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.
我們那時是在可倫坡某個叫做委拉哇塔的住宅區裡, 我們站在鐵軌上, 那條鐵軌就在我朋友的家和海邊之間, 鐵軌的高度一般是在海平面上2.5公尺高, 但那時海水正值退潮, 所以海平面也降到比平常還低個一公尺左右。 以前我從未在那裡看過礁石, 有些小魚被困在海水退去後的礁石水窪裡, 孩子們便都跳進水裡,帶著袋子跑到水窪旁, 想要抓起那些小魚。 沒人知道這樣做並不妥當, 大家都只是站在鐵軌上看著他們抓魚, 我轉過身去看我朋友的家, 接著就聽到有人在鐵軌上大叫, 我還來不及回頭看,站在鐵軌上的人全都尖叫起來,而且開始往回跑,
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.
海水開始回漲上來,淹沒了礁石。 孩子們盡力跑回鐵軌上, 沒人落在後頭。但海水還是持續上漲, 大約二分鐘之後,海水幾乎就要上升到和鐵軌一樣高了, 快要淹沒鐵軌了!這次我們往回跑了100公尺, 我一直往高的地方爬, 我看到一個老人站在自己的門前,膝蓋都泡在水裡了,但他不願逃走, 他說他這輩子都在這個海邊渡過, 他寧願死也不願逃走。 有個男孩掙脫了媽媽的手,跑回屋裡, 去救他的狗,那隻狗完全嚇呆了。 有個哭泣的老婦人,被她的兒子從房子裡揹了出來。 那個在鐵路保留區內的貧民窟, 原來是在鐵軌與海灘之間,現在全被沖走了。 因為這裡是高危險區域,警察早就警告過這裡的居民, 所以當海嘯來的時候,這裡已經沒人了。 但他們還是來不及帶走自己的物品。 過了幾個鐘頭之後,海水退去,留下了遍地斷裂的木頭, 全都是貧民窟的殘垣碎瓦。 海水退去之後,就像從沒發生過海嘯一樣。
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.
或許你很難相信海嘯曾在此肆虐, 除非你看過很多新聞報導, 但在海嘯之後,大部分的村民都還是驚惶失措。 看著曾經風平浪靜的海洋把人們、房屋、 長尾船等全都無情地吞噬,沒有任何警訊, 沒人知道是否還有下一波海嘯要來, 我也不確定大家是否已經恢復平靜。 海嘯最可怕的是 我們完全無法取得資訊, 這或許是小事一椿,但最可怕的是聽到不同的謠言, 有人說又有另一波海嘯要來了,比上一個還要大, 會在下午一點來襲,或是今天晚上,或是... 你無法判斷是不是可以回到海邊 搭船去醫院。 我們認為菲菲醫院已經毁了, 我們覺得去普吉醫院比較好, 但如果到時候無法靠岸, 就要轉去喀拉比醫院,那裡比較安全。 我們覺得下一波海嘯不會那麼快就來,
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.
而在菲菲山丘渡假村裡, 我被擠到離電視最遠的角落, 但我還是儘量聽取資訊。 電視上說蘇門答臘發生了8.5級的強震, 引發了這起大規模的海嘯。 聽到這則新聞讓我們稍微放下心了, 至少我們知道發生了什麼事。 但是,電視新聞一直在報導發生過的災情, 卻沒有告訴我們接下來會發生什麼事。 大家都只是道聽塗說,胡亂傳播謠言, 在接下來的36個小時裡,和我說過話的人裡面, 沒人能確定會發生什麼事。 這二篇是在南亞海嘯發生後, 出現在網路部落格上的文章。 我要播放二支有關海嘯的影片, 這二支也是部落格裡的影片。 我先警告各位,影片內容很震撼, 第一支是在泰國拍攝,第二支則是在普吉島拍攝。
(Screaming)
(尖叫聲)
Voice 1: It's coming in. It's coming again.
甲:要來了,要來了!
Voice 2: It's coming again?
乙:又要來了嗎?
Voice 1: Yeah. It's coming again.
甲:對,又要來了!
Voice 2: Come get inside here.
乙:....
Voice 1: It's coming again. Voice 2: New wave? Voice 1: It's coming again. New wave! [Unclear]
甲:又來了!是另一波海嘯! 又來了! .....
(Screaming)
(尖叫聲)
They called me out here.
他們叫我離開這裡...
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.
詹姆士:呼...這二支影片都放在這個網站:Waveofdestruction.org 在部落格的世界裡,海嘯之前和海嘯之後有很清楚的分野, 因為在海嘯發生之後,有一件事值得討論, 雖然一開始,在海嘯發生後的第一天, 現場報導的新聞資訊顯然不足,也缺乏可以播放的影片, 所以有些人開始抱怨, 他們認為部落客讓大家失望了。 後來事情卻有了完全不一樣的發展, 幾天之內,各種資訊排山倒海而來, 我們取得了完整且令人震撼的報導, 那是我們以前完全無法想像到的境界。 這些人基本上都是沒有組織、互不相識的作家、 或是部落格攝影師這一類的,他們共同描繪出 整個災難的景象,讓我們知道當地發生了什麼事, 遠比主流媒體的報導還要詳盡。
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?
