Charles Van Doren, who was later a senior editor of Britannica, said the ideal encyclopedia should be radical -- it should stop being safe. But if you know anything about the history of Britannica since 1962, it was anything but radical: still a very completely safe, stodgy type of encyclopedia. Wikipedia, on the other hand, begins with a very radical idea, and that's for all of us to imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
1962. Charles van Doren, kasnije urednik Britannice, rekao je da savršena enciklopedija mora biti radikalna - ne smije više biti sigurna. Ali ako znate išta o povijesti Britannice od 1962., znat ćete da je bila sve osim radikalne: još uvijek savršeno sigurna, glomazna enciklopedija. S druge strane, Wikipedija počinje vrlo radikalnom idejom da svatko od nas zamisli svijet u kojem svaka osoba na planetu ima slobodan pristup cjelokupnom ljudskom znanju.
And that's what we're doing. So Wikipedia -- you just saw the little demonstration of it -- it's a freely licensed encyclopedia. It's written by thousands of volunteers all over the world in many, many languages. It's written using wiki software -- which is the type of software he just demonstrated -- so anyone can quickly edit and save, and it goes live on the Internet immediately. And everything about Wikipedia is managed by virtually an all-volunteer staff. So when Yochai is talking about new methods of organization, he's exactly describing Wikipedia. And what I'm going to do today is tell you a little bit more about how it really works on the inside.
I to je ono što radimo. Dakle, Wikipedija, čiji ste prikaz upravo vidjeli, je slobodno dostupna enciklopedija. Autori su joj tisuće ljudi širom svijeta na mnogo, mnogo jezika. Piše se pomoću softvera Wiki, koji je maloprije prikazan, tako da bilo tko može nabrzinu urediti i spremiti te se istog trenutka objavljuje na Internetu. Wikipedijom, i svime što ima veze s njom, upravlja u potpunosti volonterski tim. Kad je Yochai pričao o novim metodama organizacije, opisivao je upravo Wikipediju. Ono o čemu ću vam ja danas govoriti
So Wikipedia's owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which I founded, a nonprofit organization. And our goal, the core aim of the Wikimedia Foundation, is to get a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. And so, if you think about what that means, it means a lot more than just building a cool website. We're really interested in all the issues of the digital divide, poverty worldwide, empowering people everywhere to have the information that they need to make good decisions. And so we're going to have to do a lot of work that goes beyond just the Internet. And so that's a big part of why we've chosen the free licensing model, because that empowers local entrepreneurs or anyone who wants to -- they can take our content and do anything they like with it -- you can copy it, redistribute it -- and you can do it commercially or non-commercially.
bit će kako ona zaista funkcionira iznutra. Vlasnik Wikipedije je Zaklada Wikimedia, neproftina udruga koju sam ja osnovao. Glavni cilj Zaklade je svaku osobu na planetu opskrbiti besplatnom enciklopedijom. Ako razmislite što točno to znači, znači mnogo više od pravljenja zanimljive web stranice. Zaista nas zanimaju svi problemi digitalnog raskola, siromaštvo u svijetu, omogućavanje da svi ljudi imaju sve informacije koje su im potrebne kako bi mogli donositi valjane odluke. Stoga ćemo imati puno posla, i to ne samo što se tiče interneta. To je jedan od glavnih razloga zašto smo odabrali model besplatnog licenciranja, jer on daje pravo lokalnim poduzetnicima, ili bilo kome tko želi, da koristi naše sadržaje i s njim radi što god želi - možete ga kopirati, slati dalje i to možete raditi bilo komercijalno bilo nekomercijalno.
So there's a lot of opportunities that are going to arise around Wikipedia all over the world. We're funded by donations from the public, and one of the more interesting things about that is how little money it actually takes to run Wikipedia. So Yochai showed you the graph of what the cost of a printing press was. And I'm going to tell you what the cost of Wikipedia is. But first, I'll show you how big it is. So we've got over 600,000 articles in English. We've got two million total articles across many, many different languages. The biggest languages are German, Japanese, French -- all the Western-European languages are quite big. But only around one-third of all of our traffic to our web clusters to the English Wikipedia, which is surprising to a lot of people. A lot of people think in a very English-centric way on the Internet, but for us, we're truly global. We're in many, many languages. How popular we've gotten to be -- we're a top-50 website and we're more popular than the New York Times. So this is where we get to Yochai's discussion.
