This was in an area called Wellawatta, a prime residential area in Colombo. We stood on the railroad tracks that ran between my friend's house and the beach. The tracks are elevated about eight feet from the waterline normally, but at that point the water had receded to a level three or four feet below normal. I'd never seen the reef here before. There were fish caught in rock pools left behind by the receding water. Some children jumped down and ran to the rock pools with bags. They were trying to catch fish. No one realized that this was a very bad idea. The people on the tracks just continued to watch them. I turned around to check on my friend's house. Then someone on the tracks screamed. Before I could turn around, everyone on the tracks was screaming and running.
Asta se intampla intr-o zona numita Wellawatta, o zona rezidentiala instarita din Colombo. Stateam pe sinele de cale ferata care desparteau casa prietenului meu de plaja. In mod normal, sinele se ridica la aproximativ 2,5 m deasupra nivelului marii, dar la momentul acela apa scazuse cu aproximativ un metru fata de nivelul obisnuit. Nu mai vazusem niciodata reciful aici. Erau pesti prinsi in ochiurile de apa formate in recif prin retragerea apelor. Unii copii au sarit jos si au fugit inspre ochiurile de apa cu pungi in mana. Incercau sa prinda peste. Nimeni nu si-a dat seama ca asta era o idee foarte proasta. Oamenii de pe sine continuau doar sa ii priveasca. M-am intors sa vad ce se intampla cu casa prietenului meu. Apoi cineva de pe sine a tipat. Inainte de a apuca sa ma intorc, toti cei de pe calea ferata alergau si tipau.
The water had started coming back. It was foaming over the reef. The children managed to run back onto the tracks. No one was lost there. But the water continued to climb. In about two minutes, it had reached the level of the railroad tracks and was coming over it. We had run about 100 meters by this time. It continued to rise. I saw an old man standing at his gate, knee-deep in water, refusing to move. He said he'd lived his whole life there by the beach, and that he would rather die there than run. A boy broke away from his mother to run back into his house to get his dog, who was apparently afraid. An old lady, crying, was carried out of her house and up the road by her son. The slum built on the railroad reservation between the sea and the railroad tracks was completely swept away. Since this was a high-risk location, the police had warned the residents, and no one was there when the water rose. But they had not had any time to evacuate any belongings. For hours afterwards, the sea was strewn with bits of wood for miles around -- all of this was from the houses in the slum. When the waters subsided, it was as if it had never existed.
Apa revenea. Facea spuma deasupra recifului. Copiii au reusit sa fuga inapoi la sine. Nimeni nu a fost pierdut acolo. Dar apele continuau sa creasca. Cam in 2 minute, ajunsese la nivelul sinelor de cale ferata si se revarsa peste. Noi fugiseram intre timp cam 100 de metri. Continua sa creasca. Am vazut un batran stand in picioare la poarta, in apa pana la genunchi, refuzand sa se miste. Spunea ca si-a trait intreaga viata acolo langa plaja, si ca mai degreaba moare decat sa fuga. Un baiat s-a desprins de mama sa pentru a fugi inapoi acasa sa-si ia cainele, care aparent se temea. O doamna in varsta, plangand, era purtata de fiul ei afara din casa, pe drum in sus. Mahalaua construita pe acostamentul caii ferate intre mare si calea ferata a fost complet maturata. Din cauza ca aceasta era o locatie cu risc ridicat, politia anuntase locatarii si nimeni nu mai era acolo cand apele au creascut. Insa nu avusesera timp sa-si ia nimic din lucruri. Patru ore mai tarziu, kilometri in jur, marea era impanzita de bucati de lemn -- toate astea proveneau din casele mahalalei. Cand apele s-au retras, era ca si cum n-ar fi fost.
This may seem hard to believe -- unless you've been reading lots and lots of news reports -- but in many places, after the tsunami, villagers were still terrified. When what was a tranquil sea swallows up people, homes and long-tail boats -- mercilessly, without warning -- and no one can tell you anything reliable about whether another one is coming, I'm not sure you'd want to calm down either. One of the scariest things about the tsunami that I've not seen mentioned is the complete lack of information. This may seem minor, but it is terrifying to hear rumor after rumor after rumor that another tidal wave, bigger than the last, will be coming at exactly 1 p.m., or perhaps tonight, or perhaps ... You don't even know if it is safe to go back down to the water, to catch a boat to the hospital. We think that Phi Phi hospital was destroyed. We think this boat is going to Phuket hospital, but if it's too dangerous to land at its pier, then perhaps it will go to Krabi instead, which is more protected. We don't think another wave is coming right away.
