Wikipedia Co-Founder on Polarization, AI, and Elon Musk’s Grokipedia

>>> IF YOU HAVE BEEN CURIOUS ABOUT A RANDOM TOPIC, CHANCES ARE YOU HAVE GONE TO WIKIPEDIA TO LEARN ABOUT IT.

IT HAS BEEN THE GO-TO ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA SINCE ITS LAUNCH IN 2001.

IT HAS A RIVAL, GROKIPEDIA.

AN AI ALTERNATIVE FROM ELON MUSK.

JIMMY WALES TALKS ABOUT HIS NEW BOOK "THE SEVEN RULES OF TRUST" AND HOW HE BELIEVES HIS INTERNET KNOWLEDGE BANK WILL FARE.

>> THANK YOU.

JIMMY WALES, THANK YOU FOR JOINING THE SHOW.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

IT'S GOOD TO BE HERE.

>> IN YOUR BOOK "THE SEVEN WORLDS OF TRUST," YOU TALK ABOUT CREATING WIKIPEDIA MORE THAN TWO DECADES AGO.

ON A STRANGE WHIM THAT EVERYBODY COULD GROUP EDIT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.

UP WITH THING THAT STRUCK ME IS THE THEORY OF TRUST IN THE BOOK AND HOW THAT BEGAN IN SOME WAYS WITH YOUR DAUGHTER AND HER BIRTH.

>> YEAH.

RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF WIKIPEDIA, JUST BEFORE, MY DAUGHTER WAS BORN.

SHE WAS VERY SICK.

SHE HAD A SYNDROME.

I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS.

FROM THE HOSPITAL I SORT OF TRIED TO --I RUSHED HOME AND CHECKED THE INTERNET.

I FOUND TECHNICAL ARTICLES AND NONSENSE.

I JUST --I HAD BEEN TRYING TO CREATE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA PROJECT.

I WAS NEARLY READY TO GIVE UP.

THAT WAS WHEN I WAS LIKE, OKAY, I HAVE TO --I CAN'T GIVE UP.

THIS FEELS LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT.

WE DECIDED TO CHANGE EVERYTHING AND BECOME A WIKI, A WEB SIDE --WEBSITE ANYONE CAN EDIT.

I HAVE THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE AND THEY WANT TO WRITE.

LET'S OPEN IT UP.

LET'S START WRITING AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

>> ABANDON THE OLD TOP-DOWN MODEL.

WE WILL WRITE EACH PIECE.

IT SEEMS LIKE A CRAZY LEAP TO SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, LET EVERYBODY WRITE.

>> FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, WE TRIED A VERY TOP-DOWN SYSTEM.

A SEVEN- STAGE REVIEW PROCESS TO GET ANYTHING PUBLISHED.

I TRIED TO DO IT TO WRITE AN ARTICLE.

IT WAS INTIMIDATING.

THEY WERE GOING TO SEND MY DRAFT OUT TO THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS PROFESSORS THEY COULD FIND.

THIS ISN'T FUN.

NOBODY IS REALLY GOING TO DO THIS.

WE HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT ARE WAYS.

ONE OF MY EMPLOYEES BROUGHT ME AND SHOWED ME THE WIKI.

THAT'S INTERESTING.

MAYBE WE SHOULD -- >> THE WIKI MEANING A WAY PEOPLE CAN GROUP SOME DOCUMENT.

>> EXACTLY.

THE WIKI HAD BEEN AROUND FOR FIVE YEARS AS A SORT OF UNDERGROUND SOFTWARE CONCEPT.

OKAY.

LET'S TRY TO USE A WIKI.

IT WORKED.

WE HAVE MORE WORK DONE IN TWO WEEKS THAN IN ALMOST TWO YEARS BECAUSE WE FINALLY JUST LET OUR COMMUNITY GET STARTED WRITING AND EDITING EACH OTHER'S WORK AND IMPROVING IT.

IT WAS REALLY A BREAKTHROUGH FOR THE PROJECT.

>> YOU SAY IT WAS BASED ON TRUST.

IN THESE POLARIZED TIMES WHERE EVERYTHING, WHETHER IT BE WEARING A MASK DURING COVID, BECOMES POLITICIZED, IS IT HARDER TO DO A WIKIFIED ENCYCLOPEDIA?

>> NOT REALLY.