Znači da bi širom svijeta moglo osvanuti mnogo prilika zahvaljujući Wikipediji. Financiramo se pomoću donacija javnosti, a ono što je zanimljivo u vezi s tim je koliko malo novca je potrebno da bi Wikipedija funkcionirala. Yochai vam je pokazao dijagram koliko je prije koštala tiskarska preša. A ja ću vam reći koliko košta Wikipedija. Ali prvo ću vam pokazati koliko je velika. Imamo preko 600 tisuća članaka na engleskom. Ukupno imamo preko dva milijuna članaka na mnogo, mnogo različitih jezika. Najveći jezici su njemački, japanski, francuski - svi ostali jezici zapadne Europe također su dosta zastupljeni. Međutim, samo trećina našeg ukupnog prometa na internetu odnosi se na englesku Wikipediju, što je iznenađenje mnogima. Mnogo ljudi ima anglocentrički pogled na internet, ali iz naše perspektive, mi smo uistinu globalni. Pojavljujemo se na mnogo, mnogo jezika. Koliko smo popularni - među 50 smo najposjećenijih web stranica i popularniji smo od New York Timesa. Ovdje dolazimo do Yochaijevog izlaganja.
This shows the growth of Wikipedia -- we're the blue line there -- and this is the New York Times over there. And what's interesting about this is the New York Times website is a huge, enormous corporate operation with I have no idea how many hundreds of employees. We have exactly one employee, and that employee is our lead software developer. And he's only been our employee since January 2005, all the other growth before that ... So the servers are managed by a ragtag band of volunteers. All the editing is done by volunteers. And the way that we're organized is not like any traditional organization you can imagine. People are always asking, "Well, who's in charge of this?" or "Who does that?" And the answer is: anybody who wants to pitch in. It's a very unusual and chaotic thing. We've got over 90 servers now in three locations. These are managed by volunteer system administrators who are online. I can go online any time of the day or night and see eight to 10 people waiting for me to ask a question or something, anything about the servers. You could never afford to do this in a company. You could never afford to have a standby crew of people 24 hours a day and do what we're doing at Wikipedia.
Ovaj dijagram prikazuje Wikipedijin rast, mi smo ova plava crta, a ono ondje je New York Times. Ono što je zanimljivo je da je stranica New York Timesa ogromna korporativna djelatnost s ne znam koliko stotina zaposlenih. Mi imamo točno jednog zaposlenika. To je naš glavni softverski programer. A zaposlili smo ga tek u siječnju 2005. Sav se porast odnosi na razdoblje prije toga. Dakle, svim serverima upravlja ekipa raznovrsnih volontera. Svo uređivanje također obavljaju volonteri. Način na koji smo organizirani ne možete naći ni u jednoj tradicionalnoj organizaciji. Ljudi uvijek pitaju: - Tko je na čelu ovoga? Ili: - Tko je zadužen za ovo? I odgovor je: bilo tko tko želi dati svoj doprinos. Vrlo neobična i kaotična situacija. Imamo preko 90 servera na tri lokacije. Njima putem interneta upravljaju administratori-volonteri. Ja se mogu spojiti u bilo koje doba dana i noći i tamo ću naći 8-10 ljudi koji već čekaju da mi postave pitanje ili bilo što vezano uz servere. Takvo nešto si nikako ne možete priuštiti u kompaniji. Ne možete si priuštiti da imate hrpu ljudi koji su u stanju pripravnosti 24 sata dnevno i koji rade ono što radimo mi u Wikipediji.
So we're doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly, so it's really gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers. And the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about 5,000 dollars. And that's essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee. We hired Brian because he was working part-time for two years and full-time at Wikipedia, so we actually hired him, so he could get a life and go to the movies sometimes. So the big question when you've got this really chaotic organization is, why isn't it all rubbish? Why is the website as good as it is?
Naše stranice imaju oko 1,4 milijuna pogleda mjesečno. Dakle, napravili smo nešto veliko. A svim time upravljaju volonteri. Ukupan trošak naše širokopojasne veze je oko 5 000 dolara mjesečno. I to je u biti naš jedini trošak. I bez ovog jednog zaposlenika bismo mogli. Briana smo zaposlili zato što je dvije godine radio u Wikipediji, što honorarno, što na puno radno vrijeme, pa smo ga zaposlili kako bi si našao život i mogao otići u kino s vremena na vrijeme. Kad imate ovako kaotičnu organizaciju, glavno pitanje je zašto sve to nije smeće? Zašto je stranica tako dobra kao što je?
First of all, how good is it? Well, it's pretty good. It isn't perfect, but it's much better than you would expect, given our completely chaotic model. So when you saw him make a ridiculous edit to the page about me, you think, "Oh, this is obviously just going to degenerate into rubbish." But when we've seen quality tests -- and there haven't been enough of these yet and I'm really encouraging people to do more, comparing Wikipedia to traditional things -- we win hands down.
Kao prvo, koliko je zapravo dobra? Pa, dosta je dobra. Nije savršena, ali je mnogo bolja nego što biste očekivali s obzirom na naš potpuno kaotičan model upravljanja. Kad ste vidjeli njega kako je napisao neku glupost o meni, pomislili ste da će to vjerojatno s vremenom postati smeće. Ali kad smo vidjeli testove kvalitete, kojih još uvijek nije bilo dovoljno, i potičem ljude da ih prave što više, u usporedbi s tradicionalnim izvorima, Wikipedija s lakoćom pobjeđuje.