Poate ca pare greu de crezut, in afara cazului in care ati citit o multime de stiri dar in multe locuri, dupa tsunami, oamenii erau inca ingroziti. Cand ceea ce a fost o mare linistita inghite fara mila oameni, case si barci pe nepregatite, si nimeni nu-ti poate spune cu siguranta daca un altul va urma, nu sunt sigur ca, la randul tau, ai vrea sa te calmezi. Unul dintre cele mai terifiante lucruri legate de tsunami pe care nu l-am vazut mentionat, este completa lipsa de informatie. Poate pare lipsit de importanta, dar este infiorator sa auzi zvon, peste zvon, peste zvon cum ca alt val mareic, mai mare decat precedentul, va sosi la exact ora 13:00, sau poate la noapte, sau poate... nici nu stii macar daca e prudent sa te indrepti spre apa, sa iei o barca spre spital. Credem ca spitalul Phi Phi a fost distrus. Credem ca aceasta barca merge la spitalul Phuket, dar daca e prea periculos sa acostam la debarcaderul acestuia, atrunci probabil o sa mergem la Krabi in loc, care e mai protejat. Nu credem ca un alt val va veni imediat.
At the Phi Phi Hill Resort, I was tucked into the corner furthest away from the television, but I strained to listen for information. They reported that there was an 8.5 magnitude earthquake in Sumatra, which triggered the massive tsunami. Having this news was comforting in some small way to understand what had just happened to us. However, the report focused on what had already occurred and offered no information on what to expect now. In general, everything was merely hearsay and rumor, and not a single person I spoke to for over 36 hours knew anything with any certainty. Those were two accounts of the Asian tsunami from two Internet blogs that essentially sprang up after it occurred. I'm now going to show you two video segments from the tsunami that also were shown on blogs. I should warn you, they're pretty powerful. One from Thailand, and the second one from Phuket as well.
In statiunea Phi Phi Hill, eram inghesuit in coltul cel mai indepartat de televizor, dar m-am straduit sa aud informatiile. Au anuntat ca fusese un cutremur cu magintudinea de 8,5 in Sumatra, care a declansat un tsunami urias. Aceasta stire ne consola intr-o foarte mica masura, ajutandu-ne sa intelegem ce tocmai ni se intamplase. Insa stirea se concentra pe ceea ce se intamplase deja si nu oferea nicio informatie despre ce sa asteptam acum. In general, toate erau cel mult zvonuri si vorbe din auzite, si nici macar o persoana din cele cu care am discutat in mai mult 36 de ore nu stia nimic cu certitudine. Acestea au fost doua relatari ale tsunami-ului din Asia, de pe doua bloguri care practic au aparut dupa ce acesta a avut loc. Acum va voi arata doua secvente video din timpul tsunami-ului, de asememea publicate pe bloguri. Trebuie sa va avertizez, sunt destul de emotionante. Unul din Thailanda, si un al doilea, de asemena, din Phuket.
(Screaming)
(Tipete)
Voice 1: It's coming in. It's coming again.
Vocea 1: Vine. Vine din nou.
Voice 2: It's coming again?
Vocea 2: Vine din nou?
Voice 1: Yeah. It's coming again.
Vocea 1: Da. Vine din nou.
Voice 2: Come get inside here.
Vocea 2: [neclar]
Voice 1: It's coming again. Voice 2: New wave? Voice 1: It's coming again. New wave! [Unclear]
Vocea1: Vine din nou. Un nou val. Vine din nou. [neclar]
(Screaming)
(Tipete)
They called me out here.
Am fost chemat aici.
James Surowiecki: Phew. Those were both on this site: waveofdestruction.org. In the world of blogs, there's going to be before the tsunami and after the tsunami, because one of the things that happened in the wake of the tsunami was that, although initially -- that is, in that first day -- there was actually a kind of dearth of live reporting, there was a dearth of live video and some people complained about this. They said, "The blogsters let us down." What became very clear was that, within a few days, the outpouring of information was immense, and we got a complete and powerful picture of what had happened in a way that we never had been able to get before. And what you had was a group of essentially unorganized, unconnected writers, video bloggers, etc., who were able to come up with a collective portrait of a disaster that gave us a much better sense of what it was like to actually be there than the mainstream media could give us.
