Latest / The Big Mig Show / Larry Sanger Founder of Wikipedia |EP697

Transcript

Larry Sanger Founder of Wikipedia |EP697 · The Big Mig Show

• 0:00
  All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
• 0:04
  Creator with certain unalienable rights.
• 0:08
  By Liberty. If liberty means anything at
• 0:15
  all, it means right to tell people what they do not want to
• 0:19
  hear. Welcome back to the big League
• 0:44
  show. Of course, I'm your host, Lance
• 0:46
  Miliaccio with my Co host George Ballantine and how we do it on
• 0:49
  this show because if liberty means anything at all, it means
• 0:51
  the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
• 0:54
  And it's always tip of the spear on this show for you guys that
• 0:57
  are just joining us for the first time.
• 0:58
  First of all, thank you for the hour that you're going to give
• 1:00
  us. But our plan is always to
• 1:01
  educate and unify the country one episode at a time.
• 1:04
  You know, we go out for both sides of the aisle.
• 1:07
  You know how we do it with great interviews, lots of different
• 1:09
  topics, very Rogan style show. So if you hear for the first
• 1:13
  time you, I should be excited. We've got an amazing interview
• 1:16
  weekends coming up. We like to kick off Friday
• 1:18
  always with with something exciting.
• 1:20
  And of course, this is how we do it.
• 1:22
  Kill them with the truth and bury them with a smile.
• 1:24
  George Ballantine, what's going on bro?
• 1:26
  How are you, man? I'm OK, it's Friday, you know,
• 1:29
  the weekend's here, but I still got work to do all weekend and
• 1:32
  never stops from me. Yeah, that's right.
• 1:35
  Bees in the trap. You're working away, man.
• 1:37
  It's. Bees in the trap.
• 1:38
  Rise and grind, that's how it is, but that's how we do it
• 1:41
  every single episode. I don't forget I don't have fame
• 1:43
  and fortune like our guest that's coming on, you know?
• 1:45
  Yeah, that's right. That's right.
• 1:47
  We're still, we're still slaving away.
• 1:48
  But of course I'm, I'm excited because I, I love what he did,
• 1:52
  especially in the early years. We'll explain in a minute, but I
• 1:54
  want to start off by thanking our sponsor.
• 1:56
  It's always about diversification for George and
• 1:58
  I. You know, we do crypto, we do
• 2:00
  gold and silver. We try to diversify because
• 2:02
  that's where the safety is. Of course, I'm holding up the
• 2:04
  six 62.2g prepper bar, perforated and easily broken
• 2:08
  down. Your choice of three different
• 2:10
  denominations. Great invention by the guys over
• 2:12
  at Genesis Gold Group. They knew you weren't going to
• 2:14
  walk around with a pair of tin snips.
• 2:15
  You needed to use silver gold as a payment system.
• 2:18
  You never know what's going to happen to the US currency, $38
• 2:21
  trillion in debt. The great thing is this will fit
• 2:24
  neatly in your wallet. It's very thin.
• 2:25
  This one's in a plastic case to protect it, but of course you
• 2:28
  can take it anywhere with you. Of course, you can stick it in a
• 2:30
  sock or a safety deposit box. Your gun safe.
• 2:33
  I don't care where you put it, but the point, whether it's for
• 2:35
  asset protection, for inflation, economic turmoil,
• 2:37
  diversification, or it's very unique utility for barter and
• 2:41
  trade, this makes a perfect gift for all those precious metal
• 2:44
  lovers out there. There isn't anybody doesn't like
• 2:45
  gold and silver and holidays are right around the corner.
• 2:49
  You get ahead of the curve. Great stocking stuffer, as
• 2:52
  George likes to say. These are exclusively mined and
• 2:54
  minted in the US. You don't have to worry about
• 2:56
  any counterfeit gold coming out of Genesis Gold.
• 2:58
  These guys have been in the business for decades.
• 3:00
  So head over to the big megbar.com.
• 3:03
  That's right, the big megbar.com and exclusive for you guys.
• 3:06
  All caps prepper. PREPPER.
• 3:09
  That's PREPPR. 10% off on the silver, 5% off on the gold, the
• 3:13
  big megbar.com. Or you can pick up the phone and
• 3:16
  dial 888, 5267154888526715 power and George makes it easy.
• 3:22
  QR codes right there. You can take a snapshot.
• 3:25
  Don't go there now. You don't want to miss a minute
• 3:26
  of the show. I'm excited about it, but you
• 3:29
  can head over there after the show.
• 3:30
  Yep, and break me off a piece of that prepper bar.
• 3:35
  Yep, George has got to get the Jingle in.
• 3:36
  It's Friday, baby. Jingle away.
• 3:39
  All right, You know, So tonight's guest or today's
• 3:43
  guest, I should say, Larry Sanger founder.
• 3:46
  I, I, I guess Co founder, but I listen to him as founder of
• 3:49
  Wikipedia, an amazing product. He's blushing right now
• 3:53
  backstage. You know that?
• 3:54
  Yeah. You got him blushing.
• 3:56
  But he's really an interesting guy, right?
• 3:58
  He's a philosopher, technology innovator, advocate for unbiased
• 4:01
  knowledge, holds a PhD in philosophy.
• 4:04
  So you got to you got to you got to move maneuver around him
• 4:07
  carefully because he's probably looking at everybody from a
• 4:09
  glass jar. Ohio State University best known
• 4:13
  as a Co founder of Wikipedia. He launched the project in 2001
• 4:17
  by working with the Jimmy Wales over at Bornus company evolved
• 4:21
  from the slower new pedia into a dynamic crowdsourced
• 4:24
  encyclopedia. Lifelong true seeker and I guess
• 4:28
  who lost and later rediscovered his Christian faith.
• 4:31
  So you know, we love that about him.
• 4:32
  God country family. Recently joining the Anglican
• 4:35
  Church in North America, spent the last two decades critiquing
• 4:39
  digital information ecosystems. Since 2020, he has served a full
• 4:43
  time president of the Knowledge Standards Foundation.
