Clay Shirky: Institutions vs. collaboration

譯者: Ilya Li 審譯者: Chih-Yuan Huang

How do groups get anything done? Right?

一群人究竟如何搞定事情？

How do you organize a group of individuals

你如何組織一群人，

so that the output of the group

讓這個團體的產出，

is something coherent and of lasting value,

帶來某種一致性與延續性的價值。

instead of just being chaos?

而並非只是一團混亂？

And the economic framing of that problem

把這個難題用經濟學的架構/術語來解釋

is called coordination costs.

我們稱之為「協調成本」。

And a coordination cost is essentially all of the financial

協調成本基本上是安排群體產出成果時，

or institutional difficulties in arranging group output.

所面臨到的財務與機構/組織問題。

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

對於協調成本有一個古典的答案來回應，

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

那就是：如果你想要協調一群人順利產出成果

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

那就發起一個組織吧。沒錯吧？你募集一些資源

You found something. It can be private or public.

找到某些東西。這個組織可以是私人的或公共的

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

它可以是營利或非營利組織；大機構或小型組織。

But you get these resources together.

但是當你把這些資源湊在一起

You found an institution, and you use the institution

你創立了一個機構，你運用這個機構來

to coordinate the activities of the group.

協調一群人的活動。

More recently, because the cost of letting groups

而隨著近年來，形成團體彼此相互溝通

communicate with each other has fallen through the floor --

的成本下跌到不像樣的程度

and communication costs are one of the big

溝通成本比重上佔大部分

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

於是協調成本的第二個答案浮現了出來

which is to put the cooperation into the infrastructure,

那就是將彼此的合作建置在基礎架構中，

to design systems that coordinate the output

設計出除了基本運作之外，同時能夠協調一群人

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

與產出成果的系統，讓一群人能夠順利地

without regard to institutional models.

產出成果，而不用訴諸於機構的模式。

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

所以這就是我今天想要談的內容。

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

我將會舉一些相當具體的範例來作闡述，

but always pointing to the broader themes.

但是總會指向較廣的主題

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

我將會從試著回答一個問題來作為開始

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

我知道各位在某個時刻也曾問過自己

and which the Internet is purpose-built to answer,

並且網際網路就是被用來回答這個問題的。

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

這個問題是：我要從哪找到一張美人魚溜直排輪的照片？

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

在紐約市，每年夏天的第一個星期六，

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

康尼島，我們在地的、迷人的遊樂園區

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

會舉辦美人魚遊行。這是一個業餘的遊行活動

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

人們從紐約的四面八方湧來，盛裝打扮。

Some people get less dressed up.

有些人盛裝打扮的比較清涼。

Young and old, dancing in the streets.

年輕人跟熟男熟女，在街道上跳舞。

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

所有人物都是色彩繽紛，大家都很享受這個時刻。

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

我想要讓各位注意的不是美人魚遊行本身，

charming though it is, but rather to these photos.

雖然它很迷人，我想要專注在這些照片上。

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

這些照片不是我拍的。我怎麼找到這些照片的？

And the answer is: I got them from Flickr.

答案是：我從 Flickr 上面找到了這些照片。

Flickr is a photo-sharing service

Flickr 是一個照片分享的服務

that allows people to take photos, upload them,

讓人們拍照、上傳照片，

share them over the Web and so forth.

在網路上彼此分享這些照片。

Recently, Flickr has added an additional function called tagging.

最近 Flickr 增加了一個新功能：標籤（tagging）。

Tagging was pioneered by Delicious and Joshua Schachter.

標籤首先由Del.icio.us/Joshua Schachter所帶動

Delicious is a social bookmarking service.

Del.icio.us 是一個社會書籤服務。

Tagging is a cooperative infrastructure answer to classification.

標籤是一種回答分類問題的答案：合作基礎架構。

Right? If I had given this talk last year,

如果我去年就做這場演講的話，

I couldn't do what I just did,

我將無法展示那些剛剛秀的照片，

because I couldn't have found those photos.

因為我找不到這些照片。

But instead of saying,

如果真的要作的話，

we need to hire a professional class of librarians

我們需要雇一組專業的圖書館館員

to organize these photos once they're uploaded,

來組織這些上傳的許多照片，

Flickr simply turned over to the users

Flickr簡單地讓使用者自己來管理

the ability to characterize the photos.