James Surowiecki: Uff. Ambele se gaseau pe acest site: Waveofdestruction.org. In lumea blogurilor, o sa se vorbeasca despre 'inaintre de tsunami' si 'dupa tsunami', pentru ca unul dintre lucrurile care s-au intamplat la incepturile tsunami-ului a fost ca, desi initial -- adica in prima zi -- a existat de fapt o lipsa de reportaje la fata locului, a existat o lipsa de imagini live -- si unii oameni s-au plans in aceasta privinta. Ziceau ceva in genul: blogerii ne-au dezamagit. Cert a fost ca, in cateva zile, avalansa de informatii devenise imensa si ne-am putut forma o imagine completa si graitoare asupra a ceea ce se intamplase, la un nivel la care nu mai ajunsesem niciodata. Si ceea ce aveam era in esenta un grup de scriitori, blogeri, etc, neoroganizati si neconectati, care erau capabili sa creeze un portret colectiv a dezastrului, si care ne-a oferit o imagine mult mai clara a ce a insemnat sa te afli acolo decat a facut-o mass media.
And so in some ways the tsunami can be seen as a sort of seminal moment, a moment in which the blogosphere came, to a certain degree, of age. Now, I'm going to move now from this kind of -- the sublime in the traditional sense of the word, that is to say, awe-inspiring, terrifying -- to the somewhat more mundane. Because when we think about blogs, I think for most of us who are concerned about them, we're primarily concerned with things like politics, technology, etc. And I want to ask three questions in this talk, in the 10 minutes that remain, about the blogosphere. The first one is, What does it tell us about our ideas, about what motivates people to do things? The second is, Do blogs genuinely have the possibility of accessing a kind of collective intelligence that has previously remained, for the most part, untapped? And then the third part is, What are the potential problems, or the dark side of blogs as we know them?
Asadar, intr-un anume fel, tsunami-ul poate fi vazut ca un moment incipient, un moment in care blogosfera a ajuns la un anumit nivel de maturitate. Acum o sa cam incerc sa ma departez de acest gen de -- sublim la modul universal valabil -- adica grandios si terifiant -- inspre lucruri mai pamantesti. Pentru ca atunci cand ne gandim la bloguri, cred ca pentru majoritatea celor interesati de acestea, ne intereseaza in primul rand lucruri precum politica, tehnologia etc. Si as dori sa pun trei intrebari in aceasta prelegere, in cele 10 minute care raman, referitoare la blogosfera. Prima ar fi: ce ne spune aceasta despre ideile noastre, despre ceea ce-i motiveaza pe oameni sa faca lucruri? A doua este: ne dau oare blogurile acces, in mod nemijlocit, la un soi de inteligenta colectiva care pana acum a ramas, in cea mai mare parte, inaccesibila? Si cea de-a treia parte este: care sunt potentialele probleme, sau genul de aspecte negative ale blogurilor, asa cum le stim?
OK, the first question: What do they tell us about why people do things? One of the fascinating things about the blogosphere specifically, and, of course, the Internet more generally -- and it's going to seem like a very obvious point, but I think it is an important one to think about -- is that the people who are generating these enormous reams of content every day, who are spending enormous amounts of time organizing, linking, commenting on the substance of the Internet, are doing so primarily for free. They are not getting paid for it in any way other than in the attention and, to some extent, the reputational capital that they gain from doing a good job. And this is -- at least, to a traditional economist -- somewhat remarkable, because the traditional account of economic man would say that, basically, you do things for a concrete reward, primarily financial. But instead, what we're finding on the Internet -- and one of the great geniuses of it -- is that people have found a way to work together without any money involved at all. They have come up with, in a sense, a different method for organizing activity.
