Reporter: How do you think Wikipedia will evolve as technology evolves? Can you foresee, by say 2020, a way for Wikipedians to create editable, interactive videos about a topic?
记者：随着技术的不断发展，你认为维 基百科将会怎样发展？你预测到2020 年，维基百科会针对某些词条增加可编 辑的互动视频吗？
Wales: I think we’ll see a lot of advances in video. One of the things I like to point out is that Wikipedia is a social innovation, not a technical innovation. All the tools necessary to create Wikipedia existed in 1995 when Ward Cunningham invented the wiki editing concept. Web server, web browser, database, wiki.
韦尔斯：我想我们会看到视频方面的很 多进步。有一点我需要指出的是，维基 百科其实不是技术革新，而是社会革 新。它需要的所有技术工具，在1995 年沃德坎宁安发明维基百科编辑概念 时就都存在了。网络服务器、网络浏览 器、数据库、维基百科。
Reporter: What technologies already exist today for collaborative video editing?
记者：维基百科会利用现有的技术增加协同视频编辑功能？
Wales: Well, having said that, I will also say that words are far more fluid than video, and always will be. If I don’t quite like what you have written, I can adjust it slightly until we are both satisfied. But once a video has been shot, there is a very limited set of things that can be done about it.
韦尔斯：嗯，说到这一点，我认为，文 字的灵活性比视频好得多，以后也是这 样。如果我对你提供的文字材料并不认 同，就可以稍作更改，直到大家达成共 识为止。视频材料一旦拍摄完成，剩下 能做的事就很有限。
Reporter: British-American author Andrew Keen, the self-described antichrist of Silicon Valley, gets a kick out of regularly blasting Wikipedia. He pointed out that the Harry Potter article is longer than the Hamlet article, and because Hamlet is more historically significant, this somehow represents a shortcoming in Wikipedia. Do you find his logic lacking?
记者：美国硅谷有一位自称为伪基督徒 的美籍英国作家安 德鲁基恩，定期 地抨击维基百科。 他的论据之一就是， “哈利波特”条目的 长度居然超过“哈 姆雷特”，因为哈姆 雷特更具历史意义， 这就显出了维基百 科的不足。你觉得 他的分析缺乏逻辑吗？
Wales: I don’t think the words “Andrew Keen” and “logic” generally belong in the same sentence. No, Fm just teasing! The overall thrust of his argument is not compelling to me. Regarding the question of the length of Wikipedia entries, I don’t find the argument compelling at all. Some criticisms about Wikipedia entries of various lengths is actually misplaced simply due to how we slice-and-dice the world. It is likely that our entry on “China” is shorter than our entry on “Harry Potter” too. But that’s more because we have a short overview article on “China” and then break out specific topics into separate articles. What happens normally is that when one entry gets too long, people will naturally want to break it up.
韦尔斯：我觉得“安德鲁.基恩”和 “逻辑”根本不应该出现在同一个句子 里。不，我只是在开玩笑。我不觉得他 的批评令人信服。说到维基百科词条的 长度，它根本不能说明什么。一些关于 维基百科词条长度实际上并不合适的批 评依据的仅仅是我们的世界观。“中国” 条目的长度可能都超不过“哈利波特”， 但这是因为“中国”条目只是一个概 览，更多的内容都在各个子条目中。当 一个条目太长，人们通常会很自然地想 要将它分开。
Reporter: When I was a student at Ohio State, I had Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger as a philosophy professor. Sanger had a policy that if you used Wikipedia as a source on a paper, you would receive an automatic five point deduction. Do you think Wikipedia is reliable enough at this stage to pass as a source on an academic paper?
记者：我在俄亥俄州上学的时候，哲学 教授拉里桑格是维基百科的合伙创始 人，规定论文中不得引用维基百科的内 容，违者一律扣除5分。你是否同意， 维基百科是否足够可靠，可以在学术性文章中引用？
Wales: I would do the same thing if I were teaching a course at a university. I would also deduct 5 points for citing Britannica. This is simply not the proper role for an encyclopedia, no matter how good, in the research process. A high quality encyclopedia is a starting point, giving us broad background knowledge and helping us to firmly and correctly fill in gaps, not an original source. The right thing to do is to quickly read the Wikipedia entry to get your bearings, and then go read the original sources.
