What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs | Katherine Maher | TED

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: 至磊Zi Le 黃Ng

It is lovely to be with you here this evening.

很高興今天能來到這裡。

So as you just heard, my name is Katherine Maher

各位剛才已經聽到， 我是凱瑟琳‧馬赫，

and I used to be, until very recently, the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation,

一直到不久前我都還是 維基媒體基金會的執行長，

which is the organization behind Wikipedia.

它是維基百科背後的組織。

And my tenure coincided with a very strange time for information.

我的任期剛好碰上在資訊方面 相當奇怪的一段時期：

A global crisis of fake news and disinformation,

假新聞和不實消息充斥的全球危機，

which meant that our free-knowledge movement

那意味著，我們的自由知識運動

really sort of stood alone.

真的要孤軍奮戰了。

At the same time, too,

也在同時，

we saw a collapse in public trust around the world

我們見識到全球的公眾信任崩毀，

in many of our critical civic institutions.

不再相信許多重要的公民機構。

And one of the reasons for this collapse in public trust,

而公眾信任之所以會崩毀，

in things like public science and an independent free press

不再相信如公眾科學、 獨立自由的新聞輿論，

and even perhaps in the idea of democracy itself,

甚至民主這個想法本身，

is that people around the globe are increasingly skeptical

其中一個原因是 全世界的人都越來越懷疑

about the ability of these institutions to respond to our future challenges

這些機構有沒有能力 因應我們未來的難題

and changing needs.

及不斷在變的需求。

And yet, during this time,

但，在這段時間，

trust in Wikipedia actually went up.

對維基百科的信任卻提升了。

Something that surprised us as much as anyone.

對此，我們和大家一樣驚訝。

And so I started wondering, what is it about this organization,

於是，我開始納悶， 是什麼原因讓這個組織，

this radical experiment in openness,

這個關於開放性、自治、 業餘主義、自願服務的激進實驗，

self-governance and amateurism, volunteerism,

that made it so different?

如此與眾不同？

And I've come to believe that in many ways,

我漸漸相信，

在許多層面上，

the things that made Wikipedia implausible are actually what prepare it

讓維基百科如此不凡的原因，

實際上也讓它準備好 因應這個不斷在變的世界，

to respond to our changing world.

And make it a place that people love and trust.

並讓它成為大家喜愛、信任的地方。

And so one of the things about it, of course,

所以，

當然，它的特點之一，

is that it is edited entirely by volunteers,

就是它完全是由志工編輯，

ordinary people from all over the world.

也就是來自全世界的一般人。

All of the decisions about encyclopedic content

所有關於百科內容 以及組織政策的決策，

and organizational policies

take place in a transparent and open fashion.

都是透明且開放的。

This means that Wikipedia can continue to change

這表示，當周遭的世界改變時， 維基百科也能跟著持續改變，

as the world changes around it,

integrating new ideas and new perspectives.

把新想法和新觀點整合進來。

But I think one of the most critical things

但我認為，最重要的關鍵之一，

that I found really important

is that its model pushes us to work together

是它的模型促使我們合作，

into deliberation and into conversation

進行商議和對談，

so that the end result is something

所以，最終結果會是 大部分人覺得合理且公平的。

that most of us feel is reasonable and fair.

Now, easy enough for some things,

有些事物比較好處理，

like articles on animals with fraudulent diplomas ...

比如「拿假文憑的動物」這種文章，

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Which is a real article on Wikipedia.

維基百科真的有這篇文章。

But what about the hard things,

但棘手的事物呢？

the places where we are prone to disagreement,

我們很容易產生歧見的領域，

say, politics and religion?

比如政治和宗教？

Well, as it turns out,

結果發現，

not only does Wikipedia's model work there,

維基百科的模型 不僅在那些領域可行，

it actually works really well.

而且效果絕佳。

Because in our normal lives,

因為在我們平常的生活中，

these contentious conversations tend to erupt

當大家對真相是什麼有歧見時，

over a disagreement about what the truth actually is.

