Clay Shirky: Institutions vs. collaboration

翻译人员: Snow Lee 校对人员: Tony Yet

How do groups get anything done? Right?

一群人要如何完成某项任务？

How do you organize a group of individuals

如何管理一个团体

so that the output of the group

才能使其产出

is something coherent and of lasting value,

和谐一致并且富有长久价值

instead of just being chaos?

而非混乱不堪？

And the economic framing of that problem

此问题在经济学术语中，

is called coordination costs.

被称为“协调成本”。

And a coordination cost is essentially all of the financial

协调成本基本上是

or institutional difficulties in arranging group output.

在安排群体产出时，所遇到的财务和机构问题。

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

对于协调成本，我们有一个经典的答案，

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

那就是，如果你想要协调一个一群人参与的工作

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

首先要成立一个机构，对吧？收集一些资源。

You found something. It can be private or public.

建立一个组织。这个组织可以是私有的或公共的，

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

也可以是营利或非营利性质的，大型或小型的组织。

But you get these resources together.

但你筹集好所需的资源

You found an institution, and you use the institution

成立了一个机构，

to coordinate the activities of the group.

便可以利用这个机构去协调组织活动。

More recently, because the cost of letting groups

就在近期，因为

communicate with each other has fallen through the floor --

用于机构成员之间交流的花费下跌到谷底 －－

and communication costs are one of the big

而交流所需花费是协调工作中的重要组成部分，

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

从而，人们给出了第二种解决策略，

which is to put the cooperation into the infrastructure,

即把合作设计到机构的底子里，

to design systems that coordinate the output

设计一种系统，

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

在其运作的同时协调其产出成果

without regard to institutional models.

而不再诉诸于机构的模式。

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

这就是我今天所要探讨的内容。

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

我将用一些实例来解释这个观点，

but always pointing to the broader themes.

但是这些实例都表明同一个更开阔的主旨。

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

首先，我来回答一个问题，

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

我知道你们每一个人一定向自己或别人提出过这个问题，

and which the Internet is purpose-built to answer,

而网络也正是为了解决这个问题而建立的，

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

这问题就是：我从哪儿能找到一张美人鱼滑旱冰的照片？

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

在纽约，每年夏季的第一个周六

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

在我们当地萧条的游乐园——科尼岛

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

都会为业余爱好者举办一次美人鱼游行。

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

来自城市各个角落的居民都会盛装打扮，

Some people get less dressed up.

当然也有些人不怎么“装扮”。

Young and old, dancing in the streets.

老幼相携，在大街上跳舞，

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

大家一同享受缤纷的角色与欢乐的氛围。

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

虽说游行本身也不错，但是我更想让大家关注的

charming though it is, but rather to these photos.

却是这些照片。

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

我没有亲自去照这些照片，但是我是怎么得到它们的呢？

And the answer is: I got them from Flickr.

答案是：我是从Flickr上找到的。

Flickr is a photo-sharing service

Flickr是一个照片分享的网站

that allows people to take photos, upload them,

人们可以在此上传自己拍摄的照片

share them over the Web and so forth.

与其他人分享等等。

Recently, Flickr has added an additional function called tagging.

最近，Flickr新增了一项叫做“标签”的功能，

Tagging was pioneered by Delicious and Joshua Schachter.

此功能首先由Del.icio.us发明人Joshua Schachter推广开来的

Delicious is a social bookmarking service.

Del.icio.us是一个社会书签服务。

Tagging is a cooperative infrastructure answer to classification.

专业化的分类管理是传统的解决方案，而加标签即是合作性的基础建设。

Right? If I had given this talk last year,

如果我去年演讲这个内容，

I couldn't do what I just did,

我是无法将刚才这一切展现给大家的，

because I couldn't have found those photos.

因为我一定找不到这些照片。

But instead of saying,

但是

we need to hire a professional class of librarians

我们不需要一群专业的图书管理员

to organize these photos once they're uploaded,

在上传之后对这些照片进行分类管理，

Flickr simply turned over to the users

Flickr将这个问题移交到各个用户，

the ability to characterize the photos.

