Steven Johnson: The Web and the city

譯者: Marie Wu 審譯者: Zhu Jie

I want to take you back basically to my hometown,

我想先跟各位介紹我的家鄉，

and to a picture of my hometown of the week

這是我的家鄉在我的新書「崛起」

that "Emergence" came out.

發行後一個星期的照片，

And it's a picture we've seen several times.

這張照片大家都看過很多次了，

Basically, "Emergence" was published on 9/11.

「崛起」其實就是在9·11那天發行。

I live right there in the West Village,

我當時就住在西村，

so the plume was luckily blowing west, away from us.

那時的煙霧很幸運地往西邊吹，沒有擴散到我們這裡。

We had a two-and-a-half-day-old baby in the house that was ours --

那時我們有一個二天半大的嬰兒在家裡--

we hadn't taken it from somebody else.

那嬰兒可不是偷來的...

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And one of the thoughts that I had dealing with these two separate emergences

我那時手上正忙著處理書和嬰兒這二件燙手山芋，

of a book and a baby, and having this event happen so close --

結果附近又發生了這件大事，

that my first thought, when I was still kind of in the apartment looking out at it all

我站在公寓裡看著外面發生的一切，

or walking out on the street and looking out on it just in front of our building,

有時也走上街去看看我們大樓前發生的事，

was that I'd made a terrible miscalculation in the book that I'd just written.

我第一個想到的事是我剛寫好的書裡有一個嚴重的錯誤。

Because so much of that book was a celebration of the power

那本書大部分的內容都是在誇耀人口密集都市的力量、

and creative potential of density, of largely urban density,

大都市的創造力、

of connecting people and putting them together in one place,

都市可以把人都聚集且連結在一起、

and putting them on sidewalks together and having them share ideas

人們可以聚在馬路邊分享彼此的看法、

and share physical space together.

許多人可以共同享有一個都市空間等。

And it seemed to me looking at that -- that tower burning and then falling,

而當我看著那棟大樓燃燒起來，然後倒下，

those towers burning and falling -- that in fact, one of the lessons

又有大樓燃燒然後倒下，我突然驚覺這件事的意義是：

here was that density kills.

都市人口密度太高反而是場災難。

And that of all the technologies that were exploited

而歹徒為造成這場災難

to make that carnage come into being,

所使用的科技技術，

probably the single group of technologies that cost the most lives

可能只是讓這五萬人在這二棟超過110層樓高

were those that enable 50,000 people to live in two buildings

的大樓裡上班所需要用到的科技

110 stories above the ground.

的一小部分。

If they hadn't been crowded --

如果人口不是那麼密集--

you compare the loss of life at the Pentagon to the Twin Towers,

看看五角大廈的傷亡就知道，

and you can see that very powerfully.

雙子星大樓的人員傷亡是很嚴重的。

And so I started to think, well, you know, density, density --

所以我開始想，嗯，人口密度...人口密度...

I'm not sure if, you know, this was the right call.

我開始不能確定這是不是正確的想法，

And I kind of ruminated on that for a couple of days.

所以我那幾天反覆地想這個問題。

And then about two days later, the wind started to change a little bit,

大約二天之後，風向有點改變了，

and you could sense that the air was not healthy.

大家都知道那時的空氣很污濁，有害健康，

And so even though there were no cars still in the West Village

所以即使那時我們所住的西村還是禁止汽車通行，

where we lived, my wife sent me out to buy a, you know,

我太太還是派我出去，

a large air filter at the Bed Bath and Beyond,

要我去電器行買一台大型的空氣濾淨器，

which was located about 20 blocks away, north.

那家電器行在我們家北邊20個街區之外，

And so I went out.

所以我就去了。

And obviously I'm physically a very strong person, as you can tell -- (Laughter) --

你可以看得出來我的身體還滿結實的，

so I wasn't worried about carrying this thing 20 blocks.

所以我一點也不擔心要搬著那台機器走過20個街區。

And I walked out, and this really miraculous thing happened to me

就在我走在街上，要去買空氣濾淨器時，

as I was walking north to buy this air filter,

發生了一件很奇妙的事情，

which was that the streets were completely alive with people.

我發現街上的人們全都朝氣蓬勃，

There was an incredible -- it was, you know, a beautiful day,

真的很奇妙，那天天氣很好，

as it was for about a week after,

911才發生大約一個星期，

and the West Village had never seemed more lively.