就會爆發有爭議的對談。

But the people who write these articles,

但撰寫這些文章的人，

they're not focused on the truth.

他們的焦點不是在真相上。

They're focused on something else,

他們的焦點在別的地方。

which is the best of what we can know right now.

目前我們能知道的就只有這樣。

And after seven years of working with these brilliant folks,

和這些出色的人合作了七年之後，

I've come to believe that they are onto something.

我漸漸開始相信 他們似乎發現了什麼。

That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements,

也許，對於我們最難搞的歧見，

seeking the truth

尋求真相

and seeking to convince others of the truth

以及尋求讓別人也相信這真相，

might not be the right place to start.

可能不是對的起始點。

In fact,

事實上，

our reverence for the truth might be a distraction

我們把真相看得如此之重，

可能會分散注意力，

that's getting in the way

成為阻礙，

of finding common ground and getting things done.

以致難以找到共同點和把事情完成。

Now,

that is not to say that the truth doesn't exist,

意思並不是說真相不存在，

nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important.

也不是說真相不重要。

Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things,

很明顯，追尋真相讓我們 能夠做到了不起的事，

to learn great things.

能學習了不起的事。

But ...

但……

I think if I were to really ask you to think about this,

如果我請各位真正思考一下，

one of the things that we could all acknowledge

大家都能認同一件事，

is that part of the reason

就是我們歷史上之所以有如此輝煌的

we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience

人類經歷和各種形式的文化，

and all forms of culture

is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

有一部分是因為我們承認 有許多不同的真相。

And so in the spirit of that,

所以，根據這種精神，

I'm certain that the truth exists for you

我相信，對你而言的真相是存在的，

and probably for the person sitting next to you.

對坐在你旁邊的人大概亦是如此，

But this may not be the same truth.

但你們的真相可能不一樣。

This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people,

那是因為通常事情的真相 對很多人而言，

what happens when we merge facts about the world

是我們把關於這個世界的事實與信念 整合之後的結果。

with our beliefs about the world.

So we all have different truths.

所以我們都有不同的真相。

They're based on things like where we come from,

這些真相會根據我們來自何方、

how we were raised

我們的成長歷程、

and how other people perceive us.

以及他人對我們的看法而有所不同。

Now you and your neighbor, who's probably a reasonable person --

你和你的鄰居， 他大概是個理性的人——

they look like a nice person?

他們長得像好人嗎？

Yeah, they're probably a reasonable person.

是，他們大概是理性的人。

(Laughs)

（笑）

You two can probably get together

你們兩人很有可能一起坐下來

and come to some sort of shared agreement.

達成某種共同的協議。

But what happens when a third person joins the conversation

但如果有第三個人加入談話呢？

or a fourth or a fifth?

或第四個？第五個？

What happens when we try to expand this out

如果我們要把這規模擴大到

to the scale of all 7.8 billion of us?

我們所有七十八億人，會如何？

The reality is we are a vast and varied world.

現實是，我們的世界很廣大、多變。

And so when we try to use our personal truths

所以，當我們帶著 個人的真相進入談話，

to come to conversations

around collective decision-making on important issues,

且談的是對重要的議題 做集體的決策，

we start to run into problems.

我們就會開始遇到問題。

Because collective decision-making,

因為集體決策是我們 在民主開放的社會中想做的事，

the sort of thing that we want to do in democratic and open societies

requires that we get together with common understandings

那就需要我們一起坐下來，

對於問題的根源 及解決問題的假設取得共識。

about the root of the problem

and some assumptions about how we might get out of it.

But if we're using our personal truths to do this,

但若我們用個人的真相來做這件事，

we end up having conversations about our values and our identity.

最後我們會談的就是 我們的價值觀和身分。

Because remember, our truths come from where we come from.

因為我們來自何處， 我們的真相就來自何處。

And then we're focusing on what divides us

接著，我們的焦點會變成 讓我們分裂的那些事物，

instead of what we can agree upon.