• 4:46
  Really interesting. We're going to get into that
• 4:47
  details later in the show. And of course, they promote
• 4:50
  higher standards for online knowledge through projects like
• 4:53
  the encyclosphere and his Bold 9 thesis on Wikipedia, which I've
• 4:58
  got those we're going to discuss.
• 4:59
  I'll leave him backstage. He's back there by himself.
• 5:01
  We don't want him to get lonely. Let's get him in here.
• 5:03
  All right. Welcome to the big, big show,
• 5:05
  Mr. Larry Singer. How you doing, Sir?
• 5:08
  Doing well. Thanks for having me guys, this
• 5:11
  is going to be fun. Oh, it should be.
• 5:13
  Man, we're excited you're here, man.
• 5:15
  And honestly, I, you know, and I said it to you backstage, I
• 5:18
  don't want to gush too much, but I man, when Wikipedia came out,
• 5:22
  I just loved it. I, you know, I, I, because I
• 5:25
  grew up. I, you know, I'm the age fan.
• 5:27
  Girling set Larry's fangirling on your Wikipedia, just so you
• 5:30
  know. I got to tell you, my parents
• 5:32
  had the Britannica Encyclopedia. We had the whole set.
• 5:36
  I used to pour through it as a child.
• 5:38
  I loved going through it and learning about the world.
• 5:41
  And I was always really enjoyed animals.
• 5:43
  I grew up with a lot of animals in my home, so I'd look through
• 5:46
  and see all the animals in the world.
• 5:47
  It was a big thing. The encyclopedia was a big deal
• 5:49
  back then. And with what you did,
• 5:51
  everything was at your fingertips you could possibly
• 5:53
  want. And that was the incredible part
• 5:56
  really, for me, I think that was a spark of genius.
• 5:59
  But Larry, let me let me start with this.
• 6:01
  We always like to do this. Give me the Cliff notes.
• 6:03
  Like, you know, how did you get into that?
• 6:06
  I mean, how did it happen? I mean, where, where's the track
• 6:08
  to where you started? And then all of a sudden, here
• 6:10
  you are and you're doing Wikipedia.
• 6:13
  Well, I first like Gone online in 1994, and one of the very
• 6:20
  first things I did was to join a discussion group that was run by
• 6:27
  Jimmy Wales, as it happens, before he was famous, and it was
• 6:33
  about the philosophy of Ayn Rand and I, I was a philosophy grad
• 6:39
  student at the time. I wasn't exactly a huge fan of
• 6:45
  Ayn Rand, but I agreed with her about a lot of important things,
• 6:48
  you know, and so they, they seem like allies to me.
• 6:52
  I ended up meeting Jimmy, you know, in face to face in
• 6:58
  Chicago. Me and him and another guy sort
• 7:02
  of spent a weekend just kicking around when I was on my way
• 7:05
  across the country to visit my my uncle.
• 7:10
  And so we, we weren't exactly close friends or anything, but
• 7:15
  we knew each other. We, we'd actually met each other
• 7:17
  face to face a couple of times before.
• 7:21
  Basically, he was looking for somebody to start a free
• 7:25
  encyclopedia. So Jimmy Wales was the CEO of
• 7:29
  Balmes Inc, which was it ran a an old web ring style search
• 7:37
  engine. If you remember that from the
• 7:38
  1990s. I do, yes.
• 7:42
  And and Bahamas was probably the biggest 1.
• 7:45
  And so he had a lot of brands in the fire.
• 7:49
  One of them was this idea of a free of encyclopedia.
• 7:53
  He had already chosen the domain name for it, Newpedia and
• 7:58
  Upedia, and then it was going to be run based on open source
• 8:03
  software principles. Basically, it's free, but nobody
• 8:09
  is paid necessarily to work on it, right?
• 8:11
  So it's it's a, a public good that people contribute to.
• 8:16
  And that's essentially how open source works.
• 8:19
  And what, we're going to take that same principle and apply it
• 8:22
  to an encyclopedia. At first, of course, we didn't
• 8:27
  know about wikis. So it was my job basically to
• 8:31
  start that thing from the ground up, which I did, you know, I, I
• 8:36
  one day sat down and I mean, after he had given me the job
• 8:40
  and, and started writing out the, the, the rules and, and
• 8:45
  procedures and, and consulting with various volunteers and
• 8:50
  collecting all the people, which was took a long time.
• 8:54
  But to make a Long story short, the project moved very slowly.
• 9:00
  Basically, we really wanted it to be a credible encyclopedia if
• 9:04
  it was going to be, you know, volunteer written.
• 9:07
  And we wanted to make sure that it was rigorously edited.
• 9:11
  So we had a seven step process and in the end it was just too
• 9:16
  much and people weren't really into it.
• 9:18
  So I started looking around for ways of adding new content and
• 9:26
  in the end, and that was like the fall of 2000.
• 9:31
  In the end, right at I guess it was January 2nd, 2001, a friend
• 9:40
  told me about wikis, which are these websites.
• 9:43
  Anybody can, anybody who looks at the website can press an edit
• 9:47
  button and edit the page that they're looking at, hit save and
• 9:53
  the the changes are made. They immediately go live.
• 9:56
  It was crazy idea of course, and I, my friend was very good at
• 10:05
  explaining why it can work, why it doesn't just result in a lot
• 10:13
  of graffiti and, and you know, digital vandalism and stuff like
• 10:17
  that. So I immediately thought this is
• 10:20
  a way to add large amounts of content to Wikipedia or sorry to
• 10:27
  Newpedia, but the, the editors that I had collected for
• 10:32
  Newpedia were not into that idea at all.
