The Exchanges

Q When you think about this thing that you built and your role in the history of the internet, how much of, of the success of Wikipedia do you think is because of your brilliance and your hard work, and how much do you think is simply because of luck?

A Um, a huge amount due to luck. Brilliance and hard work, okay, maybe not so much. Uh, I do think a component of the success of Wikipedia is that I'm A very friendly and nice person, and I'm very laid back, and so therefore, I was able to work in a community environment where people basically yell at you, and you just have to kind of roll with it, and you're in some sense a leader, but you, you can't tell anyone what to do. They're volunteers, so you have to work with, ah, love and reason to kind of move people along in a, in a useful way. So I do think that I, I'm not Irrelevant to the process, but I also think that, you know, the community is amazing, and the luck of the timing of really hitting that moment when it was possible to build Wikipedia.

AI assessment note: “a huge amount due to luck. Brilliance and hard work, okay, maybe not so much.”

Q I mean, you must have known, Jimmy, at this point, in 2001, 2002, that Wikipedia was growing super fast, and it was going to be, could potentially be huge. You decide, I guess, around 2003 to basically create a non-profit organization to run Wikipedia. What was the thinking behind that? Why did you do that?

A So there were a few things going on there. So first of all, this was still the depth of the dot-com crash, so there was no obvious business model. Uh, the community of volunteers very much wanted it to be in a non-profit, and I thought that had to be taken into consideration. And then finally, for me, it just made sense. Like, it was aesthetically, uh, it just seemed like the right thing, that Wikipedia, my ambitions for Wikipedia to become a really important Moment in history and a really important cultural contribution really made a non-profit a much more sensible option, and indeed, you know, I think if we had gone in a different route, it would be very different today.

AI assessment note: “first of all, this was still the depth of the dot-com crash”

Q So how would it work? You would, you would write an article for Newpedia, and then it went through, like, seven stages before it was published?

A Seven stages, but I mean, some of the stages had to do with, first you had to propose the article, uh, you had to prove your qualifications to write it. We had, I heard, Some staff. So Larry Sanger was the editor in chief, and he would, there was a whole process whereby you could apply to submit something and so forth, and then there would be copy editing reviewers, much like an academic review, where you send it out to experts in the field for review. And actually, one of the things that was really a light bulb moment in my mind was one of the first few articles that Got through that process and was published, we had it up on the web for just a few days, I would say, and suddenly it came to our attention, somebody said, hey, this is really plagiarized. Oh. And we checked into it, and it's like, ouch, so.

AI assessment note: “Seven stages, but I mean, some of the stages had to do with, first”

Q So the idea was you would, you find out about this, uh, wiki software and you think, uh, yeah, let's democratize this process of writing articles, throw it open to everyone, and then the entire community will, uh, will kind of cross-reference and check it?

A Well, I mean, it grew a little more organically than that. We had a good-sized community of people, uh, who were working on Newpedia. And so these people were all very eager, people who loved the concept of a free encyclopedia for everyone in their own language. That was a really exciting concept. And so initially we thought, well, let's start this as a tool for that community. So it'll still be Newpedia, but we're going to use this, uh, wiki and As a way for that community to begin to work together a little more efficiently. And I made the decision to put it up at the domain name wikipedia.com rather than keep it on Newpedia, because we weren't really sure, like, we had a lot of academics and a lot of very serious people on the mailing list, and this seemed a bit of a crazy idea, and we thought they might find it offensive. And so we said, okay, let's just set up on a different domain and see what happens. But of course, The history is that Wikipedia very, very quickly outstripped Newpedia in terms of the content created and the quality and everything else.

AI assessment note: “Well, I mean, it grew a little more organically than that.”

Q Jimmy, what motivates 75,000 people or a few 100,000 people to donate hundreds of hours of their time every year for free to do this?

A Yeah, I think it's two things. So first, you know, the mission, a free encyclopedia for everyone in the world is meaningful. I mean, you could spend your hobby time playing Grand Theft Auto or doing something else, and the world wouldn't be any better off when you're done, and if you spend a few hours editing Wikipedia, you can go to sleep and think, yeah, it was productive. The world is a little bit better than it was, and someone somewhere will benefit from that, and that's great. And then also just fun. People, you get to meet people who are interested in the things you're interested in, no matter how obscure. The ethos of the community is to say, look, no personal attacks. We're here to discuss the content. Uh, if you go on the discussion page for a controversial topic, you're not there to just debate that topic. Uh, you can do that lots of places on the internet. What you get at Wikipedia is a debate about how do we improve this article? And that's just a refreshing kind of feeling, and so a lot of people really find it suits their personality.

