Clay Shirky: Institutions vs. collaboration

Traducător: milena moraru Corector: Laszlo Kereszturi

How do groups get anything done? Right?

Cum duc grupurile ceva la bun sfarsit? Corect?

How do you organize a group of individuals

Cum organizezi un grup de persoane

so that the output of the group

astfel incat rezultatele grupului

is something coherent and of lasting value,

reprezinta ceva coerent si cu valoare durabila,

instead of just being chaos?

si nu doar haos?

And the economic framing of that problem

Si cadrul economic al acelei probleme

is called coordination costs.

este numit costuri de coordonare.

And a coordination cost is essentially all of the financial

Si un cost de coordonare reprezinta, in esenta, toate dificultatile financiare

or institutional difficulties in arranging group output.

si institutionale legate de aranjarea rezultatelor grupului.

And we've had a classic answer for coordination costs,

Si am avut un raspuns clasic pentru costurile de coordonare

which is, if you want to coordinate the work of a group of people,

care este ca daca vrei sa coordonezi munca unui grup de persoane,

you start an institution, right? You raise some resources.

creezi o institutie, corect? Aduni ceva resurse.

You found something. It can be private or public.

Finantezi ceva. Poate fi o entitate privata sau publica.

It can be for profit or not profit. It can be large or small.

Poate fi orientat pe profit sau non-profit. Poate fi mare sau mica.

But you get these resources together.

Dar aceste resurse sunt puse laolalta.

You found an institution, and you use the institution

Ai creat o institutie, si folosesti aceasta institutie

to coordinate the activities of the group.

pentru a coordona activitatile grupului.

More recently, because the cost of letting groups

Mai recent, deoarece costurile de a permite grupurilor

communicate with each other has fallen through the floor --

sa comunice cu celelalte au scazut dramatic--

and communication costs are one of the big

iar costurile de comunicare sunt unul dintre marile

inputs to coordination -- there has been a second answer,

input-uri la coordonare -- a fost dat un al doilea raspuns,

which is to put the cooperation into the infrastructure,

care este acela de a pune cooperarea in infrastructura,

to design systems that coordinate the output

de a crea sisteme care coordoneaza rezultatele

of the group as a by-product of the operating of the system,

unui grup ca un produs aditional al operarii sistemului

without regard to institutional models.

fara legatura cu modelele institutionale.

So, that's what I want to talk about today.

Despre acest subiect voi vorbi astazi.

I'm going to illustrate it with some fairly concrete examples,

Am sa ilustrez acest subiect cu cateva exemple destul de concrete,

but always pointing to the broader themes.

dar facand intotdeauna trimitere la teme mai largi.

So, I'm going to start by trying to answer a question

Deci voi incepe incercand sa raspund la intrebarea

that I know each of you will have asked yourself at some point or other,

pe care stiu ca fiecare dintre voi si-a pus-o la un moment sau altul

and which the Internet is purpose-built to answer,

si pentru care Internet-ul este creat sa raspunda,

which is, where can I get a picture of a roller-skating mermaid?

si anume, de unde pot obtine o fotografie a sirenei care se da cu rolele?

So, in New York City, on the first Saturday of every summer,

Deci, in New York, in prima sambata din fiecare vara,

Coney Island, our local, charmingly run-down amusement park,

Coney Island, parcul nostru local de distractii inepuizabile,

hosts the Mermaid Parade. It's an amateur parade;

gazduieste Parada Sirenelor. Este o parada a amatorilor,

people come from all over the city; people get all dressed up.

vin oameni din tot orasul, toti imbracati in costume.

Some people get less dressed up.

Altii mai putin.

Young and old, dancing in the streets.

Tineri si batrani, dansand pe strazi.

Colorful characters, and a good time is had by all.

Personaje colorate, si toti se distreaza.

And what I want to call your attention to is not the Mermaid Parade itself,

Si nu vreau sa va atrag atentia catre Parada Sirenelor in sine,

charming though it is, but rather to these photos.

oricat de fermecatoare ar fi, ci mai curand catre aceste fotografii.

I didn't take them. How did I get them?

Nu le-am facut eu. Cum le-am obtinut?

And the answer is: I got them from Flickr.

Raspunsul este: Le-am descarcat de pe Flickr.

Flickr is a photo-sharing service

Flickr este un serviciu de photo-sharing

that allows people to take photos, upload them,

care permite oamenilor sa faca fotografii, sa le incarce,

share them over the Web and so forth.

si sa le partajeze prin web si asa mai departe.

Recently, Flickr has added an additional function called tagging.

Recent, Flickr a adaugat o functie aditionala numita tagging (etichetare).

Tagging was pioneered by Delicious and Joshua Schachter.

Tagging a fost creat de catre Del.icio.us si Joshua Schachter.

Delicious is a social bookmarking service.

Del.icio.us este un serviciu de book-marking social.

Tagging is a cooperative infrastructure answer to classification.