从而完成了对这些照片的分类。

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

于是，我可以找到那些有“美人鱼游行”标签的相片。

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

有这个标签的相片共有3100张，分别来自118个摄影者，

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

全部归于这个简明的标签之下，

shown in reverse chronological order.

按上传时间由近到远排列。

And I was then able to go and retrieve them

这样我就可以检索到它们

to give you that little slideshow.

并给大家做刚才那样的演示了。

Now, what hard problem is being solved here?

那么，在这里我们解决了一个怎么样的难题呢？

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

从概略的可能性观点来看，

it's a coordination problem, right?

是一个协作的问题。

There are a large number of people on the Internet,

网络上的人太多了，

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

只有一小部分人拥有美人鱼游行的照片。

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

问题是我们怎样能将这一群人组织到一起，让他们提供这些照片。

The classic answer is to form an institution, right?

一个传统的答案便是建立一个机构，对吧？

To draw those people into some prearranged structure

用这个机构来吸引这些人到一个预先设计好的组织形式，

that has explicit goals.

这个组织形式拥有明确的目标。

And I want to call your attention to

我想提醒你注意到

some of the side effects of going the institutional route.

走机构这条路的一些弊端。

First of all, when you form an institution,

首先，建立一个机构，

you take on a management problem, right?

就会产生管理上的问题。

No good just hiring employees,

不仅仅是雇用员工而已，

you also have to hire other employees to manage those employees

你还必须雇用一些人员来管理管理那些员工

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

来执行实现机构的目标，等等。

Secondly, you have to bring structure into place.

其次，还需要建立层级结构

Right? You have to have economic structure.

一个机构需要有经济结构，

You have to have legal structure.

法制结构，

You have to have physical structure.

和具体的实体结构。

And that creates additional costs.

这些都会造成额外的成本。

Third, forming an institution is inherently exclusionary.

再次，建立一个机构本身就具有排他性。

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

你会注意到，不是每个拥有照片的人都在我们的机构里。

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

一个机构是不可能雇用所有人的，对不对？

You can't recruit everyone into a governmental organization.

你是不可能将所有人都纳入一个组织中去的。

You have to exclude some people.

这就决定了有一些人会被排除在外。

And fourth, as a result of that exclusion,

第四，由这个排除性所造成的结果，

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

我们最终只拥有一个专业摄影组。请注意这里的改变－－

We've gone from people with photos to photographers.

从拥有照片的广大群众，变成了专业摄影师们。

Right? We've created a professional class of photographers

是吧？我们成立了一个

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

以拍摄美人鱼游行为目的的摄影师团体，

or whatever else they're sent out to photograph.

或者不管他们去拍摄什么

When you build cooperation into the infrastructure,

但是，当你将协作放入基础建设中，

which is the Flickr answer,

也就得到了Flickr

you can leave the people where they are

（Flickr拥有广大群众并且）让人们做自己的事，

and you take the problem to the individuals, rather than

让每个个体去解决这个问题，

moving the individuals to the problem.

而非让每个人被这一个问题牵着鼻子走。

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

只需要安排协调这些群众，

you get the same outcome, without the institutional difficulties.

便省去了组建机构一切难题，于此同时，得到同样的产出。

You lose the institutional imperative.

当然，你会失去机构的控制力量，

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

当这一切工作都是志愿者在完成，你就不会拥有令他们优化工作质量的权利，

but you also shed the institutional cost,

但是与此同时也减少了建立机构的成本，

which gives you greater flexibility.

从而让令你拥有更大的灵活性。

What Flickr does is it replaces planning with coordination.

Flickr所做的正是用协调取代规划

And this is a general aspect of these cooperative systems.

这是合作性系统中的普遍方面。

Right. You'll have experienced this in your life

人们在生活中，一定有这样的经历－－

whenever you bought your first mobile phone,

当你买了第一台手机之后，

and you stopped making plans.