So a German magazine compared German Wikipedia, which is much, much smaller than English, to Microsoft Encarta and to Brockhaus multimedial, and we won across the board. They hired experts to come and look at articles and compare the quality, and we were very pleased with that result.
Jedan njemački časopis usporedio je njemačku Wikipediju, koja je mnogo manja od engleske, s Microsoftovom Encartom i s Brockhaus Multimediom i u svim smo pogledima pobijedili. Unajmili su stručnjake koji su pogledali članke i usporedili njihovu kvalitetu i bili smo jako zadovoljni tim rezultatom.
So a lot of people have heard about the Wikipedia Bush-Kerry controversy. The media has covered this somewhat extensively. It started out with an article in Red Herring. The reporters called me up and they -- I mean, I have to say they spelled my name right, but they really wanted to say the Bush-Kerry election is so contentious, it's tearing apart the Wikipedia community. And so they quote me as saying, "They're the most contentious in the history of Wikipedia." What I actually said is they're not contentious at all. So it's a slight misquote.
Mnogo je ljudi čulo za Wikipedijinu polemiku Bush-Kerry. Mediji su to dosta opsežno pratili. Sve je počelo člankom u časopisu Red Herring. Novinari su me nazvali i - moram reći, ime su mi dobro napisali - ali ono što su stvarno htjeli reći je da su izbori između Busha i Kerryja toliko sporni da unose razdor u Wikipedijinu zajednicu. I onda napišu da sam ja rekao da su "najsporniji u povijesti Wikipedije." Ono što sam ja ustvari rekao je da uopće nisu sporni. Zanemariva greška u citatu. (Smijeh)
(Laughter)
The articles were edited quite heavily. And it is true that we did have to lock the articles on a couple of occasions. Time magazine recently reported that "Extreme action sometimes has to be taken, and Wales locked the entries on Kerry and Bush for most of 2004." This came after I told the reporter that we had to lock it for -- occasionally a little bit here and there. So the truth in general is that the kinds of controversies that you would probably think we have within the Wikipedia community are not really controversies at all.
Članci su intenzivno uređivani. I istina je da smo nekoliko puta morali zaključati članke. Časopis Time je nedavno napisao da se "ponekad moraju donijeti izuzetne mjere, te da je Wales zaključao unose za Kerryja i Busha kroz veći dio 2004." Ovo je napisano nakon što sam rekao novinaru da smo povremeno tu i tamo koji članak morali zaključati. Istina je da ovakve vrste polemika, za koje biste pomislili da ih imamo u Wikipedijinoj zajednici, zapravo i nisu polemike.
Articles on controversial topics are edited a lot, but they don't cause much controversy within the community. And the reason for this is that most people understand the need for neutrality. The real struggle is not between the right and the left -- that's where most people assume -- but it's between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks. And no side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on either of those qualities. The actual truth about the specific Bush-Kerry incident is that the Bush-Kerry articles were locked less than one percent of the time in 2004, and it wasn't because they were contentious; it was just because there was routine vandalism -- which happens sometimes even on stage ...
Često uređujemo članke o kontroverznim temama, ali sami članci ne izazivaju mnogo polemike unutar zajednice. Razlog tome je što većina ljudi razumije potrebu da se ostane neutralan. Prava borba nije između ljevice i desnice, kao što većina ljudi pretpostavlja, već između stranke promišljenih i stranke budala. I niti jedna strana političkog spektra nema monopol na bilo koju od tih osobina. Prava istina o tom incidentu Bush-Kerry je da su članci o Bushu i Kerryju bili zaključani manje od jedan posto vremena tijekom 2004., i to ne zato što su bili sporni, već jednostavno zato što je dolazilo do uobičajenog vandalizma, do kojeg nekad dolazi čak i na pozornici.
(Laughter)
Ljudi, čak i novinari, su mi rekli da vandaliziraju Wikipediju
Sometimes even reporters have reported to me that they vandalized Wikipedia and were amazed that it was fixed so quickly. And I said -- you know, I always say, please don't do that. That's not a good thing. So how do we do this? How do we manage the quality control? How does it work?
i da ih iznenađuje kako brzo se to popravi. A ja im uvijek kažem: - Molim vas, nemojte to raditi; to nije dobro. Kako onda to radimo? Kako uspijevamo kontrolirati kvalitetu? Kako to funkcionira?