而不是我們能達成什麼共識。

And that allows us to start having conversations about the truth

那就會讓我們開始談真相，

in a way that focuses on what we believe

且談的時候會把焦點 放在我們相信什麼，

rather than what can be known.

而不是能知道什麼。

And that is a definition that is deeply divisive and harmful.

而那樣的定義會 極易引起分歧且有害無益。

I think about our lack of urgent action on climate change.

我想過我們為何缺乏 針對氣候變遷採取的迫切行動。

We've known for a very long time now

我們很早以前就知道

about the negative impacts of man-made carbon in the atmosphere.

人類製造的碳在大氣中 會造成什麼負面影響。

But ...

但……

[the] implications of that data

那些資料的意涵

challenge our identities, our industries, our communities

會挑戰到我們的身分、產業、群體，

in ways that have led and created resistance and even disinformation,

因而造成抗拒，甚至不實資訊，

and the resulting public debates about the truth of climate change

其後對於氣候變遷真相的公眾辯論

have prevented us from taking specific and concrete actions

讓我們無法採取明確、具體的行動

that could mitigate the harms to us around rising seas,

來減少我們受到的傷害，

包括海平面上升、

increasingly deadly waves of heat and cold

越來越致命的熱浪和寒流，

and powerful storm systems.

及強大的風暴系統。

With such urgent threats ahead of us,

眼前有這麼迫切的威脅，

we need better ways to get to a shared understanding.

我們需要更好的方式來達成共識。

Fortunately, I've seen how, at Wikipedia,

幸運的是，我在維基百科見識到

we can come to cooperative and productive conversations

我們如何能進入到 有生產力的合作性談話，

around disagreement and decision making

來談歧見和決策，

without using one shared truth as our baseline.

且不需要用單一共同真相當作基礎。

Its generous and accommodating approach

它這種大方且樂於助人的方式

offers us a practical way to take it down a notch,

讓我們很實際地各退一步，

focusing on something a little less stressful:

把焦點放在沒那麼有壓力的地方：

the best of what can be known right now.

目前最多能知道些什麼。

And the good news is we can know a lot of things.

好消息是我們可以知道很多。

We have high-quality information,

我們有高品質的資訊、事實、資料，

facts and data that allow us to do things

讓我們可以做到比如

like track the migration of endangered species

追蹤瀕危物種的遷徙，

or the spread of a pandemic around the world.

或者全球的疫情傳播。

These are useful tools in our toolbox,

這些都是我們手上很有用的工具，

but they don't necessarily alone change minds

但光靠它們不見得能改變人的心意，

or unite disparate views.

亦無法統一迥然不同的觀點。

So how do we do that?

那我們要怎麼做？

We shift from focusing on one key truth

我們不應再專注於單一的關鍵真相，

to instead finding minimum viable truth.

而是轉向找出最低限度可行的真相。

Minimum viable truth means getting it right enough

最低限度可行的真相意味著 做到夠正確的程度，

enough of the time

足以適用於當下，

to be useful enough to enough people.

對夠多的人而言都有足夠的用途。

It means setting aside our bigger belief systems

也意味著要把我們 更宏大的信念系統擺一邊，

and not being quite so fussy about perfection.

對於完美不要太挑剔。

And this idea of minimum viable truth

最低可行真相的這個概念

is actually a tremendously forgiving idea,

其實是個非常寬容的概念，

which is one of the things I love about it the most.

也是它的特性當中 我最愛的其中一項。

It recognizes our messy humanity.

它知道我們的人性是亂七八糟的。

It acknowledges space for uncertainty,

它承認有不確定性、 偏見、歧見的空間，

for bias and for disagreement

on our way to the search for the answers.

在追尋答案的過程中都會遇到這些。

So ...

所以……

one thing you may not know about Wikipedia

各位可能不知道， 維基百科假設我們全都有偏見。

is that it actually assumes that we are all biased.

It is the reason that you are not supposed to write articles about yourselves.

這就是為什麼

你不應該撰寫關於你自己的文章。

Because can any of you truly be neutral

因為，你能真正中立看待

about how brilliant and remarkable you are?