Tagging este un raspuns de infrastructura cooperativa la clasificare.

Right? If I had given this talk last year,

Corect? Daca as fi tinut acest discurs anul trecut,

I couldn't do what I just did,

nu as fi putut face ceea ce am facut,

because I couldn't have found those photos.

fiindca nu as fi putut gasi aceste fotografii.

But instead of saying,

Dar in loc sa spun,

we need to hire a professional class of librarians

trebuie sa angajam bibliotecari profesionisti

to organize these photos once they're uploaded,

ca sa organizam aceste fotografii odata ce sunt incarcate,

Flickr simply turned over to the users

Flickr pur si simplu a dat utilizatorilor

the ability to characterize the photos.

capacitatea sa descrie fotografiile.

So, I was able to go in and draw down photos that had been tagged

Deci am putut sa merg si sa descarc fotografiile care aveau tag-ul

"Mermaid Parade." There were 3,100 photos taken by 118 photographers,

"Parada Sirenelor." Am gasit 3.100 fotografii facute de 118 fotografi,

all aggregated and then put under this nice, neat name,

toate puse laolalta sub acest nume frumos,

shown in reverse chronological order.

dispuse in ordine cronologica inversa.

And I was then able to go and retrieve them

Si am putut sa ma duc si sa le obtin

to give you that little slideshow.

pentru a va putea arata aceasta mica prezentare.

Now, what hard problem is being solved here?

Acum, ce problema dificila a fost rezolvata aici?

And it's -- in the most schematic possible view,

Si este in cel mai schematic mod posibil,

it's a coordination problem, right?

o problema de coordonare, corect?

There are a large number of people on the Internet,

Este un numar mare de persoane pe Internet,

a very small fraction of them have photos of the Mermaid Parade.

o mica parte a acestora au fotografii de la Parada Sirenelor.

How do we get those people together to contribute that work?

Cum punem laolalta aceste persoane pentru a contribui la aceasta munca?

The classic answer is to form an institution, right?

Raspunsul clasic este formarea unei institutii, corect?

To draw those people into some prearranged structure

Sa atragem aceste persoane intr-o structura pre-existenta

that has explicit goals.

care are scopuri explicite.

And I want to call your attention to

Si va atrag atentia

some of the side effects of going the institutional route.

la cateva dintre efectele colaterale ale alegerii caii institutionale.

First of all, when you form an institution,

In primul rand, cand formezi o institutie,

you take on a management problem, right?

ai deja o problema de management, corect?

No good just hiring employees,

Nu e destul sa angajezi personal.

you also have to hire other employees to manage those employees

Trebuie sa angajezi si persoane care sa ii conduca pe acesti angajati

and to enforce the goals of the institution and so forth.

si care sa indeplineasca scopurile acestei institutii si asa mai departe.

Secondly, you have to bring structure into place.

In al doilea rand, trebuie sa creezi o structura.

Right? You have to have economic structure.

Corect? Trebuie sa ai o structura economica.

You have to have legal structure.

Trebuie sa ai o structura juridica.

You have to have physical structure.

Trebuie sa ai o structura fizica.

And that creates additional costs.

Si asta creeaza costuri aditionale.

Third, forming an institution is inherently exclusionary.

In al treilea rand, formarea unei institutii este inerent exclusivista.

You notice we haven't got everybody who has a photo.

Observati ca nu-i avem pe toti cei care au o fotografie.

You can't hire everyone in a company, right?

Nu poti sa angajezi pe toti intr-o companie, corect?

You can't recruit everyone into a governmental organization.

Nu poti sa recrutezi pe toti intr-o organizatie guvernamentala.

You have to exclude some people.

Trebuie sa excluzi anumite persoane.

And fourth, as a result of that exclusion,

Si, in al patrulea rand, ca rezultat al excluderii,

you end up with a professional class. Look at the change here.

ai ca rezultat o clasa profesionala. Uitati-va aici la schimbare.

We've gone from people with photos to photographers.

Am trecut de la oameni cu fotografii la fotografi.

Right? We've created a professional class of photographers

Nu-i asa? Am creat o clasa profesionala de fotografi

whose goal is to go out and photograph the Mermaid Parade,

al carei scop este sa mearga si sa fotografieze Parada Sirenelor

or whatever else they're sent out to photograph.

sau orice altceva sunt trimisi sa fotografieze.

When you build cooperation into the infrastructure,

Cand construiesti cooperarea intr-o infrastructura,

which is the Flickr answer,

care este raspunsul Flickr,

you can leave the people where they are

poti sa lasi oamenii unde sunt

and you take the problem to the individuals, rather than

si dai problema persoanelor decat sa

moving the individuals to the problem.

muti indivizii catre problema.

You arrange the coordination in the group, and by doing that

Coordonarea este aranjata intr-un grup si facand asta

you get the same outcome, without the institutional difficulties.

ai acelasi rezultat fara dificultati de ordin institutional.

You lose the institutional imperative.