它把標示照片的功能提供給了使用者。

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

所以我能在其中找到夠多上面標有我要的標籤的照片

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

「美人魚遊行」。共有 118 位攝影者，拍攝了 3100 張照片，

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

所有這些照片都被整理起來，放在簡潔有力的名稱底下，

shown in reverse chronological order.

以相反的時間順序來顯示。

And I was then able to go and retrieve them

於是我可以搜尋、找到這些照片

to give you that little slideshow.

來作一場小小的照片展示。

Now, what hard problem is being solved here?

我們現在正在解決的，是什麼樣的問題？

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

從最概略的可能觀點來檢視，

it's a coordination problem, right?

這是一個協調的問題。

There are a large number of people on the Internet,

在網際網路上有非常多的人，

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

其中一小群的人擁有美人魚遊行的照片。

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

我們要如何讓那些人一起貢獻這個作品？

The classic answer is to form an institution, right?

傳統的答案會是，成立一個組織吧？

To draw those people into some prearranged structure

為了要吸引人們加入某些預先設計好的結構，

that has explicit goals.

這些結構擁有明確的目標。

And I want to call your attention to

請注意：

some of the side effects of going the institutional route.

機構這種作法有一些副作用。

First of all, when you form an institution,

首先，當你組成一個機構/組織時，

you take on a management problem, right?

你馬上就有管理上的問題。

No good just hiring employees,

不只是聘僱員工而已。

you also have to hire other employees to manage those employees

你還需要聘僱另外一些員工來管理這些員工

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

並且強迫執行機構的目標...等等。

Secondly, you have to bring structure into place.

再來，你必需要把結構放到實際的空間當中。

Right? You have to have economic structure.

你還必需要有經濟結構。

You have to have legal structure.

你必需要有法律結構。

You have to have physical structure.

你必需要有實體結構。

And that creates additional costs.

這些都造成了額外的成本。

Third, forming an institution is inherently exclusionary.

第三，形成機構/組織天生就會排除異己。

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

你注意到不是所有有照片的人都被納進組織中。

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

你沒有辦法在一個公司中僱用每一個人！對吧?

You can't recruit everyone into a governmental organization.

你也沒有辦法把所有人都僱用到政府裡。

You have to exclude some people.

你總是得排除某些人。

And fourth, as a result of that exclusion,

第四，作為排除的結果，

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

你將製造出一個專業階級。看看這個改變。

We've gone from people with photos to photographers.

我們從有照片的人們，變成了攝影師。

Right? We've created a professional class of photographers

我們創造了一個攝影師的專業階級

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

其目的是為了要去拍攝美人魚遊行

or whatever else they're sent out to photograph.

或其他任何指定要拍的東西。

When you build cooperation into the infrastructure,

當你把合作建置在基礎架構中的時候，

which is the Flickr answer,

這也是 Flickr 的答案，

you can leave the people where they are

你可以讓人們留在原地

and you take the problem to the individuals, rather than

或將這個問題帶到他們面前，讓每個人自己來解決，

moving the individuals to the problem.

而不是叫每個人移動來遷就這個問題。

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

藉由這種安排，你在團體中設計協調的進行

you get the same outcome, without the institutional difficulties.

讓你省去承擔機構的困擾、得到相同的產出。

You lose the institutional imperative.

你失去了機構的命令力量。

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

當大家都是志工，你失去了型塑人們產出的權利，

but you also shed the institutional cost,

但是你同時也減少了機構的成本，

which gives you greater flexibility.

讓你擁有了更大的彈性。

What Flickr does is it replaces planning with coordination.

Flickr 所作的是，它以協調取代了規劃。

And this is a general aspect of these cooperative systems.

這是在這些合作系統中的一種普遍面向。

Right. You'll have experienced this in your life

在生活中你一定經歷過類似的片刻：

whenever you bought your first mobile phone,

當你買了第一隻手機，

and you stopped making plans.

你便不再作規劃或計畫。

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

你只是說，「我到了再撥電話給你」。

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

「當你下班的時候 call 我」對吧?

