不畏權勢講真話 科技與真理的奇怪矛盾
When I finished journalism school, more than a few years ago, I was given a certificate entitled “Training for Truth”. There has long been a strongly held — but, to many, overblown — belief that the media is the fourth estate. Its purpose is to speak truth to power.
多年前從新聞學院畢業時，我獲得了一份標題爲“爲真理而學”的證書。長期以來，有一種根深蒂固（但對於很多人而言有些誇張）的觀點：媒體是第四權(fourth estate)。其宗旨是不畏權勢講真話。
We could endlessly debate how well the media has performed that function. It might take us even longer to agree a satisfactory definition of truth. But for most of the postwar era, the mainstream media in the Anglo-American world has helped shape the political debate by creating a common national narrative.
對於媒體在履行這項職能方面表現如何，我們可以無休止地一直辯論下去。要給真理下一個令人滿意的定義可能需要更長時間。但對於戰後多數時期而言，英美主流媒體通過創建一種共同的國家敘事幫助塑造了政治辯論。
Now, we are told, the atomisation of traditional media and the spread of social networks has meant we all live in our own “filter bubbles”. Technology has eaten the truth. We live in a post-truth world in which we can ignore the facts we do not like and tap into any personalised narrative that we desire.
如今，我們被告知，傳統媒體原子化以及社交網絡的蔓延意味着，我們都生活在我們自己的“過濾泡沫”中。科技吃掉了真理。我們生活在一個後真理世界，在這個世界裏，我們可以忽視自己不喜歡的事實，轉向我們喜歡的個性化敘事。
Yet if there is no agreed basis of truth then it is hard to arrive at democratically settled conclusions. As we have seen during the debate on Brexit and in the US presidential campaign, much political argument consists of simply talking past your opponent to appeal to your own data-determined electoral demographic. Experts are dismissed as frauds. Demonstrable lies have no impact or consequence.
然而，如果沒有約定的真理基礎，就很難通過民主過程得出結論。正如我們在英國退歐辯論以及美國總統競選中看到的那樣，很多政治爭論在本質上只是不理會對手的主張，迎合你自己的、由數據決定的選民羣體。專家被斥爲騙子。可證明的謊言沒有任何後果。
Yet the strange paradox of our times is that the truth — however defined — has never been easier to unearth or disseminate. Data are ubiquitous. Life is on the record. claims and counterclaims can instantly be checked. Technology should at least hold part of the solution.
然而，我們這個時代的奇怪矛盾是，發現和傳播真理（不管多麼定義）從來沒有像現在這樣容易。數據無處不在。生活得到全程記錄。聲稱和反聲稱可以在瞬間得到檢查。科技應至少在一定程度上提供解決方案。
Exhibit A supporting the hope that technology can help societies recreate an accepted truth is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Its mission is to give everyone on the planet free access to the sum of human knowledge in their own language.
人們希望科技能幫助社會重建受到公認的真理，支撐這種希望的一號證據便是在線百科全書維基百科(Wikipedia)。其使命是讓地球上的所有人自由獲取以本國文字編寫的人類知識。
Wikipedia has become such a routine part of our online lives that it is hard to believe it was founded only 15 years ago. Its growth has been remarkable. The non-profit-making collective of tens of thousands of active Wikipedians has created more than 40m articles in 250 languages. With 500m unique users a month, it is one of the top five most visited websites in the world.
維基百科已成爲我們在線生活中習以爲常的部分，以至於我們很難相信它是在短短15年前創建的。它發展迅猛。這個由幾萬活躍的維基百科編輯組成的非盈利組織創造了250種文字的4000萬篇條目。每月獨立用戶爲5億，它是全球訪問人數最多的5大網站之一。
Its volunteer contributors stick to a neutral point of view and agree among themselves what constitute reliable sources. Academic studies have found that Wikipedia is generally as accurate as professionally edited encyclopedias and has massively more articles.
維基百科的志願貢獻者嚴守中立觀點，並約定什麼是可靠來源。學術研究發現，維基百科與專業編輯的百科全書一樣準確，而條目多得多。
Check out the entries on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and you will find them to be studiously neutral with more than 1,200 footnoted references between them.
看一看與唐納德.特朗普(Donald Trump)和希拉里.克林頓(Hillary Clinton)有關的條目吧，你會發現其內容被嚴格保持中立，總計有超過1200個參考文獻註腳。
Wikipedia does, though, possess some glaring flaws. Its contributor base is 85 per cent male, leading to some skewed subject selection and other biases. Entries on male authors tend to be longer than those on female authors, for example.
然而，維基百科確實具有一些明顯的缺點。其貢獻者85%爲男性，這導致出現了一些不公平的主題選擇和其他偏見。例如，有關男性作家的條目篇幅往往長於女性作家。
Those devious enough to do so can game the system by poisoning the sources on which Wikipedia relies. The constant re-editing of some entries also means that they can forever remain a work in progress: US President George W Bush’s entry has been edited more than 45,000 times. Truth on Wikipedia is always a malleable commodity.
那些足夠狡猾的人可以通過毒化維基百科所依賴的來源來操縱這個系統。一些條目的重新編輯也意味着，它們可能永遠是一項進行中的工作：美國前總統喬治•W•布什(George W Bush)的條目被編輯了逾4.5萬次。維基百科上的事實永遠是一種可塑的商品。
At a recent FT125 Forum event, Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s founder, said that one of the “super fascinating” aspects of the community was how it tended to bring people together when there were serious disagreements rather than forcing them apart.
在最近的英國《金融時報》125(FT 125 Forum)論壇上，維基百科創始人吉米.威爾士(Jimmy Wales)表示，維基社區“超有趣”的一面是當出現嚴重分歧時，它往往會把人們聚在一起，而不是迫使他們分開。
For instance, Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedians, who have written radically different interpretations of the conflict between their two nations, recently met in Kiev to understand their respective views. “It will take some time before they come to a consensus view but we are trying,” he said.
例如，烏克蘭和俄羅斯的維基百科編輯（他們對於兩國之間衝突的解讀截然不同）最近在基輔會面，以交換觀點。他表示：“他們要達成共識需要一段時間，但我們正在努力。”
Mr Wales said the site was relatively impartial because it had shunned advertising. Wikipedians wrote entries according to the subject’s interest rather than from any impulse to chase clicks. “We all know that the DNA of any organisation tends to follow the money.”
威爾士表示，這個網站之所以相對不偏不倚，是因爲它沒有廣告。維基百科編輯根據主題的興趣（而不是追求點擊量的驅使）去編寫條目。“我們都知道所有組織骨子裏都傾向於向錢看。”
Wikipedia’s model has enabled it to create a “temple of the mind”, says its founder but it has resulted in a “terrible, terrible business”, dependent on voluntary contributions. Can others invent more robust platforms?
維基百科創始人表示，它的模式令其能夠創建一個“思想殿堂”，但結果是一家“很糟糕的企業”，依賴自願捐贈。其他人能發明出更穩健的平臺嗎？
It is said that there are only two forms of innovation: unbundling an industry and rebundling it. The mainstream media has been unbundled but Wikipedia has shown a different way to rebundle our collective intelligence.
據說，只有兩種創新形式：拆散一個行業和對其再捆綁。主流媒體已被拆散，但維基百科展示出了一種不同的重新打包人類集體智慧的方式。
The truth is out there. The bigger question is: do we want to hear it?
真理就在那裏。更重要的問題是：我們想聽嗎？