西村的人卻表現得如此朝氣蓬勃。

I walked up along Hudson Street --

我走向哈德森街，

where Jane Jacobs had lived and written her great book

珍·賈古柏曾住在那兒，還寫了一本很棒的書，

that so influenced what I was writing in "Emergence" --

那本書對我那時正在寫的「崛起」有很大的影響；

past the White Horse Tavern,

接著我走過白馬酒館，

that great old bar where Dylan Thomas drank himself to death,

迪倫．湯瑪士就在這間很棒的老酒館裡把自己喝掛了；

and the Bleecker Street playground was filled with kids.

還有一堆小孩聚集在布力克街的遊樂場裡。

And all the people who lived in the neighborhood,

這些住在附近的人們，

who owned restaurants and bars in the neighborhood,

他們在附近開了餐廳或是經營小酒館，

were all out there -- had them all open.

全都開始營業了。

People were out.

人們全都走出來了，

There were no cars, so it seemed even better, in some ways.

街上少了車子，看起來又更好了，

And it was a beautiful urban day,

真是美好的都市生活，

and the incredible thing about it was that the city was working.

最不可思議的是整個城市又開始運作了，

The city was there.

完全沒變。

All the things that make a great city successful

所有讓大都市成功的因素、

and all the things that make a great city stimulating --

所有讓大都市活潑起來的事情，

they were all on display there on those streets.

全都在這些街區上演起來。

And I thought, well, this is the power of a city.

我想，嗯，這就是都市的力量。

I mean, the power of the city --

我是說，都市的力量--

we talked about cities as being centralized in space,

我們認為都市就是一個集中的地區，

but what makes them so strong most of the time

但大多數時候，真正讓都市茁壯起來的，

is they're decentralized in function.

反而是各個功能的分散處理。

They don't have a center executive branch that you can take out

在都市裡，沒有一個類似中央指揮所的地方，

and cause the whole thing to fail.

你只要摧毁這個地方整個都市就垮了；

If they did, it probably was right there at Ground Zero.

如果真的有這個地方，或許就在雙子星大樓吧，

I mean, you know, the emergency bunker was right there,

因為緊急避難所就設在那裡，

was destroyed by the attacks,

但雙子星大樓被摧毁了，

and obviously the damage done to the building and the lives.

不只樓塌了，人員也傷亡慘重。

But nonetheless, just 20 blocks north, two days later,

但是，就在二天後，在雙子星大樓北邊20個街區的地方，

the city had never looked more alive.

整個都市又活起來了。

If you'd gone into the minds of the people,

如果你窺探人們的心思，

well, you would have seen a lot of trauma,

你可能會看到很多創傷，

and you would have seen a lot of heartache,

可能會發現很多心痛的痕跡，

and you would have seen a lot of things that would take a long time to recover.

還有很多是需要花上長時間才能復原的傷口。

But the system itself of this city was thriving.

但是整個都市體系又恢復了朝氣，

So I took heart in seeing that.

所以我認真地用心思考這件事。

So I wanted to talk a little bit about the reasons why that works so well,

我要來談談為什麼都市可以運作得這麼好，

and how some of those reasons kind of map

以及這背後的原因又可以怎麼樣

on to where the Web is going right now.

和現在流行的網路扯上關係。

The question that I found myself asking to people

當我後來在談我所寫的書、

when I was talking about the book afterwards is --

當我們談及緊急應變行為

when you've talked about emergent behavior,

以及集體智慧時，

when you've talked about collective intelligence,

要引起人們注意最好的方法

the best way to get people to kind of wrap their heads around that

就是問他們：

is to ask, who builds a neighborhood?

「是誰建立了社區？」

Who decides that Soho should have this personality

「是誰決定蘇活區就要長得這樣？

and that the Latin Quarter should have this personality?

又是誰決定拉丁區要長成這樣？」

Well, there are some kind of executive decisions,

當然，這背後一定有些是大老闆的決定，

but mostly the answer is -- everybody and nobody.

但是真正的決策者應該每一個人，或是沒有任何人。

Everybody contributes a little bit.

每個人都貢獻了一點，

No single person is really the ultimate actor

但沒有任何一個人可以決定

behind the personality of a neighborhood.