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

那就是一種取代了規劃的、點對點的協調行動。

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

我們現在能夠跟一群人進行那樣子的協調。

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

不用再說，我們一定要作一個多先進的計畫、

we must have a five-year projection

我們必須要往後規劃五年的未來，

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

或維基百科將會被帶往何處等等。

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

你可以只是說，我們一起來協調看看吧，

and let's deal with it as we go,

我們邊做邊看好了，

because we're now well-enough coordinated

因為我們現在可以充分地彼此協調

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

不用再頭痛預先設想要做什麼。

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

這裡是另外一個例子：這個例子更為陰暗。

These are photos on Flickr tagged "Iraq."

這些是 Flickr 網站上標註 Iraq 的照片。

And everything that was hard about the coordination cost

以協調成本來說，一切都非常困難

with the Mermaid Parade is even harder here.

比美人魚遊行還要困難的多。

There are more pictures. There are more photographers.

有更多的照片，更多的攝影者。

It's taken over a wider geographic area.

照片涵蓋範圍包括更多地理區域。

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

拍攝時間跨越更長的一段時間。

And worst of all, that figure at the bottom,

而且更糟糕的是，看看底下的數字，

approximately ten photos per photographer, is a lie.

「每個攝影者平均貢獻10張照片」這是假的。

It's mathematically true,

數學上來說是真的，

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

但是沒有任何重要的意義

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

因為這些系統中，平均數並不重要。

What matters is this.

真正重要的是：

This is a graph of photographs tagged Iraq

這是所有有標註 Iraq 的照片的貢獻數據圖

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

是由529名攝影者，貢獻了5,445張照片。

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

依照攝影者貢獻照片數目來加以排序。

You can see here, over at the end,

你可以看到在一端，

our most prolific photographer has taken around 350 photos,

貢獻最多的攝影者拍攝了350張照片，

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

一些人拍了將近數百張照片。

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

數十位攝影者拍攝上傳了數十張照片。

And by the time we get around here,

我們現在來看這裡，

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

我們看到十張或更少的照片貢獻者很多，有很長、平坦的尾部分佈。

And by the time you get to the middle,

接著我們走到圖表中間，

you've got hundreds of people

看到有數百人

who have contributed only one photo each.

每個人只有貢獻一張照片。

This is called a power-law distribution.

這就是所謂的冪次分佈。

It appears often in unconstrained social systems

常常在沒有設限的社會系統中出現

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

當人們被允許貢獻多少都沒有關係時，

this is often what you get. Right?

這常常是我們所得到的結果。

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

冪次定律後面的數學原理就是：無論什麼在第 n 個位置

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

其測量的結果是 1/n，

relative to the person in the first position.

相對於第 1 個位置的測量結果。

So, we'd expect the tenth most prolific photographer

所以我們期待第十位貢獻最多的攝影者

to have contributed about a tenth of the photos,

他所貢獻的照片數量是第一名的 1/10，

and the hundredth most prolific photographer

而第 100 名的貢獻者

to have contributed only about a hundred as many photos

貢獻結果是 1/100

as the most prolific photographer did.

相較於貢獻最多的攝影者。

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

所以這個曲線的頭部可以變得更為尖銳或平坦。

But that basic math accounts both for the steep slope

但是基本數學說明了斜率

and for the long, flat tail.

以及長長的、平坦的尾部。

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

令人覺得有趣的是，在這些系統中，當他們規模成長，

the systems don't converge; they diverge more.

系統並不會收斂，反而更為發散。

In bigger systems, the head gets bigger

在較大的系統中，頭部變得更大

and the tail gets longer, so the imbalance increases.

尾部則變得更長。不平衡的狀況更為增加。

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

你可以看到曲線很明顯地嚴重左傾；我們來看程度有多嚴重。

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

如果你取前 10% 的攝影者的貢獻作品，

they account for three quarters of the photos taken --

它們佔了約 ¾ 的照片總數

just the top 10 percent most prolific photographers.

僅僅只有前 10% 的攝影者的貢獻而已。

If you go down to five percent,

如果你取前 5% 的貢獻成果，

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

你就涵蓋了 60% 的照片。

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

如果你取 1% 的成果，排除眾人 99% 的努力成果，

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

你仍然涵蓋了幾乎 ¼ 的照片總數。

And because of this left weighting,

而且因為這樣的左傾，

the average is actually here, way to the left.

