写作与思考2019reddit.com
我们在网上读到的大部分内容，都是疯子写的
Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People
导读
这篇文章讨论一个现象：我们在网上读到的大部分内容，其实出自极少数异常高产的写作者和评论者，而他们的世界观会悄悄塑造整个讨论的走向。对写作者来说，它提醒你：你所读到的“共识”可能只代表少数人的声音，因此既要警惕单一视角，也要敢于把自己不成熟的想法写出来。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
你读到的多数网络内容出自少数高产者，写作时要主动寻找并呈现被忽略的视角。
- 02
不要因为自觉想法不成熟就不动笔：一条“只具雏形”的评论也可能把讨论引向新方向。
- 03
高产不等于有价值：很多高频率输出只是格式微调式的琐碎劳动，应把精力放在真正有洞见的内容上。
- 04
观点靠“放大器”传播：点赞、转发、复述会不断降低成本，写作时可想想怎样让自己的观点容易被复述。
- 05
注意社区规则和管理者的筛选：被删改的往往是少数派表达，别把现存内容当成全部真相。
HN 评论精选
少数高产者塑造了整个讨论的世界观，潜水者应主动发声以增加多样性。
这里的评论大多要么在展开原帖，要么在为本该潜水找理由。我自己基本是个潜水者，但觉得有必要发言，因为我本希望讨论能走向另一个方向。原帖用的是“insane”（疯狂）而不是“outlier”（离群者）。这有点标题党、带着玩笑，但我认为它更好地捕捉到这个现象的一层微妙之处：高产的评论者正在把每一场讨论都塑造成他们自己的样子。他们可能对事情有有趣的视角，也可能只是用漂亮的文笔说些琐碎的话。无论如何，总体上缺乏多样性——讨论被少数人的世界观所驱动。这恰恰是潜水者应该努力发声的理由，哪怕像我这条一样，只是一个只具雏形的想法。
gniv查看英文原文
Most of the comments here are either elaborating on the OP, or justify lurking. I am a mostly-lurker myself, but I felt the need to comment here, since I was hoping to see the discussion go into a different direction. The OP uses the word "insane", not outlier. It's clickbaity, and used in jest, but I think it better captures a subtlety of this phenomenon: The prolific commenters are molding every discussion in their image. They might have an interesting angle on the story, or they might just be saying trivial things with beautiful prose. In any case, there is a lack of diversity in general -- discussions are driven by the worldview of a few. That would be an argument for lurkers to make an effort, even if, like this comment, it's just a barely-formed idea. Edit: "molding the discussion" -> "molding every discussion"
社交放大机制和复述成本的递减，天然让少数声音主导内容。
是的。你在电视上看到的大部分内容都由离群者撰写和表演，你使用的产品也由离群者打造、营销甚至分销。首先，拉远来看，所有任务中的离群者都变得更常见——网络评论只是像我这样的人的一个子集。其次，自发形成的人类社交结构本就用来识别并放大能言善辩和/或有才华的离群者，机制是让那些认同、能获益、能获利的人有动力充当放大器。一条信息每被重复一次，重复它的成本就骤降。所以网络论坛遵循同样的规则——甚至被点赞机制优化成机械复制——我并不觉得意外。我不想显得轻蔑，但互联网确实为这些人提供了高效分享洞见、并找出能为他人增值的新缝隙的媒介，这很妙。没有 patio11 之类的人，我们在 HN 会是什么样呢？
keithwhor查看英文原文
Yes. Most of the content you watch on TV was written and acted by outliers. The products you use and consume were crafted, marketed and even distributed by outliers. First, when zoomed out, outliers in all possible tasks become more common — internet commenting is just a subset for silly folks like me. Secondly, the emergent human social fabric is built to recognize and amplify outspoken and / or talented outliers, via mechanisms whereby others who {agree, can find utility, can profit} are incentivized to act as amplifiers. The cost function to repeat a message drops precipitously every time it’s repeated (influences status quo). I’m not sure it’s particularly surprising that internet social forums behave by the same rules — and are even optimized to replicate them mechanistically (upvotes). I mean... not be dismissive, I guess it does strike me as particularly neat that the internet provides a medium for these people to productively share insight and identify new niches where they can potentially add value to the rest of the world. Where would we on HN be without, say, patio11? :)