那個社區的個性。

Same thing to the question of, who was keeping the streets alive

同樣的問題是：「是誰讓我們的社區

post-9/11 in my neighborhood?

在911之後又重新恢復運作？」

Well, it was the whole city.

答案是：整個都市居民。

The whole system kind of working on it,

整個都市體系都運作了起來，

and everybody contributing a small little part.

每個人都貢獻了自己的那一小部分。

And this is increasingly what we're starting to see on the Web

從這個方向來看網路，

in a bunch of interesting ways --

你也會看到很多有趣的現象，

most of which weren't around, actually,

但在我寫「崛起」這本書和它發行期間，

except in very experimental things,

大部分的現象還不存在，

when I was writing "Emergence" and when the book came out.

除非是一些具有實驗性質的測試。

So it's been a very optimistic time, I think,

我認為那時一切都很樂觀，

and I want to just talk about a few of those things.

我想來談談幾個樂觀的事實。

I think that there is effectively a new kind of model of interactivity

我認為目前有一個新型的互動模式

that's starting to emerge online right now.

正在網路上興起，

And the old one looked like this.

舊的是長這個樣子--

This is not the future King of England, although it looks like it.

這不是未來的英國國王，雖然看起來有點像，

It's some guy, it's a GeoCities homepage of some guy that I found online

那只是我在GeoCities網頁上找到的某個傢伙，

who's interested, if you look at the bottom, in soccer and Jesus

他還滿有趣的，看看這下面：我愛足球、耶穌、

and Garth Brooks and Clint Beckham and "my hometown" -- those are his links.

葛斯．布魯克、克林．貝克漢和我的家鄉--下面是他的連結。

But nothing really says

但這個模式

this model of interactivity -- which was so exciting and captures the real,

一點也沒有刺激或真實的互動成份，

the Web Zeitgeist of 1995 -- than

有點像是1995年的Zeitgeist網路，

"Click here for a picture of my dog."

「點這裡看我的狗的照片」。

That is -- you know, there's no sentence

這個連結比其他任何說明

that kind of conjures up that period better than that, I think,

都更能詮釋那個時代，

which is that you suddenly have the power to put up a picture of your dog

你突然可以把自家狗的照片放上網路，

and link to it, and somebody reading the page

建立一個連結，這樣在別人讀到這個網頁時，

has the power to click on that link or not click on that link.

他就能選擇要不要開啟這個連結。

And, you know, I don't want to belittle that. That, in a sense --

我並不是要眨低這個模式，

to reference what Jeff was talking about yesterday --

我只是要引用昨天傑夫所談到的事情，

that was, in a sense, the kind of interface electricity that

這就像是一個電力介面，

powered a lot of the explosion of interest in the Web:

可以引起大家對網路的興趣，

that you could put up a link, and somebody could click on it,

你只要放上一個連結，另一個人點選之後，

and it could take you anywhere you wanted to go.

就可以到任何地方去。

But it's still a very one-to-one kind of relationship.

但這種關係還是維持在一對一的狀況下，

There's one person putting up the link, and there's another person

一個人放上連結，另一個人

on the other end trying to decide whether to click on it or not.

則在另一端思考要不要點選。

The new model is much more like this,

新的模式則比較像這樣，

and we've already seen a couple of references to this.

大家應該都已經看過好幾個這種例子了，

This is what happens when you search "Steven Johnson" on Google.

當你在Google上搜尋「史帝芬·強生」就會看到這個頁面。

About two months ago, I had the great breakthrough --

大約二個月之前，我個人有了重大突破，

one of my great, kind of shining achievements --

有點像是我個人的重大成就，

which is that my website finally became a top result for "Steven Johnson."

我個人的網頁終於站上了「史帝芬·強生」搜尋結果的第一列，

There's some theoretical physicist at MIT named Steven Johnson

有個麻省理工學院的物理學家也叫史帝芬·強生，

who has dropped two spots, I'm happy to say.

他下降了二位，我很高興...

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And, you know, I mean, I'll look at a couple of things like this,

我會上好幾個搜尋網站，

but Google is obviously the greatest technology ever invented for navel gazing.

但對自大的人來說，Google顯然是有史以來最好用的科技，

It's just that there are so many other people in your navel when you gaze.