• 10:37
  And so we decided we need to launch it under its own domain
• 10:43
  name and a different identity with different, I guess,
• 10:49
  leaders, I suppose. Of course I was going to be
• 10:51
  leading both of the projects and so I came up with the name
• 10:56
  Wikipedia. And so between January 2nd and
• 11:01
  January 15, we, we had already submitted the idea a live
• 11:06
  website to the New Pedia people. They were not interested into
• 11:11
  it, in it. And so, so we, we came up with
• 11:15
  that new domain name, launched it January 15, 2001 and it just
• 11:22
  took off. We had already collected like
• 11:24
  2000 people for New Pedia to work on New Pedia, and in the
• 11:30
  next several months it collected many hundreds of articles.
• 11:35
  By the end of that year was 20,000 articles.
• 11:39
  And yeah, yeah. I mean, that's it's crazy
• 11:43
  because of course new PDA kind of had, you know, more of like I
• 11:47
  would consider an ivory tower expert model, right.
• 11:49
  And then, you know, Wiki was kind of the Wild West, you know,
• 11:53
  did you have a moment? Kind of what I got to ask you,
• 11:56
  was it pure optimism or did you secretly bet maybe on chaos
• 12:00
  breeding clarity? Did you think that, yeah, this
• 12:03
  can work when you got the first sample and you thought, I think
• 12:05
  the way the Internet's working, this can really be something?
• 12:09
  I was, I was excited about excited about it within the
• 12:12
  first couple of weeks, like when people started writing a lot of
• 12:15
  articles, even though a lot of the first ones were just like
• 12:19
  one or two or three paragraphs, you know, and they weren't
• 12:23
  necessarily that meaty. A few people started writing
• 12:25
  meaty stuff right away. But it was exciting because
• 12:29
  there was a lot more content within a few weeks with
• 12:33
  especially within a few months. And there was on after a year
• 12:37
  working on Neupedia, but it wasn't as good.
• 12:41
  And the plan was that we were going to use Neupedia to edit
• 12:46
  the the output of Wikipedia. They were going to, they were
• 12:50
  supposed to work in tandem. But in the end, basically Jimmy
• 12:55
  Wales, he he's like just disgusted with with new pedia
• 13:01
  had no desire to, to support it. I wanted to continue to, to like
• 13:06
  support it, but he, he was paying the bills.
• 13:10
  So, you know, he, he wouldn't even let me buy it later, like
• 13:16
  after a couple of years, he just essentially wanted Newpedia to
• 13:22
  die. Wikipedia took on a life of its
• 13:25
  own, though. And I was, I was very excited.
• 13:27
  I mean, I was amazed at how I. Was shocked at the quality of
• 13:31
  the entries, knowing that it was independent journalists and I
• 13:33
  guess independent editors you could call it.
• 13:35
  I was so impressed. Sometimes you, you would pull
• 13:38
  something up and you'd be the detail would be, you know this
• 13:41
  long and you'd be like wow. And then and then it would be
• 13:44
  hyperlinked and you could find other listings that would really
• 13:47
  just clarify it, You know, You know, George, I know we were
• 13:51
  talking about the original vision of Wikipedia.
• 13:54
  Naming the beast? Is that what we're talking
• 13:56
  about? Lance?
• 13:57
  Listen, I said you you coined it Wikipedia, right?
• 14:00
  This is, and we all know it's a mash up of wiki and
• 14:03
  encyclopedia. However, if you would have known
• 14:07
  it would have one day eclipsed the brick for the Canon
• 14:10
  Britannica Britannica and outlast your like, listen,
• 14:13
  you're own involvement. You're not involved with it no
• 14:14
  more. I don't know why, but would you
• 14:16
  have picked something snappier? I don't know, like know it all
• 14:19
  net or truth love. I mean, does the name still
• 14:22
  invoke for you about I don't know the project?
• 14:24
  So what? Tell us something, Larry.
• 14:28
  I don't know. I'm not like a branding expert.
• 14:31
  I didn't think that hard about it, to be honest.
• 14:33
  I thought, OK, well, it's a wiki and it's an encyclopedia and so
• 14:38
  it's a Wikipedia. It was just seemed obvious.
• 14:41
  I, we considered some other names, but I, I, I felt like it
• 14:47
  was a kind of an unserious side project of new Pedia in the
• 14:56
  first couple of months, right. But after that, it was very
• 14:59
  clear that it was like taking on a life of its own.
• 15:01
  It was going to be something that would succeed potentially
• 15:06
  without Neupedia. That was clear by just six
• 15:10
  months in. And by the end of the year, it
• 15:12
  was very clear that that, you know, this was now the the tale
• 15:16
  that was swagging the dog. Yeah.
• 15:18
  So, you know, you, you always had that neutral point of view
• 15:22
  policy, you know, did you, were you able to embed anything in
• 15:25
  there to ensure that maybe it, excuse me, that it didn't
• 15:28
  devolve in potentially a digital Tower of Babel?
• 15:32
  I mean, 6,000,000 English articles so fast.
• 15:35
  I mean, it blew up. Yeah.
• 15:41
  Originally, I mean, the idea was we wanted there to be kind of
• 15:45
  an, A global Tower of Babel. Yes, we we wanted it to be weird
• 15:54
  and diverse and extremely global, right?
• 15:59
  In a good sense, right where where individual cultures from
• 16:06
  around the world and their ideas are actually respected.
• 16:09
  I don't really think it works that way anymore.
• 16:13
  But nevertheless, that was the, that was the original idea and
• 16:17
  the original vision. They, the whole idea was behind
• 16:20
  neutrality was to bring people together who have radically
• 16:24
  different points of view so that they can all record their
• 16:31
  different takes on in in many cases, radically different
• 16:35
  takes. And so it wasn't supposed to be
• 16:38
  like some average between left and right as if all topics in an
• 16:43
  encyclopedia are political. It doesn't work that way when
• 16:46
  you're dealing with a general encyclopedia.
• 16:47
  There's a lot of non political topics.
• 16:50
  But the point is, there's a lot of different perspectives from,
• 16:53
  again, all around the world, from different philosophies,
• 16:56
  different religions and and so forth.
• 17:00
  Making them all work together required neutrality.
• 17:03
  That's one of the main reasons why the the policy exists.
