【翻譯練習】知識轟炸的反思：接收愈多，吸收愈少？
Reading More but Learning Less?
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less
When one of the “big two” newsweeklies is going out of print, it’s clear that Americans are not consuming news the way they used to. Maybe that’s a good thing, if the technology revolution has made it easier to get more of the kind of information and analysis that readers once sought from Newsweek. But if Americans are finding a more polarized reality online, they may have just grown more partisan with less knowledge, making it more important for forums like presidential debates to deal with the details of policy.
兩大新聞週刊之一的Newsweek，傳出停刊消息，看來美國人接收訊息的方式有別以往。如果科技改革幫助讀者更容易取得Newsweek提供的資訊與分析，而且提供得更多，當然是件好事。但如果美國人在網路上找到極端化的立場，他們可能就因這少少的資訊，變得更加偏激，有關總統辯論之類的論壇，當然就會努力經營政策細節，來加強偏激的觀點，一面倒的的支持者。
In the Web 2.0 age, when many Americans see hundreds of articles every day, are we more informed than previous generations were?
Web 2.0時代，每天有數百篇文章躍入眼前，我們真的比上一代的前輩們懂得更多嗎？
It's Easy to Learn, or Be Misled
你以為你真的知道嗎？
日期：Updated October 23, 2012, 1:14 PM
作者：Cass R. Sunstein
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less/online-its-easy-to-learn-or-be-misled
We don’t yet have clear evidence about the effect of Web 2.0 on how much Americans know. To obtain that evidence, we would need to investigate changes in knowledge over time and to control for the effects of factors other than Web 2.0 – a daunting empirical challenge.
Web 2.0時代，以經驗架構而成，一時還無法完全適應的世代變改。尚無明確證據可知Web 2.0如何影響美國人的知識界限。為取得證據，需探查一段時間內知識層面的改變，也需掌控Web 2.0以外的影響因素。
It is clear, however, that because information can be obtained or shared in an instant, the cost of getting knowledge is at an all-time low. Unfortunately, you can find not only truth but also falsehoods, and for those who are not experts and are simply trying to learn, it is not always easy to distinguish between the two.
不過，可以知道的是，由於資訊隨手可得，且能即刻分享，因而只須付出極低代價即能換取知識。但別高興得太早，畢竟你取得的資訊，有真相也有假象。對於不是行家的人，他們只是單純求知，卻不易辨別真與假。
A warning: In the current period, whatever might be thought will be said.
這個年頭，只要某個東西浮現在腦海，就會被發表出來。
Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa, embraced AIDS denialism under the influence of denialist Web sites. His beliefs almost certainly resulted in numerous deaths. Few false beliefs are that harmful, but extremists and dupes of all kinds can find apparently plausible support for unjustified claims in a heartbeat (not least in the context of a heated presidential contest).
南非前總統塔波穆貝基受到愛滋否定論網站的影響，也成了愛滋否認主義者。可以說，他的信念確實造成許多犧牲者。雖非每個錯誤信念都如此有害，但這裡要提到的是，極端者與易受騙者能於極短時間內，從網路上找到似是而非的證據來支持他們不合理的論點。火熱的總統選舉活動中，這種情形並不陌生。
The good news is that as a result of Web 2.0, countless people are finding it easier to make informed decisions about health, finance, politics and much more. The bad news is that it is also easier to become a zealot.
拜Web 2.0之賜，健康、財經、政治及其他各種訊息，無不靈通。但從另一方面看來，也可能因為這些無所不在的訊息，把人塑造成一名狂熱份子。
Suppose that you start with a strong but baseless conviction – say, that a widely shared scientific belief is poppycock, or that a familiar household product is dangerous, or that nefarious people are conspiring against your kind, or that the best medicine is no medicine. If so, you can readily discover support for your views. Because of Web 2.0, enclaves of like-minded people can be found, or emerge, in an instant. A lot of empirical work establishes that that when people sort themselves into such enclaves, they tend to become more confident, more unified and more extreme.
假設你遇上一個語調強硬卻缺乏根據的控訴，你總可以不費吹灰之力，找到支持的論調。例如：某個公認的科學觀點其實是一派胡言；某個家喻戶曉的生活用品其實危害重大；某個懷有惡意的人對你圖謀不軌；良藥根本不是藥，等等，諸如此類控訴。Web 2.0能夠很快地把一群群活在自己象牙塔裡的烏合之眾給集結起來。許多經驗顯示，人們一旦住進了他們自己那群的象牙塔，便容易變得信心滿滿，砲口一致對外，行為更極端。
Whatever the ultimate effects of Web 2.0, we know that it is helping to promote, at once, informed citizenship and unjustified zealotry.
