Introduction

> I think it's crucial to maintain independence and stand firm against external pressures. Our approach at Wikipedia has always been to resist government pressure and stay true to our values.

> Our unwavering stance has been clear: "We've never bowed down to government pressure anywhere in the world, and we never will." This refusal to compromise ensures that Wikipedia remains a reliable source of information for people worldwide.

Origin story of Wikipedia

> The journey of Wikipedia really emerged from a realization that “collaboration could extend beyond just software to all kinds of cultural works.” I saw how the free software movement thrived on openness and thought, “why not apply this to an encyclopedia?” This vision turned into a powerful community-driven model where anyone could contribute their knowledge, transforming the way we create and access information.

> Reflecting on the early days, the incredible accessibility and fun of contributing stemmed from a simple truth: “you could say, oh, well I know a little bit about this and I can get it started.” It was about being able to dive in, share, and improve together—reminding me of the joy in collaborative creation, akin to open source software, where the community helps refine and expand upon each contribution.

Design of Wikipedia

> The early days of Wikipedia involved intense email discussions about what constitutes an encyclopedia and how to achieve technological goals like integrating universal data variables—a visionary concept back then that led to developments like Wikidata. Using a rudimentary software, UseModWiki, hit several technical limitations but set the stage for more scalable solutions.

> Defining an encyclopedia was another philosophical journey, leading to the birth of projects like Wikisource for original texts. Interestingly, what is deemed encyclopedic varies culturally; for example, French encyclopedias traditionally include recipes, unlike their English counterparts. This highlights the subjective nature of documenting human knowledge and the cultural nuances involved.

Number of articles on Wikipedia

> It's incredible to reflect on how far we've come, with over 6 million articles on English Wikipedia. I still remember when we celebrated the 100,000 milestone; now it feels like a universe of knowledge. Yet, it’s essential to grapple with the philosophy of notability. “You can’t have an article about literally everything.” This is crucial; we must discern between what’s significant and what’s merely personal.

> When it comes to biographies, the stakes are high. “You can actually be quite hurtful, quite damaging” if you misrepresent someone. It's about more than just being notable; it’s about having verifiable information to support a meaningful entry. So, we approach this with nuance and care, understanding that not everyone is meant to be documented in an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia pages for living persons

> Discovering a Wikipedia page about myself was humbling and made me grateful for the community behind Wikipedia and the loving effort they put into creating and maintaining pages.

> Uncovering inaccuracies in my Wikipedia biography, like false claims about my background and position at MIT, made me realize the importance of getting details right and correcting misinformation.

> Reflecting on controversies on Wikipedia, I emphasize the significance of handling controversies with care, avoiding undue weight on negative aspects, and integrating them respectfully into a person's biography.

> Discussing the challenges of sourcing on Wikipedia, combating clickbait content, and leveraging tools like ChatGPT for bias detection and accuracy improvements in articles.

ChatGPT

> Wikipedia’s open licensing fosters a culture of sharing and collaboration, encouraging users to "modify it, redistribute it, redistribute modified versions" freely, which embodies our commitment to a volunteer community that provides knowledge to the world. However, proper attribution remains critical because "it's just good intellectual practice," and we must find better ways to ensure that knowledge is grounded in reliable sources.

> There is a tension between the eagerness of language models like ChatGPT to please users and the need for accuracy, as evidenced by my experience when it generated plausible but entirely fabricated examples. I hope future iterations will "just say don't know" or flag potential inaccuracies, because "I really would like to make you happy right now, but I'm really stretched thin with this generation."

> Wikipedia thrives on transparency, and I believe it would be beneficial if tools could help highlight areas of contention or disputed neutrality within articles—such as suggesting warnings based on talk page discussions—to enrich users' understanding of complex topics. It’s vital for our community, especially regarding emotionally charged subjects, to provide context that acknowledges the nuances and varied perspectives present in discussions.

Wikipedia's political bias

> "I don't see a broad left-leaning bias in Wikipedia; what’s often perceived as bias tends to stem from the frustration of those with fringe views not being recognized as mainstream." Wikipedia encourages challenge and discourse, allowing users to navigate through various perspectives, but it's essential to balance contributions with credible sources.

> "The politicization of topics like mask efficacy during COVID really highlights how divisive issues can become." I believe it’s crucial for Wikipedia to capture not just the facts, but also the discourse surrounding these debates, as understanding varying viewpoints is vital for a mature society.

