这种运作方式带来的有趣的副产品
is sort of a really interesting byproduct of the way Wikipedia works.
因此 维基百科是建立在三个基础要素之上的
So every Wikipedia article is based on sort of these three quart tenants.
第一个是中立
The first is neutrality.
维基百科里的文章在陈述事实时 必须以一种更中立的角度进行
Wikipedia articles have to be neutral in the way that they present information.
这就意味着你在维基百科里不常见到形容词
And what that means generally is that you don’t see a lot of adjectives in Wikipedia
因为形容词的意义不稳定 对于不同的对象
articles because adjectives are slippery, they can mean different things to different
它会被理解成不同意思
people.
维基百科中的信息必须基于可靠的信息源 也就是
They have to be based on reliable sources and reliable sources, so that’s the idea that
说你可以回溯到信息源来验证这条信息
it’s verifiable you can go back to the source that it comes from.
维基百科会使用多种类型的可靠信息源 这取决于
And Wikipedians will use different types of reliable sources depending on what you’re
你文章的内容
writing about.
比如你写的是时事内容的话 你用到的信息源就跟
If you’re writing about current events you’re going to use very different sources than if
你写18世纪的挂毯所用的不同 这两个主题甚至
you’re say writing about 18th-century tapestries; Just different types of publications cover
不会出现在同一本出版物里
these things.
维基人关于可靠性的想法并不是关于 “甲来源是好的”
And the way that Wikipedians think about reliability is not about “source A is good and source
“乙来源是坏的” 而更像是 “这些素材如何看待并参与”
B is bad”, instead it’s more around “how do those sources think about and engage in
“知识创造 产生和评价?”
knowledge creation, generation and critique?”
所以他们会这样想“这些来源经过检验吗”
So they look at things like: does the source fact check?
这些来源是否参与同行评审
Does the source engage in peer review?
如果来源有误是否会得到修正?
If the source is wrong will it issue a correction?
这些才是维基百科的编辑们用以评估不同类型
And that is sort of the approach that Wikipedians take to assess different types of reliable
的不同领域的信息来源在知识创造的作用
sources for different areas of knowledge creation.
最后一点 维基不做原创性研究
And then the last is no original research.
尽管新知识每天都在被创造 但直到它真正
So while new knowledge is being created every single day, until it has actually gone through
经受住检验 形成一致舆论和大众意见时 它才会被维基百科采用
a process of shaping consensus review it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia.
从新信息的角度来说 我们不是一个爆料平台
We are not a place to break news, in the sense of new information.
我们是一个提供已被理解和广泛接受的信息的阅览平台
We are a place to provide an overview of what is understood and accepted, and the work has
爆料这样的事情已经被其他论坛平台包揽了
been done in other forums.
此外 文章要有一定的认知度 就是说需要被
Subjects also have to be notable in the sense that they have to have been written about
许多二级文章源引用 这个标准与通常意义的
by sort of a number of secondary sources, and so notability is not the same thing as
知名有所不同
fame.
譬如有一个民族植物学家尽管不为人所知 但是他确实
You may have somebody who is a very obscure ethnobotanist, but if they have really contributed
为他专攻的领域做了贡献 且被学界承认 那么他也可以被认为是有认知度的
to their field and are acknowledged as such they will be notable even though the general
尽管一般人可能从没听说过他
public may never have heard about them.
以上就是关于哪些内容可以被收录进维基百科 哪些不能的
So those are some of the sort of core characteristics of what goes into Wikipedia, what doesn’t
核心准则 以及维基词条如何创建
go into Wikipedia, and then how an article is built.
真正使我着迷的是阅读我们称之为讨论页的时候
And what was fascinating to me was reading what we call with Wikipedia a “talk page.”
所有词条都有讨论页
Every article has a talk page.
可以把它看成是维基词条的新闻直播间
One way of thinking about it is it’s a newsroom for Wikipedia articles.
在这里 编辑们可以质疑信息 互相辩论 可以对文章的
It’s where editors can contest information, can challenge each other, can propose alternate
表述提出不同意见 可以强调词条中缺失的细节 也可以参与到关于哪些
phrasing for the article, can highlight things that are missing, and can engage in debate
信息应该被剪掉 哪些信息应该被公开的辩论中
what goes on the cutting room floor and what makes it into the public article.
大部分人不曾见过讨论页 但它们一直存在 而且公开
Most people never see the talk pages, but they’re there, they’re public.
你可以点进去看看
You can click on them.
阅读里面的信息
You can read them.
从中了解在每一个词条创建过程中的讨论和辩论
You can learn about the discussions and debates that go into the creation of every article.
这不仅仅在有争议的词条里才有 我希望所有人都去看看自己家乡词条的讨论页
It’s not just controversial articles, I encourage everyone to look at the talk page for your
其中非常有启发性 同时也很有趣
hometown; it’s very enlightening or entertaining.
总而言之 那些讨论页是沟通交流发生的地方 你会在那发现
So those talk pages are where the conversations happen and you can really start to see things
譬如中立性准则在其中发挥作用
like the principle of neutrality at work.
你会了解到:词条是如何创建的 以及为什么词条中
You can start to see things like: the way information is created, and why it matters
细节很重要
to be specific.
比如在一个关于美国打击叙利亚的词条中 我仔细
So in this particular article about the U.S. strike on the Syria, I was looking at the
了解了编辑们如何命名词条
way they titled it.
其中的对话就像这样:“这算空袭吗?”
And the conversation was: “Is it an airstrike?
不算 因为攻击并不是用飞机进行 而从海上向地面发起的 所以不算空袭
Well no, because it didn’t come from planes; It was sea to surface, so it’s not an airstrike,
只能算攻击
it’s a strike.
算突袭吗
Is it a raid?
不 因为没有地面部队参与 不能将其称之为突袭
No, because there weren’t troops on the ground, so we wouldn’t call it a raid.”
这就是维基百科的编辑们揣摩写进词条的每一句话
And these are the conversations that Wikipedians have as they hammer out the specifics of almost
时发生的对话
every sentence that goes into an article.
当然了 词条主题或者内容越富争议
Of course, the more contested an article is, the more controversial a subject is, the more
词条中每一句话就会越受关注
attention each individual sentence gets.
我并不知道像介绍神奇宝贝的词条是否也如此有争议
I don’t know if the articles about say Pokémon are quite as contested, but then again I don’t
但我对神奇宝贝所知不多 也许它们真的也非常富有争议
know much about Pokémon, so perhaps they are.

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

在维基百科,编辑们通过三个基本原则来验证词条真实性

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

ray

审核员

与光同尘

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BSw2edC68Y

相关推荐