WEBVTT - Wikipedia's Quest for a Trustworthy Internet 0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:07.000 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. 0:00:08.160 --> 0:00:11.880 You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and 0:00:11.960 --> 0:00:14.400 Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:14.800 --> 0:00:17.880 Jimmy Wales is founder of Wikipedia. He has a new 0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:20.239 book out, The Seven Rules of Trust, a blueprint for 0:00:20.280 --> 0:00:23.040 building things that last. That book out tomorrow and lucky 0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:25.920 for us, he joins us right here in studio. Welcome, Welcome, 0:00:26.000 --> 0:00:27.000 Nice to have you here with us. 0:00:27.120 --> 0:00:29.160 Yeah, thanks for having me. It's like a spaceship. 0:00:30.680 --> 0:00:34.360 So call it the fishball, we call it home, this 0:00:34.440 --> 0:00:37.080 book about trust. When did you start writing it. 0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:40.680 It was a couple of years ago. I had had 0:00:40.760 --> 0:00:44.920 some ideas around this, and yeah, just just started. And 0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:48.760 it's obviously turned out to be quite timely, as we 0:00:48.840 --> 0:00:51.960 have a lot of issues around trust in society, and 0:00:52.800 --> 0:00:54.840 you know, I want to encourage people to let's get 0:00:54.880 --> 0:00:57.680 back to society of trust. You know. 0:00:57.720 --> 0:00:59.400 It's funny, Carolyn, I spent a lot of time talking 0:00:59.400 --> 0:01:03.280 about this ahead of the interview because Wikipedia sort of 0:01:03.320 --> 0:01:06.640 seems and look, it's had its challenges, it's had its controversies, 0:01:06.640 --> 0:01:10.760 but for things that are online, m it's kind of 0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:12.319 a weird utopia in. 0:01:12.240 --> 0:01:13.880 The sense that it's kind of remarkable. 0:01:14.240 --> 0:01:18.319 It's really remarkable. I mean, we know anonymous people online 0:01:18.560 --> 0:01:20.920 oftentimes are full of bitrial and hate. We can see 0:01:20.920 --> 0:01:24.800 that even when people use their names on social media platforms. 0:01:25.480 --> 0:01:28.360 We lock our doors when we leave the house. Why 0:01:28.400 --> 0:01:32.319 does trust work on Wikipedia? But kind of seems like 0:01:32.319 --> 0:01:33.280 nowhere else right now? 0:01:33.560 --> 0:01:35.440 Yeah, I mean I think for me, you know, one 0:01:35.440 --> 0:01:38.720 of the seven rules of trust that is most meaningful 0:01:38.760 --> 0:01:41.840 in that regard is purpose. Like Wikipedia has a very 0:01:41.840 --> 0:01:45.120 simple purpose, which is to build an encyclopedia, and we 0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:48.480 make all our decisions around that and the rules about 0:01:48.520 --> 0:01:52.320 participation and so forth. And that's very different from social media, 0:01:52.360 --> 0:01:55.720 where there isn't a clear purpose other than free speech 0:01:55.800 --> 0:02:01.400 and openness. And therefore that tux city really creeps in 0:02:01.680 --> 0:02:04.960 quite a lot. In social media. You know, people say 0:02:05.000 --> 0:02:07.840 outrageous things because they get rewarded for it. They get 0:02:07.880 --> 0:02:11.280 more followers, they get more engagement, and they algorithms love that. 0:02:11.320 --> 0:02:12.880 You talk about clickbait all the time. 0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:16.160 Clickbait all the time. And you know that's very different 0:02:16.160 --> 0:02:18.560 from the world of Wikipedia, where I mean, thank goodness, 0:02:18.560 --> 0:02:21.760 our headlines are so boring. There's no clickbait. You know, 0:02:21.760 --> 0:02:25.960 it's like the erical on Thomas Jefferson's called Thomas Jefferson, 0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:27.720 you know, but it does what it says on the 0:02:27.760 --> 0:02:30.359 ten you know, that's that's a very British expression off ray. 0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:32.920 But but yeah, I mean I do think that that 0:02:33.080 --> 0:02:35.880 having a simple purpose is a part of what keeps 0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:38.040 us focused and keeps our community focused. 0:02:38.240 --> 0:02:41.240 How do you describe facts? How do you determine facts? 