So there's a few elements, mostly social policies and some elements of the software. So the biggest and the most important thing is our neutral point of view policy. This is something that I set down, from the very beginning, as a core principle of the community that's completely not debatable. It's a social concept of cooperation, so we don't talk a lot about truth and objectivity. The reason for this is if we say we're only going to write the "truth" about some topic, that doesn't do us a damn bit of good of figuring out what to write, because I don't agree with you about what's the truth. But we have this jargon term of neutrality, which has its own long history within the community, which basically says, any time there's a controversial issue, Wikipedia itself should not take a stand on the issue. We should merely report on what reputable parties have said about it. So this neutrality policy is really important for us because it empowers a community that is very diverse to come together and actually get some work done.
Postoji nekoliko elemenata, uglavnom su to društvene norme i poneki dijelovi softvera. Najveći i najvažniji element je naša politka neutralnog gledišta. Nju sam ja odredio već na samom početku kao ključni princip zajednice o kojem uopće nema diskusije. Radi se o društvenoj ideji suradnje, tako da nema puno govora o istini i objektivnosti. Razlog tome je da ako kažemo da ćemo pisati samo "istinu" o nekoj temi, to nam neće mnogo pomoći da dokučimo o čemu ćemo pisati jer se ja ne slažem s vama o tome što je istina. Međutim, koristimo taj termin neutralnost, koji ima dugu povijest unutar zajednice i koji kaže da svaki put kad je riječ o nekoj kontroverznoj temi, Wikipedija neće stati ni na jednu stranu u toj polemici. Samo ćemo izvijestiti što je svaka strana imala za reći o tom pitanju. Ta nam je politika neutralnosti vrlo važna jer omogućava zajednici, koja je sama po sebi vrlo raznolika, da se ujedini i nešto uspješno obavi.
So we have very diverse contributors in terms of political, religious, cultural backgrounds. By having this firm neutrality policy, which is non-negotiable from the beginning, we ensure that people can work together and that the entries don't become simply a war back and forth between the left and the right. If you engage in that type of behavior, you'll be asked to leave the community.
Autori naših članaka su vrlo raznoliki što se tiče njihovih političkih, vjerskih i kulturoloških temelja. Zahvaljujući toj politici neutralnosti, o kojoj nema pregovora od samog početka, omogućavamo ljudima da mogu raditi zajedno i da tekstovi ne postanu ratna zona između ljevice i desnice Ako se upustite u takvu vrstu ophođenja, od vas će se zatražiti da napustite zajednicu.
So, real-time peer review. Every single change on the site goes to the "Recent changes" page. So as soon as he made his change, it went to the "Recent changes" page. That recent changes page was also fed into an IRC channel, which is an Internet chat channel that people are monitoring with various software tools. And people can get RSS feeds -- they can get email notifications of changes. And then users can set up their own personal watch list. So my page is on quite a few volunteers' watch lists, because it is sometimes vandalized. And therefore, what happens is someone will notice the change very quickly, and then they'll just simply revert the change.
Dakle, recenzija u realnom vremenu. Svaka promjena na stranici odlazi na stranicu s nedavnim promjenama. Čim je on napravio onu promjenu, ona je otišla na tu stranicu. Ta se stranica učitava u IRC kanal. To je internetski chat kanal koji posjetitelji mogu pratiti pomoću raznih softverskih alata. Korisnici također mogu dobiti RSS izvore, mogu dobiti obavijesti o promjenama putem e-maila i tako mogu postaviti vlastitu listu za praćenje. Moja stranica je na listama za praćenje nekoliko volontera budući da je se ponekad vandalizira. Ono što će se dogoditi je da će netko brzo primijetiti promjenu i onda će je samo poništiti.
There's a "new pages feed," for example, so you can go to a certain page of Wikipedia and see every new page as it's created. This is really important because a lot of new pages are just garbage that has to be deleted, you know, "ASDFASDF." But also, that's some of the most interesting and fun things, some of the new articles. People will start an article on some interesting topic, other people will find that intriguing and jump in and help and make it much better.
Postoji alat za praćenje novih stranica. Možete otići na određenu stranicu i vidjeti svaku novu stranicu čim bude stvorena. Ovo je vrlo važno jer je mnogo novostvorenih stranica smeće koje se mora obrisati što je prije moguće. Ali neke od najzanimljivijih i zabavnih stvari na Wikipediji su upravo ti novi članci. Netko započne članak o nekoj zanimljivoj temi, netko drugi to smatra zanimljivim, i onda ta osoba uskoči i učini ga mnogo boljim.
So we do have edits by anonymous users, which is one of the most controversial and intriguing things about Wikipedia. So, Chris was able to do his change -- he didn't have to log in or anything; he just went on the website and made a change. But it turns out that only about 18 percent of all the edits to the website are done by anonymous users. And that's a really important thing to understand: the vast majority of the edits that go on on the website are from a very close-knit community of maybe 600 to 1,000 people who are in constant communication. And we have over 40 IRC channels, 40 mailing lists. All these people know each other. They communicate. We have off-line meetings.