便不再做计划。

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

你只需要说，“我到了给你电话”，或者

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

“下班了给我打电话”。是吧？

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

这个点对点的协调行为取代了对事情进行规划。

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

那么现在，我们可以对一群人进行同样的协调。

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

不需要再强调“我们一定要做个先进的计划”，

we must have a five-year projection

“我们要对维基百科未来的五年会怎样有个设想“

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

什么的，

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

只需要说，让我们协调这个有组织性的活动，

and let's deal with it as we go,

并在这个活动的过程中进行协调，

because we're now well-enough coordinated

因为，我们现在可以充分地彼此协调，

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

所以不需要把问题都集中在预先决策上。

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

我这有另外一个例子。这个例子令人更郁闷。

These are photos on Flickr tagged "Iraq."

这些是Flickr上标注有伊拉克的照片。

And everything that was hard about the coordination cost

从协调成本的困难程度讲，

with the Mermaid Parade is even harder here.

这个比美人鱼游行要困难的多。

There are more pictures. There are more photographers.

有更多的照片，也有更多的摄影师参与。

It's taken over a wider geographic area.

这个过程跨越了更广泛的地域，

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

这些照片也分布在一个更广泛的时间段中。

And worst of all, that figure at the bottom,

最糟糕的是，看看这个在下方的数据，

approximately ten photos per photographer, is a lie.

“每个摄影师平均贡献了10张照片”，这并不是真的。

It's mathematically true,

从数学角度讲，这个数据是真实的，

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

但是这并不说明任何实质性问题，

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

因为在这个系统中，平均值并不是个重要的因素。

What matters is this.

下面我来讲一下真正重要的是什么：

This is a graph of photographs tagged Iraq

这是个在Flickr上标注有伊拉克图片的曲线图，

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

一共由529个摄影者上传了5445张照片。

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

以摄影者拍上传照片的数量进行排序。

You can see here, over at the end,

你可以在这一端看到，

our most prolific photographer has taken around 350 photos,

贡献最多的摄影者上传了350张照片，

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

有一小部分人上传了几百张照片，

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

还有数十个摄影者上传了数十张照片，

And by the time we get around here,

直到这里，

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

摄影者们只提供了10张或更少的照片，然后，我们看到的便是个长长的，平坦的尾部线条。

And by the time you get to the middle,

当看到这个尾部线条中部时，

you've got hundreds of people

你会发现有数百个

who have contributed only one photo each.

仅仅提供了一张照片的摄影者。

This is called a power-law distribution.

这叫做幂律分布。

It appears often in unconstrained social systems

幂律分布在没有限制的社会系统中是很常见的。

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

就是说当一种系统对人们贡献的多少没有任何限制时，

this is often what you get. Right?

你往往会得到这样的结果。

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

幂律分布的数学原理是，相对于第一个位置上的个体而言，

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

在第n个位置的个体，

relative to the person in the first position.

贡献了1/n的力量。

So, we'd expect the tenth most prolific photographer

因此，我们会期待第十个贡献最多的摄影者

to have contributed about a tenth of the photos,

提供10%的照片，

and the hundredth most prolific photographer

同样的，相对于第一个贡献最多的摄影者而言，

to have contributed only about a hundred as many photos

我们期待第100个摄影者

as the most prolific photographer did.

提供1%的照片。

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

所以曲线的顶端可以更锐或更平，

But that basic math accounts both for the steep slope

但是，基础数学对这个陡斜率

and for the long, flat tail.

和长而平的尾部曲线都有所囊括。

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

令人感兴趣的是，在这种系统中，随着规模的加大，

the systems don't converge; they diverge more.

它并不会收敛，反而会更发散。

In bigger systems, the head gets bigger

在更大规模的此类系统中，顶端会变的更大，

and the tail gets longer, so the imbalance increases.

而尾部会变的更长，于是更加剧了整体的不平衡。

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

你可以看这条曲线的重心严重左倾，让我们看看有多严重。

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

如果我们取前10%的摄影者贡献的作品，

they account for three quarters of the photos taken --

他们占据了照片总数的75% －－

just the top 10 percent most prolific photographers.

注意，这仅仅是前10%的摄影者而已。

If you go down to five percent,

如果我们将数字减少到前5%的摄影者，

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

依然可以得到60%的照片。

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

如果排除掉99%，而只取前1%的摄影者，

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

我们依然可以得到几乎25%的照片，

And because of this left weighting,

因为这个曲线的重心左倾，

the average is actually here, way to the left.