只是當你在自我陶醉的時候，還會出現其他許多人而已。

Because effectively, what's happening here,

你所看到的這個頁面，

what's creating this page, obviously -- and we all know this,

雖然大家都知道是怎麼回事，

but it's worth just thinking about it --

但我們還是來想一想，

is not some person deciding that I am the number one answer for Steven Johnson,

這並不是由某人來決定讓我來當這個搜尋的第一個答案，

but rather somehow the entire web of people

而是由所有的網路成員來決定，

putting up pages and deciding to link to my page or not link to it,

他們會放上自己的網頁，決定是否要連結到我的網頁，

and Google just sitting there and running the numbers.

Google只是坐在那裡數連結的數量而已。

So there's this collective decision-making that's going on.

這背後是由群體所做成的決策，

This page is effectively, collectively authored by the Web,

這個搜尋結果是由全體網路成員共同撰寫而成，

and Google is just helping us

Google只是在一旁協助，

kind of to put the authorship in one kind of coherent place.

提供一個場地讓大家共同撰寫。

Now, they're more innovative -- well, Google's pretty innovative --

還有許多創新的部分--嗯，Google一向很創新，

but there are some new twists on this.

這裡有些新的技術，

There's this incredibly interesting new site -- Technorati --

像這個很棒的有趣新奇網站--Technorati，

that's filled with lots of little widgets that are expanding on these.

裡面都是一些從這個搜尋概念發展出來的小玩意兒，

And these are looking in the blog world and the world of weblogs.

它會去搜尋每個人的部落格，自成一個網路部落格世界。

He's analyzed basically all the weblogs out there that he's tracking.

它會追蹤分析所有的部落格，

And he's tracking how many other weblogs linked to those weblogs,

看有多少其他的部落格連結到這種部落格，

and so you have kind of an authority --

因此就可以看出各個部落格的權威性，

a weblog that has a lot of links to it

有較多人連結的部落格，

is more authoritative than a weblog that has few links to it.

就比較少人連結的部落格具有權威性。

And so at any given time, on any given page on the Web, actually,

所以在某個特定時間內，只要你選定任何一個網路頁面，

you can say, what does the weblog community think about this page?

你就可以知道部落客們對這個網頁有什麼評價，

And you can get a list.

你會看到一份清單，

This is what they think about my site; it's ranked by blog authority.

這是部落客們對我的網頁的排名，

You can also rank it by the latest posts.

你也可以看到最新文章的排名。

So when I was talking in "Emergence,"

當我在寫「崛起」這本書時，

I talked about the limitations of the one-way linking architecture

我在裡面談到了單向連結架構的限制，

that, basically, you could link to somebody else

也就是說，你可以連結到其他人，

but they wouldn't necessarily know that you were pointing to them.

但其他人並不一定知道你做了連結，

And that was one of the reasons why the web

這也是為什麼舊的網路模式

wasn't quite as emergent as it could be

沒有那麼興盛的原因之一，

because you needed two-way linking, you needed that kind of feedback mechanism

因為大家都喜歡雙向連結，大家都需要回饋的機制，

to be able to really do interesting things.

才能創造出有趣的事情來。

Well, something like Technorati is supplying that.

現在，像Technorati這種網站就能提供這種服務。

Now what's interesting here is that this is a quote from Dave Weinberger,

我要引用大衛．溫柏格的話來闡述這個有趣的現象，

where he talks about everything being purposive in the Web --

他認為網路的一切都具有某種目的：

there's nothing artificial.

「全都是人為的東西。」

He has this line where he says, you know, you're going to put up a link there,

他說這句話的意思是，如果你看到一個連結在某處，

if you see a link, somebody decided to put it there.

那一定是另外的某人放上去的。

And he says, the link to one site didn't just grow on the other page "like a tree fungus."

他還說，某個網站的連結，並不像菇菌寄生在樹上那樣在某個網頁自動長出來，

And in fact, I think that's not entirely true anymore.

但我覺得這並不完全適用於現在的網路。

I could put up a feed of all those links generated by Technorati

我可以在我網頁的右手邊，

on the right-hand side of my page,

訂閱Technorati所產生的所有連結，

and they would change as the overall ecology of the Web changes.

那麼在網路生態改變的時候，我也看得到他們的改變，

That little list there would change.