0:02:41.240 --> 0:02:44.480 And I am amazed in I mean, I've been doing 0:02:44.480 --> 0:02:47.880 this a few years and I felt like when I 0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:51.200 started it was very clear fact versus ficion in terms 0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:54.920 of reporting and doing stories, and I feel like there's 0:02:54.919 --> 0:02:56.600 a lot of gray area and I just feel like 0:02:56.639 --> 0:02:59.359 a fact is a fact. So how you guys determine 0:02:59.360 --> 0:02:59.880 what's a fact? 0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:00.560 An entry? 0:03:00.639 --> 0:03:02.920 Yeah, I mean we're we're really old fashioned, Like what 0:03:03.000 --> 0:03:06.880 we look for are reliable sources. So we want, you know, 0:03:08.080 --> 0:03:14.959 sort of academic research or quality newspapers, quality magazines, quality books. 0:03:14.960 --> 0:03:18.920 Really old fashioned and you know, uh, the the idea 0:03:19.000 --> 0:03:21.800 that we should treat you know, the New England Journal 0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:25.560 of Medicine as the same as social media influence. Our 0:03:25.560 --> 0:03:28.360 line is obviously just wrong. Like you, you really want 0:03:28.480 --> 0:03:31.000 facts and that's what people want from Wikipedia they don't 0:03:31.000 --> 0:03:35.480 want sources matters. Sources really matter, Like having a good 0:03:35.560 --> 0:03:37.920 quality source is what it's all about. 0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:40.080 But why don't sources matter to everybody? 0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:45.080 And other people will say, Okay, I believe this source 0:03:45.320 --> 0:03:48.320 is reliable, so like you know what I mean, Like 0:03:48.520 --> 0:03:50.720 we're living in like different worlds. 0:03:51.160 --> 0:03:53.200 I think, I think, and I think that's a huge problem. 0:03:53.240 --> 0:03:57.200 I mean, I do think, you know, it's really important. 0:03:57.200 --> 0:03:59.120 I mean one of the problems that we've seen is 0:03:59.160 --> 0:04:02.240 that a lot of them, in response to the changing 0:04:02.280 --> 0:04:07.480 and very difficult financial model for journalism, they've chased after 0:04:07.520 --> 0:04:10.440 a really partisan audiences and so you know, sometimes you 0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:14.680 read something and you're like, yeah, that was that was interesting, 0:04:14.720 --> 0:04:16.520 that was good, but I'm not sure I got both 0:04:16.560 --> 0:04:19.000 sides of the story there. I live in the UK 0:04:19.160 --> 0:04:22.440 and we have a just an example, two quality newspapers, 0:04:22.520 --> 0:04:25.520 the Guardian and the Telegraph, left leaning, right leaning. They're 0:04:25.560 --> 0:04:29.000 both great newspapers. But I often read one and I'm like, oh, 0:04:29.040 --> 0:04:31.080 but and then I go read the other and I'm like, yeah, 0:04:31.120 --> 0:04:33.400 you probably should have been somewhere in the middle both 0:04:33.440 --> 0:04:36.000 of you, and it would have been I think a 0:04:36.000 --> 0:04:39.080 better story had you said, well, you know, we got 0:04:39.400 --> 0:04:41.839 one side of the story, but we actually had to 0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:43.760 go out and find somebody to tell us a little 0:04:43.760 --> 0:04:45.160 bit out the other side. You know, you can't be 0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:48.479 too like the moon is made of rocks or is 0:04:48.480 --> 0:04:50.120 it cheese? Who knows? I don't mean that, but I 0:04:50.120 --> 0:04:54.240 mean seriously hopefully geez. But but you know, like seriously 0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:56.520 thinking about like who are we talking to and are 0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:57.960 we are we getting to the bottom of. 0:04:57.880 --> 0:05:01.280 This with media trust in media here in the United 0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:03.839 States declining and having declined over the last few years. 0:05:04.440 --> 0:05:06.920 In your view, is there something that we can do better, 0:05:06.960 --> 0:05:08.839 that the media can do better, that it can borrow 0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:11.600 from what has worked at Wikipedia, what has worked with 0:05:11.640 --> 0:05:14.240 the trust, the methods of trust that you've studied, that 0:05:14.279 --> 0:05:16.919 can make us build trust again with our audiences. 0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:18.760 Yeah, I mean, well, the good news is that the 0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:22.279 financial press, like Bloomberg, is still among the most trusted. 