????吉米?威爾士講話時，人們會認真聽。這恐怕是因為他是維基百科（Wikipedia）之父，在該網(wǎng)站上，匯集了關(guān)于各種事物的眾包式簡介，從X戰(zhàn)警（X-Men）到口臭可謂無所不包。當人們想了解某事物時，他們總會上維基百科。該網(wǎng)站創(chuàng)建10年后，已經(jīng)有270種語言的版本，被全球4億多人瀏覽，每月被編輯1160萬次。而且，盡管威爾士如今把主要精力放在了Wikia[一個與維基百科類似，但登載廣告而且風格相對比較“極客”的網(wǎng)站，上面會有關(guān)于《星際迷航》（即《阿爾法記憶》）等的詳細介紹。]上，他仍然在盡己所能的扶持維基百科。比如說，不久前，他就第六次也是最近一次親自為維基百科年度募資搖旗吶喊，那些帶有他頭像的橫幅廣告在59天內(nèi)就籌得1600萬美元（威爾士表示：“它們募得的資金比不帶我頭像的橫幅廣告高出了一倍?！保?/p>

????當然，威爾士引人注意還在于他很愿意對任何與技術(shù)相關(guān)的話題發(fā)表看法，即便那些問題在他所熟知的領(lǐng)域之外。比如最近他就表示，應(yīng)用程序市場對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)自由造成的威脅，甚至比網(wǎng)絡(luò)中立性規(guī)則造成的更大也更直接。

????日前，《財富》雜志采訪了威爾士，探討谷歌改變算法對維基百科以及Wikia的影響（沒有影響）；蘋果牢牢控制應(yīng)用程序市場（很不幸）；以及他對諾基亞-微軟同盟的看法（持懷疑態(tài)度）。你肯定有興趣了解他的看法：

????《財富》雜志：有些因谷歌改變算法而受到影響的網(wǎng)站稱，谷歌此次改變帶來的壞處比好處多。你對此怎么看？

????吉米?威爾士：事實上，我對此感到很興奮。我認為是該管管這些荒唐的網(wǎng)站了。當然，現(xiàn)在暫時還很難看出谷歌算法改變的真正影響。大家都在議論誰受到影響了、誰沒受影響。我認為還得過幾周我們才能真正看清此事。

????不過，有些惡名昭著的網(wǎng)站似乎毫發(fā)未損，例如Demand Media旗下的ehow.com。Demand應(yīng)該受到影響嗎？

????要獲得高質(zhì)量的內(nèi)容，主要有兩種方法。一是你向?qū)I(yè)記者支付報酬，讓他們撰寫高質(zhì)量內(nèi)容，這種方法由來已久。此舉成本頗高，但行之有效。這是一種方法。還有一種方法是，讓真正對某個主題有熱情、真正關(guān)心某個主題的人來編撰關(guān)于這個主題的內(nèi)容。而獲得低質(zhì)量內(nèi)容的方法則是，你支付很低的報酬，讓人寫他完全不關(guān)心的東西，并且你根據(jù)他們是否用到所有恰當?shù)年P(guān)鍵詞來向他們支付酬勞。在這樣的環(huán)境下，假如這是你試圖產(chǎn)出的東西，那么它們幾乎一文不值。

????當然，對于Demand Media，我們都可以質(zhì)疑其內(nèi)容的價值。不過我猜他們確實是有撰寫原創(chuàng)性內(nèi)容，因此用算法很難檢測出問題。

????我認為，假如當你進行搜索時，獲得的內(nèi)容都來自對該主題毫無興趣的人，那無論如何對社會都是不大理想的。對任何人而言，這都不是好事。當然，這是一場永無止境的軍備競賽。所以將會有下一輪。

????你剛結(jié)束了為維基百科進行的又一輪募資。你有沒有想過要改變規(guī)則，開始在維基上放廣告或是外鏈到相關(guān)站點，以獲取收入？

????沒有。我們絕不說“絕對不可能”，而且為了維基百科的生存，我們什么都愿意做，但實話告訴你，我們從來沒有談到上面那些事。那些不在我們的考慮范圍內(nèi)。

????人們現(xiàn)在越來越傾向于從社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)中而非維基百科上獲取信息，你對此擔心嗎？