平均數實際就落在左側。

And that sounds strange to our ears,

即便聽起來很怪，

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

最終實際的狀況是，80%的貢獻者

have contributed a below-average amount.

只有低於平均數的貢獻。

That sounds strange because we expect average and middle

這聽起來很怪，因為我們期待平均數與中數

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

應該是相同的；但是並不如此。

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

這就是 80/20 法則後面的數學邏輯。

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

每當你聽到有人談到 80/20 法則，

this is what's going on. Right?

這就是實際的情形。

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

20%的商品帶來 80% 的利潤，

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

20% 的使用者使用著 80% 的系統資源，

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

這就是人們在討論時實際發生的資料形狀。

Institutions only have two tools: carrots and sticks.

機構只有兩種工具：胡蘿蔔跟棍子。

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

80% 的區域都是沒有胡蘿蔔跟棍子的地方。

The costs of running the institution mean that you cannot

運作機構的成本，意味著你沒有辦法

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

將那些人們的成果簡易地用機構的框架來取得。

The institutional model always pushes leftwards,

機構模型總是會往左邊推擠，

treating these people as employees.

希望將這些頭部的人們當作員工。

The institutional response is,

機構的反應是

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

我可以從所僱用的人們當中的10%取得75%的價值的話...太棒了。

that's what I'll do.

我就會這樣作。

The cooperative infrastructure model says,

合作架構的模型則是問：

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

為什麼你希望放棄 ¼ 的價值？

If your system is designed

如果你的系統被設計

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

成你必需要放棄 ¼ 的價值，

re-engineer the system.

那麼趕快去改造它吧。

Don't take on the cost that prevents you

別讓成本阻礙了你

from getting to the contributions of these people.

不讓你從人們的貢獻中獲得成果；

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

打造這個系統，讓任何人都能夠隨意貢獻

So the coordination response asks not,

所以協調並非這樣地回應提問，

how are these people as employees, but rather,

這些人如何可以被雇為己用，而是換個方式提問：

what is their contribution like? Right?

他們的貢獻長什麼樣子？

We have over here Psycho Milt, a Flickr user,

以這張 Flickr 使用者 Psycho Milt 的照片為例，

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

他只有貢獻一張照片，只有一張照片標註著 Iraq。

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

就是這張照片。名稱寫著：工作不順的一天。

Right? So the question is,

所以問題是：

do you want that photo? Yes or no.

你想要這張照片嗎？或許想，或許不想。

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

這個問題不是，Psycho Milt 是不是一個好的員工？

And the tension here is between institution as enabler

緊張關係就存在於，機構到底是一個促成者，

and institution as obstacle.

還是一個阻礙者。

When you're dealing with the left-hand edge

當你在處理左側邊緣的這些資料

of one of these distributions,

這些分佈當中的其中一筆資料時，

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

當你在跟花了很多時間的這些人們

producing a lot of the material you want,

他們生產一大堆你所需要的素材，

that's an institution-as-enabler world.

那就是機構作為促成者的世界。

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

你可以把那些人都聘作員工，你可以協調他們的工作

and you can get some output.

而且你可以得到某些產出。

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

但是當你在這，當世界一隅的 Psycho Milts

are adding one photo at a time,

一次上傳一張照片時

that's institution as obstacle.

機構就變成了一個阻礙者。

Institutions hate being told they're obstacles.

機構討厭被人家稱為阻礙。

One of the first things that happens

最初會發生的事情之一是

when you institutionalize a problem

當你把一個問題透過機構來解決

is that the first goal of the institution

這個機構的第一個目標

immediately shifts from whatever the nominal goal was

馬上從任何正常的目標

to self-preservation.

變成自我保存：這個機構的生存。

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

這機構本來的實際目標，馬上變成第二或更後面去了。

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

所以當機構被告知他們自己是阻礙，

and that there are other ways of coordinating the value,

而且有其他的方法來協調價值時，

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

他們於是便經歷了有點像是 Kubler-Ross 的反應階段說：

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

當你被告知你罹患絕症時的反應階段

denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.

拒絕接受、憤怒、討價還價、到接受，

Most of the cooperative systems we've seen

大部分我們所見的合作系統

haven't been around long enough

都出現迄今還不夠久

to have gotten to the acceptance phase.