• 17:10
  You know, so, so I guess my question is, you know, Fast
• 17:14
  forward Wikipedia, of course, has gone from kind of a very,
• 17:18
  very unique upstart to what I think $185 million endowment
• 17:22
  powerhouse. Did your first sense, like when
• 17:25
  did your first sense that it was shifting from maybe
• 17:26
  collaborative playground, a bureaucratic fortress?
• 17:29
  Was there a moment kind of when, I don't know, the, the, maybe
• 17:34
  the anonymous admins or the ignore all rules inside joke
• 17:36
  turned into kind of a shield for insiders?
• 17:38
  Was there a feeling that that was happening?
• 17:42
  Yeah. Well, I'll tell you, they lost
• 17:45
  the ability to pay me early on because basically they lost a
• 17:49
  big contract with, with Google. And, and so there was a time for
• 17:57
  a couple of years when essentially there weren't any
• 18:02
  administrators and it was essentially leaderless except
• 18:06
  for Jimmy Wales who might step in from time to time.
• 18:09
  It was a very small project, despite having a lot of articles
• 18:12
  and like just growing like gangbusters.
• 18:15
  It wasn't until like 2004, 2005 when it really exploded onto the
• 18:20
  world scene. And, and like Jimmy Wales and I
• 18:23
  were both getting a lot of interviews just trying to
• 18:26
  explain what is this thing. But even after that it was still
• 18:31
  this very fresh faced new project that was for many years
• 18:41
  I would say anti establishment, right.
• 18:45
  And the bureaucracy as such didn't really solidify until, I
• 18:53
  would say sometime between 2005 and 2010, if we're talking about
• 18:58
  the history, if that's, if that's what you're asking, but
• 19:01
  that's, that's when it happened. I would say that by about 2010,
• 19:06
  I would have described the bias that was evident on Wikipedia as
• 19:11
  being similar to that of the BBC or the New York Times.
• 19:14
  So basically establishment left or center left anyway.
• 19:20
  And I, I would describe, I would have described and did describe
• 19:25
  the management, the anonymous management of the the editorial
• 19:31
  side of Wikipedia of as being essentially like a bureaucracy.
• 19:39
  Whereas in the earliest days I I was very worried that it was
• 19:45
  turning into just an absolute free for all anarchy it it
• 19:51
  really started to lock down I would say again by about 2010.
• 19:59
  Yeah, that was an interesting period because you can start to
• 20:01
  see the transition. George, what are we going to
• 20:05
  say? I couldn't see you wanted to
• 20:07
  say. I can tell George's face.
• 20:08
  He's having a thought. So he's going in here.
• 20:10
  Larry. I don't know what he's.
• 20:11
  Thinking I was, I was. I get I get caught up my
• 20:14
  thoughts sometimes, but you know, let's let's go step
• 20:17
  further. So well, I'm going to call it
• 20:19
  the the bias blind spot, right? So I mean, you've called out
• 20:22
  Wikipedia's left-leaning tilt right as a slow poison.
• 20:26
  They're blacklist and conservatives while while
• 20:30
  cozying up to the globalist, academic, the second and the
• 20:33
  progressive. You know their views.
• 20:35
  Right, right. When the now you're a
• 20:37
  philosopher, right? You took philosophy now with
• 20:40
  your philosopher's eye. Is is this inevitable in any
• 20:43
  crowdsourced truth machine, or did it stem from failure to
• 20:47
  enforce your neutrality manifesto?
• 20:51
  It's a good question, basically, yeah.
• 20:55
  The way that I described the the perspective that they are
• 20:59
  enforcing, sometimes brutally on Wikipedia today, I describe it
• 21:06
  as gasp, globalist, academic, secular and progressive.
• 21:12
  So it's just something that came to me.
• 21:14
  I was, I was, I was writing the nine theses.
• 21:17
  So if you go to larrysanger.org, you go to the top of the the
• 21:22
  landing page, there is a link to 9 theses on Wikipedia.
• 21:26
  And I developed that in essay 2 and essay 4.
• 21:30
  This idea that Wikipedia has a gasp perspective now it's no
• 21:35
  longer a, a neutral point of view.
• 21:38
  They, they like to think that it is, but it's not.
• 21:42
  Yeah. But your question is, were were
• 21:47
  they stuck with that? Was it inevitable?
• 21:52
  I think it's inevitable only in the sense that the left is
• 21:56
  really motivated and practiced at what they do.
• 22:02
  And you know, in analysis of of the new left, what they say is.
• 22:15
  Well listen, if if bias is human then why pretend encyclopedias
• 22:20
  aren't? What's that?
• 22:22
  If if bias is human, why pretend encyclopedias aren't?
• 22:28
  Well, look, I think that it's possible for really skilled
• 22:33
  journalists to write unbiased stuff.
• 22:36
  We can all I agree when there's a really good news article or a
• 22:42
  really good textbook that just gives an even handed fair
• 22:47
  presentation of the issues and allows you to make up your own
• 22:51
  mind. It's difficult though, when you
• 22:54
  have a completely open project. And what I was about to say is
• 22:59
  that the left is making a a, a, a a, what do they call it?
• 23:05
  A March through the institutions, right?
• 23:08
  And Wikipedia is one of the institutions that they
• 23:10
  deliberately have marched through.
• 23:14
  It would have required foresight.
• 23:17
  We should have thought a lot harder about the fact that they
• 23:20
  would do that and taken special care to to just set up processes
• 23:28
  and whatever to to keep that from being the case yes yes, I
• 23:33
  mean basically, if you didn't have some special way to ensure
• 23:37
  that it remain neutral I I I think they'll just keep pushing
• 23:43
  and pushing until it reflects the bias that that they want it
• 23:47
  to reflect. I'll.
• 23:48
  Tell you, I agree with that statement so much.
• 23:50
  It rings so true on this show because when we do political
• 23:55
  shows, as an example, we're talking about politics.
• 23:57
  We always go to after both sides of the aisle.