AI assessment note: “Yeah, I think it's two things. So first, you know, the mission”

Q So the idea was you would, you find out about this, uh, wiki software and you think, uh, yeah, let's democratize this process of writing articles, throw it open to everyone, and then the entire community will, uh, will kind of cross-reference and check it?

A Well, I mean, it grew a little more organically than that. We had a good-sized community of people, uh, who were working on Newpedia. And so these people were all very eager, people who loved the concept of a free encyclopedia for everyone in their own language. That was a really exciting concept. And so initially we thought, well, let's start this as a tool for that community. So it'll still be Newpedia, but we're going to use this, uh, wiki and As a way for that community to begin to work together a little more efficiently. And I made the decision to put it up at the domain name wikipedia.com rather than keep it on Newpedia, because we weren't really sure, like, we had a lot of academics and a lot of very serious people on the mailing list, and this seemed a bit of a crazy idea, and we thought they might find it offensive. And so we said, okay, let's just set up on a different domain and see what happens. But of course, The history is that Wikipedia very, very quickly outstripped Newpedia in terms of the content created and the quality and everything else.

AI assessment note: “Well, I mean, it grew a little more organically than that.”

Q I mean, you must have known, Jimmy, at this point, in 2001, 2002, that Wikipedia was growing super fast, and it was going to be, could potentially be huge. You decide, I guess, around 2003 to basically create a non-profit organization to run Wikipedia. What was the thinking behind that? Why did you do that?

A So there were a few things going on there. So first of all, this was still the depth of the dot-com crash, so there was no obvious business model. Uh, the community of volunteers very much wanted it to be in a non-profit, and I thought that had to be taken into consideration. And then finally, for me, it just made sense. Like, it was aesthetically, uh, it just seemed like the right thing, that Wikipedia, my ambitions for Wikipedia to become a really important Moment in history and a really important cultural contribution really made a nonprofit a much more sensible option, and indeed, you know, I think if we had gone in a different route, it would be very different today.

AI assessment note: “no obvious business model. Uh, the community of volunteers very much wanted it”

Q Yeah, so tell me about that, because while you're at BAMIS, uh, this, this thing, Newpedia, grows, grows out of it, right? What, what, what was it?

A Uh, so, you know, as I said, at, at BAMIS, we were always experimenting. We were thinking of new ideas and new possibilities, new things to do. And I was looking at the model of open source software, seeing that that worked. I was also looking at, you know, at BOMAS, we had community members who were building indexes to content that they were interested in. Uh, so the idea of Newpedia was to basically replicate that to say, well, let's build an encyclopedia and have volunteers contribute to it. And I just thought, you know, this, this seems like a low hanging fruit. Actually, I remember I was in a quite a panic when I had the idea to hurry up and get started because Because I thought it was so obvious. So when I started Newpedia, um, I really thought that other competitors were gonna be out there, but after two years, there was still no one really competing with us, because it maybe wasn't as obvious as I thought.

AI assessment note: “the idea of Newpedia was to basically replicate that to say, well, let's build an encyclopedia”

Q And who was managing it? Was it just you and Larry Sanger? Was it just the two of you?

A Yeah. Yeah. I mean, pretty much. I mean, we had other employees who were helping out, uh, in this and that, of course, but, you know, it's basically, we had to think a lot about how to move the community in the right direction. You know, there were a lot of really complicated questions around, okay, when do we ban people? When do we block people from editing? When, when do we think they've gone too far? And a lot of the editorial policy, you know, you have questions like, to what extent do we allow people to write essays or commentary or, uh, Put jokes in articles, and we decided no, you know, neutral point of view is like our core belief and so on. But all those decisions had to be made, and they were made in discussions with community and so forth.

AI assessment note: “Yeah. Yeah. I mean, pretty much. I mean, we had other employees”

Q When you think about this thing that you built and your role in the history of the internet, how much of, of the success of Wikipedia do you think is because of your brilliance and your hard work, and how much do you think is simply because of luck?

A Um, a huge amount due to luck. Brilliance and hard work, okay, maybe not so much. Uh, I do think a component of the success of Wikipedia is that I'm A very friendly and nice person, and I'm very laid back, and so therefore, I was able to work in a community environment where people basically yell at you, and you just have to kind of roll with it, and you're in some sense a leader, but you, you can't tell anyone what to do. They're volunteers, so you have to work with, uh, love and reason to kind of move people along in a, in a useful way. So I do think that I, I'm not Irrelevant to the process, but I also think that, you know, the community is amazing, and the luck of the timing of really hitting that moment when it was possible to build Wikipedia.

AI assessment note: “a huge amount due to luck. Brilliance and hard work, okay, maybe not so much.”