Dakle, anonimni korisnici mogu mijenjati članke, što je jedna od najkontroverznijih i najzanimljivijih stvari na Wikipediji. Chris je mogao napraviti tu promjenu - nije se morao ulogirati ni ništa; jednostavno je otišao na stranicu i promijenio. Međutim, samo 18% svih izmjena na stranici prave anonimni korisnici. I to je jako bitno za razumjeti. Da većinu ispravaka stranica radi usko povezana zajednica u kojoj je možda 600 do 1 000 ljudi koji neprestano komuniciraju. Imamo preko 40 IRC kanala, 40 grupnih e-mail lista. Svi se ti ljudi poznaju. Svi oni komuniciraju. Imamo i sastanke offline.
These are the people who are doing the bulk of the site, and they are, in a sense, semi-professionals at what they're doing. The standards we set for ourselves are equal to or higher than professional standards of quality. We don't always meet those standards, but that's what we're striving for.
Ti ljudi odrađuju većinu posla na stranici i oni su, na neki način, poluprofesionalci u onome što rade. Standardi koje smo postavili sami sebi su jednaki ili viši nego standardi kvalitete u struci. Ne ispunjavamo uvijek te standarde, ali tome težimo.
And so that tight community is who really cares for the site, and these are some of the smartest people I've ever met. It's my job to say that, but it's actually true. The type of people who were drawn to writing an encyclopedia for fun tend to be pretty smart people.
Članovi te uske zajednice su oni koji zapravo brinu o stranici, a to su neke od najpametnijih osoba koje sam ikada sreo. Naravno, posao mi je da to kažem, ali je stvarno istina. Tip ljudi koje privlači ideja pisanja enciklopedija za zabavu su obično dosta pametni ljudi. (Smijeh)
The tools and the software: there's lots of tools that allow us -- allow us, meaning the community -- to self-monitor and to monitor all the work. This is an example of a page history on "flat Earth," and you can see some changes that were made. What's nice about this page is you can immediately take a look at this and see, "OK, I understand now." When somebody goes and looks at -- they see that someone, an anonymous IP number, made an edit to my page. That sounds suspicious. Who is this person? Somebody looks at it -- they can immediately see highlighted in red all of the changes that took place -- to see, OK, well, these words have changed, things like this. So that's one tool that we can use to very quickly monitor the history of a page.
Alati i softver: ima mnogo alata koji nam omogućavaju, nama kao zajednici, da nadziremo sami sebe i cjelokupan rad. Ovo je primjer povijesti stranice na temu "ravne Zemlje" i ovdje možete vidjeti promjene koje su unesene. Ono što je dobro na ovoj stranici je što kad vidite ovakvo nešto, možete reći: - U redu, sad razumijem. Kad netko dođe i vidi da je netko, neki anonimni IP broj, izmijenio moju stranicu, to zvuči sumnjivo. Tko je ta osoba? Ako pogledate ovdje, sve unesene promjene su označene crveno i možete vidjeti koje su riječi promijenjene itd. To je jedan od alata koji možemo koristiti kako bismo nadzirali povijest stranice.
Another thing that we do within the community is we leave everything very open-ended. Most of the social rules and the methods of work are left completely open-ended in the software. All of that stuff is just on Wiki pages. And so there's nothing in the software that enforces the rules. The example I've got up here is the Votes for Deletion page. So, I mentioned earlier, people type "ASDFASDF" -- it needs to be deleted. Cases like that, the administrators just delete it. There's no reason to have a big argument about it. But you can imagine there's a lot of other areas where the question is, is this notable enough to go in an encyclopedia? Is the information verifiable? Is it a hoax? Is it true? Is it what? So we needed a social method for figuring out the answer to this. And so the method that arose organically within the community is the Votes For Deletion page. And in the particular example we have here, it's a film, "Twisted Issues," and the first person says, "Now this is supposedly a film. It fails the Google test miserably." The Google test is you look in Google and see if it's there, because if something's not even in Google, it probably doesn't exist at all. It's not a perfect rule, but it's a nice starting point for quick research. So somebody says, "Delete it, please. Delete it -- it's not notable." And then somebody says, "Wait, I found it. I found it in a book, 'Film Threat Video Guide: the 20 Underground Films You Must See.'" So the next persons says, "Clean it up." Somebody says, "I've found it on IMDB. Keep, keep, keep."