• 23:59
  But it's very clear that the bias machine that's in
• 24:02
  mainstream media and the narrative control, even if you
• 24:05
  look at some of the funding that got funneled out through USAID
• 24:07
  and what they paid for, there was no neutral payments coming
• 24:10
  out of USAID when Doge started to discover them.
• 24:13
  Everything was left-leaning. Lots of money, millions and
• 24:16
  millions of dollars in use. Once the narrative was
• 24:19
  determined, whether it's negative about Larry Sanger or
• 24:21
  negative about Lance Miniatio George Valentin, that's the
• 24:25
  narrative, right? So they propel it.
• 24:26
  They created it at the higher levels.
• 24:28
  Call it whatever you want, deep state cabal.
• 24:30
  I don't care what name you give it because at the end of the
• 24:32
  day, I'm not sure that isn't too a nefarious a title, but the
• 24:35
  intent is to control the power. So when it comes to narrative or
• 24:39
  bias control, they decide that they're going to write a story
• 24:42
  about Larry or write a story about Lance and it goes through
• 24:45
  everything. So Wikipedia being the go to
• 24:47
  source for this entire time period, it makes sense to me
• 24:51
  that they they said, OK, hey, while we're doing this, we're
• 24:53
  going to write an article particle in the New York Times
• 24:55
  and Washington Post and let's make sure we go and have our
• 24:57
  approved editor over at Wiki. Go ahead and go in there.
• 25:01
  And you know, Hammer Lance Miliotra, let's make sure that
• 25:04
  his we put in there a bunch of negative stuff towards the end
• 25:07
  of his report. And it's interesting.
• 25:09
  You almost wish you could have had somebody.
• 25:11
  And again, with the volume that was coming in, you really needed
• 25:14
  AI quantum computing. You're almost seem like where it
• 25:16
  could have said it could have read it and it could have sent
• 25:19
  back just a single rejected update bias and if they wanted
• 25:23
  to resubmit, they could. But it's but it's interesting.
• 25:26
  You didn't have quantum computing, you didn't have AI.
• 25:29
  And you know, you would hope that you always hope for the
• 25:32
  best, but expect the worst sometimes when it comes to
• 25:34
  media, because we see it, you know, we get we're we're pretty
• 25:37
  fortunate. We have a lot of great sources
• 25:39
  in Washington, DC and a lot of great sources around the globe.
• 25:42
  And we hear about what the actual story is.
• 25:44
  And then you kind of see it roll out into the media and you're
• 25:47
  like, this isn't even close to what happened.
• 25:49
  Kind of like what you saw the BBC do recently with the Trump
• 25:52
  video where they edited kind of what you saw with 60 minutes.
• 25:55
  And Kamala Harris is an example, you know, or what they did with
• 25:59
  Joe Biden, you know, not letting him really go out in public
• 26:01
  because he was having a problem, problem with dementia and
• 26:03
  Alzheimer's. You know, it's, it's
• 26:05
  complicated. The neutrality of reporting has
• 26:08
  disappeared. I I feel sometimes you end up
• 26:11
  doing like our show, we're very, we're very neutral.
• 26:13
  We'll go after everybody. We don't care.
• 26:15
  What I want is a great country. I want the greatest country in
• 26:17
  the world. So whoever's not doing that
• 26:19
  doesn't matter whether it's this administration or a different
• 26:21
  one or people that are saying the wrong thing, we'll go after
• 26:24
  him and we'll say this isn't right.
• 26:25
  I don't agree with it. Do you find yourself knowing?
• 26:29
  That you created. Probably 1 of the biggest
• 26:31
  cultural icons, especially that period.
• 26:33
  And even now you ever find yourself thinking, God, I wish
• 26:36
  maybe we could have had AI because you're a technology guy.
• 26:40
  Maybe then it could have looked, it could have read the article
• 26:42
  when it got submitted and boom, it could have got rejected by
• 26:45
  us. And then they would have had to
• 26:46
  neutralize all the, you know, they would have just reported
• 26:49
  from a neutral position. Do you think AI might have been
• 26:51
  an amazing thing had you had that during this period, I mean.
• 26:56
  If we had launched when AI was available, then clearly it would
• 27:01
  have been, it would have made use of AI from the beginning.
• 27:06
  That's clear to me, as long as it were as as AI were advanced
• 27:12
  enough at the time. But anyway, that's a that's an
• 27:16
  alt history kind of question. It's interesting, I suppose, And
• 27:21
  and how now, you know, 25 years on, Grokopedia is going to.
• 27:28
  Yeah, yeah. What do you think?
• 27:30
  I mean, do you listen? Eli's always got his hand, you
• 27:33
  know, I I understand he's even doing something with, you know,
• 27:36
  new drugs for diabetes he's doing some research on that now.
• 27:39
  This guy always seems to be involved in really interesting
• 27:42
  projects, but I think that of course, you know if you read
• 27:45
  his. When I first heard about
• 27:47
  Gracopedia, I went and read his Wikipedia and I can see why he's
• 27:49
  not thrilled about it 'cause it's not very neutral reporting
• 27:52
  about him, you know, and you want neutrality.
• 27:55
  I want neutrality in the news. I just want to hear it like it
• 27:57
  is. I don't want to hear all the
• 27:59
  opinions and the rest of it. If I turn on the news, I'm like,
• 28:01
  that would be the demise of the. Democratic Party, Lance, you
• 28:04
  know that? Well, it'd.
• 28:05
  Be the IT would be the demise, I believe, of the rhinos, the
• 28:08
  Democratic Party and maybe the people that want things to be a
• 28:11
  certain way, which I've never really been good with.
• 28:13
  I've never really, I've never liked bullies.
• 28:16
  And I often feel like the media is a bully, that they want us,
• 28:19
  they try. They want to force fetus.
• 28:20
  It's like, you know, I'm a baby strapped in a chair.
• 28:23
  And here comes that spoon. Here comes the Choo, Choo.
• 28:25
  No, you got to eat those mashed peas.