Imperativul institutional se pierde.

You lose the right to shape people's work when it's volunteer effort,

Pierzi dreptul de a influenta munca oamenilor cand efortul este voluntar,

but you also shed the institutional cost,

dar ai eliminat costul institutional,

which gives you greater flexibility.

care iti da mai multa flexibilitate.

What Flickr does is it replaces planning with coordination.

Flickr inlocuieste planificarea cu coordonarea.

And this is a general aspect of these cooperative systems.

Si acesta este un aspect general al sistemelor cooperative.

Right. You'll have experienced this in your life

Corect. Ati experimentat acest lucru in viata dumneavoastra

whenever you bought your first mobile phone,

cand ati cumparat primul telefon mobil,

and you stopped making plans.

si ati incetat sa mai faceti planuri.

You just said, "I'll call you when I get there."

Ati spus doar, te sun cand ajung.

"Call me when you get off work." Right?

Suna-ma cand termini lucrul. Corect?

That is a point-to-point replacement of coordination with planning.

Aceasta este o inlocuire punctuala a coordonarii cu planificarea.

Right. We're now able to do that kind of thing with groups.

Corect. Acum putem face acelasi lucrurile cu grupurile.

To say instead of, we must make an advance plan,

In loc sa facem un plan in avans,

we must have a five-year projection

sa facem o proiectie pe cinci ani

of where the Wikipedia is going to be, or whatever,

a unde va fi Wikipedia sau orice altceva,

you can just say, let's coordinate the group effort,

poti sa spui, hai sa coordonam efortul de grup,

and let's deal with it as we go,

si hai sa ne ocupam de el pe parcurs,

because we're now well-enough coordinated

fiindca acum exista suficienta coordonare

that we don't have to take on the problems of deciding in advance what to do.

astfel incat nu trebuie sa ne mai ocupam de problema de a decide in avans ce sa facem.

So here's another example. This one's somewhat more somber.

Inca un exemplu. Acesta este unul mai trist.

These are photos on Flickr tagged "Iraq."

Aceste fotografii au tag-ul "Irak".

And everything that was hard about the coordination cost

Si tot ce era dificil cu privire la costurile de coordonare

with the Mermaid Parade is even harder here.

in cazul Paradei Sirenelor este si mai dificil aici.

There are more pictures. There are more photographers.

Sunt mai multe fotografii. Sunt mai multi fotografi.

It's taken over a wider geographic area.

Fotografiile acopera o suprafata geografica mult mai mare.

The photos are spread out over a longer period of time.

Aceste fotografii se intind pe o perioada mai mare de timp.

And worst of all, that figure at the bottom,

Si, cel mai rau, acea cifra de jos,

approximately ten photos per photographer, is a lie.

aproximativ 10 fotografi pe fotograf, este o minciuna.

It's mathematically true,

Este matematic corecta,

but it doesn't really talk about anything important --

dar nu spune nimic important

because in these systems, the average isn't really what matters.

fiindca in aceste sisteme, media nu este ceea ce conteaza cu adevarat.

What matters is this.

Ceea ce conteaza este aceasta.

This is a graph of photographs tagged Iraq

Acesta este un graf al fotografiilor cu tag-ul "Irak"

as taken by the 529 photographers who contributed the 5,445 photos.

facute de 529 de fotografi care au contribuit cu 5445 fotografii.

And it's ranked in order of number of photos taken per photographer.

Si sunt aranjate in functie de numarul de fotografii facute de fiecare fotograf.

You can see here, over at the end,

Puteti vedea aici, la sfarsit,

our most prolific photographer has taken around 350 photos,

ca, cel mai prolific fotograf a facut aproximativ 350 de fotografii

and you can see there's a few people who have taken hundreds of photos.

si puteti vedea ca sunt putine persoane care au facut sute de fotografii.

Then there's dozens of people who've taken dozens of photos.

Sunt duzine de oameni care au facut duzine de fotografii.

And by the time we get around here,

Si cam cand noi ajungem aici,

we get ten or fewer photos, and then there's this long, flat tail.

avem 10 sau mai putine fotografii, si apoi mai este aceasta coada lunga si plata.

And by the time you get to the middle,

Si cand ajungem la mijloc,

you've got hundreds of people

avem sute de oameni

who have contributed only one photo each.

care au contribuit cu o singura fotografie.

This is called a power-law distribution.

Acesta se numeste o distributie dupa regula puterilor.

It appears often in unconstrained social systems

Apare des in sisteme sociale neconstranse

where people are allowed to contribute as much or as little as they like --

unde oamenilor li se permite sa contribuie cu cat de mult sau putin vor ei,

this is often what you get. Right?

si asta se intalneste des. Corect?

The math behind the power-law distribution is that whatever's in the nth position

Calculul din spatele distributiei regula puterilor este ca oricine ar fi la pozitia n

is doing about one-nth of whatever's being measured,

face aproximativ 1/n din ceea ce este masurat,

relative to the person in the first position.

fata de persoana din prima pozitie.