所以平均值实际上是在这里，非常靠近左端。

And that sounds strange to our ears,

即使这听起来很奇怪，

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

但是到头来我们得到的结果是，80%的摄影者

have contributed a below-average amount.

只提供了少于平均值数量的照片。

That sounds strange because we expect average and middle

这听起来怪是因为我们的预期是平均值与曲线中部的数值相等，

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

但是它们却是截然不同的。

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

这就是80/20法则背后的数学逻辑。

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

不管什么时候你听到有人谈到80/20法则，

this is what's going on. Right?

就是在谈论这个情形 --

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

20%的商品带来80%的收益，

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

20%的用户占用了80%的资源。

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

这就是当这些情况发生时大家所谈论的曲线。

Institutions only have two tools: carrots and sticks.

机构只有两种工具 －－胡萝卜和棍子（奖励和惩罚）。

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

80%的区域是没有胡萝卜也没有棍子的区域。

The costs of running the institution mean that you cannot

所以，若采用机构的模式，机构的运作成本就决定了

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

想要拥有这一部分人的贡献是不可能的。

The institutional model always pushes leftwards,

采用机构的模式正如这条曲线重心左倾一样，

treating these people as employees.

只把左边这部分人当作员工对待。

The institutional response is,

采用机构模式的人们对此的回应是，

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

我可以利用10%的雇员实现75%的价值，太好了。

that's what I'll do.

我这么作就可以。

The cooperative infrastructure model says,

合作性基础建设模式的回应则是：

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

你为什么要放弃25%的价值呢？

If your system is designed

如果在设计系统的时候

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

就决定了你要放弃25%的价值，

re-engineer the system.

那么就进行系统改造吧！

Don't take on the cost that prevents you

别让高成本来成为

from getting to the contributions of these people.

阻止这一部分人贡献力量的拦路虎

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

建立一个系统，让任何人都可以随意贡献，无论多少。

So the coordination response asks not,

所以合作性基础建设的方式回应道，我们并不是

how are these people as employees, but rather,

要了解这些人是什么样的雇员，我们只要知道

what is their contribution like? Right?

他们所能贡献的是什么。

We have over here Psycho Milt, a Flickr user,

在这里，有个Flickr的用户叫做Psycho Milt，

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

他上传了一张，且仅上传了这一张标注有“伊拉克”的图片，

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

照片在这里，命名为：“糟糕的工作日”。

Right? So the question is,

所以，问题就在于：

do you want that photo? Yes or no.

你到底要不要这张这张照片？要还是不要？

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

问题的关键不在于Psycho Milt是不是个好员工，

And the tension here is between institution as enabler

这里的矛盾存在于，到底机构是个促成者

and institution as obstacle.

还是个阻碍者。

When you're dealing with the left-hand edge

当我们处理

of one of these distributions,

此类函数左侧的数据时，

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

当我们涉及这些花费大量时间

producing a lot of the material you want,

为制造你需要的材料的人们时，

that's an institution-as-enabler world.

机构便是促成者。

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

你可以雇用这些人作为员工，协调他们的工作，

and you can get some output.

并得到一些产出。

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

但是，当你面临像Pshycho Milts这样

are adding one photo at a time,

一次只传一张照片的情况时，

that's institution as obstacle.

机构就成了阻碍者。

Institutions hate being told they're obstacles.

机构讨厌被别人成为阻碍者。

One of the first things that happens

当我们将一个问题机构化的时候，

when you institutionalize a problem

首先发生的事情之一是

is that the first goal of the institution

这个机构的第一目标

immediately shifts from whatever the nominal goal was

会立即从原本被确立的目标变为

to self-preservation.

自我维护。

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

而机构真正的第一目标会变成第二甚至排到更后面去。

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

当机构被告知他们是阻碍者，

and that there are other ways of coordinating the value,

并且告诉他们有其他的办法来协调价值时，

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

他们就会经历一些有点类似Kubler-Ross理论中的那几个阶段，

(Laughter)

（笑声）

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

当你被告知身患绝症的时候的的反应是，

denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.