Ok, prima intrebare: Ce ne spun acestea referitor la de ce fac oamenii anumite lucruri? Unul dintre lucrurile fascinante legate de blogosfera in particular, si, bineinteles, internet la modul general -- si asta o sa para extrem de evident, dar cred ca este un aspect care merita considerat -- este acela ca oamenii care creeaza enorme cantitati de continut in fiecare zi, care petrec enorm de mult timp organizand, creand legaturi si comentand asupra esentei internetului, fac asta in primul rand pe gratis. Nu primesc alta plata pentru asta decat atentia si, intr-o anume masura, prestigiul pe care il dobandesc facand o treaba buna. Si asta este, cel putin pentru un economist de scoala veche, oarecum ramarcabil, pentru ca in aceasta acceptiune traditionalist-economista omul ar spune ca, stiti, practic, faci lucruri pentru a fi rasplatit, in primul rand financiar. Dar in schimb, ceea ce gasim pe internet -- si unul dintre lucrurile absolut geniale legate de acesta -- este ca oamenii au gasit o modalitate de a lucra impreuna fara a implica deloc banii. Au gasit, intr-un fel, un soi de metoda diferita de a-si organiza activitatea.
The Yale Law professor Yochai Benkler, in an essay called "Coase's Penguin," talks about this open-source model, which we're familiar with from Linux, as being potentially applicable in a whole host of situations. And, you know, if you think about this with the tsunami, what you have is essentially a kind of an army of local journalists, who are producing enormous amounts of material for no reason other than to tell their stories. That's a very powerful idea, and it's a very powerful reality. And it's one that offers really interesting possibilities for organizing a whole host of activities down the road.
Yochai Benkler, profesor de drept la Yale, intr-un eseu numit “Pinguinul lui Coase”, vorbeste despre acest soi de model “cu sursa deschisa”, cu care ne-am familiarizat de la Linux, ca fiind potential aplicabil intr-o multime de situatii. Si, stiti, daca e sa gandim asa cu privire la tsunami, atunci ce rezulta este practic o armata locala de jurnalisti, care practic produc enorme cantitati de informatie, fara alt motiv decat acela de a-si spune povestea. Aceasta e o idee foarte puternica, si este o realitate foarte puternica. Si este una care ofera posibilitati de-a dreptul interesante de a organiza o multime de activitati pe viitor.
So, I think the first thing that the blogosphere tells us is that we need to expand our idea of what counts as rational, and we need to expand our simple equation of value equals money, or, you have to pay for it to be good, but that in fact you can end up with collectively really brilliant products without any money at all changing hands. There are a few bloggers -- somewhere maybe around 20, now -- who do, in fact, make some kind of money, and a few who are actually trying to make a full-time living out of it, but the vast majority of them are doing it because they love it or they love the attention, or whatever it is. So, Howard Rheingold has written a lot about this and, I think, is writing about this more, but this notion of voluntary cooperation is an incredibly powerful one, and one worth thinking about.
Prin urmare, cred ca primul lucru pe care incearca blogosfera sa ni-l spuna e ca trebuie sa ne largim ideea a ce se califica drept "rational", si trebuie sa largim simpla ecuatie in care valoarea inseamna bani, ori ca trebuie sa platesti pentru ceva de calitate, insa in realitate poti obtine rezultate extraordinare create de un colectiv, fara ca banii sa treaca dintr-o mana in alta. Exista cativa blogeri -- la momentul de fata probabil in jur de 20 -- care, practic, fac ceva bani, si alti cativa care efectiv incearca sa traiasca din asta, dar marea lor majoritate fac asta pentru ca le place ori le place atentia pe care o primesc, ori cine stie. Dupa cum stiti, Howard Rheingold a scris o gramada despre asta, si cred ca scrie si mai mult, insa notiunea de colaborare voluntara este una incredibil de puternica, si una care merita considerata.
The second question is, What does the blogosphere actually do for us, in terms of accessing collective intelligence? You know, as Chris mentioned, I wrote a book called "The Wisdom of Crowds." And the premise of "The Wisdom of Crowds" is that, under the right conditions, groups can be remarkably intelligent. And they can actually often be smarter than even the smartest person within them. The simplest example of this is if you ask a group of people to do something like guess how many jellybeans are in a jar. If I had a jar of jellybeans and I asked you all to guess how many jellybeans were in that jar, your average guess would be remarkably good. It would be somewhere probably within three and five percent of the number of beans in the jar, and it would be better than 90 to 95 percent of you. There may be one or two of you who are brilliant jelly bean guessers, but for the most part the group's guess would be better than just about all of you. And what's fascinating is that you can see this phenomenon at work in many more complicated situations.