So, we'd expect the tenth most prolific photographer

Deci este de asteptat ca al zecelea fotograf din punct de vedere al productivitatii

to have contributed about a tenth of the photos,

sa fi contribuit cu o zecime din fotografii,

and the hundredth most prolific photographer

iar fotograful aflat la pozitia 100 in ceea ce priveste productivitatea

to have contributed only about a hundred as many photos

sa fi contribuit cu de o suta de ori mai putine fotografii

as the most prolific photographer did.

fata de cel mai prolific fotograf.

So, the head of the curve can be sharper or flatter.

Deci varful curbei poate fi mai ascutit sau mai plat.

But that basic math accounts both for the steep slope

Dar matematica aflata la baza raspunde atat pentru curba abrupta

and for the long, flat tail.

cat si pentru coada lunga, plata.

And curiously, in these systems, as they grow larger,

Si, in mod curios, in aceste sisteme, cu cat cresc mai mari,

the systems don't converge; they diverge more.

sistemele nu converg, ci diverg mai mult.

In bigger systems, the head gets bigger

In sistemele mai mari, capul devine mai mare,

and the tail gets longer, so the imbalance increases.

si coada devine mai lunga, deci dezechilibrul creste.

You can see the curve is obviously heavily left-weighted. Here's how heavily:

Se poate vedea ca curba este, in mod evident, puternic inclinata catre stanga. Iata cat de mult.

if you take the top 10 percent of photographers contributing to this system,

Daca luam primii 10% dintre fotografii care contribuie la sistem,

they account for three quarters of the photos taken --

ei au realizat trei sferturi din fotografiile facute --

just the top 10 percent most prolific photographers.

doar primii 10% cei mai prolifici fotografi.

If you go down to five percent,

Daca coboram la 5%,

you're still accounting for 60 percent of the photos.

ei au realizat 60% din fotografii.

If you go down to one percent, exclude 99 percent of the group effort,

Daca coboram la un procent, excludem 99% din efortul de grup,

you're still accounting for almost a quarter of the photos.

avem aproape 1/4 din fotografii.

And because of this left weighting,

Si datorita acestei inclinari la stanga,

the average is actually here, way to the left.

media este aici, mult in stanga.

And that sounds strange to our ears,

Si asta suna ciudat,

but what ends up happening is that 80 percent of the contributors

dar ceea ce rezulta este ca 80% din contributori

have contributed a below-average amount.

au contribuit cu o cantitate sub medie.

That sounds strange because we expect average and middle

Asta suna ciudat fiindca ne asteptam ca media si mijlocul

to be about the same, but they're not at all.

sa fie acelasi, dar nu sunt deloc asa.

This is the math underlying the 80/20 rule. Right?

Acest calcul sta la baza regulii 80/20. Corect?

Whenever you hear anybody talking about the 80/20 rule,

Ori de cate ori auziti pe cineva vorbind de regula lui 80/20,

this is what's going on. Right?

asta se intampla. Corect?

20 percent of the merchandise accounts for 80 percent of the revenue,

20% din marfa reprezinta 80% din venit,

20 percent of the users use 80 percent of the resources --

20% din utilizatori folosesc 80% din resurse --

this is the shape people are talking about when that happens.

acesta este forma despre care vorbesc oamenii atunci cand se intampla asa ceva.

Institutions only have two tools: carrots and sticks.

Institutiile au doar doua instrumente: recompense si sanctiuni.

And the 80 percent zone is a no-carrot and no-stick zone.

Si zona 80% este o zone fara recompense si fara sanctiuni.

The costs of running the institution mean that you cannot

Costurile pentru a conduce o institutie inseamna ca nu se poate

take on the work of those people easily in an institutional frame.

include usor munca acelor oameni intr-un cadru institutional.

The institutional model always pushes leftwards,

Modelul institutional impinge intotdeauna catre stanga,

treating these people as employees.

tratand aceste persoane ca angajati.

The institutional response is,

Raspunsul institutional este,

I can get 75 percent of the value for 10 percent of the hires -- great,

pot obtine 75% din valoare angajand doar 10% -- perfect.

that's what I'll do.

Asta voi face.

The cooperative infrastructure model says,

Modelul infrastructurii cooperative spune,

why do you want to give up a quarter of the value?

de ce vrei sa renunti la un sfert din valoare?

If your system is designed

Daca sistemul tau este creat

so that you have to give up a quarter of the value,

astfel incat trebuie sa renunti la un sfert din valoare,

re-engineer the system.

re-construieste sistemul.

Don't take on the cost that prevents you

Nu prelua costul care te impiedica

from getting to the contributions of these people.

sa ajungi la contributiile acestor oameni,

Build the system so that anybody can contribute at any amount.

construieste sistemul astfel incat oricine poate contribui cu orice cantitate.