Još jedna stvar koju radimo unutar zajednice je to da sve ostavljamo otvoreno. Većina društvenih pravila i metoda rada ostaje potpuno otvorena u softveru. Sve se to nalazi samo na Wiki stranicama. U softveru nema ništa što bi nalagalo neka pravila. Primjer koji sam naveo je stranica Votes for Deletion (Glas za brisanje). Kao što sam već rekao, netko će napisati svakakve gluposti i to se treba obrisati. U ovakvim slučajevima, administratori to jednostavno obrišu. Nema potrebe za nekom velikom raspravom. Ali možete zamisliti mnogo situacija gdje se pitate je li ovo dovoljno bitno da uđe u enciklopediju? Mogu li se podaci provjeriti? Jesu li lažni? Jesu li istiniti? Znače li išta? Zato smo trebali društvenu metodu kako bismo otkrili odgovor na to pitanje. Metoda koja je nastala sama od sebe unutar zajednice je ova stranica Glas za brisanje. I u ovom konkretnom primjeru imamo film Twisted Issues (Uvrnuta pitanja). Prva osoba kaže: - Ovo je navodno film. Pao je na Google testu. Google test znači da upišete nešto u Google i provjerite je li tamo. Jer ako nečega nema na Googleu, vjerojatno uopće ne postoji. Nije savršeno pravilo, ali je dobar početak za daljnje istraživanje. I netko kaže: - Obriši ovo, molim te. Obriši, nebitno je. I onda netko drugi kaže: - Čekaj, našao sam ga u nekoj knjizi "Vodič kroz filmske prijetnje: 20 underground filmova koje morate vidjeti." U redu. Onda druga osoba kaže: - Počisti to. Netko drugi kaže: - Našao sam na IMDB-u. Zadrži, zadrži. Zanimljiva stvar kod ovog softvera je -
And what's interesting about this is that the software is -- these votes are just text typed into a page. This is not really a vote so much as it is a dialogue. Now it is true that at the end of the day, an administrator can go through here and take a look at this and say, "OK, 18 deletes, two keeps: we'll delete it." But in other cases, this could be 18 deletes and two keeps, and we would keep it, because if those last two keeps say, "Wait a minute. Nobody else saw this but I found it in a book, and I found a link to a page that describes it, and I'm going to clean it up tomorrow, so please don't delete it," then it would survive.
- ovi su glasovi samo tekst upisan na stranicu. Više je razgovor nego što je glasovanje. Naravno, na kraju cijele priče administrator može proći stranicom i reći: - U redu, 18 glasova za brisanje i 2 za ostavljanje: brišemo. Ali u drugim slučajevima ovo je moglo biti 18 glasova "briši" i 2 "ostavi", ali bismo ga ostavili. Jer ako zadnje dvoje kaže: - Čekajte. Nitko drugi ovo nije vidio, ali ovo sam našao u knjizi i našao sam link na stranicu koja to opisuje i sutra ću to počistiti. Molim vas, nemojte obrisati. U tom će slučaju preživjeti.
And it also matters who the people are who are voting. Like I say, it's a tight-knit community. Down here at the bottom, "Keep, real movie," RickK. RickK is a very famous Wikipedian who does an enormous amount of work with vandalism, hoaxes and votes for deletion. His voice carries a lot of weight within the community because he knows what he's doing. So how is all this governed? People really want to know about administrators, things like that. So the Wikipedia governance model, the governance of the community, is a very confusing, but workable mix of consensus -- meaning we try not to vote on the content of articles, because the majority view is not necessarily neutral -- some amount of democracy -- all of the administrators -- these are the people who have the ability to delete pages. That doesn't mean that they have the right to delete pages. They still have to follow all the rules -- but they're elected by the community.
Također je bitno tko su ti ljudi koji glasuju. Kao što sam rekao, usko povezana zajednica. Dolje na dnu imate: - Ostavi, film postoji. Rick Kay Rick Kay je poznati Wikipedijin autor koji radi ogroman posao po pitanju vandalizma, prevara i glasa za brisanje. Njegov glas ima veliku težinu unutar zajednice zato što on zna što radi. Kako se ovim svime upravlja? Ljudi stvarno žele znati o administratorima i takvim stvarima. Wikipedijin model upravljanja, upravljanja zajednicom, je vrlo zbunjujuća, ali efikasna mješavina dogovora. To znači da ne glasamo o sadržaju članaka zato što stajalište većine nije nužno i neutralno stajalište. Postoji jedna razina demokracije. Svi administratori su u mogućnosti brisati stranice, ali to ne znači da imaju pravo brisati stranice. Još uvijek moraju slijediti sva pravila. Ali oni su izabrani, biraju ih članovi zajednice.
Sometimes people -- random trolls on the Internet -- like to accuse me of handpicking the administrators to bias the content of the encyclopedia. I always laugh at this, because I have no idea how they're elected, actually. There's a certain amount of aristocracy. You got a hint of that when I mentioned, like, RickK's voice would carry a lot more weight than someone we don't know.
Ponekad me ljudi, uljezi na internetu optužuju da ručno biram administratore kako bih utjecao na sadržaj enciklopedije. Uvijek se nasmijem na ovo jer iskreno nemam pojma kako se oni biraju. Postoji određena razina aristokracije. Spomenuo sam maloprije da će glas Ricka Kaya imati veću težinu nego glas nekoga koga ne znamo.