這份清單也會跟著改變，

I wouldn't really be directly in control of it.

但我並沒有實際參與控制這份清單。

So it's much closer, in a way, to a data fungus, in a sense,

這有點像是是網頁的寄生物，他們在我的網頁不斷地繁殖，

wrapped around that page, than it is to a deliberate link that I've placed there.

而不是我刻意放上去的某個連結。

Now, what you're having here is basically a global brain

現在我們所看到的，有點像是全球網友組合而成的大腦，

that you're able to do lots of kind of experiments on to see what it's thinking.

你可以做許多測試來看它在想什麼，

And there are all these interesting tools.

還有許多有趣的工具可以使用。

Google does the Google Zeitgeist,

Google推出了Google Zeitgeist，

which looks at search requests to test what's going on, what people are interested in,

它會分析搜尋的字彙，以瞭解最近發生了什麼事，大家對什麼有興趣等，

and they publish it with lots of fun graphs.

再以有趣的圖表呈現出來。

And I'm saying a lot of nice things about Google,

我說了很多Google的好話，

so I'll be I'll be saying one little critical thing.

所以我現在要說Google的一個小缺點，

There's a problem with the Google Zeitgeist,

Google Zeitgeist有一個問題，

which is it often comes back with news that a lot of people are searching

那就是它會把小甜甜布蘭妮的照片成為熱門搜尋這件事，

for Britney Spears pictures, which is not necessarily news.

當成新聞來處理，但這已經不是新聞了；

The Columbia blows up, suddenly there are a lot of searches on Columbia.

哥倫比亞號爆炸，突然就會有很多人上網搜尋哥倫比亞號，

Well, you know, we should expect to see that.

這是一定的啊...

That's not necessarily something we didn't know already.

那就不是什麼新聞了...

So the key thing in terms of these new tools

所以對這些新式工具來說，

that are kind of plumbing the depths of the global brain,

最重要的是要推深這個網路大腦的深度，

that are sending kind of trace dyes through that whole bloodstream --

他們必須在血管裡注入一些可以用來追蹤的染色因子--

the question is, are you finding out something new?

問題是，你找得出什麼是新聞嗎？

And one of the things that I experimented with is this thing called Google Share

我針對Google Share做了另一個實驗，

which is basically, you take an abstract term,

我選定某個詞彙，

and you search Google for that term,

在Google上進行搜尋，

and then you search the results that you get back for somebody's name.

然後在這個搜尋結果裡再搜尋某個人的名字，

So basically, the number of pages that mention this term,

所以，同時提到這個詞彙和某人名字的頁面數，

that also mention this page, the percentage of those pages

佔提到這個詞彙頁面數的百分比，

is that person's Google Share of that term.

就是這二者之間的關聯百分比。

So you can do kind of interesting contests.

所以我們可以來做個有趣的比賽，

Like for instance, this is a Google Share of the TED Conference.

像是為TED研討會來辦個比賽，

So Richard Saul Wurman

理查·沙烏·吳爾曼(TED創辦人)就和TED研討會

has about a 15 percent Google Share of the TED conference.

產生了百分之15的關聯性；

Our good friend Chris has about a six percent -- but with a bullet, I might add.

我們的好朋友克里斯有百分之6，但是他威脅我，所以我會幫他加一點...

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

But the interesting thing is, you can broaden the search a little bit.

有趣的是，你還可以加大搜尋的範圍，

And it turns out, actually, that 42 percent is the Mola mola fish.

你會發現，翻車魚有百分之42的關聯性，

I had no idea.

真不知道是怎麼搞的...

No, that's not true.

不，這不是真的。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

I made that up because I just wanted to put up a slide

那是我捏造的，我只是想放一張

of the Mola mola fish.

翻車魚的照片。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

I also did -- and I don't want to start a little fight in the next panel --

我並不想和下一組演講人打起來，

but I did a Google Share analysis of evolution and natural selection.

但我的確做了一份有關演進和物競天擇的Google Share分析，

So right here -- now this is a big category, you have smaller percentages,

看這裡，因為這是一個很大的題目，所以關聯性會很小，

so this is 0.7 percent -- Dan Dennett, who'll be speaking shortly.

鄧·丹尼特有百分之0.7，他待會兒會上台演講，

Right below him, 0.5 percent, Steven Pinker.