So the coordination response asks not,

Deci raspunsul coordonat nu intreaba

how are these people as employees, but rather,

cum se comporta acesti oameni ca angajati, ci mai curand,

what is their contribution like? Right?

cum este contributia lor? Corect?

We have over here Psycho Milt, a Flickr user,

Il avem aici pe Psycho Milt, un utilizator Flickr,

who has contributed one, and only one, photo titled "Iraq."

care a contribuit cu o singura fotografie cu tag-ul "Iraq".

And here's the photo. Right. Labeled, "Bad Day at Work."

Si iata aici fotografia. Corect. Intitulata, "O zi proasta la munca."

Right? So the question is,

Corect? Deci intrebarea este,

do you want that photo? Yes or no.

vreti fotografia asta? Da sau nu.

The question is not, is Psycho Milt a good employee?

Intrebarea nu este, este Psycho Milt un bun angajat?

And the tension here is between institution as enabler

Si tensiunea aici este intre institutia ca facilitator

and institution as obstacle.

si institutia ca obstacol.

When you're dealing with the left-hand edge

Cand avem de-a face cu partea din stanga

of one of these distributions,

a uneia dintre aceste distributii,

when you're dealing with the people who spend a lot of time

cand ai de-a face cu oameni care petrec mult timp

producing a lot of the material you want,

producand mult din materialul pe care il vrei,

that's an institution-as-enabler world.

atunci institutia este o lume care faciliteaza.

You can hire those people as employees, you can coordinate their work

Poti angaja acesti oameni, le poti coordona munca

and you can get some output.

si poti obtine ceva rezultate.

But when you're down here, where the Psycho Milts of the world

Dar cand esti aici jos unde toti Psycho Milts din lume

are adding one photo at a time,

adauga o singura fotografie,

that's institution as obstacle.

atunci institutia este un obstacol.

Institutions hate being told they're obstacles.

Institutiile urasc sa li se spuna ca sunt obstacole.

One of the first things that happens

Unul din primele lucruri care se intampla

when you institutionalize a problem

cand institutionalizezi o problema

is that the first goal of the institution

este ca primul scop al unei institutii

immediately shifts from whatever the nominal goal was

se muta imediat de la scopul nominal, oricare era acesta,

to self-preservation.

la conservarea de sine.

And the actual goal of the institution goes to two through n.

Si scopul actual al institutiei merge de la 2 la n

Right? So, when institutions are told they are obstacles,

Corect? Deci cand institutiilor li se spune ca sunt obstacole,

and that there are other ways of coordinating the value,

si ca sunt alte modalitati pentru a coordona valoarea,

they go through something a little bit like the Kubler-Ross stages --

ele trec prin ceva asemanator stadiilor Kubler-Ross --

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

-- of reaction, being told you have a fatal illness:

ale reactiei la vestea ca ai o boala letala:

denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.

negare, furie, negociere, acceptare.

Most of the cooperative systems we've seen

Multe dintre sistemele cooperative pe care le-am vazut

haven't been around long enough

nu au existat suficient de mult timp

to have gotten to the acceptance phase.

pentru a ajunge la faza de acceptare.

Many, many institutions are still in denial,

Multe, multe institutii sunt inca in faza de negare,

but we're seeing recently a lot of both anger and bargaining.

dar am vazut recent atat multa furie cit si negociere.

There's a wonderful, small example going on right now.

Exista un mic, minunat exemplu chiar acum.

In France, a bus company is suing people for forming a carpool,

In Franta, o firma de autobuze da in judecata persoanele care au format o asociatie de masini,

right, because the fact that they have coordinated

corect, fiindca faptul ca ei s-au coordonat

themselves to create cooperative value is depriving them of revenue.

pentru a crea valoare cooperativa lipseste firma de autobuze de venit.

You can follow this in the Guardian.

Puteti citi despre asta in the Guardian.

It's actually quite entertaining.

Este chiar destul de distractiv.

The bigger question is,

Intrebarea principala este,

what do you do about the value down here?

ce faci cu valoarea de aici de jos?

Right? How do you capture that?

Corect? Cum o capturezi?

And institutions, as I've said, are prevented from capturing that.

Si institutiile, dupa cum am spus, sunt impiedicate sa o captureze.

Steve Ballmer, now CEO of Microsoft,

Steve Ballmer, acum CEO la Microsoft,

was criticizing Linux a couple of years ago, and he said,

critica Linux acum cativa ani, si a spus,

"Oh, this business of thousands of programmers

oh, aceasta afacere a mii de programatori

contributing to Linux, this is a myth.

care contribuie la Linux, este un mit. Corect?

We've looked at who's contributed to Linux,

Ne-am uitat la cei care au contribuit la Linux,

and most of the patches have been produced by programmers

si multe dintre parti au fost produse de programatori

who've only done one thing." Right?

care au facut doar un singur lucru.Corect?

You can hear this distribution under that complaint.

Aceasta critica se refera la acest tip de distributie.