A doua intrebare este ce face efectiv blogosfera pentru noi, din perspectiva accesului la inteligenta colectiva? Stiti, a mentionat si Chris, am scris o carte numita “The Wisdom of Crowds” ("Intelepciunea multimilor"). Si premisa acestei carti este ca, in conditii adecvate, grupurile pot fi extraordinar de inteligente. Si deseori acestea pot fi chiar mai inteligente decat cea mai inteligenta persoana din grup. Cel mai simplu exemplu ar fi acela in care rogi un grup de oameni sa faca ceva precum “ghiciti cate bomboane de jeleu sunt intr-un borcan”. Stiti, daca as avea un borcan cu bomboane de jeleu, si eu v-as ruga sa ghiciti care e numarul bomboanelor din borcan, media raspunsurilor voastre ar fi remarcabil de buna. Ar fi probabil undeva la o marja de eroare de 3-5% din numarul de bomboane din borcan si mai exacta decat aproximarile a 90-95% dintre voi. S-ar putea gasi unul sau doi dintre voi care ca fie ghicitori geniali de jeleuri, dar in cele mai multe cazuri aproximarea grupului va fi mai buna decat aproape a oricaruia dintre voi. Si ceea ce e cu adevarat fascinant e ca putem observa acest fenomen in functiune in numeroase situatii mult mai complicate.
For instance, if you look at the odds on horses at a racetrack, they predict almost perfectly how likely a horse is to win. In a sense, the group of betters at the racetrack is forecasting the future, in probabilistic terms. You know, if you think about something like Google, which essentially is relying on the collective intelligence of the Web to seek out those sites that have the most valuable information -- we know that Google does an exceptionally good job of doing that, and it does that because, collectively, this disorganized thing we call the "World Wide Web" actually has a remarkable order, or a remarkable intelligence in it. And this, I think, is one of the real promises of the blogosphere.
Asa, spre exemplu, daca ne uitam la sansele cailor de curse, acestea estimeaza aproape perfect care sunt sansele unui cal de a castiga. Intr-un fel, grupul de pariori la hipodrom prevede viitorul, in termeni probabilistici. Stiti, daca va ganditi la un lucru precum Google, care practic se bazeaza pe inteligenta colectiva a Internetului pentru a identifica acele site-uri care contin informatia cea mai relevanta. Stim ca Google face o treaba excelenta in acest sens, si face asta pentru ca, la nivel colectiv, aceasta chestie dezorganizata numita World Wide Web poseda de fapt o organizare si o inteligenta remarcabile. Si asta, cred, este una dintre realele potentiale ale blogosferei.
Dan Gillmor -- whose book "We the Media" is included in the gift pack -- has talked about it as saying that, as a writer, he's recognized that his readers know more than he does. And this is a very challenging idea. It's a very challenging idea to mainstream media. It's a very challenging idea to anyone who has invested an enormous amount of time and expertise, and who has a lot of energy invested in the notion that he or she knows better than everyone else. But what the blogosphere offers is the possibility of getting at the kind of collective, distributive intelligence that is out there, and that we know is available to us if we can just figure out a way of accessing it. Each blog post, each blog commentary may not, in and of itself, be exactly what we're looking for, but collectively the judgment of those people posting, those people linking, more often than not is going to give you a very interesting and enormously valuable picture of what's going on. So, that's the positive side of it. That's the positive side of what is sometimes called participatory journalism or citizen journalism, etc. -- that, in fact, we are giving people who have never been able to talk before a voice, and we're able to access information that has always been there but has essentially gone untapped.