贡献门槛和管理员删改让少数人主导内容，小语种维基百科尤其如此。
人们上维基百科是为了得到答案。很多用户是孩子，或是贡献起来很吃力的非英语母语者；或是外行，不了解主题，自然觉得自己贡献不了什么；或根本不知道如何贡献；或用手机访问，研究和编辑都很困难。把那些本来就没法合理贡献的用户排除掉，贡献者比例会高得多。维基百科还有其他因素：在我的母语丹麦语里，维基百科基本已经死了。几年前我试着在自己领域内贡献，查资料、花好几个小时给不同条目补充信息，几天后却发现全被管理员删掉了。比如最受爱戴的丹麦人之一，丹麦语页面远不如英语页面。这只是一个例子，但文化、历史等许多领域都是如此；想了解丹麦相关的事，英语维基通常比丹麦语维基好得多。
flexie查看英文原文
People come to Wikipedia to get an answer. Many users of Wikipedia are kids, or non-native English speakers for whom contributing is a challenge. Or laymen that don't know about the subject and naturally don't feel like they could contribute anything. Or people who simply don't know how to contribute. Or people visiting via mobiles where it's really difficult to research and contribute. If you adjust for all those users that could not reasonably contribute, the percentage of contributors is much higher. There are other factors at play at Wikipedia too. In my native language, Danish, Wikipedia is all but dead. Years ago, I tried contributing within my own field. I researched and spent hours adding relevant information to different topics, only to find out a few days after that all my contributions had been deleted by the administrators. Here is the Danish site for one of the most beloved Danes: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Laudrup Here is the English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Laudrup It's just one example, but it is true for culture, history and many other areas. If you want to know anything on Danish matters, the English Wikipedia is usually a much better option than the Danish.
高产者的编辑量常来自琐碎的格式改动，数量不等于价值。
维基百科的一位重度用户……假设他不睡觉、不吃饭、什么都不做……那也仍然是每四分钟一次编辑。当你的爱好是把连字符换成短横线、删掉多余换行时，我怀疑每页花不了四分钟。
michaelt查看英文原文
One of Wikipedia's power users, [...] Assuming he doesn't sleep or eat or anything else [...] that's still one edit every four minutes. When your hobby is replacing hyphens with en dashes [1] and removing errant newlines [2] I doubt it takes 4 minutes per page. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plymouth_Brethren&diff=prev&oldid=876923774 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_Ramazani_Baya&diff=prev&oldid=876384642
同类还值得读
不要想好再写，要写来思考
Don’t think to write, write to think
这篇短文主张不要把写作当成思考完成后的记录，而要把写作本身当作思考的工具：动笔的过程会逼出想不清楚的地方。
写作与思考2022 · 553 分 · 145 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写作即思考：学会自信地写作
Writing Is Thinking: Learning to Write with Confidence
这是一篇讲“写作即思考”的博客：作者认为写作不是把想好的东西誊写出来，而是借助写作本身把想法想清楚，因此写作者应当建立信心、敢于先写烂稿。
写作与思考2019 · 529 分 · 83 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何用写作来思考
How to think in writing
这篇文章讨论的是「用写作来思考」：作者认为写作不只是把想清楚的东西表达出来，更是想清楚本身的工具——文字落在纸上，你才有机会看见自己思路里的跳跃、含混和漏洞。
写作与思考2024 · 424 分 · 120 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写作，帮你逃离默认的人生设置
Write to Escape Your Default Setting
文章的核心主张就写在标题里：写作是帮你逃离「默认设置」的手段——日常的思维和表达都有惯性默认的默认模式，而落笔能逼你跳出来，重新看清自己到底在想什么、要说什么。
写作与思考2025 · 407 分 · 93 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写作就是思考
Writing is thinking
文章以“写作即思考”为题，讨论写作不只是把已有想法记录下来，而是帮助澄清、组织和推进思考的过程。
写作与思考2025 · 330 分 · 128 评4 条写作要点编辑精选