And you can see why, from Ballmer's point of view,

Si puteti vedea de ce, din punctul de vedere al lui Ballmer,

that's a bad idea, right?

asta este o idee proasta, nu-i asa?

We hired this programmer, he came in, he drank our Cokes

Am angajat acest programator, a venit, ne-a baut Coca-Cola

and played Foosball for three years and he had one idea.

a jucat Foosball trei ani si a avut o singura idee.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

Right? Bad hire. Right?

Corect. Un angajat prost. Corect?

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

The Psycho Milt question is, was it a good idea?

Intrebare gen "Psycho Milt" este, a fost o idee buna?

What if it was a security patch?

Daca a fost o parte referitoare la securitate?

What if it was a security patch for a buffer overflow exploit,

Dar daca a fost un program de securitate pentru buffer overflow exploit,

of which Windows has not some, [but] several?

din care Windows are nu citeva -- ci foarte multe?

Do you want that patch, right?

Vreti acel program, corect?

The fact that a single programmer can,

Faptul ca un singur programator poate,

without having to move into a professional relation

fara a trebui sa intre intr-o relatie profesionala

to an institution, improve Linux once

cu o institutie, imbunatati Linux o data

and never be seen from again, should terrify Ballmer.

pentru a nu mai fi vazut din nou, ar trebui sa il ingrozeasca pe Ballmer.

Because this kind of value is unreachable in classic

Fiindca acest tip de valoare nu poate fi realizat in

institutional frameworks, but is part of cooperative

cadre institutionale clasice, ci este parte al

systems of open-source software, of file sharing,

sistemelor cooperative de software open source, file sharing

of the Wikipedia. I've used a lot of examples from Flickr,

Wikipedia. Am folosit multe example de la Flickr,

but there are actually stories about this from all over.

dar, de fapt, exista acest tip de povesti peste tot.

Meetup, a service founded so that users could find people

Meetup, un serviciu creat astfel incat utilizatorii sa poata gasi persoane

in their local area who share their interests and affinities

in zona lor locala care impartasesc aceleasi interese si afinitati

and actually have a real-world meeting offline in a cafe

si sa se poate intalni offline in lumea reala intr-o cafenea

or a pub or what have you.

sau bar sau orice altceva.

When Scott Heiferman founded Meetup,

Cand Scott Heiferman a creat Meetup,

he thought it would be used for, you know,

a crezut ca ar putea putea fi folosit, stiti,

train spotters and cat fanciers -- classic affinity groups.

de catre cei care pindesc trenurile si crescatori de pisici -- grupurile clasice cu aceleasi afinitati.

The inventors don't know what the invention is.

Inventatorii nu stiu care este inventia.

Number one group on Meetup right now,

Grupul numarul unu pe Meetup acum,

most chapters in most cities with most members, most active?

cele mai multe filiale in cele mai multe orase cu cei mai multi membri, cei mai activi?

Stay-at-home moms. Right?

Mamele casnice. Corect?

In the suburbanized, dual-income United States,

In Statele Unite, suburbanizate, cu venituri duale,

stay-at-home moms are actually missing

mamelor casnice le lipseste de fapt

the social infrastructure that comes from extended family

infrastructura sociala care se naste dintr-o familie extinsa

and local, small-scale neighborhoods.

si comunitati locale mici.

So they're reinventing it, using these tools.

Deci ele o reinventeaza folosind aceste instrumente.

Meetup is the platform,

Meetup este platforma,

but the value here is in social infrastructure.

dar valoarea aici este in infrastructura sociala.

If you want to know what technology is going to change the world,

Daca vreti sa stiti ce tehnologie va schimba lumea,

don't pay attention to 13-year-old boys --

nu dati atentie baietilor de 13 ani --

pay attention to young mothers,

dati atentie mamelor tinere,

because they have got not an ounce of support for technology

fiindca ele nu au un gram de suport pentru tehnologia

that doesn't materially make their lives better.

care nu le imbunatateste material viata.

This is so much more important than Xbox,

Acesta este mult mai important decat Xbox,

but it's a lot less glitzy.

dar este mult mai putin stralucitor.

I think this is a revolution.

Cred ca este o revolutie.

I think that this is a really profound change

Cred ca este o schimbare profunda

in the way human affairs are arranged.

in modul in care problemele umane se rezolva.

And I use that word advisedly.

Si folosesc acest cuvant cu prudenta.

It's a revolution in that it's a change in equilibrium.

Este o revolutie in sensul ca este o schimbare in echilibru.

It's a whole new way of doing things, which includes new downsides.

Este un nou mod de a face lucrurile care include si noi efecte adverse.

In the United States right now, a woman named Judith Miller

Chiar acum, in Statele Unite, o femeie pe nume Judith Miller,

is in jail for not having given to a Federal Grand Jury her sources --

este in inchisoare pentru ca nu a dat unui Mare Juriu Federal sursele ei --

she's a reporter for the New York Times --

ea este un reporter la New York Times --

her sources, in a very abstract and hard-to-follow case.

sursele ei intr-un caz foarte abstract si dificil de urmarit.