????我當然不會擔心維基百科。人們?nèi)栽诖罅糠窒砭S基百科的鏈接。一切都很好。不過現(xiàn)在人們確實越來越傾向于分享社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)的鏈接，而且分享方法也越來越簡便。

????登陸Facebook，看到朋友們分享的關(guān)于能自主思考的機器恐龍的有趣故事，這確實很棒（這是我剛剛在自己Facebook頁面上看到的第一條推送信息）。不過，這個故事雖然很棒，但并不是我要搜索的東西。你仍然需要搜索。你仍然想弄清楚一些事情，所以你會去搜索它們。

????所以你認為它們可以共存？

????正是如此，我認為它們互為補充。前兩天，我看到這樣一個問題：如果Facebook想建立搜索引擎，那么它會如何處理其用戶分享的海量數(shù)據(jù)？這真是個有趣的問題。人們應(yīng)當關(guān)注此事，因為人們在社交網(wǎng)站分享信息的行為和其用搜索引擎搜索信息的行為大不相同。所以我不認為有誰能根據(jù)一則有趣的機器恐龍故事打造出一款聰明的搜索引擎。

????你還在大力抨擊應(yīng)用程序商店，并指出它們對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)自由造成了巨大威脅。蘋果最新發(fā)布了針對應(yīng)用程序內(nèi)部訂閱的規(guī)則，你的看法有改變嗎？

????歷史又在重演，蘋果似乎又在犯經(jīng)典的蘋果式錯誤。它的控制欲望太強大了，因此它最后會被市場所拋棄，消費者也會轉(zhuǎn)投Android平臺。

????我最大的憂慮在于，將來我們的設(shè)備是否會完全封閉，我們所安裝的每一種軟件都必須經(jīng)過某一家廠商批準？這在很多方面都會造成問題。從商業(yè)角度來看，應(yīng)用程序模式的好處之一是為年輕程序員提供大好機會。只要4個聰明的年輕程序員，你就能成立一支團隊，然后，你就能賺到大量的“真金白銀”。這真是太棒了。

????但是……

????但與此同時，你就像在和魔鬼做交易。當然，我并不是想說蘋果就是魔鬼。我對蘋果非常仰慕。但是你將自己鎖進了一個封閉的系統(tǒng)，在這個系統(tǒng)里，“老大哥”比你更強大。這個問題就比較嚴重了。

????我要指出的是，很多關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)中立性的爭論很大程度上都是“紙上談兵”。人們不過是擔心將來有一天，公司會做出他們現(xiàn)在沒有做的事情。而應(yīng)用程序商店是目前重大的市場現(xiàn)象，它確實十分重要。

????所以蘋果做得錯，谷歌做得對？

????到目前為止，必須承認，從戰(zhàn)略角度而言，蘋果作為該市場的開拓者，領(lǐng)先其它對手好幾年。他們竭盡所能，他們做得棒極了。然而，我認為隨著越來越多的產(chǎn)品進入市場，蘋果要非常小心，以免被人超過。這同樣像是微軟與蘋果的經(jīng)典故事，當時蘋果的平臺較為封閉，而微軟的平臺更為開放。最后的情況是，微軟依靠遠比蘋果開放的平臺將蘋果打敗。

????蘋果如果不能開放自己的平臺，那么它可能面臨這樣的情況，人們會說，我買了iPad，不過我孩子不能用它玩Flash游戲。蘋果和Flash在較勁？我可不在乎。我找到了別的設(shè)備能讓我運行Flash。就這么簡單。

????聽起來你認為蘋果很自大。

????我認為蘋果確實很自大，不過他們有資格如此。iPad是一款超凡脫俗的產(chǎn)品。它進入市場已經(jīng)整整一年了，也許時間還更長點，不過現(xiàn)在仍沒有任何對手可以與之抗衡。這點很難做到，要知道，市場競爭可是異常慘烈。iPad能做到這點簡直是不可思議。蘋果有資格為此小小驕傲一把。

????不過，這就像龜兔賽跑的故事。雖然你具有先發(fā)優(yōu)勢，不過這并不意味著你能笑到最后。你必須非常小心，而且要非常認真地考慮如何成為某個生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的一部分。