沒有讓機構走到接受的階段。

Many, many institutions are still in denial,

許多許多的機構還在否認的階段，

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

但是我們正在看到近來許多憤怒與討價還價的行動。

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

現在有一個很棒的小例子。

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

在法國，一個巴士公司正控告人們推動汽車共乘制度。

right, because the fact that they have coordinated

因為人們彼此互相協調

themselves to create cooperative value is depriving them of revenue.

來創造合作的價值這件事情，讓巴士沒有利潤。

You can follow this in the Guardian.

你可以從衛報上面追蹤這則新聞的發展。

It's actually quite entertaining.

還真的是蠻有娛樂效果的。

The bigger question is,

更大的問題是，

what do you do about the value down here?

你對這裡所反映的價值有什麼看法？

Right? How do you capture that?

你如何掌握它？

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

而且機構被限制無法掌握這樣的事實。

Steve Ballmer, now CEO of Microsoft,

微軟現在的執行長 Steve Ballmer，

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

幾年前他曾經批評 Linux，他說，

"Oh, this business of thousands of programmers

幾千名程式設計師對 Linux 有所貢獻

contributing to Linux, this is a myth.

這其實是一種迷思啊。

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

我們仔細檢視 Linux 的程式貢獻者，

and most of the patches have been produced by programmers

大部分修補程式都是被

who've only done one thing." Right?

只有貢獻一件事情的程式設計師所提供的

You can hear this distribution under that complaint.

你可以聽到抱怨 Linux 的這種說法。

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

你可以了解，為什麼從 Ballmer 的觀點，

that's a bad idea, right?

Linux 是一個很蠢的想法，

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

我們花錢請了這個程式設計師，他進到我們公司、喝了我們的可樂

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

玩桌上足球玩了三年，然後他什麼想法都沒有？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Right? Bad hire. Right?

找錯人啦。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

Psycho Milt 式的問題是，這是一個好的想法嗎？

What if it was a security patch?

如果這是一個系統安全的修補程式？

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

如果這是一個緩衝區溢位攻擊的安全修補程式，

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

Windows 視窗所沒有的修補程式跟幾個漏洞的話，

Do you want that patch, right?

你想要這樣的修補程式嗎？

The fact that a single programmer can,

事實上一個程式設計師可以，

without having to move into a professional relation

不用進入跟機構之間的專業關係

to an institution, improve Linux once

就能夠修補 Linux 程式

and never be seen from again, should terrify Ballmer.

而且以後再也不會出現。這個事實應該會嚇壞我們的 Ballmer。

Because this kind of value is unreachable in classic

因為這種價值在傳統機構架構中是無法迄及的

institutional frameworks, but is part of cooperative

但是卻是合作型系統的一部分

systems of open-source software, of file sharing,

例如開放源碼軟體系統、檔案分享系統，

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

維基百科系統等。我已經用了很多 Flickr 上的例子，

but there are actually stories about this from all over.

但還有實際的完整故事。

Meetup, a service founded so that users could find people

Meetup 是一種使用者可以找到其他人的服務

in their local area who share their interests and affinities

在他們自己的在地區域，分享著共同的興趣與相近的個性，

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

在現實中的咖啡廳中有一個真實的聚會

or a pub or what have you.

或 pub 或其他的任何地方。

When Scott Heiferman founded Meetup,

當 Scott Heiferman 創辦了 Meetup 時，

he thought it would be used for, you know,

他認為它會被用來，

train spotters and cat fanciers -- classic affinity groups.

聚集猜火車的人或愛貓人士 --- 也就是傳統的分享團體。

The inventors don't know what the invention is.

發明者沒有想到他創造出什麼樣的東西。

Number one group on Meetup right now,

現在在 Meetup 上面第一名的團體，

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

在大部分的城市中擁有最多會員、最活躍的團體是？

Stay-at-home moms. Right?

家庭主婦/媽媽們。

In the suburbanized, dual-income United States,

在這個都市化、雙薪的美國，

stay-at-home moms are actually missing

家庭主婦/媽媽們喪失、失去了

the social infrastructure that comes from extended family

來自延伸家庭的支持社會基礎架構

and local, small-scale neighborhoods.