And journalists are in the street rallying to improve the shield laws.

Si ziaristii sunt in strada demonstrand pentru a imbunatati legile scut.

The shield laws are our laws -- pretty much a patchwork of state laws --

Legile scut sunt legile noastre -- cam ca un amestec de legi statale --

that prevent a journalist from having to betray a source.

care impiedica un jurnalist sa-si tradeze o sursa.

This is happening, however, against the background

Aceasta se intampla, totusi, pe fundalul

of the rise of Web logging.

raspindirii blog-ului.

Web logging is a classic example of mass amateurization.

Blog-ul este un exemplu clasic de amatorizare in masa.

It has de-professionalized publishing.

Publicarea este deprofesionalizata.

Want to publish globally anything you think today?

Vrei sa publici la nivel global orice gandesti astazi?

It is a one-button operation that you can do for free.

Trebuie doar sa apesi pe un buton si o poti face gratis.

That has sent the professional class of publishing down

Aceasta a trimis clasa profesionala a publicistilor jos

into the ranks of mass amateurization.

in randul amatorilor in masa.

And so the shield law, as much as we want it --

Si deci legea scutului, oricat am dori noi --

we want a professional class of truth-tellers --

noi dorim o clasa profesionala de oameni care spun adevarul --

it is becoming increasingly incoherent, because

devine din ce in ce mai incoerenta deoarece

the institution is becoming incoherent.

institutia devine incoerenta.

There are people in the States right now

Sunt oameni in Statele Unite chiar acum

tying themselves into knots, trying to figure out

nedumeriti si incercand sa inteleaga

whether or not bloggers are journalists.

daca bloggerii sunt jurnalisti sau nu.

And the answer to that question is,

Si raspunsul la aceasta intrebare este,

it doesn't matter, because that's not the right question.

nu conteaza, fiindca nu aceasta este intrebarea corecta.

Journalism was an answer to an even more important question,

Jurnalismul a fost raspunsul la o intrebare mult mai importanta,

which is, how will society be informed?

care este, cum va fi societatea informata?

How will they share ideas and opinions?

Cum vor fi impartasite ideile si opiniile?

And if there is an answer to that that happens outside

Si daca exista la asta un raspuns care este in afara

the professional framework of journalism,

cadrului profesional al jurnalismului,

it makes no sense to take a professional metaphor

nu are nici un sens sa luam o metafora profesionala

and apply it to this distributed class.

si sa o aplicam la aceasta clasa distribuita.

So as much as we want the shield laws,

Deci oricat de mult ne dorim legi scut,

the background -- the institution to which they were attached --

fundalul -- institutia la care sunt ele atasate

is becoming incoherent.

devine incoerenta.

Here's another example.

Iata un alt exemplu.

Pro-ana, the pro-ana groups.

Pro-ana, grupurile Pro-ana.

These are groups of teenage girls

Sunt grupuri de adolescente

who have taken on Web logs, bulletin boards,

care au creat bloguri, buletine informative,

other kinds of cooperative infrastructure,

alte tipuri de infrastructuri cooperative,

and have used it to set up support groups for

si au folosit-o pentru a sustine grupuri pentru

remaining anorexic by choice.

a ramane anorexice in mod deliberat.

They post pictures of thin models, which they call "thinspiration."

Posteaza fotografii ale unor modele slabe, pe care le cheama Thinspiration.

They have little slogans, like "Salvation through Starvation."

Au mici sloganuri, ca Salvare prin Infometare,

They even have Lance Armstrong-style bracelets,

au chiar bratari tip Lance Armstrong,

these red bracelets, which signify, in the small group,

acele bratari rosii, care semnifica, in acest mic grup,

I am trying to maintain my eating disorder.

Incerc sa imi mentin dezechilibrul alimentar.

They trade tips, like, if you feel like eating something,

Ele schimba sfaturi, cum ar fi, daca ai pofta sa mananci ceva

clean a toilet or the litter box. The feeling will pass.

curata o toaleta sau cutia animalului. Pofta va disparea.

We're used to support groups being beneficial.

Suntem obisnuiti ca grupurile de suport sa fie benefice.

We have an attitude that support groups are inherently beneficial.

Consideram ca grupurile de suport sunt benefice in mod natural.

But it turns out that the logic of the support group is value neutral.

Dar rezulta ca logica grupului de sprijin nu are valoare in sine.

A support group is simply a small group that wants to maintain

Un grup de sprijin este doar un mic grup care vrea sa mentina

a way of living in the context of a larger group.

un stil de viata in contextul unui grup mai mare.

Now, when the larger group is a bunch of drunks,

Acum, cand grupul mai mare este o adunatura de betivi

and the small group wants to stay sober, then we think,

si grupul mic vrea sa ramana treaz, atunci noi credem,

that's a great support group.

ca este un grup de sprijin perfect.