因此,或許我們可以把這次的海嘯視為一個轉捩點, 讓我們的部落格文化得以發展,以臻成熟。 現在,我想要把話題轉個方向, 從一般人認為的高尚、 激勵人心或令人震撼的話題,轉到較為俗世的話題。 當我們在思考部落格的時候, 我認為大部分關心部落格的人, 關心的話題應該都是政治或科技這一類的事, 而我在這裡要問三個問題, 雖然只剩十分鐘,但我要問問各位有關部落格文化的事。 第一個問題是,是什麼驅使人們去做這些事? 我們又得到什麼樣的啟發? 第二個問題,部落格真能這麼神奇地結合起來, 達到我們稱之為「群體智慧」的境界, 而我們一般人以前都無法達到這個境界? 第三個問題,部落格有沒有什麼潛在的問題, 或是某些缺點呢?
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.
好,先看第一個問題: 他們是否能告訴我們為什麼大家要這麼做? 關於部落格文化最令人著迷的現象之一, 當然,這在網路世界很普遍, 而且大家也很容易看得出來, 但我覺得這仍然是值得我們重視的現象, 就是那些每天孜孜不倦為我們產出大量文章的部落客們, 其實每個人都花了大量的時間在組合、 連結、或評論網路上的各種內容, 而且他們完全沒有為此而支領薪水。 他們不求回報,只希望能搏取別人的注意, 有時候他們也能因為自己所做的事而獲取不錯的名聲。 以傳統經濟學理論來看,這未免太不可思議, 大部分支持傳統經濟學理論的人都認為, 每個人做事都是為了獲取回報,而且是財務上的回報。 但是,我們在網路世界上看到的, 堪稱最神奇的現象,這些人在網路世界上一起合作, 卻分文不取。 他們所呈現的,是另一種截然不同的組織活動。
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.
耶魯法學教授友柴.班克勒在其論文「科斯的企鵝」中, 談到開放程式碼的架構,就像我們所熟知的Linux, 已經可以廣泛地被運用到各個層面。 若我們把這個與海嘯聯想起來, 我們所看到的就是一支由業餘記者所組成的大軍, 他們為我們報導了無數的新聞, 不求任何回報,只為向世人發聲。 這是個很棒的想法,也造成了很棒的現象, 為我們未來的各種組織活動 創造了各種有趣的可能性。
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.
我認為部落格文化教我們的第一件事, 是我們得去實踐任何我們覺得合理的想法, 並擴大解釋金錢就等於價值這個狹隘的想法, 也就是不要再以為每個人做事都是為獲取報酬, 我們其實可以集眾人之力創造出很棒的東西, 但並不一定要有金錢涉入其中。 當然有些部落客--或許有20個吧-- 可以靠部落格賺錢, 有些人還打算將經營部落格當成全職工作, 但絕大多數的部落客,都只是純為喜好才寫部落格, 或是為了獲取大家注意這一類的。 霍華德.萊因戈德針對這個現象寫了很多文章, 我覺得他寫得更為深入, 這種自願性質的合作, 真的很震撼人心,我們應該好好想一想。
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.
第二個問題,部落格能幫助我們 達到「群體智慧」的境界嗎? 剛才克里斯有提到,我寫過一本書,名為「群眾的智慧」, 這本書的主題是, 在某些對的場合裡,群眾可以展露出了不起的智慧。 群眾集合起來的智慧, 甚至會比群眾裡最聰明的人還要聰明。 有一個很簡單的例子可以說明,如果你請一群人 猜猜某個糖果罐裡有多少糖果,他們可以回答得很精確。 如果我手上拿著那罐糖果, 我請各位猜猜裡面有多少糖果, 在座各位猜測的平均數,將會是最接近的答案, 誤差大概就只有那罐糖果 數量的3%到5%之間, 而且比在座90%到95%的人猜得都準。 在座各位可能有一或二位猜得很準, 但是大部分人所猜數量的平均數, 將會比這裡每個人所猜的數量來得準確。 更神奇的是,這種現象 在處理更為複雜的問題時,也同樣會發生。
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.
舉例來說,如果我們觀察賽馬勝出的機率, 群眾預測的準確度幾近完美。 在某方面來說,群眾所擅長的是 針對未來或然率的預測。 讓我們來想想Google, Google本質上就是在網路上,集合眾人之力, 找出在網路上最具價值的資訊。 我們知道Google在這一方面做得很棒, 但Google之所以有這番成就,是因為它集合了這群 看似沒有組織的網民,但其實他們自有規律, 也自有了不起的群體智慧。 我認為,這就是部落格文化的精髓之一。
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.