否认，愤怒，讨价还价，接受。

Most of the cooperative systems we've seen

我们所知的合作系统，大部分

haven't been around long enough

还没有足够的时间

to have gotten to the acceptance phase.

达到最后这个接受的阶段。

Many, many institutions are still in denial,

很多很多机构还沉浸在否认的阶段，

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

但是最近，达到愤怒和讨价还价阶段的也有很多。

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

目前，有一个特别能说明问题的小例子。

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

在法国，一个汽车公司控诉一些“拼车”的人，

right, because the fact that they have coordinated

因为通过这些人彼此之间的协作

themselves to create cooperative value is depriving them of revenue.

所创造的价值，导致了他们的收入下降。

You can follow this in the Guardian.

你可以在《卫报》上跟踪这条新闻，

It's actually quite entertaining.

还是很有娱乐效果的。

The bigger question is,

更重要的问题是，

what do you do about the value down here?

对于这些人创造出来的价值，你要怎么做？

Right? How do you capture that?

你要怎么才能取得那部分价值？

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

就像我说的，机构本身就在阻止这些价值。

Steve Ballmer, now CEO of Microsoft,

微软（Microsoft）的首席执行官Steve Ballmer

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

在几年前曾经批评Linux，他说：

"Oh, this business of thousands of programmers

有几千个编程人员

contributing to Linux, this is a myth.

对Linux作出了贡献，这简直是个神话。

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

我们检视过都为Linux贡献力量的人，

and most of the patches have been produced by programmers

大部分修补程序都是由

who've only done one thing." Right?

只为Linux编辑了一个程序的设计师提供的。

You can hear this distribution under that complaint.

你可以从他的抱怨中听到这个函数图形

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

你还可以从Ballmer的角度出发而明白这为什么

that's a bad idea, right?

Linux的办法是不可取的。

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

我们雇用了这个编程师，他来到公司，喝了我们的可乐，

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

玩了三年桌上足球，然后他只设计出一个修补程序。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Right? Bad hire. Right?

雇错人啦。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

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

像Psycho Milt这样的问题是，这到底是不是个可取的办法呢？

What if it was a security patch?

如果这个程序员设计出来的是个维护系统安全的修补程序呢？

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

如果是个缓存溢出错误的修补程序呢？

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

Windows在这方面的漏洞还不少呢。

Do you want that patch, right?

问题是你到底要不要这个修补程序？

The fact that a single programmer can,

一个程序员可以

without having to move into a professional relation

不必正式被一个机构雇用，

to an institution, improve Linux once

而是仅仅编辑出一个修补程序来改善Linux

and never be seen from again, should terrify Ballmer.

之后便消失不见，这个事实应该吓到Ballmer。

Because this kind of value is unreachable in classic

因为这种价值在传统的组织形式中是

institutional frameworks, but is part of cooperative

遥不可及的。但这种价值却是合作式系统的一部分，

systems of open-source software, of file sharing,

例如于开放源代码软件、计算机文件分享，

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

及维基百科（Wikipedia）等。我已经举了很多个Flickr上的例子，

but there are actually stories about this from all over.

但是实际上这种例子遍地都是。

Meetup, a service founded so that users could find people

Meetup是个为了方面人们在自己的区域寻找到

in their local area who share their interests and affinities

志趣相投的人。

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

他们在生活中还有聚会呢，比如在咖啡馆

or a pub or what have you.

或者酒吧等等。

When Scott Heiferman founded Meetup,

当Scott Heiferman建立Meetup的时候，

he thought it would be used for, you know,

他认为使用群体应该是，

train spotters and cat fanciers -- classic affinity groups.

喜欢"猜火车"的人和爱猫的人群　－－典型的有共同兴趣的分享团体。

The inventors don't know what the invention is.

创造者并不知道创造产物是什么。

Number one group on Meetup right now,

Meetup上第一名的团体，

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

地方分会最多，会员最多，最活跃的团体，

Stay-at-home moms. Right?