• 28:27
  No, I don't want the mashed peas.
• 28:28
  I want the mashed bananas. No, you're going to eat the
• 28:30
  mashed peas. All right, listen, you know what
• 28:32
  that music means. We're going to take a short
• 28:34
  break here on the Big Ming show, and we come back.
• 28:35
  We'll be here with Larry Sanger, founder of Wikipedia.
• 28:38
  Don't miss a minute. George Valentin, myself, Lance
• 28:41
  Bellaccio. You know how we do it on this
• 28:42
  show. We're going all in, so stay
• 28:44
  tuned. We'll be right back.
• 28:46
  Don't go nowhere. Are you ready to stand?
• 29:04
  Up for your community and support your local sheriff.
• 29:07
  Join the Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers
• 29:10
  Association have become a vital member of the Sheriff's Citizens
• 29:14
  Posse at CSP oa.org. We empower citizens like you
• 29:19
  through weekly webinars, arming you with the knowledge to back
• 29:22
  your Constitutional County Sheriff.
• 29:24
  Together, we can uphold our Constitution and ensure liberty
• 29:28
  and justice for all. Your community needs you now
• 29:31
  more than ever. Visit CSP oa.org and join the
• 29:34
  Sheriff's citizens posse today. Make a difference.
• 29:37
  Stand for freedom. That's CSP oa.org, Your country,
• 29:42
  your fight, your future. What if you could predict?
• 29:52
  Your financial future And what if you could trade on it?
• 29:56
  Introducing Block Trust IRA the future in your hands.
• 30:00
  An astonishing 88,000 millionaires were created last
• 30:03
  year from the Bitcoin boom and you can be next.
• 30:07
  Block Trust IRA is the only crypto management firm powered
• 30:10
  by AI driven strategies, ranked number one in the world by
• 30:14
  Bitcoin Magazine. The Block Trust IRA.
• 30:17
  Platform is built for everyone, from first time buyers to
• 30:20
  seasoned investors. Predictive AI technology that
• 30:24
  was once only reserved for insiders and elites is now
• 30:27
  available to you. It's time to leave the old buy
• 30:30
  and hold strategies behind. Your assets are protected with
• 30:34
  military grade security, offline cold storage and $200 million in
• 30:38
  insurance. Visit blocktrustira.com to book
• 30:42
  your free consultation and ask how to claim up to $2500 in
• 30:45
  deposit bonuses today. Bitcoin changed the game.
• 30:49
  AI changes the strategy. Hi folks, I'm here.
• 30:52
  Today to introduce you to the Prepper Bar from prepperbar.com,
• 30:56
  the most unique precious metals product we have seen in a long
• 30:59
  time. These 62g bars are perforated
• 31:02
  and easily broken down into your choice of three different sizes
• 31:06
  to fit a multitude of needs. Whether it be from asset
• 31:09
  protection from inflation, economic turmoil, or its unique
• 31:13
  utility for barter and trade, the Prepper Bar makes a perfect
• 31:17
  gift for all the precious metal lovers out there.
• 31:19
  Exclusively made here in the USA and selling out fast.
• 31:23
  Available in both gold and silver, these slim prepper bars
• 31:26
  fit neatly in your wallet and their utility enables use in any
• 31:30
  situation. Forged through rigorous.
• 31:33
  Training and honed by the finest instructors on earth, these
• 31:37
  canine units serve beside our nation's warriors as they fight
• 31:41
  to preserve who we cherish. And these warriors complete.
• 31:46
  Their duty, The Warrior Dog Foundation provides them with
• 31:49
  the home deserving of the service they've given us all at
• 31:53
  our state-of-the-art kennels. They receive rehabilitation and
• 31:56
  care suitable for heroes because that's what they are.
• 32:02
  Be a part of giving them a future today.
• 32:05
  Visit warriordogfoundation.org. All right, welcome back to The
• 32:19
  Big. Big show here we host Lance
• 32:21
  Migliacho, George Mountain and our guests Wikipedia founder.
• 32:25
  I'm not saying Co founder because it made him blush.
• 32:26
  I want to make him blush too. Larry Sanger.
• 32:29
  But listen, share this live on your social media while we're
• 32:33
  live. Help the show grow, help educate
• 32:35
  people. Hit the like the follow button
• 32:37
  and that red button. The big mafia button, $5 a month
• 32:40
  subscription truly helps out with the overhead.
• 32:42
  Little things, every little bit helps.
• 32:45
  But let me give a shout out to our sponsor, Block trustira.com.
• 32:50
  You know, they say while the financial lead have been quietly
• 32:53
  building wealth through cryptocurrency, hardworking
• 32:55
  Americans have been left behind. And that's why I'm here to tell
• 32:58
  you about Block trustira.com. They're bringing access to
• 33:01
  cryptocurrency wealth to everyday people.
• 33:03
  They're exclusive. Animus AI Trading platform works
• 33:06
  24/7 analyzing market data and executing advanced crypto
• 33:11
  strategies that go far beyond buy and hold.
• 33:15
  Now this is sophisticated tech that was once reserved only for
• 33:18
  Wall Street insides, but now it's, it's available to you.
• 33:21
  And it's no surprise this system was named #1 crypto technology
• 33:24
  Platform by Bitcoin Magazine out of more than 1500 global
• 33:28
  competitors. So whether you're a teacher, a
• 33:31
  truck driver, small business owner, or retiree like Larry
• 33:35
  sitting back watching inflation eat away at your savings, block
• 33:38
  trust Iras, Advance Animus AI gives everyday Americans the
• 33:41
  same advantages as a financial elite.
• 33:45
  Clients are already seeing over 250% returns on their
• 33:48
  investments, all with military grade security and up to 200
• 33:51
  million in insurance. Your wealth is fully protected.
• 33:54
  So don't wait. You can visit Big Make
• 33:56
  crypto.com today and see how you can join in this financial
• 34:00
  revolution once again. That's big.