韦尔斯：如果我是大学 老师的话，我也会采取 同样的做法。我同样也 会对从大英百科全书中 引用扣除5分。在研 究领域不管百科全书写 得多么好，它都不是用 来引用的。一部高质量 的百科全书只是一个起 点，告诉你一些宽泛的 背景知识，帮助你明确 地、正确地填补问题，并不能取代原始 材料。正确的做法是，读完百科全书中 的介绍后确定方向，再去读原始材料。
Reporter: In 2007, Wikipedia decided to add no-follow tags to all of its external links. This drew the ire of some and sparked the creation of anti-Wikipedia wordpress plugins that automatically turn all the Wikipedia links on a person’s blog to no follow. Has the community’s decision to place no-follow tags around external links kept out spam, and do you think Wikipedia would ever decide to flip the switch back?
记者：2007年，维基百科决定为所有外 部链接添加“不准跟踪链接”属性。一 石激起千层浪，很多反维基百科者编写 了博客插件可以自动将个人博客里的维 基百科链接更改为不准跟踪链接。为外 部链接添加不准跟踪链接，这种做法对 防止垃圾信息是否有效？你觉得未来会 恢复回去吗？
Wales: I was opposed to the change, and only reluctantly agreed to it after Matt Cutts of Google recommended it. I am still not sure it is the right answer. After all, Wikipedia prides itself on public service, and our external links are generally quite carefully vetted.On the other hand, it is also true that when we were not using 4nofollow5 we had a bigger problem with skeevy “SEO” experts doing everything they could to get Wikipedia links. Even today, of course, a link in Wikipedia can drive a significant amount of traffic so we have to deal with inappropriate self-promotion. But my vague sense is that the troubles have declined.
韦尔斯：我是反对这种改变的。最后， 只是因为谷歌的工程师马特.卡茨不断 劝说，才勉强同意。直到今天，我都不 确定这种做法是正确的，毕竟维基百科 的使命是服务公众，而且我们的外部链 接都是经过精心审查的。但是，另一方 面，以前我们不用“不准跟踪链接”的 时候，总是有一些所谓的“SEO”专家， 想尽办法来得到维基百科链接。即使是 现在，当然，维基百科中的链接会带来 很大的流量，因此我们就要解决那些不合适的自我宣传。我大致可以感觉到， 这为我们减少了一些麻烦。
Reporter: Apparently you sat at a long dinner table with Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis at Wikimania in 2006，and during this dinner, Calacanis “begged you” (his words) to sell ads on Wikipedia. He claimed that if you put a leaderboard up, Wikipedia would generate over $100 million a year. He later offered a more modest revenue proposal, one that involved putting a search box on the Wikipedia. He estimated this would make $6 million a year, which is ironic considering $6 million is what you raised last year via charitable donations. Can you ever envision a scenario in which the Wikipedia community would agree to put ads on the site, especially in light of the fact that it met its $6 million donation goal last year?
记者：2006年，你与Mahalo (—款人 力搜索引擎）的总裁贾森卡拉卡尼斯 一起共进晚餐，其间卡拉卡尼斯“乞 求”（原话）您给他们一个在维基百科 上做广告的机会。他承诺如果你允许安 放广告，维基百科每年将有超过10亿 元进账。之后他还给出了更高的价格， 希望可以在维基百科中添加捜索条。他 估计这大概每年会有600万美元收入， 而讽剌的是，去年你们通过慈善捐赠募 集600万美元的经费很辛苦。有没有想 过在维基百科上放置广告，尤其是从去年的情况来看，很可能会给你们带来600万美元的收益？
Wales: Actually, I sat next to Jason, but I didn’t know who he was. Afterwards, when he published his post about the dinner, I didn’t really remember him. I regret saying so publicly, because this seems to have hurt Jason’s feelings. I was exhausted that evening, and the fault was entirely mine. The thing is, lots and lots of people propose that Wikipedia should accept ads. And it is not an unreasonable position. I am opposed to it, but I am actually a moderate about it. I think there is a set of circumstances in which the Wikipedia community would accept ads, but we are nowhere near it and I personally hope we never get there. But, time will tell. My view is that we should all—not just me, not just the board, not just the current community—but everyone who thinks of themselves as a citizen of the Internet, a citizen of the world一we should all think about Wikipedia as part of the infrastructure of the world, not a competitor in the Internet space, not just a website, but something deeper, cultural, and potentially of value to everyone. As such, we should think about the long run一not the next quarter, not the next year, not the next 5 years. What about 50 years? What about 100 years? What’s best for the world in the long run? We desperately need to make sure that everyone on the planet has access to high quality information. We are on a small and crowded planet that will get more crowded in this century. We need to live together in peace and productivity. We need to take individual rights seriously. We need to have political decisions that are rational and fact-based.We need to have culture and joy and art and love .These are heavy responsibilities for us all. And slapping a “leaderboard " on Wikipedia to bring in short-term revenue might not be the best plan. (Or it might. But we need to think like adults about it.)
