本帖最后由 fukgm 于 2010-4-13 21:59 编辑
【中文标题】美国媒体网站在重新考量如何对付匿名行为
【原文标题】News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments
【登载媒体】纽约时报
【来源地址】http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html
【译者】fukgm
【翻译方式】人工
【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载
【原文库】http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-237510-1-1.html 【译文】
News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online CommentsBy RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA 媒体网站在重新考量如何对付匿名发帖行为（原文库标题：美国媒体网站开始试行实名制）
From the start, Internet users have taken for granted that the territory was both a free-for-all and a digital disguise, allowing them to revel in their power to address the world while keeping their identities concealed.
互联网刚诞生之时，为了打造一个毫无束缚，可以在世界上任何地方自由狂欢，畅所欲言的平台，网民被允许可以不登记他们真实的身份和所在地点。
A New Yorker cartoon from 1993, during the Web’s infancy, with one mutt saying to another, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” became an emblem of that freedom. For years, it was the magazine’s most reproduced cartoon.
在一份1993年——这个互联网的幼年期中出版的《纽约客》杂志上登载了这么一幅漫画，并在其后成为代表自由的象征：一条mutt（杂种狗）对另一条说：“在互联网上，没有人知道你是一条狗。”这么多年来，它仍然是杂志社重印的漫画中数量最多的。
When news sites, after years of hanging back, embraced the idea of allowing readers to post comments, the near-universal assumption was that anyone could weigh in and remain anonymous. But now, that idea is under attack from several directions, and journalists, more than ever, are questioning whether anonymity should be a given on news sites.
多年的举棋不定后，新闻网站终于接纳了“开放读者评论”这个方案——普遍的假设是默认任何人都可以匿名参加。事到如今，这个方案遭遇到来自各方面的批评，特别是越来越多的记者开始质问新闻网站究竟该不该允许匿名行为。
The Washington Post plans to revise its comments policy over the next several months, and one of the ideas under consideration is to give greater prominence to commenters using real names.
《华盛顿邮报》计划在接下来的几个月内修改他们对于读者评论的管理政策。其中有一条正在考虑中：那些使用真实名字的评论将会被提升或是置顶。
The New York Times, The Post and many other papers have moved in stages toward requiring that people register before posting comments, providing some information about themselves that is not shown onscreen.
无独有偶，《纽约时报》、《纽约邮报》和其他报纸也加入到这个行列来，开始要求人们必须在注册和登记个人信息之后才能发帖讨论。
The Huffington Post soon will announce changes, including ranking commenters based in part on how well other readers know and trust their writing.
接着，有“互联网第一大报”之称的美国最著名政治博客网站，《赫芬顿邮报》宣布将采取修改措施，其中包括了“评论者的排名将取决于读者对他的了解和信赖程度。”
“Anonymity is just the way things are done. It’s an accepted part of the Internet, but there’s no question that people hide behind anonymity to make vile or controversial comments,” said Arianna Huffington, a founder of The Huffington Post. “I feel that this is almost like an education process. As the rules of the road are changing and the Internet is growing up, the trend is away from anonymity.”
“匿名只是一种行事的方式，在互联网上是可以被接受的。但是有些人躲在匿名这块挡箭牌后面散布些阴阳怪气、声东击西、指桑骂槐的言论妄图达到挑拨离间，隔山打牛，坐山观虎斗之类的效果，他们醉翁之意不在酒的险恶企图和不可告人的目的是不可能实现的！”《赫芬顿邮报》创始人阿里安娜·河粉炖（Arianna Huffington）表示，“我觉得（做网站运营）比较像一种学习过程。随着互联网的逐渐成熟，以前制定的规则已经不再适用，现在的趋势是网络匿名行为将逐渐走向没落。”
The Plain Dealer of Cleveland recently discovered that anonymous comments on its site, disparaging a local lawyer, were made using the e-mail address of a judge who was presiding over some of that lawyer’s cases.
《克利夫兰老实人报》(呃~) 最近发现在他们的网站，有一些诽谤，污蔑，攻击当地一名律师的匿名帖子都是来自于同一名法官的邮件地址，而且律师的好些案件都是由这位法官主持的。
That kind of proxy has been documented before; what was more unusual was that The Plain Dealer exposed the connection in an article. The judge, Shirley Strickland Saffold, denied sending the messages — her daughter took responsibility for some of them. And last week, the judge sued The Plain Dealer, claiming it had violated her privacy.