Dan Gilmor, a carui carte “We the Media” ["Noi, Media"] -- si care este inclusa in pachetul-cadou -- a vorbit despre aceasta spunand ca, in calitatea de scriitor, a recunoscut ca cititorii lui stiu mai multe decat el. Si asta este o idee foarte provocatore. Este o idee foarte provocatoare pentru mass-media traditionala. Este o idee provocatoare pentru oricine a investit enorm de mult timp si expertiza si care a investit multa energie in ideea ca el sau ea stie mai bine ca oricine altcineva. Insa ceea ce blogosfera ne ofera este posibilitatea accesului la un soi de inteligenta colectiva, distributiva, care e acolo, la dispozitia noastra cu conditia sa descoperim metoda de a o accesa. Fiecare articol, fiecare comentariu pus pe un blog, poate sa nu reprezinte in sine sau de unul singur ceea ce cautam, dar suma judecatilor tuturor acelor oameni care posteaza, care creeaza legaturi, o sa ne ofere de cele mai multe ori, o imagine interesanta si extrem de valoroasa a ceea ce se intampla. Prin urmare, asta este latura sa pozitiva. Aceasta este latura pozitiva a ceea ce se numeste uneori "jurnalism participativ", sau "jurnalism cetatenesc" etc., si anume ca, de fapt, le oferim intr-un fel oamenilor care nu au avut niciodata posiblitatea de a vorbi un soi de voce, si ca suntem capabili sa accesam informatie care a existat intotdeauana acolo, dar a ramas in esenta neutilizata.
But there is a dark side to this, and that's what I want to spend the last part of my talk on. One of the things that happens if you spend a lot of time on the Internet, and you spend a lot of time thinking about the Internet, is that it is very easy to fall in love with the Internet. It is very easy to fall in love with the decentralized, bottom-up structure of the Internet. It is very easy to think that networks are necessarily good things -- that being linked from one place to another, that being tightly linked in a group, is a very good thing. And much of the time it is. But there's also a downside to this -- a kind of dark side, in fact -- and that is that the more tightly linked we've become to each other, the harder it is for each of us to remain independent.
Dar exista si o latura intunecata a acestei probleme, si cu asta o sa ma ocup in ultima parte a prelegerii mele. Unul dintre lucrurile care se intampla cand petreci prea mult timp pe internet si petreci prea mult timp gandindu-te la internet este acela ca e foarte usor sa te indragostesti de internet. Este foarte usor sa te indragostesti de structura descentralizata, integratoare a internetului. Este foarte usor sa crezi ca retelele sunt neaparat lucruri bune, ca a fi trimis dintr-un loc in altul, a fi strans conectat de un grup, este un lucru foarte bun. In cea mai mare parte a timpului si este. Dar exista si reversul medaliei -- un soi de parte intunecata, de fapt -- si aceea este ca, cu cat devenim mai strans legati unii de altii, cu atat ne este mai greu sa ramanem independenti.
One of the fundamental characteristics of a network is that, once you are linked in the network, the network starts to shape your views and starts to shape your interactions with everybody else. That's one of the things that defines what a network is. A network is not just the product of its component parts. It is something more than that. It is, as Steven Johnson has talked about, an emergent phenomenon. Now, this has all these benefits: it's very beneficial in terms of the efficiency of communicating information; it gives you access to a whole host of people; it allows people to coordinate their activities in very good ways. But the problem is that groups are only smart when the people in them are as independent as possible. This is the paradox of the wisdom of crowds, or the paradox of collective intelligence, that what it requires is actually a form of independent thinking. And networks make it harder for people to do that, because they drive attention to the things that the network values.
Una dintre caracteristicile fundamentale ale unei retele este aceea ca, odata ce te-ai conectat la retea, reteaua incepe sa-ti modeleze opiniile si incepe sa-ti modeleze interactiunile cu toti ceilalti. Acest lucru face parte din definitia unei retele. O retea nu este doar ansamblul componentelor sale. Este ceva mai mult decat atat. Este, dupa cum afirma Steven Johnson, un fenomen cu totul nou. Acum, aceasta are toate aceste avantaje: este foarte benefica in termeni de transmitere eficienta a informatiei; iti ofera acces la o multime de oameni; le permite oamenilor sa-si coordoneze foarte bine actiunile. Dar problema este ca grupurile sunt foarte destepte doar atunci cand membri lor sunt cat mai independenti posibil. Acesta ar fi, cum s-ar spune, paradoxul inteligentei multimilor, sau paradoxul inteligentei colective, acela ca ea necesita de fapt o forma de gandire independenta. Si retelele fac ca lucrul acesta sa fie dificil pentru oameni, pentru ca atrag atentia asupra acelor lucruri pe care pune pret reteaua.
So, one of the phenomena that's very clear in the blogosphere is that once a meme, once an idea gets going, it is very easy for people to just sort of pile on, because other people have, say, a link. People have linked to it, and so other people in turn link to it, etc., etc. And that phenomenon of piling on the existing links is one that is characteristic of the blogosphere, particularly of the political blogosphere, and it is one that essentially throws off this beautiful, decentralized, bottom-up intelligence that blogs can manifest in the right conditions.