在他後面的是史帝芬·平克，有百分之0.5，

So Dennett's in the lead a little bit there.

所以目前丹尼特領先一點。

But what's interesting is you can then broaden the search

有趣的是，你可以擴大搜尋範圍，

and actually see interesting things and get a sense of what else is out there.

你會發現一些很有趣的事，看到一些好玩的結果。

So Gary Bauer is not too far behind --

蓋里·鮑爾(政治家)就緊跟在後，

has slightly different theories about evolution and natural selection.

雖然他對物競天擇有一點不同的看法；

And right behind him is L. Ron Hubbard. So --

緊接在後的是羅恩．賀伯特(山達基教創辦人)...

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

you can see we're in the ascot, which is always good.

我們好像在賽馬場上哩...還真不錯。

And by the way, Chris, that would've been a really good panel,

對了，克里斯，他們可以組成一個很棒的演講，

I think, right there.

就讓他們在那裡講...

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Hubbard apparently started to reach, but besides that,

賀伯特應該已經準備好了，不管怎樣，

I think it would be good next year.

明年的演講一定很精采。

Another quick thing -- this is a slightly different thing,

再講另一件不太一樣的事，

but this analysis some of you may have seen.

你們可能有看過這種分析，

It just came out. This is bursty words,

這種分析剛剛出爐，是有關熱門詞彙的分析，

looking at the historical record of State of the Union Addresses.

主要分析歷屆國情諮文出現的詞彙。

So these are words that suddenly start to appear out of nowhere,

這些詞彙不知道是怎麼跑出來的，

so they're kind of, you know, memes that start taking off,

有點像是隨機挑選的詞彙，

that didn't have a lot of historical precedent before.

以前沒有什麼先例。

So the first one is -- these are the bursty words around 1860s --

讓我們來看看1860年代最熱門的詞彙：

slaves, emancipation, slavery, rebellion, Kansas.

奴隸、解放、奴隸制度、暴亂、堪薩斯。

That's Britney Spears. I mean, you know, OK, interesting.

這些詞就是那個年代的小甜甜布蘭妮，很有趣吧！

They're talking about slavery in 1860.

1860年代他們所談的是奴隸制度。

1935 -- relief, depression, recovery banks.

1935年：救濟金、經濟大蕭條、復甦、銀行。

And OK, I didn't learn anything new there as well -- that's pretty obvious.

好，很顯然這裡面沒有什麼是我們不知道的。

1985, right at the center of the Reagan years --

1985年，那是雷根執政的中期：

that's, we're, there's, we've, it's.

那是、我們是、有一些、我們以前、那件事。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Now, there's one way to interpret this, which is to say that

現在，讓我們來看看，

"emancipation" and "depression" and "recovery" all have a lot of syllables.

「解放」、「經濟大蕭條」和「復甦」的音節都很多，

So you know, you can actually download -- it's hard to remember those.

你可以把這些詞下載下來，因為確實不是那麼好記；

But seriously, actually, what you can see there,

但如果我們認真地看待這件事，

in a way that would be very hard to detect otherwise,

你會發現一些不容易察覺的事，

is Reagan reinventing the political language of the country

那就是雷根重新改造了我們國家的政治語言，

and shifting to a much more intimate, much more folksy, much more telegenic --

把政治語言修正為較為親切、較具庶民風格、較適合在電視上播放的語言，

contracting all those verbs.

而不再是那些生硬的詞彙。

You know, 20 years before it was still, "Ask not what you can do,"

20年前大家都說：「不要問國家為你做了什麼」，

but with Reagan, it's, "that's where, there's Nancy and I," that kind of language.

雷根說的卻是：「南茜和我來到這裡」這類的話。

And so something we kind of knew,

我們都知道雷根說了什麼，

but you didn't actually notice syntactically what he was doing.

但卻很難察覺他在語句上做了什麼改變。

I'll go very quickly.

我很快地說明一下。

The question now -- and this is the really interesting question --

現在，很有趣的問題是：

is, what kind of higher-level shape is emerging right now

現在在網路世界裡正在興起的現象是什麼？

in the overall Web ecosystem -- and particularly in the ecosystem of the blogs

尤其是在網路世界走在最前端的部落格，

because they are really kind of at the cutting edge.

有什麼新的現象？

And I think what happens there will also happen in the wider system.