0:05:23.200 --> 0:05:26.320 And I think that's because by the mandate of what 0:05:26.320 --> 0:05:28.920 you're trying to do informing business people and investors, you 0:05:29.160 --> 0:05:32.000 kind of have to be like ruthlessly objective. You're not 0:05:32.120 --> 0:05:34.440 chasing after partisan audiences and things like that. 0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:36.040 But I do think we do up data. 0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:41.039 Big data. Data is important. Transparency, I think, you know, realistically. 0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:44.040 You know, one of the things that Wikipedia does that's 0:05:44.120 --> 0:05:46.600 kind of odd is we'll have a you know, at 0:05:46.600 --> 0:05:48.760 the top of a page, the neutrality of this article 0:05:48.760 --> 0:05:50.160 has been disputed. 0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:50.839 And we've all seen it. 0:05:51.000 --> 0:05:52.880 Yeah, we've all seen it. And I always say, you know, 0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:54.800 I kind of wish sometimes the New York Times would 0:05:54.800 --> 0:05:56.840 put a banner up just saying, you know, we had 0:05:56.839 --> 0:05:58.719 a big fight in the newsroom. We weren't quite sure, 0:05:59.080 --> 0:06:02.320 so like this but yeah, yeah, but here's a little 0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:04.560 bit of their inside thinking, like we did want to 0:06:04.560 --> 0:06:07.359 report this, We're not sure we've got the full story yet, 0:06:07.680 --> 0:06:11.479 because that pretending to be perfection all the time. People 0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:13.440 see through that and they know, of course, and I 0:06:13.480 --> 0:06:16.200 think they're willing to say, yeah, like, actually, journalism is 0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:18.680 quite hard, you know, so a little more transparency is 0:06:18.680 --> 0:06:19.240 always good. 0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:24.200 Do you get pressure a lot from companies, politicians, individuals 0:06:24.800 --> 0:06:26.160 to like change an entry? 0:06:26.320 --> 0:06:28.680 No, not really, I mean people, you know, I meet 0:06:28.720 --> 0:06:30.360 a lot of people, and people often are like, well, 0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:32.520 you know, my wikiped the entry, what about this? What 0:06:32.600 --> 0:06:34.680 about that? Much like yeah, send us an email, like 0:06:34.760 --> 0:06:36.360 you know, we'll have somebody look at that. That's all 0:06:36.400 --> 0:06:37.880 fine in general. 0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:39.800 No, and actually we're but you really just say, just 0:06:39.839 --> 0:06:41.120 send in an email and then I'm not going to 0:06:41.160 --> 0:06:41.920 do anything about it. 0:06:42.240 --> 0:06:44.640 Kind of yeah, okay, but no. Sometimes people have a 0:06:44.720 --> 0:06:46.720 legitimate point. They're like, oh, well, you know I did 0:06:46.720 --> 0:06:48.359 this thing and it was in the press, and you know, 0:06:48.360 --> 0:06:50.240 it's like, okay, well maybe we just overlooked it, and 0:06:50.240 --> 0:06:53.880 that's that's great, But you know, they at a deeper level. 0:06:54.440 --> 0:06:57.040 One of the things that's really important is, you know, 0:06:57.279 --> 0:07:01.719 we aren't funded by governments, we aren't funded by sort 0:07:01.760 --> 0:07:04.360 of major donors. We're funded by people giving their twenty 0:07:04.400 --> 0:07:08.760 dollars and that makes a big difference for our intellectual independence. 0:07:08.760 --> 0:07:12.200 We're not worried like if we've got something negative about whatever, 0:07:12.360 --> 0:07:13.640 then we might lose our donation. 0:07:14.160 --> 0:07:16.600 How is how is the fundraising going? Because I feel 0:07:16.600 --> 0:07:18.600 like I've gotten a lot of messages from you throughout 0:07:18.600 --> 0:07:22.040 the year. Throughout the year, from Jimmy Wills ye on Wikipedia, 0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:22.680 we've all seen it. 0:07:23.360 --> 0:07:25.000 Is it going okay? Is funding going okay? 0:07:25.000 --> 0:07:28.240 It's okay. Yeah, we've we've been you know, we're stable. 0:07:28.680 --> 0:07:31.040 We're very cautious with money, so we always try to 0:07:31.200 --> 0:07:34.240 build our reserves and so on, and then you know. Recently, 0:07:34.400 --> 0:07:38.000 I don't know, Elon tweeted defund Wikipedia. I think we 0:07:38.080 --> 0:07:39.720 were at five million dollars that day. 0:07:39.800 --> 0:07:42.360 So you can text us on, I know you guys 0:07:42.360 --> 0:07:44.400 have been in touch you and say, tweet about us 0:07:44.400 --> 0:07:45.200 again to the. 0:07:45.240 --> 0:07:50.200 End of the year. Well you have. That's to raise money.