Web 2.0最終將帶來何種效應，姑且不論；現在知道的是，Web 2.0一下就丟給眾人大量訊息，並且一下就促成了缺乏合理憑據的狂熱份子。
More Eagerly Sought When It Was Precious
知識：愈難取得，愈顯珍貴
日期：October 22, 2012
作者：Melvyn Dubofsky
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less/knowlededge-was-more-eagerly-sought-when-it-was-more-precious
Never before has a population -- nearly all of whom has enjoyed at a least a secondary school education -- been exposed to so much information, whether in newspapers and magazines or through YouTube, Google, and Facebook.
現今時代，幾乎每人都有正規學校以外的學習經驗。以前從不曾像現在這樣資訊密集轟炸，報章雜誌、YouTube、Google、Facebook都是投彈來源。
Yet I remain unsure that Americans today are more knowledgeable than their predecessors 100 years ago, many of whom were barely literate. A century ago nearly every city, town, and village had a lyceum or other venue in which visiting speakers regaled packed auditoriums with lectures on popular and abstruse subjects. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, a poor, largely East European Jewish neighborhood, the local Labor Lyceum scheduled talks on Marxism, socialism, anarchism, evolution, and religion as well as performances by talented musicians. There as a teenager the famous mid-20th century impresario Sol Hurok honed his talent for staging concerts and developing musical virtuosos.
然而，我仍不敢說當今美國人會比百年前泰半不識字的前輩們懂得更多。時間拉回到一個世紀前，那時每個城鎮村落都有演講廳之類的會堂，受邀的講者竭力發表，不論演講主題屬於流行通俗或深奧艱澀，會場往往爆滿。布魯克林的布朗斯維區，居民多為東歐猶太人，雖然該區貧窮落後，但當地勞工會堂所安排的講演科目，竟有馬克思主義、社會主義、無政府主義、演化論、宗教等，時而亦有音樂家演出。二十世紀中期的名藝術經紀人蘇胡洛克，就在這樣的環境下磨練台風，並培訓音樂大師。
Such venues existed even in such far off places as Lead, S.D., Butte, Mont., and Cripple Creek, Colo., often in conjunction with local trade unions or labor and/or socialist parties. In unionized cigar-making factories in Tampa, Fla. and New York City lectors, or readers, sat on high stools reading Shakespeare, Marx, Engels, Darwin, Hugo, Balzac, and Tolstoy as cigar rollers performed their skilled work. Decades later during the depths of the Great Depression and the emerging New Deal, the union leader John L. Lewis and President Franklin D. Roosevelt battled each with fierce oratory that drew on the Bible, Shakespeare, and other classical sources, knowing full well that their auditors would understand literary allusions and flourishes.
就連偏遠地區都有如此會堂，會堂多和貿易工會、勞工黨、或社會黨有關。佛羅里達州坦帕灣及紐約州的雪茄製造工廠，工人一邊捲菸，一邊聆聽坐在高凳上的演講者／朗讀者，念誦莎士比亞、馬克思、恩格爾、達爾文、雨果、巴爾札克、托爾斯泰等人作品。數十年後的大蕭條以及新政時期，工會主席約翰‧L‧路易斯，與總統小羅斯福，兩人針對聖經、莎士比亞或其他經典名作的內容，展開唇槍舌戰。他們知道，台下的聽眾，聽得懂談話中引用的文學暗喻與詞藻修飾。
While teaching undergraduate college students for 50 years spanning the eras when knowledge derived from printed materials to the days of Wikipedia and the World Wide Web, I saw how contemporary advances in technology offered more serious and inquisitive students access to realms of knowledge previously unimaginable and unavailable.
在我任教大學50多年期間，知識的來源，從印刷品演進至維基百科和網際網路。我注意到，現代科技進展，開啟了以往未曾想像與進入的知識殿堂，對於認真與好奇的學生，不啻一項福音。
But I also observed how such readily available knowledge led many more students away from serious study, the reading of actual texts, and toward an inability to write effectively and grammatically. It has let people choose sources that reinforce their opinions rather than encouraging them to question inherited beliefs. And it has diluted the shared bases of knowledge that a Lewis or a Roosevelt assumed bound their listeners together.
