Jimmy Wales: What Wikipedia Got Right About Social Media
The co-founder of "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" talks about the power of decentralization and the rise in subscription models for journalism.

Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," went from being a weird online experiment 21 years ago to one of the mainstays of the modern internet with astonishing speed. Even more astonishing, it has maintained its reputation and functionality since its founding, even as the rest of the social internet seems hellbent on tearing itself apart.
As Twitter, Facebook, and others are consumed with controversy over moderation, governance, and the definition of free speech, Wikipedia continues to quietly grow in utility, trustworthiness, and comprehensiveness. There are now nearly 6.5 million articles on the English version alone, and it has held its place in the top 15 most-visited sites on the internet for well over a decade.
Reason Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward spoke with Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales, about what he got right—and what he's worried about as politicians all around the globe are pushing for more control of online content.
A key ingredient to Wikipedia's success, says Wales, is its high degree of decentralization. After this interview was conducted, Elon Musk made a bid to buy Twitter, bringing new salience to the battle over who controls the flow of information (and disinformation) online.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Lol. A 2nd round of this?
Gillespie today beclowns himself praising KMW's lazy, shallow, fluff piece that has a conclusion which is absolutely risible.
He has made such a sport of navel gazing that it is worthy of a pasquinade.
It seems that is pleather's main function lately, laughable 'analysis,' ridiculous pop culture ego stroking, and the rare libertarian short article.
Even more astonishing, it has maintained its reputation and functionality since its founding, even as the rest of the social internet seems hellbent on tearing itself apart.
Not so fast on this one...
More to the point.
And Stossel.
tl;dr: He doesn't agree that "Wikipedia continues to quietly grow in utility, trustworthiness, and comprehensiveness."
Published only two days ago, too. Ouch.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Wiki went leftist a long time ago.
That's because the center and the right viewed Wikipedia editing as a hobby, but the left views Wikipedia editing as a mission.
They recruit people to act as editors, and organizations like Open Societies and Media Matters pay people to edit pages all day long.
That's why anything that touches on sociopolitical and culture issues on Wikipedia is heavily politicized and unreliable. Wikipedia is a great place to read about string theory, Tocharian, zygosity and the Lithuanian Air Force. It's less than useless for climate change, Western politicians and anything covered by the APA's DSM-5.
And you can't even trust it for basic history in many ways, either.
I think you don't know about this.
https://testfiledownload.com/
One can't be establishment and radical at the same time.
As I said the last time you tried pushing this nonsense, one of your most significant contributors (by the way, has Stossel been purged from Reason? I can't seem to find any of his stuff on the site) has a video released just this week documenting Wikipedia's left-wing bias. When he followed up with Wales on some of the things he discovered, he got stonewalled. And you consider it a model of "utility, trustworthiness, and comprehensiveness"?
I'm sure the thorough left wing bias is entirely coincidental and not entirely the point of pushing this demented viewpoint. JFC, Wikipedia has had a reputation for being inaccurate and biased from day 1 so I guess the maintenance of it's reputation is correct if misleading.
To be fair, Gillespie got that quote from the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia.
Once again, Wikipedia is distributed, not decentralized. Wiki technology is decentralized, anyone can start a wiki without ever touching anything to do with Wikipedia, but you can't post an article on Wikipedia without the centralized authority's (Wikipedia) approval. People can't deny or amend the facts of your post without going through the same central authority, Wikipedia.
Several decent rules of thumb are built into the English language; singularity, titles, and proper nouns. If you can refer to The Wikipedia or The Blockchain, rather than a wiki or a blockchain/ledger, then The Wikipedia or The Blockchain is, definitively, a centralized authority.
Yes, it's called a filter. But if my name is spelled wrong in an article I can fix it. Having anyone at all edit anything at all at any time is silly. Wikipedia used to work that way, but it quickly became a mess, so they got editors that could revert your changes, and lock down pages if they got into revert wars.
Like the Linux kernel, you can submit anything you want, but only a tiny few get to the make permanent changes that get rolled out to everyone. It's a filter. If it's worthy, fact based, sourced, then you can get it in. But you do NOT get to change the facts for everyone on your own say so. You have to go through the process.
Rich kyanka was more right than Jimmy whales.
Unfourtanatly the wrong one committed suicide
This is the featured story this afternoon on Reasons home page people. A self fellating and inaccurate story about how trustworthy Wikipedia is. Not the Friday afternoon story dump on the DHS board of disinformation. Nope, let's gaslight about Wikipedia's sainthood.
I don't know of anyone that considers Wikipedia to be a source of reliably accurate information other than Gillespie, Ward, and Wales.
Outside of politics, nearly everyone trusts Wikipedia. The more nerdy the topic the more it is trusted.
But inside politics it's different. Because politics, unfortunately is NOT fact based. It's feelz based. And those on the right are outraged that their slant on things is not being presented as the facts. But taking a closer look, neither is the Left's slant. Slant is absent.
Go spend some time on a Leftist site and they don't like Wikipedia either, for the same reason. Everyone wants their narrative published, but Wikipedia is not about narratives, it's about facts that can be sourced.
If you can source your facts, you can get it into the Wikipedia.
Which makes it so important to label conservative sources "unreliable."
(But of course the New York Times and Washington Post are perfectly objective and reliable!)
Sorry, but Prison Planet is not a reliable source. FOX News is, so long as they stick to quotes and not hearsay. If FOX News interviews someone, that interview is a valid source reference. But FOX has had a long standing problem of not separating news from opinion. What it produces via journalism and interviews and such can be used as sources. But when it issues opinions and commentary that can only be sourced as being FOX's opinion and commentary and not as sources of fact.
MSNBC is in the same category. Much of what it passes off as news today is just opinion and commentary. This is the problem with a lot of modern journalism, it mixes the journalism with opinions and commentary.
Oddly enough, John Stossel's latest is about Wikipedia. It is not quite so kind.
But muh narrative.
It's obvious Reason doesn't read the comments, as they double-down on Wikipedia.
Sorry Nick and Katherine, Wikipedia is as leftist as MSM. Stossel has it right. Watch his video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA
If you want to find out anything political, historical, etc, you can't trust Wikipedia. The socialists HAVE taken it over.
So quietly that Wikipedia is universally considered a joke by its mere presence in a bibliography.
Honestly, is Reason trying to remind the readership that Gell-Mann amnesia is a real thing and that as Reason is telling lies that depend on people believing today’s spew while forgetting reality, they think the readership are morons?
In any case, this kind of fabulosity is permanently destroying Reason’s own credibility among people who remember yesterday.
The Ministress of Truthiness has a Christmas wish answered
Who Do I F*ck to Be Rich, Famous, and Powerful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60PLEXY-yHY
Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant Bedford
Let's hope that Wikipedia gets patched up. thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant In St Neots ? Check out this!