你有多出色和不凡嗎？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I didn't think so.

我也覺得不能。

But when we are forced to defend our biases,

但，當我們被迫 要為我們的偏見辯護，

when we are forced to go into the data and the citations

當我們被迫要深入資料和引證，

and really engage,

並真正投入、處理 因為碰上了別人的偏見

grapple with the intellectual struggle

that comes from meeting up against other people's biases,

所產生的理智掙扎，

our horizons can expand

我們的眼界就會擴展，

and we can get to new and better understandings about the world.

我們對世界也會有 嶄新且更進一步的了解。

How does this work?

這是怎麼運作的？

Well, in 2019,

2019 年，

a group of researchers released a study

一群研究者發佈一篇研究，

looking at how Wikipedia writers take on the most contentious

探討維基百科的作者如何處理 最易引起爭論且棘手的主題。

and difficult topics.

And what they found

他們發現，

was that the system actually works really well.

這個系統相當成功。

These are some of the best articles on Wikipedia.

在維基百科上有些相當棒的文章，

And many of them are written by people

許多這類文章的作者 從根本上就無法認同彼此。

who fundamentally disagree with one another.

They also found something interesting,

他們也發現了一件有趣的事，

which is that the more that these polarized contributors

那就是，這些兩極化的貢獻者 越是投入參與對話，

engaged in conversation,

the more balanced and productive their contributions became.

他們的貢獻就會變得 越平衡、有生產力。

Which means that Wikipedia may be one of the only places on the internet

那就表示，在網際網路上 可能只有在維基百科，

where disagreement actually makes you more agreeable.

歧見會讓你變得更願意接受。

Now, I knew instinctively this is true

我的直覺知道的確是如此，

because I’ve seen how productive friction can really get us places,

因為我曾經見過有生產力的爭論 如何能讓我們有所進展，

how mistakes and debate actually brings people into the conversation.

錯誤和辯論如何能讓大家展開對談。

You don’t sit back when you disagree with someone,

當你和某人有歧見時，你不會姑息，

because engaging offers you the chance

因為參與會讓你有機會 能形塑公開的記錄。

to shape the public record.

Through that process,

透過那個過程，

ideas become sharper, better and more understandable

想法會變得更清晰、 更好、更容易理解。

In this way, the seeds of our disagreement

這麼一來，

我們歧見的種子

can actually become the roots of our common purpose.

能真正變成我們共同目標的根基。

All of this is very well and good,

這些都很棒，

but what does it mean and how do we actually apply it

但我們又要如何實際把它應用在

to other organizations and institutions

其他組織和機構， 及與我們有關的體系中，

and systems that we are a part of,

in order to increase trust and reduce polarization

來增加信任、減少兩極化，

and perhaps get some important things done?

也許還能完成一些重要的工作？

Well, I've already talked a little bit about productive friction,

我已經略談了有生產力的摩擦， 好的那種，能讓我們的想法更好。

the good kind that makes our ideas better.

That is possible because of a few things:

因為下列幾點，讓它有可能實現：

notably, clear rules

特別是清楚的規則

and strong community norms.

以及有權威性的社群標準。

Clear rules help us engage on the substance of the issue

清楚的規則能協助我們 投入到議題的本質，

rather than debating the identity of the author.

而不是去辯論作者的身分。

Those rules are not upheld by any one individual on high.

那些規則並不是 由高高在上的人來維護，

They're actually maintained and uplifted by the entire community.

它們其實是由整個社群 一起維持和發展。

So we all have a shared sense of responsibility for success.

所以，對於成功， 我們全都有共同的責任感，

The other piece of this is

還有一點，

that it is essential that decisions are not just made

很重要的是，做決策的人 不能只是有出席會議的人。

by those who show up in the room.

You have to be intentional about bringing all the voices in.

你必須要刻意把各種聲音 通通囊括進來。

When Wikipedia first started,

維基百科剛成立時，

the majority of its authors were Western white men,

大部分的作者都是西方白人男性，

which led to some really significant biases and gaps

導致非常明顯的偏見和落差，

in the types of articles that were written

從撰寫的文章屬於什麼類型

and the slant of those articles.