我們放了一本丹.吉爾摩所寫的 「群眾媒體」在你們的贈品袋內, 他在書中談到,雖然身為一個作家, 他還是不得不承認,他的讀者知道的比他更多。 這真是個令人震撼的想法,當然也震撼了 主流媒體,震撼了部落格的寫手們, 這些人花了許多時間貢獻他們的專長, 也花了很多精力經營部落格, 他們知道的確實比其他人都要多。 這股部落格文化告訴我們, 要獲取群眾的集體智慧其實是有可能的, 這些智慧就在那裡, 我們只需要找到方法來運用就可以了。 或許並不是每一篇部落格文章或評論 都是我們想要看的, 但是集合眾人所寫的文章、評論或連結, 卻可以為我們對外界事務產生一種 有趣又極有價值的獨特視野。 這是部落格文化正面積極的一面, 這一面向來被人稱之為 參與性報導或市民報導, 部落格讓原本不可能 站出來說話的人發出聲音, 也讓尚未被人發掘的資訊, 重新讓人看到它的存在。
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.
但部落格文化亦有其黑暗面, 我想用最後這幾分鐘來說明一下。 如果你花很長的時間在網路上, 無時無刻都在想著網路上的事情, 你很容易就會愛上網路。 一般人很容易就會迷上這種由下而上、 具有分權架構的網路世界, 大家都普遍認為網路就是個好東西, 可以從某地連結到另一個地方, 也可以和群眾緊密連結,這真是太棒了! 大部分的情況是這樣沒錯, 但網路仍有其缺點,甚至可以說是網路的陰暗面, 就是當我們愈和彼此緊密相連, 我們就愈不可能保持獨立。
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.
網路有一個最基本的特性, 一旦你連上網路, 網路就會影響你的看法, 影響你和其他人的互動。 網路就是這麼運作的。 網路不只是用幾個零件組成而已, 網路遠大於此。 史蒂芬.強生就曾說過,這是一種新崛起的現象。 網路可以帶來的好處是: 相互交換資訊可以變得更有效率; 讓你可以接觸到許多不同的人; 讓大家可以用非常有效的方式共同做一件事。 但是,群眾的智慧只有在 群體中的個人都是相互獨立的狀況下,才能彰顯出來, 這有點像是群眾智慧的盲點, 又或是集體智慧的盲點, 但只有在每個人都能獨立思考時,才能產生群眾智慧。 但網路會使人無法獨立思考, 因為大家都只關注網路上的重大事件。
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.
部落格文化會產生一種很明顯的現象, 一旦有人發出訊息、說出某個想法, 其他的人就會盲目地跟隨, 因為大家都只是把連結加上去而已。 一旦有人連結上去,其他人也排隊跟著連結下去。 這種現象, 這種跟隨現有連結的現象, 已成了現在部落格文化的特性, 尤其在某些政論部落格上特別明顯, 這種特性會讓人忘記部落格 原本那種由下而上、具有分權特性的智慧, 那種原本在正常情況下再清楚不過的智慧。
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.
我喜歡用繞圈圈的比喻來說明這種情況。 很多人上台談過螞蟻, 因為這本來就是要討論自然科學的研討會, 而當我們談由下而上的分權現象時, 想當然爾,蟻群就是最典型的例子, 因為沒有一隻螞蟻知道自己在做什麼, 但蟻群卻能完成了不起的任務, 他們永遠都知道如何讓蟻群維持高速前進狀態。 所以,蟻群是很棒的典範-- 聚沙成塔,眾志成城。 但有時螞蟻也會走錯方向, 如果螞蟻發現自己迷路了, 他們會做一件最簡單的事-- 緊跟在前面那隻螞蟻後面。 結果,整隊螞蟻繞成了一個圓圈, 最有名的例子是有一隊螞蟻繞成了一個周長360公尺的圈, 他們不停地繞行,一直繞行了二天, 直到大家都累死了為止。 那是我們應該小心避免的事, 我們要注意,不要跟著大家轉, 一直繞、一直繞,總有一天我們會累死。
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.
讓我們再回過頭來談這次海嘯, 讓我們來看看這次海嘯為我們帶來什麼偉大的事情-- 看看部落格文化對我們的影響, 而不是只關注海嘯對我們造成的傷害-- 這次的海嘯讓我們看到真正的由下而上堆積出來的成果: 那些以前從沒聽說過的網站,現在累積出了巨大的流量; 人們開始能夠以前所未來的獨立見解 發表文章; 我們確實在這中間看到了網路的集體智慧。 這些都是部落格文化的光明面,繞圈圈則是其陰暗面, 我們應該多朝光明面努力。
Thank you very much. (Applause)
謝謝!