不過我也觀察到，知識唾手可得，卻使許多學生放棄嚴謹研究及精讀文本，以致書寫方面無法確實，文法不通暢。人們只不過是選擇能加強本身觀念的論點，而非質疑既有信念。能夠讓路易斯或小羅斯福那樣的講者用以抓住聽眾的共通知識，也式微了。
Having made citizens more and less knowledgeable than their predecessors, the Internet has proved to be both a blessing and a curse.
多虧網路，現代人所知道的，比從前的人更多。然而是好是壞，端看如何運用。
Having Information vs. Being Informed
知道捕魚vs. 給你魚吃
日期：Updated October 23, 2012, 10:58 AM
作者：Denise Cheng
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less/having-information-vs-or-being-informed
Having information and being informed are not the same thing, and they do not have equal value. If, in what we call "information overload," we have just enough time to catch an eye-full of headlines from our RSS readers, a cluster of 140-character tweets or pithy commentary on Facebook, then we have an ever-greater need for media literacy – the ability to decode messages in the way news and information are presented.
｢知道｣與｢被告知｣，意義不同，不應混為一談。資訊爆炸時代，光是匆匆過目RSS閱讀器滿滿的標題、或者瞄一下推特或臉書成堆的短句，時間就被佔滿。看來我們非常需要｢媒體素養｣──解讀新聞訊息的能力。
In 2003, Marc Canter said: "Five percent of the populace人口 (probably even less) can create. The others watch, listen, read, consume. I think one of the destinies of digital technology is to enable the other 95% to express their creativity somehow." Last month, Pew reported that more than 50 percent of American Internet users created or curated content online.
2003年，Marc Canter(Flash播放器公司創始人)說：｢全部人口中，會創造新事物的只有5%，甚至更少。其他人負責看、聽、讀、消費。不過我想，數位科技會讓那95%也有辦法展現創意。｣上個月，Pew研究中心報導指出，美國有超過一半的網路使用者創造或策劃了網路內容。
We know that the Internet has made room for “resistant readings,” participation and displays of creativity that engage with current events. By opening up the creation of popular culture, it has also divvied瓜分 up the shares of attention that media industries and prominent figures used to monopolize.
網路為當下事件帶來了對抗解讀(閱聽人挑戰文本的立場)，並能從中加入及展現創造力。網路開啟流行文化，創造流行元素。以往，媒體與名人吸引了所有人的目光，如今網路也來搶占一杯羹，瓜分群眾注意力。
In the water cooler era, there were fewer suppliers of information but the same social currency in knowing information from each source. In the era of information overload, there are not just three TV channels and two newspapers. We rely on our social circles to point us to interesting content. Memes and viral pieces have a built-in social currency, and with so many demands on our attention, we could be at risk of not seeking out the original reference point that these pieces riff off — instead just relying on this meta layer of information because that's all it takes to participate in a social conversation. We don't have the numbers, but how many Americans have come across memes about "binders full of women," and how many watched Mitt Romney's complete answer on women in the workplace?
從前資訊來源較少，三三兩兩人們聚在一起談天道地，就是接收訊息的管道。資訊爆炸時代，電視頻道與報紙變多；對什麼話題感興趣，就加入什麼社交圈。迷因(meme)─文化傳播的單位─本身就是社交貨幣，然而網路世界裡，注意力過度分散，可能使我們沒有深究這些迷因所討論事物的參考點，而只是一味接納鋪天蓋地而來的資訊。為了在社群討論中占一席發言地位，卻去作這冒險的事情。只差沒有確切統計數字，不然可真不知有多少美國人知道有｢一資料夾的女人｣這個迷因，以及多少人真的看過羅姆尼在總統辯論中，對於職場女性的完整見解。
Two projects by my colleagues at the M.I.T. Center for Civic Media nod to this. Lazy Truth is an inbox plugin that analyzes political e-mails and then autocomposes a fact-based response, saving Internet users the trouble of rounding up facts. Truth Goggles is a prototype bookmarklet that runs political claims on Web pages against fact databases. "The point of Truth Goggles isn't to tell you what to think, it's to remind you when it's time," the site explains.