I give this talk sometimes with Angela, who was just re-elected to the board from the community -- to the Board of the Foundation, with more than twice the votes of the person who didn't make it. And I always embarrass her because I say, "Well, Angela, for example, could get away with doing absolutely anything within Wikipedia, because she's so admired and so powerful." But the irony is, of course, that Angela can do this because she's the one person who you know would never, ever break any rules of Wikipedia. And I also like to say she's the only person who actually knows all the rules of Wikipedia, so ... And then there's monarchy, and that's my role on the community, so ...
Ponekad ovo izlaganje držim zajedno s Angelom, koju je zajednica upravo ponovno izabrala u odbor Zaklade. Dobila je dvostruko više glasova nego osoba koja nije ušla. Uvijek je osramotim kad kažem da Angela, primjerice, može raditi što god poželi na Wikipediji zato što je toliko cijenjena i moćna. Ali ironija je u tome što Angela može napraviti nešto takvo zato što je ona takva osoba koja ama baš nikada ne bi prekršila niti jedno pravilo Wikipedije. Također želim reći da je ona jedina osoba koja zapravo zna sva pravila Wikipedije. Onda imamo monarhiju. To je moja uloga u zajednici.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh.)
I was describing this in Berlin once, and the next day in the newspaper the headline said, "I am the Queen of England."
Opisivao sam ovo jednom u Berlinu i sljedeći dan u novinama je izašao naslov "Ja sam engleska kraljica."
(Laughter)
And that's not exactly what I said, but --
Nisam rekao točno to, ali ... (Smijeh)
(Laughter)
the point is my role in the community -- Within the free software world, there's been a long-standing tradition of the "benevolent dictator" model. So if you look at most of the major free software projects, they have one single person in charge who everyone agrees is the benevolent dictator. Well, I don't like the term "benevolent dictator," and I don't think that it's my job or my role in the world of ideas to be the dictator of the future of all human knowledge compiled by the world. It just isn't appropriate. But there is a need still for a certain amount of monarchy, a certain amount of -- sometimes we have to make a decision and we don't want to get bogged down too heavily in formal decision-making processes.
Uglavnom, moja uloga u zajednici - u svijetu besplatnog softvera već dugo vremena postoji tradicija modela "dobronamjernog diktatora". Ako pogledate većinu velikih projekata besplatnih softvera, svi oni imaju jednu osobu na čelu za koju se svi slažu da je dobronamjerni diktator. Ja ne volim taj izraz i ne mislim da je moja zadaća i moj posao u svijetu ideja biti diktatorom budućnosti svega znanja koje je čovječanstvo nakupilo. Jednostavno nije prikladno. Ali potrebna je jedna razina monarhije. Ponekad trebamo donijeti odluku, a ne želimo previše zaglibiti u formalne procese odlučivanja.
So as an example of how this can be important: we recently had a situation where a neo-Nazi website discovered Wikipedia, and they said, "Oh, well, this is horrible, this Jewish conspiracy of a website, and we're going to get certain articles deleted that we don't like. And we see they have a voting process, so we're going to send -- we have 40,000 members and we're going to send them over and they're all going to vote and get these pages deleted." Well, they managed to get 18 people to show up. That's neo-Nazi math for you. They always think they've got 40,000 members when they've got 18. But they managed to get 18 people to come and vote in a fairly absurd way to delete a perfectly valid article. Of course, the vote ended up being about 85 to 18, so there was no real danger to our democratic processes. On the other hand, people said, "But what are we going to do? I mean, this could happen. What if some group gets really seriously organized and comes in and wants to vote?" Then I said, "Well, fuck it, we'll just change the rules." That's my job in the community: to say we won't allow our openness and freedom to undermine the quality of the content. And so, as long as people trust me in my role, then that's a valid place for me. Of course, because of the free licensing, if I do a bad job, the volunteers are more than happy to take and leave -- I can't tell anyone what to do.
Primjer zašto je ovo bilo, ili zašto može biti važno - nedavno smo imali situaciju da je jedna neonacistička stranica otkrila Wikipediju i rekli su: - Ovo je grozno, ova stranica je židovska urota; neke članke koji nam se ne sviđaju ćemo obrisati. Vidimo da imaju proces glasovanja pa ćemo poslati - imamo 40 000 članova i sve ćemo ih poslati tamo i svi će glasovati i obrisat ćemo sve te stranice. Na kraju su uspjeli dovesti 18 osoba. To vam je neonacistička matematika. Uvijek misle da imaju 40 000 članova, a imaju ih 18. Ali uspjeli su dovesti 18 osoba koji su prilično apsurdno glasovali za brisanje jednog potpuno ispravnog članka. Naravno, rezultat glasovanja bio je nekih 85 naprama 18. Znači da nije bilo prave prijetnje našem demokratskom procesu. S druge strane, ljudi su se pitali, - Što ćemo sada? Ovo se može dogoditi ponovno. Što ako se neka skupina ozbiljno organizira i dođe i želi glasovati? Onda sam ja rekao: - J*** ga, promijenit ćemo pravila. Moj je posao u zajednici reći da nećemo dopustiti da naša sloboda i otvorenost naruše kvalitetu sadržaja. Sve dok ljudi vjeruju meni u mojoj ulozi, to je tamo gdje trebam biti. Naravno, zbog slobodnog licenciranja, ako ja napravim nešto loše, volonteri se mogu pokupiti i otići. Ja ne mogu nikome naređivati što će raditi.