But when the small group is teenage girls

Dar cand micul grup este format din adolescente

who want to stay anorexic by choice, then we're horrified.

care aleg sa ramana anorexice, atunci suntem ingroziti.

What's happened is that the normative goals

Ceea ce se intampla este ca scopurile normative

of the support groups that we're used to,

ale grupurilor de sprijin cu care eram obisnuiti

came from the institutions that were framing them,

veneau din institutii care le incadrau,

and not from the infrastructure.

si nu din infrastructura.

Once the infrastructure becomes generically available,

Odata ce infrastructura devine disponibila in mod generic,

the logic of the support group has been revealed to be

logica grupurilor de sprijin s-a dovedit a fi

accessible to anyone, including people pursuing these kinds of goals.

accesibila oricui, inclusiv persoanelor care urmaresc acest tip de scopuri.

So, there are significant downsides to these changes

Deci sunt neajunsuri semnificative ale acestor schimbari

as well as upsides. And of course, in the current environment,

ca si efecte pozitive. Si, bineinteles, in mediul actual,

one need allude only lightly to the work of non-state actors

trebuie sa ne referim doar putin la activitatea actorilor non-statali

trying to influence global affairs, and taking advantage of these.

care incearca sa influenteze problemele globale si sa profite de acestea.

This is a social map of the hijackers and their associates

Aceasta este o harta sociala a teroristilor si a asociatilor lor

who perpetrated the 9/11 attack.

care au savarsit atacul din 11 septembrie 2001.

It was produced by analyzing their communications patterns

A fost facuta prin analiza modelelor de comunicatii

using a lot of these tools. And doubtless the intelligence communities of the world

folosind multe dintre aceste instrumente. Si, fara indoiala, comunitatile de informatii ale lumii

are doing the same work today for the attacks of last week.

fac aceeasi activitate astazi pentru atacurile de saptamana trecuta.

Now, this is the part of the talk where I tell you

Acum, aceasta este partea discursului unde va spun

what's going to come as a result of all of this,

care va fi rezultatul acestei situatii,

but I'm running out of time, which is good,

dar mi se termina timpul, ceea ce este bine,

because I don't know.

fiindca nu stiu.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

Right. As with the printing press, if it's really a revolution,

Corect. Cum a fost si in cazul tiparului, daca este realmente o revolutie,

it doesn't take us from Point A to Point B.

nu ne duce de la Punctul A la Punctul B.

It takes us from Point A to chaos.

Ne duce de la Punctul A la haos.

The printing press precipitated 200 years of chaos,

Tiparul a adus 200 de ani de haos,

moving from a world where the Catholic Church

mutandu-ne de la o lume in care Biserica Catolica

was the sort of organizing political force to the Treaty of Westphalia,

era un fel de forta politica organizatoare la Tratatul de la Westphalia

when we finally knew what the new unit was: the nation state.

cand am vazut in sfarsit care era noua entitate: statul national.

Now, I'm not predicting 200 years of chaos as a result of this. 50.

Acum, nu prezic 200 de ani de haos ca rezultat al acesteia. 50.

50 years in which loosely coordinated groups

50 de ani in care grupuri slab coordonate

are going to be given increasingly high leverage,

vor dobandi tot mai multa influenta

and the more those groups forego traditional institutional imperatives --

si cu cat mai multe dintre aceste grupuri vor anticipa imperativele institutionale traditionale

like deciding in advance what's going to happen,

ca deciderea in avans a ceea ce urmeaza sa se intample,

or the profit motive -- the more leverage they'll get.

sau motivatia profitului -- cu atit mai multa influenta vor primi.

And institutions are going to come under

Si institutiile vor suporta din ce in ce

an increasing degree of pressure,

mai multa presiune

and the more rigidly managed, and the more they rely

si cu cit sunt conduse mai rigid, si cu cat mai mult se vor baza pe

on information monopolies, the greater the pressure is going to be.

monopoluri informationale, cu atat mai mare va fi presiunea.

And that's going to happen one arena at a time,

Si aceasta se va intampla cu fiecare arena,

one institution at a time. The forces are general,

cu fiecare institutie. Fortele sunt generale,

but the results are going to be specific.

dar rezultatele vor fi specifice.

And so the point here is not,

Deci ideea aici nu este,

"This is wonderful," or "We're going to see a transition

"este minunat" sau "vom vedea o tranzitie

from only institutions to only cooperative framework."

de la doar institutii la doar cadre cooperative."

It's going to be much more complicated than that.

Va fi mult mai complicat de atat.

But the point is that it's going to be a massive readjustment.

Dar idea este ca va fi o readaptare masiva.

And since we can see it in advance and know it's coming,

Si deoarece o putem vedea in avans si stim ca va avea loc,

my argument is essentially: we might as well get good at it.

argumentul meu este, in esenta, ca am putea sa ne descurcam bine, de asemenea.

Thank you very much.

Va multumesc foarte mult.

(Applause)

(Aplauze)