像这样的事情我们以前也提到过，问题是《老实人报》把他们之间的关系链老老实实地披露了出来，结果就是：雪莉·斯特里克兰德·撒弗尔德（Shirley Strickland Saffold），就是这名法官，否认自己发了这些消息，取而代之的是她女儿承认“发了其中的一部分”。于是在上周，法官雪莉将《老实人报》告上了法庭，以“侵犯隐私”予以起诉。
The paper acknowledged that it had broken with the tradition of allowing commenters to hide behind screen names, but it served notice that anonymity was a habit, not a guarantee. Susan Goldberg, The Plain Dealer’s editor, declined to comment for this article. But in an interview she gave to her own newspaper, she said that perhaps the paper should not have investigated the identity of the person who posted the comments, “but once we did, I don’t know how you can pretend you don’t know that information.”
报社坦承他们打破了允许发布评论的网民使用马甲这样一个“传统”，但他们指出这只是一种“习惯”，而非“担保”。老实人编辑苏珊·哥的八哥（Susan Goldberg）觉得报社真不应该调查这个发帖人的身份，“但问题是我们还是做了，要我们装作不知道这些已经知道的信息那几乎是不可能的，至少我做不来。”
Some prominent journalists weighed in on the episode, calling it evidence that news sites should do away with anonymous comments. Leonard Pitts Jr., a Miami Herald columnist, wrote recently that anonymity has made comment streams “havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnants of our propriety.”
一些资历深厚的记者以这个事件为例，认为它证明了新闻网站应该废除允许匿名发帖。《迈阿密先驱报》专栏作家雷欧那德·皮特次（二世）(Leonard Pitts Jr.)最近写了一篇文章，认为匿名发帖“把楼歪成了一幢包庇及收纳那些粗俗不堪，顽固腐朽，卑鄙无耻，以及赤裸裸的淫秽及下流的便所”，“将动摇我们仅剩的那些残破不堪的道德规范。”
No one doubts that there is a legitimate value in letting people express opinions that may get them in trouble at work, or may even offend their neighbors, without having to give their names, said William Grueskin, dean of academic affairs at Columbia’s journalism school. “But a lot of comment boards turn into the equivalent of a barroom brawl, with most of the participants having blood-alcohol levels of 0.10 or higher,” he said. “People who might have something useful to say are less willing to participate in boards where the tomatoes are being thrown.”
“没有人会质疑这种价值观的合理性，即以匿名的方式让人们发表那些可能会暴露工作上的潜规则或者激化邻里之间矛盾，引起麻烦的看法。”哥伦比亚新闻学校学术部主任威廉·格鲁斯科因（William Grueskin）这样认为，“问题在于，许多评论板块最后都沦为酒吧式作风的对喷贴，充斥着一群酒精含量超标的喷子”他继续补充，“那些真正有头脑，想跟别人理性探讨和分析交流的人们对于这些杂乱无章，满地烂番茄的版块只能避而远之。”
He said news organizations were willing to reconsider anonymity in part because comment pages brought in little revenue; advertisers generally do not like to buy space next to opinions, especially incendiary ones.
他还指出新闻机构很想对匿名行为作出新的管理方式，究其原因还是评论版块带来的收益实在太少——没有哪个商家愿意把他们的广告和评论放在一块，特别是那些煽动性的言论。
The debate over anonymity is entwined with the question of giving more weight to comments from some readers than others, based in part on how highly other readers regard them. Some sites already use a version of this approach; Wikipedia users can earn increasing editing rights by gaining the trust of other editors, and when reviews are posted on Amazon.com, those displayed most prominently are those that readers have voted “most helpful” — and they are often written under real names.
关于匿名问题的争论现围绕在一个问题上展开，是否该对那些帖子或者评论以作者人气的高低作为质量评判标准？有些网站已经在这个方向上尝试了：维基百科的用户可以通过其他编辑的推荐来提升自己的编辑权限。在亚马逊网站这个美国最大的网络电子商务公司网站上，曝光率最高，出现在最显著位置的是通过反馈，被票选最多次数“非常有帮助”的卖家。——当然这里都是真名。
Hal Straus, interactivity editor of The Washington Post, said, “We want to be able to establish user tiers, and display variations based on those tiers.” The system is still being planned, but he says it is likely that readers will be asked to rate comments, and that people’s comments will be ranked in part based on the trust those users have earned from other readers — an approach much like the one The Huffington Post is set to adopt. Another criterion could be whether they use their real names.