????那么谷歌就是那只烏龜？

????將谷歌看做行動緩慢但終將獲勝的烏龜很有意思。谷歌確實堅忍不拔，所以這很有意思。

????這些天來，你還在關(guān)注哪些事情？

????我最近非常關(guān)注的另一件事是諾基亞與微軟的合作。它們的股價一天之內(nèi)下跌了8%，我對此并不感到驚訝。兩者的合作看起來真是個糟糕的主意。另一方面，我一直很欽佩的一位科技觀察家——羅伯特?斯科博發(fā)表了一些我無法認同的觀點：你們中哪位真正用過Windows Phone 7手機（設(shè)備）？它真的很棒，諾基亞選擇與微軟合作絕對是明智之舉。

????但你似乎不這么看。

????我仍然持懷疑態(tài)度。我很尊重別人對此事的不同看法，我認為此次合作將成為移動領(lǐng)域很有意思的一件事。不過5年之后，諾基亞究竟會怎么樣呢？諾基亞首席執(zhí)行官發(fā)表的“燃燒的平臺”（ "Burning Platform"）備忘錄，確實十分精彩、令人震撼。看過的人都說：“如果我們不采取行動，我們會被甩在后面。”這聽起來真的很棒。不過我還是覺得諾基亞應(yīng)該選擇Android生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，這是它更好的歸宿，它可以繼續(xù)發(fā)揮特長，制造出類拔萃的硬件。但諾基亞怎么做的？它投入了微軟的懷抱。

????老兄，我沒想到你們會這么干，不過，還是祝你們能成功吧。

????譯者：項航

????When Jimmy Wales speaks, people listen. That's probably because he's the guy behind Wikipedia, the go-to resource for quick crowd-sourced summaries on everything from X-Men to halitosis. Ten years later, it's available in over 270 languages, viewed by 400 million-plus people around the world, and edited 11.6 million times a month. And though Wales focuses his energies these days on Wikia, the ad-supported, slightly geekier version of Wikipedia with truly elaborate Wikis on say, Star Trek (ie. "Memory Alpha") he still helps out where ever he can. Case in point: his sixth and latest annual personal appeal for Wikipedia funds, with banners carrying his mug ("Those outperformed banners without my picture about 2 to 1," he says) that brought in $16 million in 59 days.

????Of course, Wales is also notable because he's pretty much willing to weigh in on anything tech, even if it seems outside his purview. Most recently, he argued the app market poses a bigger, more immediate threat to Internet freedom than net neutrality regulation.

????Fortune caught up with him last week to talk about how the Google algorithm change is affecting Wikipedia and Wikia (it's not), Apple's (AAPL) stranglehold of the apps market (unfortunate), and his outlook on the Nokia (NOK) - Microsoft (MSFT) relationship (dubious). You'll want to read what he has to say:

????Fortune: Some web sites affected by Google's tweaked algorithm are saying the change is doing more harm than good. Where do you stand?

????Jimmy Wales:I'm actually excited about it. I think it's about time that we have a little bit [of] these really ridiculous sites getting knocked down some. Of course it's too early to tell what is the real impact. There's been a lot of noise about who's been impacted and who hasn't. I think it'll be another few weeks before we really have a clear view on that.

????Still, it seems like some of the most the egregious offenders, like Demand Media's ehow.com, remain unaffected. Should Demand be included?

????There's basically two ways to get good, quality content. One is you pay professional journalists to write good quality content and that is the time-honored manner. It's quite expensive, but it works. That's one way. The other is to get people really passionate about a subject who really care about it, to write about it. And to do that, the way you get low quality content is you pay people very small amounts of money to write about stuff they don't care about at all. And you reward them based on whether or not they've used all the right keywords. In that environment, if that's what you're trying to produce, you produce things of very little quality.

????With Demand Media of course, we can all question what value they're bringing. But I guess it is true that they do write original content, which for an algorithm to detect, is trickier.

????I don't think it's optimal for society in any way that when you do a search, you just get content from people who don't care. That's not good for anybody. Of course, it's an endless arms race. So there will be another round.

????You just wrapped up another round of fundraising for Wikipedia. Do you ever think about changing the rules up and allowing for ads or linking out to relevant sites for revenues?

????No. We never absolutely just say 'never', and we'll do anything for Wikipedia to survive, but in our most private discussions, I will 'leak' to you that we never even talk about it. It's not on the radar for us.