So the final point here is that to understand how Wikipedia works, it's important to understand that our wiki model is the way we work, but we are not fanatical web anarchists. In fact, we're very flexible about the social methodology, because ultimately, the passion of the community is for the quality of the work, not necessarily for the process that we use to generate it.
Na kraju, kako biste razumjeli kako Wikipedija radi, važno je razumjeti da je naš Wiki model način na koji radimo, ali da nismo fanatični web anarhisti. Naprotiv, vrlo smo fleksibilni što se tiče društvene metodologije jer na kraju krajeva, zajednica pokazuje strast prema kvalitetno obavljenom poslu, a ne nužno prema procesu kojim se do njega došlo.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Ben Saunders: Yeah, hi, Ben Saunders. Jimmy, you mentioned impartiality being a key to Wikipedia's success. It strikes me that much of the textbooks that are used to educate our children are inherently biased. Have you found Wikipedia being used by teachers and how do you see Wikipedia changing education?
Pozdrav, ja sam Ben Saunders. Jimmy, spomenuo si nepristranost kao ključnu odliku uspjeha Wikipedije. Iznenađuje me što je mnogo udžbenika koje koriste naša djeca zapravo pristrano. Jesi li primijetio da se Wikipedijom koriste nastavnici i možeš li zamisliti da će Wikipedija izmijeniti obrazovanje?
Jimmy Wales: Yeah, so, a lot of teachers are beginning to use Wikipedia. There's a media storyline about Wikipedia, which I think is false. It builds on the storyline of bloggers versus newspapers. And the storyline is, there's this crazy thing, Wikipedia, but academics hate it and teachers hate it. And that turns out to not be true. The last time I got an email from a journalist saying, "Why do academics hate Wikipedia?" I sent it from my Harvard email address because I was recently appointed a fellow there. And I said, "Well, they don't all hate it."
Jimmy Wales: Da, mnogo nastavnika počinje koristiti Wikipediju. Postoji priča u medijima o Wikipediji za koju mislim da je lažna. Nastavlja se na priču o sukobu između blogera i novina. A priča ide ovako: postoji neka glupost pod imenom Wikipedija koju mrze akademici i nastavnici. Međutim, to zapravo nije istina. Nedavno sam dobio e-mail od jednog novinara koji me upitao: - Zašto akademici mrze Wikipediju? Odgovorio sam mu s harvardske e-mail adrese, budući da sam nedavno zaposlen kao asistent tamo. Rekao sam mu: - Ne mrze je svi. (Smijeh)
(Laughter)
But I think there's going to be huge impacts. And we actually have a project that I'm personally really excited about, which is the Wikibooks project, which is an effort to create textbooks in all the languages. And that's a much bigger project. It's going to take 20 years or so to come to fruition.
Ali mislim da će imati ogroman utjecaj. Štoviše, radimo projekt zbog kojega sam veoma uzbuđen, projekt Wiki Books (Wiki knjige), kojemu je cilj stvoriti udžbenike na svim jezicima. I to je mnogo veći projekt. Trebat će oko 20 godina da ugleda svjetlo dana.
But part of that is to fulfill our mission of giving an encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. We don't mean we're going to Spam them with AOL-style CDs. We mean we're going to give them a tool that they can use. And for a lot of people in the world, if I give you an encyclopedia that's written at a university level, it doesn't do you any good without a whole host of literacy materials to build you up to the point where you can actually use it. The Wikibooks project is an effort to do that. And I think that we're going to see -- it may not even come from us; there's all kinds of innovation going on. But freely licensed textbooks are the next big thing in education.
Isto tako, kako bismo ispunili našu misiju da svakoj osobi na planetu damo enciklopediju, to ne znači da ćemo ih natrpati ogromnim CD-ovima. Znači da ćemo im dati alat koji će moći koristiti. I za većinu ljudi na svijetu, ako vam dam enciklopediju pisanu akademskim stilom, neće vam puno pomoći ako nemate pristup ostalom materijalu koji morate savladati kako biste ju mogli koristiti. Projektom Wiki knjiga pokušavamo upravo to. I mislim da ćemo primijetiti jednu pravu - možda čak i ne dođe od nas. Postoje raznorazne inovacije. Ali slobodno dostupni udžbenici su nova moda u obrazovanju.