我同事在麻省理工學院「公民媒體中心」的進行的兩項專案，也認可我的看法。｢憊懶真相｣是收件匣外掛程式，分析政治相關信件，自動編組基於事實的回應，網路使用者不必另花時間蒐集資訊。｢真相蛙鏡｣則是原型書籤，利用事實資料庫，檢視網頁中的政治話語。｢真相蛙鏡｣網站闡述：｢真相蛙鏡的用意，是要讓你知道思考的適當時機，而不是單純告知思考的內容。｣
Once, if we felt strongly enough, we went to the library to verify things we heard. Now, we have all the resources of the Internet at our fingertips, yet all we need to feel engaged is to scan some headlines shared via social media. If we value reliable information, then as media creators and consumers, we must ask: What can we do to encourage people to dig a little deeper?
從前，如果不堪自己處於愚昧不明狀態，我們便去圖書館找資料查證耳聞之事。如今，彈指之間連接網路，接觸各種資料來源如探囊取物，但現代人光是大略瀏覽社群網站幾項標題，就足以殺時間(而無心深究真相)。做為媒體創造者與接收者的我們，如果真的重視資訊可靠性，是否該想想要怎麼做才能促使人們重視事實。
A Larger Pool of Data, but Few Dive In
資料很多，不是無從下手，而是無心探究
日期：October 22, 2012
作者：Nicholas Carr
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less/a-larger-pool-of-data-but-few-dive-in
It would be nice if we could engineer a more informed citizenry by simply cranking up the flow of information. But we can’t. Despite being inundated with data and messages, Americans today don’t seem any better informed than they were before the arrival of the Web.
若能夠加速資訊流通，令人們汲取更多知識，必定是件樂事。然而目前仍尚無足夠能力。儘管資料訊息數量極豐，當今美國人似乎沒比網路時代來臨前的人懂得更多。
A Pew Research Center study found that Americans’ knowledge of current affairs didn’t change significantly between 1989 and 2007, two decades when online information stores, news sites and sharing tools exploded. And the least informed age group remained the youngest, the 18- to 29-year-olds who are also the most avid users of social media. “Digital revolutions,” the researchers concluded, “have had little impact on how much Americans know about national and international affairs.”
一則來自Pew研究中心的報告指出，1989年至2007年將近20年期間，資料庫、網站、線上分享工具如雨後春筍般湧出，但是，美國人對時事的了解程度，未有明顯長進。18歲至29歲的年輕人，最活躍於社交媒體，卻依然穩居｢懂最少｣寶座。研究下了結論：｢數位革命對美國人的本國、國際事務認知程度，幾無任何影響。｣
In a recent review of voter surveys, Jonathan Bendor of Stanford and John Bullock of Yale characterized the state of Americans’ political awareness as “one of overwhelming ignorance” and found that it “had not changed much in the last fifty years.” They debunked the idea that the proliferation of media outlets has increased the public’s civic knowledge, finding instead that it has “made it easier for most citizens to ignore politics.”
史丹佛大學的強納森‧班多與耶魯大學的約翰‧布洛克，利用最近的選票調查，發現美國人的政治觀可以用一句｢超無知｣來形容，而且｢近五十年來幾乎不變｣。他們認為，儘管媒體強力放送五花八門內容，然而一般大眾的公民知識並無增進；相反地，媒體內容太多，｢使得大部分人更容易忽略政治議題｣。
The stagnation isn’t limited to current affairs. Earlier this year, the National Science Foundation reported that “the public's level of factual knowledge about science has not changed much over the past two decades.”
一般人不是只有對時事才感到遲鈍。今年稍早，國家科學委員會報告稱｢過去二十多年來，大眾在科學方面的事實型知識水準，文風不動｣。
It’s a fallacy to believe that dispensing more information more quickly will, in itself, raise the general level of public awareness. To be informed, a person has to want to be informed, and the percentage of Americans demonstrating such motivation seems to have remained pretty stable, and pretty abysmal throughout our vaunted information age.
誰說資訊傳播得愈多、愈快，公共意識即能普遍提升？簡直謬論。想要懂得更多，一個人還得要有心想變得懂更多。但即便處於人人引以為傲的資訊時代，美國人求知不渴，令人心寒。
The engaged used to read newspapers and magazines and debate the issues of the day around water coolers or over meals. Today, they scan RSS feeds, tweet links and post comments. The activity has become more visible, but that doesn’t mean it’s any broader or deeper. When it comes to overall civic engagement, the sound and fury of online exchanges signify little.
