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
And what we would say is that as the world’s consensus changes about what is reliable verifiable
information the information for us will change too.
So the example I like to use (because it seems a bit difficult to dispute at this point in
time) is helio- versus geocentrism.
If Wikipedia had been around a couple hundred years ago we probably would have had an article
that says that the sun revolves around the Earth because that was what we understood
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
tomorrow we were to wake up and learn that in fact time being relative really does upend
the way that we think about the world Wikipedia would have to evolve in order to describe
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.
And I think that that actually provides some clarity on how to understand what information
you’re looking at.
One thing that I think is really unique about Wikipedia is there’s only one version for
the whole public.
There’s no feed that’s curated for you or for me.
We all are looking at the same version of the article.
And I think that’s actually a strength, because it forces editors and it forces contributors
to come to some sort of common understanding of what the narrative of a story, what the
narrative of history, what the facts actually are.
And research has been done by the Harvard School of Business just earlier this year
that shows that people who enter into editing Wikipedia with a highly partisan prospective
tend to actually become more neutral if they stick around over time.
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
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.
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
is sort of a really interesting byproduct of the way Wikipedia works.
So every Wikipedia article is based on sort of these three quart tenants.
The first is neutrality.
Wikipedia articles have to be neutral in the way that they present information.
And what that means generally is that you don’t see a lot of adjectives in Wikipedia
articles because adjectives are slippery, they can mean different things to different
They have to be based on reliable sources and reliable sources, so that’s the idea that
it’s verifiable you can go back to the source that it comes from.
And Wikipedians will use different types of reliable sources depending on what you’re
If you’re writing about current events you’re going to use very different sources than if
you’re say writing about 18th-century tapestries; Just different types of publications cover
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
knowledge creation, generation and critique?”
So they look at things like: does the source fact check?
Does the source engage in peer review?
If the source is wrong will it issue a correction?
And that is sort of the approach that Wikipedians take to assess different types of reliable
sources for different areas of knowledge creation.
And then the last is no original research.
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.
We are not a place to break news, in the sense of new information.
We are a place to provide an overview of what is understood and accepted, and the work has
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
by sort of a number of secondary sources, and so notability is not the same thing as
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
public may never have heard about them.
So those are some of the sort of core characteristics of what goes into Wikipedia, what doesn’t
go into Wikipedia, and then how an article is built.
And what was fascinating to me was reading what we call with Wikipedia a “talk page.”
Every article has a talk page.
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
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.
You can click on them.
You can read them.
You can learn about the discussions and debates that go into the creation of every article.
It’s not just controversial articles, I encourage everyone to look at the talk page for your
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
like the principle of neutrality at work.
You can start to see things like: the way information is created, and why it matters
to be specific.
So in this particular article about the U.S. strike on the Syria, I was looking at the
way they titled it.
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,
it’s a strike.
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.”
And these are the conversations that Wikipedians have as they hammer out the specifics of almost
every sentence that goes into an article.
Of course, the more contested an article is, the more controversial a subject is, the more
attention each individual sentence gets.
I don’t know if the articles about say Pokémon are quite as contested, but then again I don’t
know much about Pokémon, so perhaps they are.