THE POLARIZATION MAKES A LOT OF THINGS HARDER.

THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

THE DECLINE IN TRUST AMONGST DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE.

THE IDEA THAT, HEY, YOU AND I MIGHT DISAGREE ABOUT THIS, BUT I TRUST THAT YOU ARE A SENSIBLE PERSON AND WE HAVE DIFFERENT BACKGROUND AND THEREFORE WE COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS, BUT WE CAN PROBABLY FIND A COMPROMISE, THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF WIKIPEDIA.

WE LOST IT IN THE WORLD TODAY.

THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT PEOPLE OUT THERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF STILL --I THINK WHAT GOES ON ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND REALLY POLARIZED MEDIA OF ALL KINDS DOESN'T REFLECT HOW NORMAL PEOPLE THINK AND LIVE.

I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE STILL PERFECTLY HAPPY TO SAY, YEAH, I DISAGREE WITH THERE PERSON POLITICALLY, BUT THEY'RE STILL MY FRIEND.

THAT'S OKAY.

>> A GROWING NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE PUSHED BACK ON WIKI, RANGING FROM PEOPLE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HERE, ELON MUSK, OR EVEN THE PERSON WHO WAS WITH YOU AT THE BEGINNER.

YOU ARE WOKE, YOU ARE SKEWED TOWARD THE ACADEMIC.

IS THAT TRUE?

>> SKEWED TOWARD THE ACADEMIC MIGHT BE TRUE.

CERTAINLY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT SOMETHING MEDICAL RELATED, WE PREFER THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE TO A LAB TABLOID NUB.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT POLITICS.

>> WE HAVE A STRONG COMMITMENT TO NEUTRALITY.

THAT'S LIKE SUPER IMPORTANT.

DO WE ALWAYS HIT NEUTRALITY IN THE WAY I WOULD LIKE?

NO.

NOT ALWAYS.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE STRIVE FOR.

WHEN THERE ARE CRITICISMS, I THINK THE RIGHT ANSWER FOR US IS TO SAY, ALL RIGHT, LET'S DIG INTO THE DETAILS.

WHAT'S WRONG?

HOW DO WE FIX IT?

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES WE OVERLOOKED?

IF WE DON'T TAKE THAT SPIRIT OF SAYING, ACTUALLY, NEUTRAL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CORE PRINCIPLE OF WIKIPEDIA, WE HAVE TO DOUBLE DOWN ON THAT AND SAY, IT WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE TO SAY, THE WORLD HAS GOTTEN POLARIZED SO WE HAVE TO PICK A SIDE.

THE WORLD HAS GOTTEN POLARIZED.

WE NEED TO DESCRIBE THAT FAIRLY, BE THOUGHTFUL, KIND, UNDERSTANDING.

REALLY TRY HARD TO PRESENT ALL THE SIDES FAIRLY WHEN THERE'S A LEGITIMATE DEBATE.

>> ELON MUSK HAS BEEN ONE OF THE SEVERIST CRITICS.

JUST LAUNCHED GROKIPEDIA.

IT HAS BEEN CLOSE TO A MILLION ENTRIES.

A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONCEPT.

IT'S NOT CROWD SOURCED.

IT'S NOT PEOPLE WRITING.

IT USES AI TO GATHER INFORMATION FROM ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THAT.

>> I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO SEE IT YET.

IT LAUNCHED BRIEFLY AND IT WAS TAKEN DOWN.

I'M DOING A BOOK TOUR.

SO I'M DOING EVERYTHING.

BY TOMORROW, I WILL KNOW MORE.

I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE REALLY TO LOOK AT IT.

PEOPLE HAVE SENT ME A FEW THINGS.

IT IS GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF MISTAKES AND ERRORS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ELON MAYBE IS UNDERESTIMATING IS HOW HARD IT IS TO DO GOOD QUALITY REFERENCE MATERIAL AND TO REALLY GATHER ALL THE SOURCES AND ALSO IN OUR COMMUNITY, WE HAVE THESE REALLY LONG, INTENSE DEBATES ABOUT EDITORIAL MATTERS LIKE THE EXACT WORDING OF SENTENCES IS OFTEN --THEY ARE CAREFULLY CRAFTED BY PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE.

HOW CAN WE FIND A COMPROMISE WE CAN ACCEPT AS BEING FACTUAL?