????Are you concerned about people turning more to social networks for information than your sites?

????Certainly not for Wikipedia. People do share Wikipedia links a lot. It's all kinds of fine. But there definitely is a shift to a lot more social sharing of links and it just gets easier.

????There's something wonderful about going on Facebook and seeing that your friends share this funny story about a robotic dinosaur that has an attitude. (I just saw the first thing in my Facebook feed.) It's great, but it's not something I would have searched for. You still need search. There are still things you're trying to figure out, and you're going to search for it.

????So you see them working hand-in-hand?

????Yeah, I think it's complimentary. The one thing I did read the other day was what Facebook would do with all the data they're sharing in terms of building a search engine. I think it's a very interesting question. People should keep an eye out for that because the nature of what people share socially is very different from what people search for in a search engine, so I'm not sure you can build a cute search engine out of a cute story about robotic dinosaurs.

????You also just spoke out against app stores and how they pose a big threat to Internet freedom. Have Apple's new in-app subscription rules changed your view on that?

????It's quite likely that Apple is going to commit the classic Apple mistake of trying to be too controlling and therefore the market gets away from them and people start to move towards Android.

????My big concern is, will we have devices that are completely locked down, and the only software you'll install on them is software approved by a single vendor? That's an issue in a lot of ways. From a business perspective, one of benefits of the app model is providing a really exciting time again for young programmers. You get together a team of four smart young programmers and you can actually make a lot of money. It's interesting and exciting.

????But…

????But at the same time, it's like making a deal with the devil. And I don't mean to be calling Apple the devil. I'm a great admirer of Apple. But you're locking yourself into a system where Big Brother is going to be more powerful than you. Which is a pretty big deal.

????What I was contrasting that with is that a lot of the brouhaha with net neutrality is fairly theoretical. People are afraid of companies doing things someday that they aren't doing now. But this is a huge market phenomenon now and it's really quite important.

????So Apple's getting it wrong and Google is getting it right?

????So far. To Apple's credit, from a strategy point of view, as the first player in that market with a very dominant couple of years head start, they did what they could with that, and that's great for them. At the same time, I think Apple needs to be very careful that they don't get sidelined as more and more devices [arrive]. And again, it's the classic old story of Microsoft and Apple, where Microsoft with a more open platform. But it is true. Microsoft was far more open than Apple was and won because of that.

????Apple runs the risk that if they don't embrace a bit more openness in their platform, people will actually say, I've got this iPad, and my kid can't play this Flash game. So Apple's in a fight with Flash? I don't care. And yet this other device lets me run Flash. Simple as that.

????Sounds like you think Apple is arrogant.

????Well, I think Apple is arrogant, and I think they earned it. The iPad is an absolutely brilliant product. They brought it to market a full year, maybe more than a year, before anyone else had anything remotely competitive. That's hard to do. This is an incredibly competitive market. To do that with the iPad is just really insane. They may deserve to be a little cocky about that.

????At the same time, it's the tortoise and the hare. Just because you're the first out of the box, doesn't mean you'll win in the long run. They have to be very careful and very thoughtful about how they can be a part of any ecosystem.

????And Google is the tortoise then?

????It's funny to think of them as a slow-plotting turtoise that will win. Google is pretty relentless, so that's very interesting.

????What else has sort of has you riled up these days?

????The other thing I'm fascinated by is the whole Nokia-Microsoft tie-up. ... I'm not surprised their stock was down by 8% in one day. That sounded like a really bad idea. On the other hand, Robert Scoble, who I do respect very much, just made the point that I can't really answer: Have any of you actually used a Windows Phone 7 mobile [device]? Because it's really awesome and this is a really brilliant move.

????But you don't seem to think so.

????I'm still very skeptical. I do respect that there's an alternative view out there, and I think it's going to be one of the more interesting things in the mobile space. But where will Nokia be five years from now? … This shake things up ["Burning Platform"] memo from the CEO was brilliant, with people saying "OK, we're about to be left behind if we don't do something." That sounded really good. I would have suggested the Android ecosystem would have been a better place for them to make really brilliant hardware, which they do. But then what do they do? They joined up with Microsoft.

????Not really what I thought you'd say guys, but hey, hope that works out for you.