Q So how would it work? You would, you would write an article for Newpedia, and then it went through, like, seven stages before it was published?

A Seven stages, but I mean, some of the stages had to do with, first you had to propose the article, uh, you had to prove your qualifications to write it. We had, I heard, Some staff. So Larry Sanger was the editor in chief, and he would, there was a whole process whereby you could apply to submit something and so forth, and then there would be copy editing reviewers, much like an academic review, where you send it out to experts in the field for review. And actually, one of the things that was really a light bulb moment in my mind was one of the first few articles that Got through that process and was published. We had it up on the web for just a few days, I would say, and suddenly it came to our attention. Somebody said, hey, this is really plagiarized. Oh. And we checked into it, and it's like, ouch, so.

AI assessment note: “some of the stages had to do with, first you had to propose the article”

Q How did you know how to do that? Did you, were just, like, sort of self-taught?

A Yeah, yeah. I mean, uh, in grad school, obviously, if I'm doing very quantitative data analysis, things like that, I learned to program. Uh, I was a bad programmer, but I, you know, I can code. I just remember very clearly the day that Netscape went public and was worth, as I recall, 4.3 billion dollars on the first day of trading. Wow. And I had the, uh, I had been convinced for a few years time that the Internet was going to be really big and really important and really kind of fundamentally change the world. And this was the, the moment when I felt like, okay, look, the market is validating that, like other people are seeing it and people are really investing money here. And so there was a bit of a transition period, but it was really in 90, I'd say about 98 is when I left Chicago, uh, and I moved to San Diego, and that was when I really decided, you know, I'm just gonna, I'm gonna focus full time on my internet ideas and projects.

AI assessment note: “in grad school, obviously, if I'm doing very quantitative data analysis... I learned to program.”

Q real that's not real. This is not new. I mean, this has happened throughout human history, but now because there is so much information available, it's sometimes difficult for people to discern what's real and what's not, and I, and I wonder whether one of the challenges with Wikipedia is reasonable people are disagreeing about basic facts. So, How do you reconcile? How does, how does Wikipedia deal with that?

A I mean, a few of the elements. So one, uh, when we think about the quality of sources, uh, that's a really core thing in Wikipedia, and we have a lot of discussions and debates, and I think a fairly sophisticated approach to thinking about the quality of sources. And I agree with you. I don't like the term fake news, but the original use of the term was really about clearly, completely made up websites that look like news sites with no concern for the truth, with outrageous headlines, and so on. And those kinds of sites have had almost zero impact at Wikipedia because while, you know, they might do well to share on Facebook something that comes from a publication called the Denver Guardian because, well, it looks like a news site, and Denver, everybody knows Denver's a city in America, and Guardian sounds like a newspaper, so it seems plausible enough. The Wikipedians would take one look at it and say, I've never heard of that paper. That stuff doesn't really get into Wikipedia. A broader problem that I am concerned about is right now that the trust in media in the US, but also around the world, but in the US is really at an all-time low. Uh, you know, but it's a tough problem, and I think it's a societal problem to say, look, we really do need quality information. Most people are very passionate about wanting to be told the truth.

AI assessment note: “when we think about the quality of sources, uh, that's a really core thing”

Q real that's not real. This is not new. I mean, this has happened throughout human history, but now because there is so much information available, it's sometimes difficult for people to discern what's real and what's not, and I, and I wonder whether one of the challenges with Wikipedia is reasonable people are disagreeing about basic facts. So, How do you reconcile? How does, how does Wikipedia deal with that?

A I mean, a few of the elements. So one, uh, when we think about the quality of sources, uh, that's a really core thing in Wikipedia, and we have a lot of discussions and debates, and I think a fairly sophisticated approach to thinking about the quality of sources. And I agree with you. I don't like the term fake news, but the original use of the term was really about clearly, completely made up websites that look like news sites with no concern for the truth, with outrageous headlines, and so on. And those kinds of sites have had almost zero impact at Wikipedia because while, you know, they might do well to share on Facebook something that comes from a publication called the Denver Guardian because, well, it looks like a news site, and Denver, everybody knows Denver's a city in America, and Guardian sounds like a newspaper, so it seems plausible enough. The Wikipedians would take one look at it and say, I've never heard of that paper. That stuff doesn't really get into Wikipedia. A broader problem that I am concerned about is right now that the trust in media in the US, but also around the world, but in the US is really at an all-time low. Uh, you know, but it's a tough problem, and I think it's a societal problem to say, look, we really do need quality information. Most people are very passionate about wanting to be told the truth.

AI assessment note: “when we think about the quality of sources, that's a really core thing”