Conspiracy theories

> It's crucial to balance representation on platforms like Wikipedia, ensuring we capture "meaningfully important" perspectives without falling into "false neutrality." For instance, we wouldn't say the moon is made of cheese just to balance it with scientifically disproven ideas; instead, we offer context that enhances understanding.

> The rise of social media algorithms has amplified divisive discourse, rewarding snark and sensationalism over substantive discussion. This trend leads to a culture where polarizing narratives dominate, making it harder for meaningful debates to occur and fundamentally skewing our collective perception of reality.

> The challenge lies in fostering open and unbiased platforms despite inherent biases in those who create them. It’s about creating space where diverse perspectives can coexist and engaging in genuine discourse rather than merely sensationalizing conflict for engagement's sake.

Facebook

> The challenge with major social networks like Facebook lies in their business model. If the focus is solely on maximizing page views and engagement, it inevitably leads to prioritizing content that can be divisive or harmful. I believe it's crucial to rethink these algorithms and perhaps even halt political advertising, which can contribute to misinformation and polarization. As I mentioned, "if your actions are... convincing people that you're breaking western civilization, that's really bad for business in the long run."

> With WT.Social, our goal is to prioritize trust and meaningful content rather than chasing high engagement through clickbait. By adopting a membership model instead of relying on ads, we hope to foster a healthier online environment. It's somewhat analogous to the difference between ad-funded television and subscription services like HBO. The latter allows for higher quality, niche content because it's supported directly by viewers. As I said, "let's optimize on what sort of the feedback from people is, this is meaningfully enhancing my life."

Twitter

> Twitter's open-ended structure makes it challenging due to toxic behavior and abuse, contrasting with Wikipedia's guidelines promoting neutrality and factual citations, fostering a different atmosphere on the platforms.

> Restoring trust in institutions and the concept of truth is crucial, especially in a time of declining trust, emphasizing the significance of accurate information and uncomfortable truths.

> Highlighting the difficulties of content moderation at scale on platforms like Twitter, citing personal experiences with false accusations and inadequate response mechanisms, calling for more effective approaches to handling abusive content.

> Encouraging meaningful debates and discussions by bringing together kind and thoughtful individuals with differing perspectives, emphasizing the importance of civility and understanding in addressing contentious topics like abortion on platforms like Wikipedia.

Building Wikipedia

> Wikipedia thrives because of diversity in its editing community. We need a broad range of voices, especially from different backgrounds and perspectives, to reduce blind spots in content. “If we don’t have women in the community, then these award-winning clearly important novelists may have less coverage,” simply because people write about what they know.

> The health of the Wikipedia community hinges on kindness and welcoming new contributors. “We have rules, like one of our fundamental rules is ignore all rules,” which encourages a friendly environment where newcomers feel supported rather than intimidated.

> The dedication of volunteers reinforces my admiration for Wikipedia. Witnessing passionate individuals who enrich our collective knowledge reminds me that “there’s a small group of volunteers who are able to contribute so much to the organization... It gives me faith in humanity.”

Wikipedia funding

> The decision to keep Wikipedia ad-free was driven by both aesthetic and ethical considerations. I felt ads would undermine trust and potentially influence content, leading to clickbait or advertiser-driven priorities. With a reliance on small donor contributions, Wikipedia remains independent and community-focused.

> Our first fundraising campaign on Christmas Day in 2003 was a significant moment. We aimed for $20,000 but raised nearly $30,000 quicker than expected. The most effective pitch we've found over the years is a fairness appeal: if you use Wikipedia regularly, consider contributing because it genuinely enhances lives.

> I'm both intrigued and cautious about AI tools like ChatGPT. While they offer efficiency, they also pose risks, such as generating inaccurate information. Hence, our community emphasizes human responsibility in verifying AI-assisted edits to maintain Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy.

ChatGPT vs Wikipedia

> It's intriguing to see how new technologies like ChatGPT can actually enhance the way we access knowledge. "If the knowledge is more accessible to people, even if they're not coming through us, that's fine." This ethos of sharing knowledge remains central to my vision for Wikipedia. By integrating advanced technologies, we can create a more seamless search experience, allowing users to ask specific questions and get direct answers while still grounding those responses in the rich content of Wikipedia.

> I also feel strongly about the importance of proper sourcing. "If they provide proper links, we're gonna be at the top of that just like we are in Google." Ensuring that people know where their information comes from not only solidifies our role but also encourages a culture of knowledge sharing and support, allowing Wikipedia to thrive alongside innovative platforms that utilize our resources.