及那些文章的觀點都能看出來。

Recognizing this by being intentional about undoing some of these systems

我們認知到這一點，

刻意改掉這些系統當中

that were actively excluding people

會主動排除其他人的部分，

and doing the hard work of actually rebuilding them

並下功夫重建這些系統，

so that more people would feel welcome in the conversation,

讓更多人能感受到 歡迎他們參與談話，

we are now able to have a better reflection of the known world.

現在我們更能反映出 這個已知的世界。

The next piece of this is really about interdependence.

另外一點，和獨立有關。

The way that the system works is that you cannot go it alone.

這個系統的運作方式， 就是你不能單打獨鬥。

In order for your contributions to stick,

若要讓你的貢獻能夠留存，

they have to earn the agreement of your fellow contributors,

就得要得讓其他貢獻夥伴 認同那些貢獻，

which is a powerful forcing mechanism for people to work together.

這是個強大的機制，迫使大家合作。

Next is the idea of shared power.

接著，是共享權力的概念。

All of those debates result in 350 edits a minute to Wikipedia,

所有這些辯論

造成維基百科每分鐘 會被編輯三百五十次，

which means that no one person can be in charge of the whole thing.

這就表示不可能 由一個人來主導這一切。

You have to let go of power.

你得放下權力，

You have to give it to other people.

你得把它交給其他人，

You have to trust in their ability

你得相信他們有能力

to manage the areas of their own expertise and interests.

可以管理好他們自己 擅長和感興趣的領域。

And by doing so,

透過這麼做，

you earn their commitment and agency to make this project work.

你就能得到他們的投入和協助， 實現這個計畫。

It also requires humility

也需要謙遜，

because you're going to get it wrong some of the times.

因為你有時難免會弄錯。

但為了在大部分時候都弄對， 有時弄錯是值得的。

But getting it wrong some of the time

is worth it for getting it right most of the time.

And speaking of time,

說到時候，

you have to have a very different relationship to urgency.

你得和「迫切性」 建立很不同的關係。

So much in the world is about moving fast.

世界上好多事物都和「盡快」有關，

But moving fast has actually broken a lot of things.

但盡快其實造成了很多破壞。

It's broken our trust.

它破壞了我們的信任；

It has undermined our confidence in many of our systems of governance,

它破壞了我們對於 許多治理體系的信心，

perhaps even our faith in democracy itself.

可能還動搖了對民主本身的信念。

By slowing down a little bit

若能放慢腳步，

and bringing the conversation in,

留時間進行談話，

by listening with sincerity,

真誠地傾聽，

debating with respect,

辯論時不忘尊重，

consulting widely

多向外諮詢，

and weighing difficult decisions with candor,

並坦承地權衡困難的決策，

you can actually build systems that endure.

你就能建立出永續的系統。

But most importantly, you can build trust,

但，最重要的是，你能建立信任，

that quality that is in such short supply right now.

這是現在很缺乏的特質。

And trust in one another is what we need

我們需要信任彼此，

in order to weather uncertainty and take brave action.

才能度過不確定性， 採取勇敢的行動。

So what I'm asking all of you today

今天我對大家的請求，

is to set aside your own personal truth for just a minute,

是請大家暫時把個人的真相擺一邊，

for the opportunity to sit in someone else's.

才有機會能了解別人的真相。

It's to endure the productive friction

要忍受達成共識的過程中 難免造成有生產力的摩擦，

of coming to common agreement

with someone who you may not agree with or perhaps even like.

且對象可能是你不認同， 甚至不喜歡的人。

And with just enough rules and a little bit of time,

若有足夠的規則

和一點時間，

I believe that you can do it.

我相信你也能做到。

And you just might find,

你可能會發現， 我們所有人都可能會發現，

we all just might find,

that the most important things that we do

我們所做的事情當中最重要的，

are the ones that we do together.

都是我們同心協力一起做的事情。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）