與在地的小規模鄰居網絡。

So they're reinventing it, using these tools.

所以他們運用了這些工具，重新發明了他們。

Meetup is the platform,

Meetup 就是這樣的平台，

but the value here is in social infrastructure.

但是傳遞的價值卻是在社會基礎架構中。

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

如果你想要知道哪一種科技將會改變世界，

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

別關注 13 歲的小男生們

pay attention to young mothers,

注意那些年輕的媽媽，

because they have got not an ounce of support for technology

因為他們沒有任何一點點的科技來支持她們

that doesn't materially make their lives better.

這些科技沒有讓她們的生活變得更好。

This is so much more important than Xbox,

有比 Xbox 更重要的東西，

but it's a lot less glitzy.

這些東西沒有那麼誇張。

I think this is a revolution.

我認為這是一場革命。

I think that this is a really profound change

我認為這是一個相當深刻的改變

in the way human affairs are arranged.

人類的情形被安排了。

And I use that word advisedly.

我非常謹慎地使用這個字。

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

它是一場改變平衡關係的革命。

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

它既是全新的做事方式，也包含了新的陰暗面。

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

現在在美國一位 Judith Miller 女士

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

因為拒絕提供聯邦大陪審團她的新聞來源而被囚禁起來，

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

她是紐約時報的記者，

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

在一個非常抽象、很難追蹤的個案中的新聞來源。

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

新聞記者在街頭抗議修改保護法案。

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

保護法案是我們的法律，一種對國家法律的修補法案，

that prevent a journalist from having to betray a source.

這種修補讓一個新聞記者不用背叛新聞來源。

This is happening, however, against the background

然而相對於這個背景資料，目前正在發生中的

of the rise of Web logging.

就是部落格/網誌的興起。

Web logging is a classic example of mass amateurization.

部落格/網誌是大規模業餘化的一個經典範例。

It has de-professionalized publishing.

它將出版去專業化了。

Want to publish globally anything you think today?

你想要在今日、在全球出版你的想法與看法？

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

只需要按下一個按鈕你就可以免費做到。

That has sent the professional class of publishing down

這讓出版的專業階級沒落了

into the ranks of mass amateurization.

變成大眾業餘化的排名中。

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

就好像保護法案，我們多麼地想要它，

we want a professional class of truth-tellers --

我們希望有一個真相告白者的專業階級，

it is becoming increasingly incoherent, because

然而現況卻變得越來越不一致

the institution is becoming incoherent.

因為機構變得不一致了。

There are people in the States right now

現在有人們在美國

tying themselves into knots, trying to figure out

將他們綁得很緊，試圖要指出

whether or not bloggers are journalists.

部落客到底是不是新聞記者。

And the answer to that question is,

那個問題的答案是

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

一點都不重要了，因為那不是正確的問題。

Journalism was an answer to an even more important question,

新聞曾經是回應更重要問題的一種答案，

which is, how will society be informed?

這個問題是：社會將怎麼被告知資訊？

How will they share ideas and opinions?

人們如何分享想法與意見？

And if there is an answer to that that happens outside

如果答案出現在

the professional framework of journalism,

新聞專業架構的外面的時候，

it makes no sense to take a professional metaphor

這時再使用一個專業的譬喻就變得一點都沒有意義，

and apply it to this distributed class.

並且它運用在散佈的階級成員中。

So as much as we want the shield laws,

所以當我們很想要保護法案，

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

背景是：他們所被連結的機構

is becoming incoherent.

已經變得不一致了。

Here's another example.

我們有另外一個例子。

Pro-ana, the pro-ana groups.

Pro-ana 支持 ana 的團體。

These are groups of teenage girls

有一群十幾歲的青少女

who have taken on Web logs, bulletin boards,

寫部落格、留言板，

other kinds of cooperative infrastructure,

運用其他種合作的基礎架構，

and have used it to set up support groups for

用它來成立支持團體

remaining anorexic by choice.

支持自願的厭食。

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

他們張貼超瘦模特兒的照片，把它稱為 瘦啟發(Thinspiration)。

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

他們有一些口號標語，像是「餓是救贖」，

They even have Lance Armstrong-style bracelets,

他們甚至有類似 Lance Armstrong 風格的手環，

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

在這個小團體中，紅色的手環代表著

I am trying to maintain my eating disorder.