Larry Sanger

> I find the controversy of whether I am the sole founder or co-founder of Wikipedia unimportant and not that interesting. Larry Sanger doesn't get enough credit for his early work, and there were important contributions from various people. Disagreements happen, and that's fine.

> On representing perspectives on controversial questions in Wikipedia, I firmly believe that all relevant sides are diligently explained in entries. Grappling with minority viewpoints in science and politics is crucial, and we must always be open to correction, change, and challenge.

Twitter files

> It's fascinating how people can misinterpret the editorial processes of platforms like Wikipedia. "Sometimes people read stuff like that and they're like, oh you see, look at these leftists, they're trying to suppress the truth again." In reality, often it's just an internal decision-maker weighing in on what's relevant, not a conspiracy to censor.

> I find myself constantly asking, "Am I just being a sheep and accepting it?" It's vital to challenge our perspectives and ensure we're not just falling into one ideological trap or another. "What do I potentially have wrong?" is a question we should all embrace in our pursuit of truth.

Government and censorship

> Adherence to principles regarding government censorship is crucial. We've always taken a firm stand against government pressures, refusing to alter Wikipedia content. This non-compliance strategy has been effective because it establishes that we won't compromise our integrity for access, as demonstrated when navigating complex situations like conversations with governmental bodies while maintaining our autonomous stance.

> Trust in public institutions has been significantly impacted by how they handle information. The pandemic highlighted the consequences of miscommunication from authorities like the CDC and WHO. Overblown or contradictory statements have eroded public trust, which is detrimental in the long run. It's essential that public officials communicate transparently and trust the public to handle nuanced information.

> Wikipedia’s strength lies in its commitment to neutrality and being community-driven. Our role involves ensuring that all perspectives are represented fairly, trusting the public to discern and understand complex issues. Engaging with critics, be it governments or individuals, involves explaining our editorial processes while steadfastly maintaining that the Wikimedia Foundation can’t and won’t alter content unilaterally to appease external pressures.

Adolf Hitler's Wikipedia page

> "I’ve always believed in the power of optimism; it’s how I approach challenges. Some may see struggles, but I tend to view them as just the next task on our agenda." Growing Wikipedia was a joyous journey, but it wasn’t without hurdles, including server crashes and organizational growing pains.

> "Wikimedia's community growth has always amazed me, and it instills faith in the potential of collaborative efforts." It’s fascinating to witness how individuals come together, create, and maintain something as remarkable as Wikipedia, showing that communities can thrive in diverse areas.

> "Sometimes humor emerges in unexpected ways within Wikipedia. For instance, the article on ‘Inherently Funny Words’ started as a quirky dumping ground but evolved into a legitimate topic." These delightfully absurd entries are reminders of the fun and creativity that can exist even within a serious platform.

Future of Wikipedia

> I see Wikipedia evolving with better AI tools that enhance search and discovery while maintaining its core as an encyclopedia. "In 10 years... we probably will have a lot more AI-supporting tools," allowing users to ask questions and get direct answers from our body of work.

> The growth of Wikipedia's presence in developing languages is pivotal, even if it's not widely recognized. "The growth in all these other languages... is actually super interesting... but most people won't notice that." Thanks to advancements in AI, we can finally empower smaller language communities, as machine translations are improving significantly.

> As the internet evolves with large language models and AI-generated content, trust becomes paramount. "I think my credibility... should be the equal of a New York Times reporter," signaling that brands and established voices will matter more than ever for verifying truth in journalism and information sharing, especially in the age of deepfakes and misinformation.

Advice for young people

> "If you want to be successful, do something you're really passionate about rather than some kind of cold calculation of what can make you the most money." Chasing passion over profit not only leads to greater fulfillment but also fosters excellence in what you do, as genuine interest fuels creativity and commitment.

> "It's really important because if your standard of success is, well, I feel sad because I'm not as rich as Elon Musk, it's like, well, so should almost everyone." Defining success should go beyond financial metrics; I find immense value in the richness of experiences and interesting interactions that life offers, which is the true measure of a fulfilling journey.

Meaning of life

> The meaning of life is internal - we decide our own meaning. While ideas like exploring the universe are inspiring, true meaning comes from solving human problems, preserving knowledge, and ensuring sustainability.

> Machine translation is a powerful tool that connects us to diverse cultures and enriches our understanding of the world, emphasizing the importance of sharing human knowledge and experiences across languages and borders.