以前的人，儘管忙碌，還是會利用在茶水間碰面或用餐時間，談談當天報章雜誌要聞。但現在，頂多看看RSS、推特，再發表點意見。這些舉動雖是很顯而易見的討論，卻不代表討論內容更廣、更有深度。線上交流的發聲及投入程度，實在微不足道，稱不上全體共襄盛舉。
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less
When one of the “big two” newsweeklies is going out of print, it’s clear that Americans are not consuming news the way they used to. Maybe that’s a good thing, if the technology revolution has made it easier to get more of the kind of information and analysis that readers once sought from Newsweek. But if Americans are finding a more polarized reality online, they may have just grown more partisan with less knowledge, making it more important for forums like presidential debates to deal with the details of policy.
兩大新聞週刊之一的Newsweek，傳出停刊消息，看來美國人接收訊息的方式有別以往。如果科技改革幫助讀者更容易取得Newsweek提供的資訊與分析，而且提供得更多，當然是件好事。但如果美國人在網路上找到極端化的立場，他們可能就因這少少的資訊，變得更加偏激，有關總統辯論之類的論壇，當然就會努力經營政策細節，來加強偏激的觀點，一面倒的的支持者。
In the Web 2.0 age, when many Americans see hundreds of articles every day, are we more informed than previous generations were?
Web 2.0時代，每天有數百篇文章躍入眼前，我們真的比上一代的前輩們懂得更多嗎？
It's Easy to Learn, or Be Misled
你以為你真的知道嗎？
日期：Updated October 23, 2012, 1:14 PM
作者：Cass R. Sunstein
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less/online-its-easy-to-learn-or-be-misled
We don’t yet have clear evidence about the effect of Web 2.0 on how much Americans know. To obtain that evidence, we would need to investigate changes in knowledge over time and to control for the effects of factors other than Web 2.0 – a daunting empirical challenge.
Web 2.0時代，以經驗架構而成，一時還無法完全適應的世代變改。尚無明確證據可知Web 2.0如何影響美國人的知識界限。為取得證據，需探查一段時間內知識層面的改變，也需掌控Web 2.0以外的影響因素。
It is clear, however, that because information can be obtained or shared in an instant, the cost of getting knowledge is at an all-time low. Unfortunately, you can find not only truth but also falsehoods, and for those who are not experts and are simply trying to learn, it is not always easy to distinguish between the two.
不過，可以知道的是，由於資訊隨手可得，且能即刻分享，因而只須付出極低代價即能換取知識。但別高興得太早，畢竟你取得的資訊，有真相也有假象。對於不是行家的人，他們只是單純求知，卻不易辨別真與假。
A warning: In the current period, whatever might be thought will be said.
這個年頭，只要某個東西浮現在腦海，就會被發表出來。
Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa, embraced AIDS denialism under the influence of denialist Web sites. His beliefs almost certainly resulted in numerous deaths. Few false beliefs are that harmful, but extremists and dupes of all kinds can find apparently plausible support for unjustified claims in a heartbeat (not least in the context of a heated presidential contest).
南非前總統塔波穆貝基受到愛滋否定論網站的影響，也成了愛滋否認主義者。可以說，他的信念確實造成許多犧牲者。雖非每個錯誤信念都如此有害，但這裡要提到的是，極端者與易受騙者能於極短時間內，從網路上找到似是而非的證據來支持他們不合理的論點。火熱的總統選舉活動中，這種情形並不陌生。
The good news is that as a result of Web 2.0, countless people are finding it easier to make informed decisions about health, finance, politics and much more. The bad news is that it is also easier to become a zealot.
拜Web 2.0之賜，健康、財經、政治及其他各種訊息，無不靈通。但從另一方面看來，也可能因為這些無所不在的訊息，把人塑造成一名狂熱份子。
Suppose that you start with a strong but baseless conviction – say, that a widely shared scientific belief is poppycock, or that a familiar household product is dangerous, or that nefarious people are conspiring against your kind, or that the best medicine is no medicine. If so, you can readily discover support for your views. Because of Web 2.0, enclaves of like-minded people can be found, or emerge, in an instant. A lot of empirical work establishes that that when people sort themselves into such enclaves, they tend to become more confident, more unified and more extreme.
假設你遇上一個語調強硬卻缺乏根據的控訴，你總可以不費吹灰之力，找到支持的論調。例如：某個公認的科學觀點其實是一派胡言；某個家喻戶曉的生活用品其實危害重大；某個懷有惡意的人對你圖謀不軌；良藥根本不是藥，等等，諸如此類控訴。Web 2.0能夠很快地把一群群活在自己象牙塔裡的烏合之眾給集結起來。許多經驗顯示，人們一旦住進了他們自己那群的象牙塔，便容易變得信心滿滿，砲口一致對外，行為更極端。
Whatever the ultimate effects of Web 2.0, we know that it is helping to promote, at once, informed citizenship and unjustified zealotry.