韦尔斯：事实上，我坐在贾森旁 边却不知道他是谁。之后他发表 了关于那顿晚餐的一篇帖子，我 还是没有想起来他是谁。我很抱 歉这样公开的说这件事儿了，因 为这有点伤害贾森的感受。那天 晚上我很累，是我做的不对。确 实有许许多多的人提议，维基 百科应该接受广告。这种提议是 合情合理的，但是我还是持反对态度， 尽管实际上，我对此表中立态度。可能 在某些情况下，我们会接受广告，但是 目前不太可能出现。我希望将来也不要 出现。但是时间会揭示一切。我的观 点是，我们——不仅仅是我，整个董事 会，目前的社区——而应该是每个把自 己看作是网络世界和真实世界中的一份 子的人一我们应该将维基百科视作世 界的基础设施之一，而不是互联网上的 一个竞争性组织。维基百科并不仅仅是一个网站，而是一种更深刻的东西，文 化方面的，是潜在的价值观。我们考虑 问题，不是只考虑下个季度、下一年、 或者未来5年，我们考虑的是长期发 展。维基百科应该怎样做，才能在未来 50年甚至100年中，对整个世界最有 利。我们竭尽全力，确保这个星球上的 每个人都能够得到高质量的信息。地球 已经很小很拥挤了，未来的这个世纪还 会更拥挤，人类需 要和平合作地生活 在一起。我们需要 严肃对待个人的权 利，需要理性和客 观的政治决策，需 要文化、乐趣、艺 术和情感。这些都 是非常重大的责任。 如果我们为了短期 的收入，在维基百科上放置广告，这并 不一定有利于达到我们的目标。（它也 可能会有帮助，但是我们一定要像成人 一样思考。)
Reporter: Will it be harder or easier for you to reach a $6 million donation goal in 2009?
记者：2009年募集600万美元经费的任 务，实现起来会更难还是更容易？
Wales: Since traffic is growing (according to Comscore) by 4% per month still, I think it will be easier to reach $6 million since we will be 66% larger in terms of reach by next fundraiser as compared to last fundraiser. On the other hand, I suppose everyone is watching with nervousness about the financial crisis!
韦尔斯：根据康姆斯克的数据，我们的 访问量每个月大概增长4%，所以我想 应该更容易一些吧。因为下一次开始募 集的时候，从访问量上看，我们的规模 比上一次大了 66%。另一方面，我怀疑 每个人都在为金融危机而担忧！
Reporter: You've set a tone that Wikipedia has a much deeper responsibility to the world than to act, simply, as a encyclopedia. In what ways do you think Wikipedia will permanently change the fabric of humanity?
记者：你为维基百科设定了宏伟的目 标，远远超过了百科全书本来的角色。 你觉得维基百科会通过什么方式永久地改变人性呢？
Wales: Well，if we do our job right, we will be a positive change for the world. Wikipedia will be a little bit dry, a little bit uncontroversial, but a place where people of all stripes turn for clear explanations and information that allows them to have more difficult debates in a rational and evidence-based manner.
韦尔斯：如果我们做好这个项目，我们 就为世界带来了一些积极的变化。维基 百科可能有一点枯燥并且不会引起争 端，但是人们从维基百科上得到了清晰 的解释和足够的信息，这使得他们可以 更理性和客观地探讨更难的问题。
Reporter: Did you catch this CollegeHumor.com satire of Wikipedia? Did you find it amusing?
记者：你看过大学幽默网站关于维基百 科的讽刺漫画了吗？你觉得好笑吗？
Wales: Hilarious!
韦尔斯：非常有趣！
Reporter: I’d like to see a roundtable discussion involving you, Andrew Keen, Jason Calacanis，Noam Chomsky, and Ron Paul. 55 minutes into the discussion， a thunderous gong would go off and a mystery guest would emerge and immediately inject himself into the conversation. As odd as this sounds，I am 100% serious about one day setting this up. There’s no doubt a video of the event would serve as tremendous linkbait~quite an interesting collection of people. Would you participate in this roundtable discussion if your airfare was paid for?
记者：我希望你和安德鲁基恩，贾森 卡拉卡尼斯，诺姆乔姆 斯基以及罗恩保罗可以 进行一次圆桌讨论。讨论 进行55分钟，响亮的铜 锣声响起，这时神秘嘉宾 登场并立即融入对话当 中。这听起来很奇怪，但 是我100%肯定有一天我 一定会把这件事儿办成。 毫无疑问，这次会议的视 频会吸引很多人点击—— 这是非常有趣的一伙人。 如果我们支付你的机票的话，你愿意加 入到这次圆桌讨论中来吗？
Wales: Yes, gladly. What an interesting set of characters.
韦尔斯：好的，很高兴有机会参加。这 会是个有趣的会议。