我要努力維持繼續厭食。

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

他們交換小技巧，例如如果你想要吃某些東西，

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

就去清廁所或整理垃圾桶。餓的感覺就會過去。

We're used to support groups being beneficial.

通常成立支持團體是用來支持對我們有益的事情。

We have an attitude that support groups are inherently beneficial.

我們的態度是支持團體總是有益的。

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

但是卻變成支持團體變成一種價值中立的工具。

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

一個支持團體只是一個想要維繫某些生活方式

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

的小團體，同時生活在一個更大團體的脈絡當中。

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

現在當大團體是酒鬼時，

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

小團體是要保持不喝酒，於是我們認為

that's a great support group.

這是一個很好的支持團體。

But when the small group is teenage girls

但是當小團體是青少女

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

想要有意識維持他們的厭食症行為，於是我們就受不了了。

What's happened is that the normative goals

常規的目標

of the support groups that we're used to,

我們所習慣的支持團體

came from the institutions that were framing them,

來自於畫出框框的機構，

and not from the infrastructure.

而不是來自於基礎架構。

Once the infrastructure becomes generically available,

一旦基礎架構變得可以讓所有人運用，

the logic of the support group has been revealed to be

支持團體的邏輯也變得顯露出來

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

對任何人都可以運用，包括追尋這種目標的人們。

So, there are significant downsides to these changes

所以這些改變有明顯的陰暗面

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

就像他們有光明面一樣。當然，在現今的環境中，

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

人們需要輕輕地對非國家的角色暗示

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

這些非國家的機構組織試圖影響全球事務、並且獲得好處。

This is a social map of the hijackers and their associates

這是一個劫機者與他們有關人士的社會地圖

who perpetrated the 9/11 attack.

這些人犯下了 911 的罪行。

It was produced by analyzing their communications patterns

藉由分析他們的溝通模式

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

得出他們使用許多這些工具，並且毫無疑問地全球的情報社群

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

對上週的恐怖攻擊，今日也在作相同的事情。

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

現在我們講到這裡，我要說的是

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

即將浮現的是這一切的結果，

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

但是我已經沒有時間了，這非常的好，

because I don't know.

因為我也不知道。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

對於印刷出版來說，如果這真的是一場革命的話，

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

它將不會把我們從 A 點帶往 B 點。

It takes us from Point A to chaos.

它將把我們從 A 點帶往混亂。

The printing press precipitated 200 years of chaos,

印刷出版促成了兩百多年的混亂，

moving from a world where the Catholic Church

從一個天主教會的世界

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

從天主教會作為一種管理的政治力量，到西伐利亞條約，

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

到那時我們終於知道，世界的新組成單元是民族國家。

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

現在，我並非在預測未來 200 年的混亂是現在的結果。50年。

50 years in which loosely coordinated groups

50年中，這些鬆散地相互協調的團體

are going to be given increasingly high leverage,

將被賦予更高的影響力，

and the more those groups forego traditional institutional imperatives --

以及更多這樣的團體超越傳統機構的命令力量，

like deciding in advance what's going to happen,

就像預先決定什麼事情將會發生，

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

或者利益的動機，他們也將獲得更多的影響力。

And institutions are going to come under

而且機構即將面臨到

an increasing degree of pressure,

處在更大程度的壓力下，

and the more rigidly managed, and the more they rely

以及更多嚴格地被治理的、更多依賴於

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

資訊壟斷的組織，他們將面臨更大的壓力。

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

那些將一個戰場一個戰場接連發生，

one institution at a time. The forces are general,

一次發生在一個機構上。力量是一般的力量

but the results are going to be specific.

但是結果則將是特殊的結果。

And so the point here is not,

所以重點不是，

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

「這太棒了」或「我們將看到一種轉變

from only institutions to only cooperative framework."

從只有機構完全轉變到只有合作的架構」。

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

事情將會變得更為複雜。

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

但是重點是，這會是一個大規模調整的運動。

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

既然我們可以預見它，了解它即將來臨，

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

我的論點是：基本上我們有可能可以搞定它。

Thank you very much.

謝謝各位。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）