• 34:03
  Make crypto.com today and guess what, you can get up to $2500 of
• 34:09
  free crypto. That's right, 2500.
• 34:12
  I got the QR code. Take a screenshot, save your
• 34:14
  photo files. Now you all look at Larry Sanger
• 34:19
  right there. You would never think he would
• 34:20
  be throttled or banned on X. But the man, what is he?
• 34:25
  Probably still is we all are. I haven't got my account back.
• 34:28
  All our other accounts are are throttled and now he's listen.
• 34:34
  I like Elon Musk, he saved helped.
• 34:38
  Save free speech. Somewhat, but let's face it,
• 34:41
  he's coming out with Grokopedia. But you know, his platform X
• 34:44
  still has a ton of problems. Is it truly free speech?
• 34:47
  They're still banning accounts or not letting everybody get
• 34:50
  their accounts back? And what's your take on
• 34:54
  Grokopedia? On Grokopedia.
• 34:59
  Well, I can tell you that it's measurably at least as far as
• 35:04
  ten articles go. The ten that I looked at
• 35:09
  considerably more neutral than than Wikipedia.
• 35:16
  It's not a very big sample size, need to look at a lot more
• 35:21
  articles. But, and that isn't my opinion,
• 35:25
  that's the opinion of ChatGPT. So I basically fed articles on
• 35:30
  the same topics from Wikipedia and from Grokopedia, and on
• 35:34
  average the Grokopedia articles were slightly biased and on
• 35:41
  average the Wikipedia articles were.
• 35:45
  More severely. Biased, and I think that's a.
• 35:48
  Great way to do it, of course. You know, even AI.
• 35:52
  You have to assume that. The person doing the programming
• 35:55
  is intelligent as it is. There is the potential for bias.
• 35:59
  I'm always concerned. I'm cautiously optimistic.
• 36:01
  My problem is I still think there's foxes in the hen house
• 36:04
  over at X. I've tried to deal with support
• 36:07
  on on what I would consider shadow banning or ghost banning
• 36:11
  on the accounts that I have with George.
• 36:13
  I think we, like I said, we have about 400 and some followers,
• 36:16
  400 and some 1000 followers in the two accounts.
• 36:19
  And I don't see the impressions based on what it is.
• 36:21
  And of course, we have a naturally syndicated radio show.
• 36:23
  We have this show, we have the number one crypto show on
• 36:26
  Rumble. So a lot of optics, a lot more
• 36:28
  than the average person. So you would think the
• 36:30
  combination of promoting our accounts, which we do constantly
• 36:33
  on all our media would propel those counts to a really higher
• 36:36
  level. I don't see that the suppression
• 36:38
  is real and it concerns me with gracopedia.
• 36:41
  I'd love to see it completely neutral.
• 36:43
  I'd, I'd love to see Wikipedia draw the line and sand and go,
• 36:46
  hey, we're going to go through, we're going to have AI analyze
• 36:49
  everything in our platform and anything biased is going to be
• 36:52
  removed. The editing, the editing will be
• 36:55
  removed and it'll become neutral.
• 36:56
  It would be great to do that because, you know, Wikipedia is
• 36:59
  kind of a standby for me. It always was for years and
• 37:02
  years and years. I don't use it a lot now, but
• 37:04
  years ago I used it all the time.
• 37:06
  I'd like to see us kind of boomerang back to that.
• 37:09
  But you you, you kind of have a recommendation that that the 9
• 37:12
  thesis is I, I read that about your 9 thesis on Wikipedia and I
• 37:15
  want you to take us walk us through this because this seems
• 37:18
  to me to be the fix. It seems like it is a solution
• 37:23
  if they would, if they would adopt these ideas.
• 37:27
  This seems like a really you could turn Wikipedia around
• 37:29
  pretty quickly quickly and with AII would have to think the
• 37:32
  editing and the and taking the bias out could be, you know,
• 37:36
  like that because ChatGPT and other platforms deep sea can
• 37:39
  grok. You could use them to really
• 37:41
  just edit very quickly if you automated it.
• 37:44
  Good point. Right, so the. 9 theses are
• 37:48
  basically my big reform proposal for Wikipedia.
• 37:53
  Nobody to my knowledge has ever made a a really general
• 37:58
  ambitious proposal for improving Wikipedia and I I don't know if
• 38:05
  we have time to go through all nine.
• 38:07
  We've got time, Larry, for you we got.
• 38:09
  Time, my friend. Yeah, enjoy the.
• 38:11
  Media. I've got the list there of the 9
• 38:12
  if you want to put that up. I'll just give you the
• 38:15
  highlights and if you want to like, you know, poke at any of
• 38:18
  them, let me know. The first one and this.
• 38:23
  By the way, if you want to like follow along, you can go to
• 38:27
  larrysanger.org, click on the first big link there and says
• 38:31
  special feature of the 9 theses and for each of the 9 theses
• 38:37
  there is a separate essay. So the whole thing, if you were
• 38:40
  to print it out, would be a short book.
• 38:43
  So #1 is end decision making by consensus.
• 38:47
  The idea is Wikipedia has this policy that says that the way
• 38:54
  that we on Wikipedia decide difficult editorial issues if
• 38:59
  people can't resolve something is is through consensus.
• 39:03
  But well, what? What if people can't actually
• 39:06
  come to a real agreement? And then then it's not really,
• 39:12
  you shouldn't call it a consensus, should you?
• 39:14
  But they nevertheless do. And and over the years, as
• 39:18
  Wikipedia has become more and more gasp in its perspective,
• 39:24
  right, it has more and more just left out a lot of of other
• 39:31
  people. And and it's just, it just adds
• 39:35
  insult to injury to say that it is somehow the community
• 39:39
  consensus that only one view holds sway on Wikipedia.
• 39:44
  A very good example actually is and this is a good example for
• 39:48
  the for the next three points as well is something that, as it
• 39:54
  happens, to my surprise, Jimmy Wales pointed out.
• 39:58
  So Wikipedia has an article called.