哈尔·斯特拉乌斯（Hal Straus），《华盛顿邮报》的交流编辑，说：“我们打算建立用户链机制，然后再这个机制的基础上开发更多的功能。”这个系统仍停留在白纸上，但是哈尔认为用户将很快会被要求对文章评论进行打分，而只有那些被另外的读者公认有信誉的网民才有资格对最终评分产生影响——就好像《赫芬顿邮报》正在适应的方式一样。此外，这些网民之前必须通过实名制测试。
But experience has shown that when users help rank things online, sites may have to guard against a concerted campaign by a small group of people voting one way and skewing the results.
但以往的经验显示，当网民们在为帖子打分或者投票时，网站可能需要采取一种措施防止那种有组织有预谋的集体顶贴手段而得出一面倒的评选结果。
A popular feature on The Wall Street Journal’s site lets readers decide whether they want to see only those comments posted by subscribers, on the theory that the most dedicated readers might make for a more serious conversation.
《华尔街日报》的网站正在使用一个比较通行的方法：让读者去自行筛选他们感兴趣的文章及评论，只看文章作者的，或者是那种专注于严肃交流的讨论内容。
Few news organizations, including The Times, have someone review every comment before it goes online, to weed out personal attacks and bigoted comments. Some sites and prominent bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, simply do not allow comments. Some news sites review comments after they are posted, but most say they do not have the resources to do routine policing. Many sites allow readers to flag objectionable comments for removal, and make some effort to block comments from people who have repeatedly violated the site’s standards.
包括《时代》杂志的一些新闻机构拥有专门把关回复质量的编辑，他们的职责是将那些人身攻击的喷贴和警告多次屡教不改，“坚持原则”的评论挡在正式发表之外。另一些网站和博客写手，如安德鲁·酥里丸(Andrew Sullivan 美国同性恋政治写手），则直接关闭回复功能。还有一些新闻网站是在回复登出之后才开始审查，一般这样的网站都是因为人力资源稀缺而不得不这么做。很多站点都允许读者标记那些令人生厌的评论以便予以移除，这样做有助于发现并屏蔽那些违反版规，机械重复发贴，专门找茬来恶心大家的家伙。
If commenters were asked to provide their real names for display online, some would no doubt give false identities, and verifying them would be too labor-intensive to be realistic. But news executives say that merely making the demand for a name and an e-mail address would weed out much of the most offensive commentary.
如果那些发帖的筒子被要求提供个人真实姓名时，有些会立马搞个假名字出来，而动用大量劳力资源去对他们的身份刨根问底是不大现实的。然而新闻媒体主管人员支持这种做法，认为仅仅实行实名制和提供电子邮件地址就能达到效果：大大减少那些攻击性煽动性的言论。
Several industry executives cited a more fundamental force working in favor of identifying commenters. Through blogging and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, millions of people have grown accustomed to posting their opinions — to say nothing of personal details — with their names attached, for all to see. Adapting the Facebook model, some news sites allow readers to post a picture along with a comment, another step away from anonymity.
几位行业主管引用了一种更根本的运作方式来改进发帖者的鉴别工作。通过博客和社交网站诸如Facebook（面熟）和Twitter（推特），数百万人开始习惯在网上发表他们的观点——没有个人信息的外泄（兴趣减小了）——因为他们的名字已经跟账号绑定在一起了，任何人都可以看到。如果都照着Facebook这个面熟模式做的话，那些新闻网站将以另外一种方法解决匿名问题：将发帖筒子的随便什么图片作为头像，形成一个个性标志以便于识别。
“There is a younger generation that doesn’t feel the same need for privacy,” Ms. Huffington said. “这群新新人类可不像他们的前辈那样这么看重个人隐私，” 河粉炖女士这么说道，
“Many people, when you give them other choices, they choose not to be anonymous.” “有很多人，如果他们有得选的话，他们会选择实名制。” | 
狗仔卡
发表于 2010-4-13 21:28
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
楼主