YOU CAN'T -- WE KNOW ABOUT LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS IS THAT THEY CAN'T REALLY BE TRUSTED.

THEY MAKE MISTAKES.

THEY HALLUCINATE.

THEY MAKE STUFF UP OUT OF THIN AIR.

THEY LIKE TO PLEASE YOU.

THEY CAN BE HIGHLY DELODGIC -- IDEOLOGICALLY BIASES.

I'M SKEPTICAL.

WE WILL SEE.

>> DO YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO TRY SOME LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL THAT TAKES ARTICLES AND PRINTED THINGS FROM THE INTERNET AND TRIES TO YNTHESIZE IT?

>> I THINK THIS TECHNOLOGY IS AMAZING.

WE ARE LOOKING --WE HAVE A MACHINE LEARNING TEAM LOOKING INTO THIS.

I HAVE PERSONALLY --I WROTE A SCRIPT THAT CAN TAKE A SHORT ENTRY AND LOOK UP ALL THE SOURCES AT THE BOTTOM.

I ASK, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE SOURCES THAT SHOULD BE IN WIKIPEDIA THAT ISN'T OR IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SOURCES?

GIVE ME SUGGESTIONS.

IT'S PRETTY GOOD.

IT ISN'T PERFECT.

IT NEEDS REFINEMENT.

I FEEL LIKE THAT'S PROBABLY A PATH OF SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY BY SCANNING OVER THINGS AS SUGGESTING THINGS.

YOU CAN IMAGINE MAYBE TWO ENTRIES HAVE CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION.

COULD A LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL FIND THAT AND SAY, THIS ARTICLE SAYS MT.

EVEREST IS THIS HIGH AND THIS ARTICLE SAYS IT'S THAT HIGH.

LET'S DIG IN.

THAT KIND OF STUFF, USING TECHNOLOGY TO HELP THE COMMUNITY IMPROVE IT SEEMS LIKE A SENSIBLE THING TO DO.

IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG TIME BEFORE YOU DON'T NEED REAL HUMAN OVERSIGHT.

THESE AIs AREN'T THAT GOOD YET.

>> I HAVE BEEN USING GROKIPEDIA FOR THE PAST FEW DAYS.

I WAS SURPRISED AT HOW IT DOES TRY TO DO BALANCE BOTH THINGS EVEN ON CONTROVERSIAL THINGS.

I ASKED GROKIPEDIA, TELL ME ABOUT JIMMY WALES AND TELL ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA.

THEY DECRY ITS OVERRELIANCE LEADING TORIGHT-LEANING DATA.

THAT READS LIKE A WIKIPEDIA.

>> IT DOES.

THAT'S A GOOD SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE, FOR SURE.

>> IT DOES GO ON TO SAY THAT IN SOME WAYS EVEN THOUGH IT HAS UNPRECEDENTED SCALE, IT NONETHELESS HAS A BIAS TOWARDS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, WIKIPEDIA DOES.

IS THAT A FAIR CRITICISM?

I THINK LARRY, WHO WAS AT THE FOUNDING OF WIKIPEDIA WITH YOU, MAKES THAT CRITICISM AS WELL.

>> IT'S FAIR, BUT IS IT VALID AS A CRITICISM?

IT'S, OF COURSE, TRUE THAT WE DON'T TREAT FRINGE SOURCES, RANDOM BLOGS, TWEETS FROM CROCKPOTS AS BEING THE EQUIVALENT OF FACT-BASED RESEARCHED INFORMATION.

I'M UNAPOLOGETIC ABOUT THAT.

IF YOU SAY, WOW, WIKIPEDIA TREATS ACADEMIC MEDICAL JOURNALS AS BEING MORE IMPORTANT THAN RANDOM SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCERS, I'M GOING TO PLEAD GUILTY, UNAPOLOGETICALLY AND SAY, THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

THEY SHOULDN'T BE THE SAME THING.

GETTING FACTS RIGHT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

YOU CAN'T TREAT FRINGE SOURCES AS IF THEY ARE JUST THE EQUAL OF MAINSTREAM SOURCES.

THERE'S A REASON THEY ARE MAINSTREAM, WHICH IS THAT THEY ARE TRIED, TRUE, TESTED.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN MAINSTREAM IS ALWAYS RIGHT, OF COURSE.