Web 2.0最終將帶來何種效應，姑且不論；現在知道的是，Web 2.0一下就丟給眾人大量訊息，並且一下就促成了缺乏合理憑據的狂熱份子。
More Eagerly Sought When It Was Precious
知識：愈難取得，愈顯珍貴
日期：October 22, 2012
作者：Melvyn Dubofsky
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less/knowlededge-was-more-eagerly-sought-when-it-was-more-precious
Never before has a population -- nearly all of whom has enjoyed at a least a secondary school education -- been exposed to so much information, whether in newspapers and magazines or through YouTube, Google, and Facebook.
現今時代，幾乎每人都有正規學校以外的學習經驗。以前從不曾像現在這樣資訊密集轟炸，報章雜誌、YouTube、Google、Facebook都是投彈來源。
Yet I remain unsure that Americans today are more knowledgeable than their predecessors 100 years ago, many of whom were barely literate. A century ago nearly every city, town, and village had a lyceum or other venue in which visiting speakers regaled packed auditoriums with lectures on popular and abstruse subjects. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, a poor, largely East European Jewish neighborhood, the local Labor Lyceum scheduled talks on Marxism, socialism, anarchism, evolution, and religion as well as performances by talented musicians. There as a teenager the famous mid-20th century impresario Sol Hurok honed his talent for staging concerts and developing musical virtuosos.
然而，我仍不敢說當今美國人會比百年前泰半不識字的前輩們懂得更多。時間拉回到一個世紀前，那時每個城鎮村落都有演講廳之類的會堂，受邀的講者竭力發表，不論演講主題屬於流行通俗或深奧艱澀，會場往往爆滿。布魯克林的布朗斯維區，居民多為東歐猶太人，雖然該區貧窮落後，但當地勞工會堂所安排的講演科目，竟有馬克思主義、社會主義、無政府主義、演化論、宗教等，時而亦有音樂家演出。二十世紀中期的名藝術經紀人蘇胡洛克，就在這樣的環境下磨練台風，並培訓音樂大師。
Such venues existed even in such far off places as Lead, S.D., Butte, Mont., and Cripple Creek, Colo., often in conjunction with local trade unions or labor and/or socialist parties. In unionized cigar-making factories in Tampa, Fla. and New York City lectors, or readers, sat on high stools reading Shakespeare, Marx, Engels, Darwin, Hugo, Balzac, and Tolstoy as cigar rollers performed their skilled work. Decades later during the depths of the Great Depression and the emerging New Deal, the union leader John L. Lewis and President Franklin D. Roosevelt battled each with fierce oratory that drew on the Bible, Shakespeare, and other classical sources, knowing full well that their auditors would understand literary allusions and flourishes.
就連偏遠地區都有如此會堂，會堂多和貿易工會、勞工黨、或社會黨有關。佛羅里達州坦帕灣及紐約州的雪茄製造工廠，工人一邊捲菸，一邊聆聽坐在高凳上的演講者／朗讀者，念誦莎士比亞、馬克思、恩格爾、達爾文、雨果、巴爾札克、托爾斯泰等人作品。數十年後的大蕭條以及新政時期，工會主席約翰‧L‧路易斯，與總統小羅斯福，兩人針對聖經、莎士比亞或其他經典名作的內容，展開唇槍舌戰。他們知道，台下的聽眾，聽得懂談話中引用的文學暗喻與詞藻修飾。
While teaching undergraduate college students for 50 years spanning the eras when knowledge derived from printed materials to the days of Wikipedia and the World Wide Web, I saw how contemporary advances in technology offered more serious and inquisitive students access to realms of knowledge previously unimaginable and unavailable.
在我任教大學50多年期間，知識的來源，從印刷品演進至維基百科和網際網路。我注意到，現代科技進展，開啟了以往未曾想像與進入的知識殿堂，對於認真與好奇的學生，不啻一項福音。
But I also observed how such readily available knowledge led many more students away from serious study, the reading of actual texts, and toward an inability to write effectively and grammatically. It has let people choose sources that reinforce their opinions rather than encouraging them to question inherited beliefs. And it has diluted the shared bases of knowledge that a Lewis or a Roosevelt assumed bound their listeners together.