是家庭主妇们。

In the suburbanized, dual-income United States,

在市郊化，双薪收入的美国，

stay-at-home moms are actually missing

家庭主妇们并没有享有

the social infrastructure that comes from extended family

来自大家庭

and local, small-scale neighborhoods.

和紧邻的社会基础设施，

So they're reinventing it, using these tools.

所以她们利用这些手段来重新创造这种价值。

Meetup is the platform,

Meetup只是个平台，

but the value here is in social infrastructure.

在这种情况下传递的价值却存在于社会基础建设中。

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

如果你想知道什么样的科技可以改变世界，

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

别去关注13岁的男孩子们，

pay attention to young mothers,

把注意力集中在年轻的妈妈们身上，

because they have got not an ounce of support for technology

因为，每一点科技支持

that doesn't materially make their lives better.

都使他们的生活变的更好。

This is so much more important than Xbox,

这比Xbox重要太多了，

but it's a lot less glitzy.

只是没有那么抢眼罢了。

I think this is a revolution.

我认为这将会是一个重大变革。

I think that this is a really profound change

我认为，从人类行为安排的角度讲，

in the way human affairs are arranged.

这将是一个意义重大的改变。

And I use that word advisedly.

我非常谨慎的使用这个词。

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

它是一场改变平衡关系的革命。

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

这是一种全新的做事方式，同时也包括新的不利因素。

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

在美国有一位Judith Miller女士，

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

因为拒绝为联邦大陪审团提供她的资源而被囚禁起来，

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

她是纽约时报的记者，

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

并且她所持有的资源是个非常抽象和难以追踪的案件。

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

新闻记者们结合起来当街抗议，希望改进庇护法。

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

庇护法基本是一种我们国家法律的修补法案，

that prevent a journalist from having to betray a source.

可以防止新闻记者们被强制泄露新闻资源。

This is happening, however, against the background

但是，这件事的发生

of the rise of Web logging.

与兴起的网络日志（博客）的背景相违背。

Web logging is a classic example of mass amateurization.

网络日志是一个大规模业余化的经典例子，

It has de-professionalized publishing.

是非专业化的发表方式。

Want to publish globally anything you think today?

想把自己任何的想法公布于世界？

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

你只需按一个键就可以轻松做到，而且还是免费的。

That has sent the professional class of publishing down

这就使得专业级出版/发表地位下滑

into the ranks of mass amateurization.

至大规模业余化的等级中。

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

所以关于庇护法，无论我们有多么想要

we want a professional class of truth-tellers --

专业级的新闻记者，

it is becoming increasingly incoherent, because

它也变得越来越不具备一致性了，因为

the institution is becoming incoherent.

机构本身就逐渐变得前后矛盾。

There are people in the States right now

现在在美国，有一些人

tying themselves into knots, trying to figure out

费劲全力要搞清楚

whether or not bloggers are journalists.

发表博文的人到底是不是新闻记者。

And the answer to that question is,

对于这个问题的答案是：

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

这根本不重要，因为这个问题本身就不对。

Journalism was an answer to an even more important question,

新闻本身是一个更重要的问题的答案，

which is, how will society be informed?

那就是，信息要如何传递给社会？

How will they share ideas and opinions?

人们如何分享想法和意见？

And if there is an answer to that that happens outside

如果我们在新闻的专业机制之外

the professional framework of journalism,

可以得到这个问题的答案，

it makes no sense to take a professional metaphor

那么把这些

and apply it to this distributed class.

分散的个体们扣上专业的帽子就完全没有意义。

So as much as we want the shield laws,

所以，无论我们多么想要庇护法，

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

但是这个背景－－也就是他们所依附的机构本身，

is becoming incoherent.

已经开始不和谐了。

Here's another example.

这还有另外一个例子：

Pro-ana, the pro-ana groups.

Pro-ana, 支持ana的团体。

These are groups of teenage girls

有很多青少年团体，

who have taken on Web logs, bulletin boards,

利用博客，公告板

other kinds of cooperative infrastructure,

或其他种类的合作基础设施，

and have used it to set up support groups for

建立了

remaining anorexic by choice.