我相信那裡的新玩意兒也會影響到其他的地方。

Now there was a very interesting article by Clay Shirky

克雷．雪積大約在一個月以前

that got a lot of attention about a month ago,

寫了一篇有趣的文章，引起了大家的注意，

and this is basically the distribution of links

你可以在這裡看到網路上各個不同部落格

on the web to all these various different blogs.

引用這篇文章的連結分佈。

It follows a power law, so that there are a few extremely well-linked to, popular blogs,

這個圖呈現出典型的80/20理論，少數幾個知名的部落格擁有最多的連結，

and a long tail of blogs with very few links.

後面則有一大串部落格都只有少數連結，

So 20 percent of the blogs get 80 percent of the links.

所以有百分之20的部落格擁有百分之80的連結。

Now this is a very interesting thing.

這真的很有趣！

It's caused a lot of controversy

這引起許多討論，

because people thought that this was the ultimate kind of one man,

因為大家原本認為網路就代表著民主，

one modem democracy, where anybody can get out there and get their voice heard.

擁有數據機就擁有民主，每個人都可以發出自己的聲音。

And so the question is, "Why is this happening?"

問題是：「為什麼會這樣？」

It's not being imposed by fiat from above.

這不是由上而下傳遞的命令，

It's an emergent property of the blogosphere right now.

這是部落格文化的副產品。

Now, what's great about it is that people are working on --

最棒的是，大家都在忙著--

within seconds of Clay publishing this piece, people started working on changing

當克雷發表了那篇文章後，幾秒之內，大家就忙著改寫

the underlying rules of the system so that a different shape would start appearing.

部落格的潛規則，因此形成了一種現象。

And basically, the shape appears

這種現象大部分是導因於

largely because of a kind of a first-mover advantage.

某種類似先佔先贏的優勢，

if you're the first site there, everybody links to you.

也就是說，如果你是第一個連結的網站，其他人都會連結到你這裡；

If you're the second site there, most people link to you.

如果你搶到了第二順位，大部分的人也會連結到你這裡；

And so very quickly you can accumulate a bunch of links,

很快地，你就會累積出大量的連結，

and it makes it more likely for newcomers to link to you in the future,

未來只要是新建立的網站，都很有可能連結到你的網站，

and then you get this kind of shape.

這就形成了這個現象。

And so what Dave Sifry at Technorati started working on,

大衛．西弗瑞(Technorati創辦人)在Technorati上所做的，

literally as Shirky started -- after he published his piece --

其實就是類似在雪積發表文章之後，

was something that basically just gave a new kind of priority to newcomers.

給那些新加入的網站一個機會。

And he started looking at interesting newcomers that don't have a lot of links,

他觀察那些沒有多少連結的新進網站，

that suddenly get a bunch of links in the last 24 hours.

為何會在短短24小時之內累積出大量的連結。

So in a sense, bursty weblogs coming from new voices.

就某種程度來說，熱門的部落格都是些新的網站。

So he's working on a tool right there that can actually change the overall system.

所以他希望能開發出改變整個遊戲規則的工具，

And it creates a kind of planned emergence.

可以創造出某種預設的現象，

You're not totally in control,

你雖沒有完全的掌控權力，

but you're changing the underlying rules in interesting ways

但是你卻以有趣的方式改變各項潛規則，

because you have an end result which is

因為你最終將會以更民主的方式，

maybe a more democratic spread of voices.

將自己的聲音散佈出去。

So the most amazing thing about this -- and I'll end on this note --

所以這件事最棒的地方在於--我想用這個做為結尾--

is, most emergent systems, most self-organizing systems

這些最新發展出來的系統、可以由使用者自行組織而成的系統，

are not made up of component parts that are capable of looking at the overall pattern

並不是由零件所組成，這些系統有能力看到整體趨勢，

and changing their behavior based on whether they like the pattern or not.

並且可以依據他們對該趨勢的喜好程度，而修改自己的行為。

So the most wonderful thing, I think, about this whole debate

我認為這些對於80/20理論的爭論，

about power laws and software that could change it

以及設計軟體來改變這個系統的這些事，

is the fact that we're having the conversation.

都代表了一件事：我們終於可以對話了！

I hope it continues here.

我希望未來能持續對話下去。

Thanks a lot.

謝謝！