不過我也觀察到，知識唾手可得，卻使許多學生放棄嚴謹研究及精讀文本，以致書寫方面無法確實，文法不通暢。人們只不過是選擇能加強本身觀念的論點，而非質疑既有信念。能夠讓路易斯或小羅斯福那樣的講者用以抓住聽眾的共通知識，也式微了。
Having made citizens more and less knowledgeable than their predecessors, the Internet has proved to be both a blessing and a curse.
多虧網路，現代人所知道的，比從前的人更多。然而是好是壞，端看如何運用。
Having Information vs. Being Informed
知道捕魚vs. 給你魚吃
日期：Updated October 23, 2012, 10:58 AM
作者：Denise Cheng
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less/having-information-vs-or-being-informed
Having information and being informed are not the same thing, and they do not have equal value. If, in what we call "information overload," we have just enough time to catch an eye-full of headlines from our RSS readers, a cluster of 140-character tweets or pithy commentary on Facebook, then we have an ever-greater need for media literacy – the ability to decode messages in the way news and information are presented.
｢知道｣與｢被告知｣，意義不同，不應混為一談。資訊爆炸時代，光是匆匆過目RSS閱讀器滿滿的標題、或者瞄一下推特或臉書成堆的短句，時間就被佔滿。看來我們非常需要｢媒體素養｣──解讀新聞訊息的能力。
In 2003, Marc Canter said: "Five percent of the populace人口 (probably even less) can create. The others watch, listen, read, consume. I think one of the destinies of digital technology is to enable the other 95% to express their creativity somehow." Last month, Pew reported that more than 50 percent of American Internet users created or curated content online.
2003年，Marc Canter(Flash播放器公司創始人)說：｢全部人口中，會創造新事物的只有5%，甚至更少。其他人負責看、聽、讀、消費。不過我想，數位科技會讓那95%也有辦法展現創意。｣上個月，Pew研究中心報導指出，美國有超過一半的網路使用者創造或策劃了網路內容。
We know that the Internet has made room for “resistant readings,” participation and displays of creativity that engage with current events. By opening up the creation of popular culture, it has also divvied瓜分 up the shares of attention that media industries and prominent figures used to monopolize.
網路為當下事件帶來了對抗解讀(閱聽人挑戰文本的立場)，並能從中加入及展現創造力。網路開啟流行文化，創造流行元素。以往，媒體與名人吸引了所有人的目光，如今網路也來搶占一杯羹，瓜分群眾注意力。
In the water cooler era, there were fewer suppliers of information but the same social currency in knowing information from each source. In the era of information overload, there are not just three TV channels and two newspapers. We rely on our social circles to point us to interesting content. Memes and viral pieces have a built-in social currency, and with so many demands on our attention, we could be at risk of not seeking out the original reference point that these pieces riff off — instead just relying on this meta layer of information because that's all it takes to participate in a social conversation. We don't have the numbers, but how many Americans have come across memes about "binders full of women," and how many watched Mitt Romney's complete answer on women in the workplace?
從前資訊來源較少，三三兩兩人們聚在一起談天道地，就是接收訊息的管道。資訊爆炸時代，電視頻道與報紙變多；對什麼話題感興趣，就加入什麼社交圈。迷因(meme)─文化傳播的單位─本身就是社交貨幣，然而網路世界裡，注意力過度分散，可能使我們沒有深究這些迷因所討論事物的參考點，而只是一味接納鋪天蓋地而來的資訊。為了在社群討論中占一席發言地位，卻去作這冒險的事情。只差沒有確切統計數字，不然可真不知有多少美國人知道有｢一資料夾的女人｣這個迷因，以及多少人真的看過羅姆尼在總統辯論中，對於職場女性的完整見解。
Two projects by my colleagues at the M.I.T. Center for Civic Media nod to this. Lazy Truth is an inbox plugin that analyzes political e-mails and then autocomposes a fact-based response, saving Internet users the trouble of rounding up facts. Truth Goggles is a prototype bookmarklet that runs political claims on Web pages against fact databases. "The point of Truth Goggles isn't to tell you what to think, it's to remind you when it's time," the site explains.
我同事在麻省理工學院「公民媒體中心」的進行的兩項專案，也認可我的看法。｢憊懶真相｣是收件匣外掛程式，分析政治相關信件，自動編組基於事實的回應，網路使用者不必另花時間蒐集資訊。｢真相蛙鏡｣則是原型書籤，利用事實資料庫，檢視網頁中的政治話語。｢真相蛙鏡｣網站闡述：｢真相蛙鏡的用意，是要讓你知道思考的適當時機，而不是單純告知思考的內容。｣
Once, if we felt strongly enough, we went to the library to verify things we heard. Now, we have all the resources of the Internet at our fingertips, yet all we need to feel engaged is to scan some headlines shared via social media. If we value reliable information, then as media creators and consumers, we must ask: What can we do to encourage people to dig a little deeper?