自愿支持厌食的团体。

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

他们发表超瘦模特的照片，称之为“瘦”启示/励瘦(Thinspiration)。

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

他们有自己的口号标语，例如“饥饿是种救赎”,

They even have Lance Armstrong-style bracelets,

甚至有Lance Armstrong式的手镯，

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

在这组女孩中，这些红色的手镯意味着，

I am trying to maintain my eating disorder.

我要继续坚持厌食。

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

他们互相交换技巧，比如，如果你想吃东西了，

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

就去清理厕所或垃圾箱，这样就吃的欲望就会消失。

We're used to support groups being beneficial.

我们习惯于支持对我们有利的团体，

We have an attitude that support groups are inherently beneficial.

我们有一种观念是，支持的团体总是有益的。

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

但是到头来，对支持团体的合理解释是中性的。

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

支持团体就是一个在较大团体中

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

想要保持自己生活方式的小团体。

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

当那个较大的团体是一群醉鬼时，

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

这个小团体却要保持清醒，那么我们认为，

that's a great support group.

这是个非常好的支持团体。

But when the small group is teenage girls

但是当这个小团体的成员

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

是一些想要保持厌食状态的十几岁的女孩们时，我们就吓坏了。

What's happened is that the normative goals

这个中的原因是，我们已经习惯了的

of the support groups that we're used to,

那些支持团体的目标准则

came from the institutions that were framing them,

都是被机构订造好的，

and not from the infrastructure.

而并不是来自于基础建设阶段。

Once the infrastructure becomes generically available,

当人们可以轻松运用基础构架，

the logic of the support group has been revealed to be

支持团体的概念显得

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

任何人都可以灵活运用，包括追求这种目标(支持厌食状态)的人们。

So, there are significant downsides to these changes

所以我说，这种变化在有积极因素的同时，

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

也存在着重大的负面因素。当然，在现今环境中，

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

试图影响国际事务并利用这些，

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

我们只需要稍微影射非国家行为体。

This is a social map of the hijackers and their associates

这是个９１１事件的劫机者和他的同僚们

who perpetrated the 9/11 attack.

的社交关系图。

It was produced by analyzing their communications patterns

人们利用这些工具分析他们的通讯模式。

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

无可置疑地，对于上周的袭击，全球的情报部门

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

也在做同样的工作。

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

那么我现在该告诉你

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

我前面所讲的那些造成的结果是什么了，

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

但是我现在没时间了，这很好，

because I don't know.

因为我也不知道。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

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

就像印刷一样，如果这真的是一个变革，

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

它并不是简单地把我们从A点带到B点，

It takes us from Point A to chaos.

而是把我们从A点带到混乱。

The printing press precipitated 200 years of chaos,

印刷曾经陷入一个200年的混乱阶段，

moving from a world where the Catholic Church

从天主教堂

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

管理政治势力到威斯特伐利亚和约，

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

直到我们最终知道所建立的新的国家体系是单一民族国家。

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

这里我并没有由此预测200年的混乱局面，我说是50年吧。

50 years in which loosely coordinated groups

50年内，松散的合作团体

are going to be given increasingly high leverage,

的影响力将大大增加，

and the more those groups forego traditional institutional imperatives --

机构有机构的规则，例如预先决策制度或确定利润动机是什么－－

like deciding in advance what's going to happen,

这些团体超越机构的控制规则越多，

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

他们的影响力也就越大。

And institutions are going to come under

而机构将会面临

an increasing degree of pressure,

日益增加的压力，

and the more rigidly managed, and the more they rely

管理越严密，对信息垄断依赖性越大，

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

他们的压力就会越大。

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

这将会一个战场接一个战场，

one institution at a time. The forces are general,

一个机构接一个机构地发生。影响力是笼统的，

but the results are going to be specific.

结果将会是明确的。

And so the point here is not,

所以这里的重点并不是

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

”这太好了“或者”我们将会看到一个从

from only institutions to only cooperative framework."

单纯机构到单纯合作机制的变革“，

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

而是比这个复杂多了。

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

但是问题是，我们将面临一个巨大的重整

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

既然我们已经预见到了这一点，

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

那么我的论点便是我们要做好准备迎接它。

Thank you very much.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）