WE ALL KNOW OF INSTANCES WHERE THE WORLD THOUGHT ONE THING AND THEN OVER TIME EVIDENCE EMERGED AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD CHANGED.

THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE PROCESS.

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO AWAY WITH ALL STANDARDS AND TREAT EVERY RANDOM UTTERANCE AS EQUAL.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT NEUTRALITY.

SOMETIMES IT'S HARD.

ONE OF THE CRITICISMS I THINK U.S.

CONGRESS EVEN DID IS THE EXTEND TO WHICH YOU COVER GAZA AND ISRAEL.

I WOULD LIKE TO READ YOU THE BEGINNING OF WHAT IS CALLED GAZA GENOCIDE IN WIKIPEDIA.

I READ IT LAST NIGHT.

IT SAYS, THE GAZA GENOCIDE IS THE ONGOING, INTENTIONAL AND SYSTEMATIC DESTRUCTION OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE IN THE GAZA STRIP CARRIED OUT BY ISRAEL.

IT DOESN'T SAY THIS IS ISRAEL --IS THERE SOME SENSE THAT THESE TYPE OF THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN WIKIPEDIA WHERE IT DOES HAVE A PARTICULAR BIAS?

>> THEY CAN.

THAT'S ONE OF THE WORST WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES I HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME.

I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE IT.

IT NEEDS TO CHANGE.

I THINK IT'S TERRIBLE.

IT DOESN'T LIVE UP TO OUR STANDARDS OF NEUTRALITY.

I THINK IT'S VERY PROBLEMATIC.

IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT REFLECT ON THE WAY WIKIPEDIA SHOULD WORK.

WE FLEED NEED TO FIX IT.

I WISH I COULD BE A PR DEFENDER AND SAY, OF COURSE, WIKIPEDIA IS PERFECT.

THAT WOULDN'T BUILD TRUST.

PEOPLE HAVE MORE TRUST IN WIKIPEDIA IF I ACKNOWLEDGE, WE DON'T ALWAYS GET IT RIGHT.

WHAT WE NEED ARE KIND AND THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE TO COME IN AND JOIN THE COMMUNITY AND HELP US FIX ANYTHING THAT'S NOT REALLY FAIR.

>> BECAUSE OF THE ENTRY ON GAZA AND OTHER THINGS, CONGRESS HAS SAID THEY WANT A SUBPOENA TO SAY WHO WHOSE THOSE PEOPLE.

YOUR PEOPLE ARE QUASIANONYMOUS.

DO YOU THINK IT'S OKAY TO GIVE UP THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE FOR WIKIPEDIA?

>> I THINK IT'S DEEPLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE U.S.

GOVERNMENT, UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, TO START ATTACKING PEOPLE FOR BEING BIASED.

THERE'S NO -- IT'S COMPLETELY NOT IN THE AMERICAN TRADITION TO DO THAT SORT OF THING.

IT'S VERY McCARTHY ERA-ESQUE.

CLEARLY, WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT AGAINST THAT SORT OF THING.

THAT'S A RIDICULOUS THING FOR CONGRESS TO DO.

>> LET ME READ YOU A QUOTE THAT YOU SAID, WHICH IS, THE SUNNY, PRO-SOCIAL VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE THAT INSPIRED WIKIPEDIA MAY BE OUT OF FASHION, BUT I WILL INSIST THAT IT IS CORRECT.

UNPACK THAT FOR ME, PLEASE.

>> YEAH.

I MEAN, THE IS, WE GO AROUND AND WE MEET OTHER PEOPLE.

AS WE KNOW IN OUR NORMAL LIVES, WE THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE BASICALLY DECENT.

SOME PEOPLE ARE ANNOYING AND ALL OF THAT.

THE NUMBER OF TRULY MALICIOUS PEOPLE IN THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY VERY SMALL.

PEOPLE LOVE TO COME TOGETHER AND DO POSITIVE THINGS.

WE SEE ALL KINDS OF EXAMPLES OF THIS, ITY WORKS.

PEOPLE HELP EACH OTHER IN A POSITIVE SPIRIT.

I THINK WE ARE AT RISK OF FORGETTING THAT WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT HUMAN NATURE THROUGH THE LENS OF LOOKING AT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS THAT PRIORITIZE AND PROMOTE THE MOST TOXIC PEOPLE.