從前，如果不堪自己處於愚昧不明狀態，我們便去圖書館找資料查證耳聞之事。如今，彈指之間連接網路，接觸各種資料來源如探囊取物，但現代人光是大略瀏覽社群網站幾項標題，就足以殺時間(而無心深究真相)。做為媒體創造者與接收者的我們，如果真的重視資訊可靠性，是否該想想要怎麼做才能促使人們重視事實。
A Larger Pool of Data, but Few Dive In
資料很多，不是無從下手，而是無心探究
日期：October 22, 2012
作者：Nicholas Carr
來源：http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/22/reading-more-but-learning-less/a-larger-pool-of-data-but-few-dive-in
It would be nice if we could engineer a more informed citizenry by simply cranking up the flow of information. But we can’t. Despite being inundated with data and messages, Americans today don’t seem any better informed than they were before the arrival of the Web.
若能夠加速資訊流通，令人們汲取更多知識，必定是件樂事。然而目前仍尚無足夠能力。儘管資料訊息數量極豐，當今美國人似乎沒比網路時代來臨前的人懂得更多。
A Pew Research Center study found that Americans’ knowledge of current affairs didn’t change significantly between 1989 and 2007, two decades when online information stores, news sites and sharing tools exploded. And the least informed age group remained the youngest, the 18- to 29-year-olds who are also the most avid users of social media. “Digital revolutions,” the researchers concluded, “have had little impact on how much Americans know about national and international affairs.”
一則來自Pew研究中心的報告指出，1989年至2007年將近20年期間，資料庫、網站、線上分享工具如雨後春筍般湧出，但是，美國人對時事的了解程度，未有明顯長進。18歲至29歲的年輕人，最活躍於社交媒體，卻依然穩居｢懂最少｣寶座。研究下了結論：｢數位革命對美國人的本國、國際事務認知程度，幾無任何影響。｣
In a recent review of voter surveys, Jonathan Bendor of Stanford and John Bullock of Yale characterized the state of Americans’ political awareness as “one of overwhelming ignorance” and found that it “had not changed much in the last fifty years.” They debunked the idea that the proliferation of media outlets has increased the public’s civic knowledge, finding instead that it has “made it easier for most citizens to ignore politics.”
史丹佛大學的強納森‧班多與耶魯大學的約翰‧布洛克，利用最近的選票調查，發現美國人的政治觀可以用一句｢超無知｣來形容，而且｢近五十年來幾乎不變｣。他們認為，儘管媒體強力放送五花八門內容，然而一般大眾的公民知識並無增進；相反地，媒體內容太多，｢使得大部分人更容易忽略政治議題｣。
The stagnation isn’t limited to current affairs. Earlier this year, the National Science Foundation reported that “the public's level of factual knowledge about science has not changed much over the past two decades.”
一般人不是只有對時事才感到遲鈍。今年稍早，國家科學委員會報告稱｢過去二十多年來，大眾在科學方面的事實型知識水準，文風不動｣。
It’s a fallacy to believe that dispensing more information more quickly will, in itself, raise the general level of public awareness. To be informed, a person has to want to be informed, and the percentage of Americans demonstrating such motivation seems to have remained pretty stable, and pretty abysmal throughout our vaunted information age.
誰說資訊傳播得愈多、愈快，公共意識即能普遍提升？簡直謬論。想要懂得更多，一個人還得要有心想變得懂更多。但即便處於人人引以為傲的資訊時代，美國人求知不渴，令人心寒。
The engaged used to read newspapers and magazines and debate the issues of the day around water coolers or over meals. Today, they scan RSS feeds, tweet links and post comments. The activity has become more visible, but that doesn’t mean it’s any broader or deeper. When it comes to overall civic engagement, the sound and fury of online exchanges signify little.
以前的人，儘管忙碌，還是會利用在茶水間碰面或用餐時間，談談當天報章雜誌要聞。但現在，頂多看看RSS、推特，再發表點意見。這些舉動雖是很顯而易見的討論，卻不代表討論內容更廣、更有深度。線上交流的發聲及投入程度，實在微不足道，稱不上全體共襄盛舉。