Prin urmare, unul dintre fenomenele care sunt foarte clare in blogosfera este ca odata ce o mema, odata ce o idee, se porneste, este foarte usor ca oamenii sa construiasca in jurul ei, pentru ca alti oameni au, sa zicem, o legatura. Oamenii au aderat la ea si prin urmare alti oameni adera la ea, etc., etc. Si acel fenomen, fenomenul de a cladi pe seama legaturilor existente reprezinta una dintre caracteristicile blogosferei, in special a blogosferei axata pe politic, si este una care practic dinamiteaza acest soi de inteligenta descentralizata, non-ierarhica pe care blogurile o manifesta in conditii favorabile.
The metaphor that I like to use is the metaphor of the circular mill. A lot of people talk about ants. You know, this is a conference inspired by nature. When we talk about bottom-up, decentralized phenomena, the ant colony is the classic metaphor, because, no individual ant knows what it's doing, but collectively ants are able to reach incredibly intelligent decisions. They're able to reach food as efficiently as possible, they're able to guide their traffic with remarkable speed. So, the ant colony is a great model: you have all these little parts that collectively add up to a great thing. But we know that occasionally ants go astray, and what happens is that, if army ants are wandering around and they get lost, they start to follow a simple rule -- just do what the ant in front of you does. And what happens is that the ants eventually end up in a circle. And there's this famous example of one that was 1,200 feet long and lasted for two days, and the ants just kept marching around and around in a circle until they died. And that, I think, is a sort of thing to watch out for. That's the thing we have to fear -- is that we're just going to keep marching around and around until we die.
Metafora pe care imi place sa o folosesc este metafora mersului in cerc al furnicilor. Multi oameni vorbesc despre furnici. Stiti, aceasta este o prelegere inspirata din natura. Cand vorbim de structura descentralizata, non-ierarhica a internetului, colonia de furnici este o metafora clasica, pentru ca, dupa cum stiti, nicio furnica nu stie ce face, dar impreuna furnicile sunt capabile sa ia decizii incredibil de inteligente. Sunt capabile sa ghideze traficul cu viteze uimitoare. Prin urmare, musuroiul de furnici este un model excelent -- avem toate aceste particele care adunate la un loc formeaza un lucru minunat. Dar stiam ca uneori furnicile se ratacesc, si ce se intampla e ca, daca furnicile-soldat umbla aiurea si se pierd, incep sa urmeze o regula simpla -- fa doar ce face si furnica din fata ta. Si ce se intampla e ca furnicile sfarsesc prin a forma un cerc. Si exista un exemplu celebru in care cercul avea 400 de metri lungime si a durat doua zile, si furnicile au continuat sa marsaluiasca de jur-imprejur in cerc pana au murit. Si acesta, cred, este genul de pericol de care sa ne ferim. Acesta e lucrul de care trebuie sa ne temem, acela ca o sa continuam sa ne invartim intruna in cerc pana murim.
Now, I want to connect this back, though, to the tsunami, because one of the great things about the tsunami -- in terms of the blogosphere's coverage, not in terms of the tsunami itself -- is that it really did represent a genuine bottom-up phenomenon. You saw sites that had never existed before getting huge amounts of traffic. You saw people being able to offer up their independent points of view in a way that they hadn't before. There, you really did see the intelligence of the Web manifest itself. So, that's the upside. The circular mill is the downside. And I think that the former is what we really need to strive for.
Acum, as dori sa ne intoarcem insa la tsunami, pentru ca unul dintre aspectele fascinante legate de tsunami -- in ceea ce priveste acoperirea blogosferei, si nu tsunami-ul in sine -- este acela ca a reprezentat intr-adevar un fenomen autentic si fara precedent. Ati vazut site-uri care nu existasera pana atunci generand un trafic incredibil. Ati vazut oameni devenind capabili sa exprime puncte de vedere independente asa cum nu mai facusera niciodata. Si in acesta caz chiar ati vazut inteligenta retelei in actiune. Deci asta ar fi avantajul. Cercul furnicilor este dezavantajul. Si cred ca cel dintai este cel spre care trebuie sa tindem.
Thank you very much. (Applause)
Multumesc foarte mult!