SUDDENLY, YOU GET THIS IDEA, WOW, THE WORLD IS FULL OF ANGRY, UPSET, HORRIBLE PEOPLE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND YOU AND YOU ARE LIKE, ACTUALLY, MOST PEOPLE ARE NICE.

THAT'S WEIRD.

THOSE PEOPLE BECOME PROMINENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BECAUSE OF BAD ALGORITHMS THAT ARE PRIORITIZING THE WRONG THINGS.

>> ONE OF YOUR RULES IS, ASSUME GOOD FAITH.

DOES THAT WORK?

>> IT DOES.

IT DOES.

IT TURNS OUT, THERE'S A GREAT STORY IN THE BOOK ABOUT KAYLA KAYLANA.

THAT'S HER USER NAME.

SHE HAS BECOME RESPECTED.

SHE STARTED HER FIRST EVER EDIT TO WIKIPEDIA WAS VANDALISM, BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T BELIEVE YOU COULD REALLY DO THIS.

SOMEBODY CAME TO HER AND SAID, HEY -- >> SHE VANDALIZED ONE OF THE PAGES?

SHE WASN'T TING ABOUT VANDALISM?

>> SHE WROTE NONSENSE.

SOMEBODY SAID, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

SHE FELT SO BAD.

OH, THESE NICE PEOPLE ARE BEING NICE TO ME.

THEY ASSUME I WAS JUST DOING A TEST OR WHATEVER.

SHE THEN TURNED INTO THIS FANTASTIC WIKIPEDIA PERSON.

THAT'S AMAZING.

WE KNOW THIS.

YOU MEET SOMEBODY NEW FOR THE FIRST TIME AND YOU DON'T INSTANTLY THINK, WHAT'S THIS HORRIBLE PERSON GOING TO DO TO ME?

IF THAT IS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT MEETING NEW PEOPLE, THAT'S A PROBLEM IN YOUR LIFE.

YOU NEED TO WORK ON THAT.

GENERALLY, YEAH, APPROACH PEOPLE WITH AN OPEN HEART.

GREAT, NICE TO MEET YOU.

LET'S GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER.

ASSUMING GOOD FAITH OF PEOPLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING YOU DON'T AGREE WITH, PROBABLY THEIR HEART IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE SOMEHOW, REALLY PAYS OFF ALMOST ALWAYS.

SOMETIMES NO.

SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE JUST HORRIBLE.

THAT'S TRUE, TOO.

BROADLY, JUST THAT INITIAL ASSUMPTION OF, HEY, LET'S DO SOMETHING GOOD TOGETHER, IT DOES WORK.

>> I HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITH WIKIPEDIA.

ON THE EINSTEIN ENTRY.

I WAS WRITING A BOOK.

IT KEPT SAYING THAT EINSTEIN HAD BEEN GIVEN A VISA BY THE KING ZOG OF SOMEWHERE.

IT WAS TOTALLY WRONG.

I WENT IN AND I CORRECTED IT.

THE PEOPLE WHO WERE PARTISANS OF THAT, KEPT PUTTING IT BACK IN.

FINALLY, I CITED THINGS, I GAVE THE SOURCES.

IT STAYED.

I SAID TO MYSELF, BOY, THAT PROVES YOU NEED EXPERTS DOING IT.

I WAS THINKING OF MYSELF AS AN EXPERT.

INSTEAD OF THE WISDOM OF CROWDS.

IT OCCURRED TO ME, I'M PART OF THE CROWD.

I WAS ONE OF MANY PEOPLE CONTRIBUTING.

IS THAT SORT OF THE MAGIC OF HOW THAT WORKS?

>> YEAH.

IT'S A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF HOW GOOD QUALITY RELIABLE SOURCES ARE CRUCIAL.

IF IT'S JUST RANDOM PEOPLE'S OPINIONS UP AGAINST EACH OTHER, HOW DO YOU DECIDE?

IF YOU HAVE GOT A SOURCE, A HISTORIAN, DOCUMENTED FACT, GREAT, BRILLIANT.

THAT MOVES THE CONVERSATION FORWARD IN A GOOD WAY.

>> JIMMY WALES, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>>> THANK YOU.

GREAT, FANTASTIC.