• 40:02
  The Gaza genocide, all right, So it Wikipedia in its own voice,
• 40:08
  in what is called Wiki voice. In other words, this is what the
• 40:12
  article itself claims is that Israel committed.
• 40:19
  Committed, perhaps, you know, it isn't now because they're
• 40:22
  they've got a ceasefire going, but it committed genocide in
• 40:28
  Gaza and and it lists a lot of claims and a lot of sources that
• 40:33
  that make this assertion. But the very title itself is
• 40:40
  something that is in dispute. And if you're going to talk
• 40:43
  about something that is truly neutral, then you have to give
• 40:48
  it a word a a a description that the competing sides can actually
• 40:55
  agree on. It has to be something given
• 40:58
  that that you have to choose some title.
• 41:00
  It can't favor one side is the point.
• 41:03
  So they say though, that that's the consensus.
• 41:05
  It's consensus of all the people that think like them.
• 41:09
  All right, all right. That that was that was an
• 41:11
  especially tricky. Topic.
• 41:13
  Because touchy. Yeah, tricky.
• 41:14
  Touchy. Well, it's not really that it's
• 41:16
  touchy. I think that, you know, and
• 41:19
  Gaza, from what I know, isn't doing it, but the Palestinians
• 41:22
  aren't doing it. But, you know, Israel's got a a
• 41:24
  very sophisticated advertising, marketing and narrative machine
• 41:30
  that they put a lot of money out into the market.
• 41:32
  There are a lot of influencers and podcasts, a lot of people
• 41:35
  that are posting that are being paid for that because it's a
• 41:38
  paid narrative. And, and, and, and I'm not, you
• 41:40
  know, I'm actually a Italian Jew.
• 41:42
  So my point is, I'm not being anti-Semitic.
• 41:44
  My thing is, is that it's really complicated because you deal
• 41:47
  with one side that's got this incredible amount of capital
• 41:50
  they put into advertising, I'd call it.
• 41:52
  And that controls a lot of the narrative.
• 41:54
  And then you've got Washington, DC with its own belief system.
• 41:56
  So it's complicated. And I'm sure that for them, Wiki
• 42:00
  is ripe fruit, right? If you can control the story and
• 42:03
  if you can organize, Yeah, you would think so.
• 42:06
  So but they're they're not. It's in.
• 42:07
  Fact. It's it's extremely biased in
• 42:10
  the opposite direction. Yeah, it really is it.
• 42:12
  That's. Interesting, didn't realize
• 42:14
  that. In other words, the Israeli
• 42:15
  view. Is simply not represented in
• 42:17
  that article at all. Now that's interesting.
• 42:19
  Right, isn't it? Because that's like a first
• 42:21
  really. I didn't realize that.
• 42:22
  I thought you were saying the opposite.
• 42:24
  So my correction. So that's interesting that that
• 42:26
  somehow that that Gaza article is so one side leaning when we
• 42:31
  really know what the real story is about what happened if you
• 42:33
  really have the research. And that's interesting to me
• 42:36
  because I would think that Israel would be really motivated
• 42:39
  about Wiki because it's an open source and they can do a lot of
• 42:42
  editing because in normal so cases, that's really what they
• 42:45
  do. Because I as an example, as an
• 42:46
  influencer as of late that has received quite a bit of money
• 42:50
  that's come out kind of behind the scenes.
• 42:52
  We've heard about got a lot of money for posting for Israel I I
• 42:56
  think Wikipedia. Is to a certain extent kind of a
• 43:00
  it's APR and intelligence and journalistic battleground,
• 43:07
  right? Yeah, I agree.
• 43:08
  So that that. Means that probably there are
• 43:11
  players in the background throwing money.
• 43:14
  Some of them win and some of them lose, right?
• 43:18
  And in this case, you know, whatever money is actually being
• 43:22
  spent by Israel, if it very much is being spent on Wikipedia,
• 43:29
  seems to well be on the losing side.
• 43:33
  But. And now we're actually getting
• 43:36
  skipping ahead to another of the 9 theses.
• 43:41
  Let's see, the second one is enable competing articles.
• 43:44
  So if Wikipedia takes a gasp point of view or gasp
• 43:48
  perspective, then shouldn't we allow other perspectives to
• 43:53
  present what they regard as neutral position on on the facts
• 44:01
  from from their perspective? It almost sounds like a
• 44:04
  contradiction. I I agree, but that's simply
• 44:09
  applying the same sort of principles Wikipedia itself now
• 44:12
  applies to the rest of the world.
• 44:14
  Wikipedia now says that the GASP framework, as I call it, is the
• 44:23
  neutral point of view. That's what they say, right?
• 44:27
  All I'm saying is, well, maybe we should allow to change the
• 44:31
  example Hindus to write articles about God and and you know, I
• 44:38
  don't know the the, the French and feminists and, you know,
• 44:43
  Protestants and and let 1000 flowers bloom.
• 44:48
  Now, I'm not saying necessarily that we should have a lot of
• 44:53
  biased articles. In fact, this isn't what I
• 44:55
  prefer. So let me move on and I'll
• 44:59
  explain why I think so. The third of the feces is
• 45:05
  abolish source blacklist. So right now if you go to
• 45:10
  Wikipedia and you go to the perennial sources page, just
• 45:15
  type that in into a search engine, Wikipedia, perennial
• 45:18
  sources, you will come to a list of media sources and you'll see
• 45:23
  various colours on the page, green and yellow and red, grey
• 45:29
  and anything that is not green essentially is being to some
• 45:34
  degree or other blacklisted. It is frowned upon as a source
• 45:40
  on Wikipedia. Anything that is red or Gray is
• 45:44
  basically not allowed on Wikipedia.
• 45:47
  Now if you look through the list, you will see that the vast
• 45:52
  majority of conservative sources now are blacklisted.
• 45:56
  Like you can't use them on Wikipedia.
• 46:00
  And that's interesting in itself because of course, yeah.
• 46:04
  You know, not so shocking is yeah.
• 46:05
  And I agree with you. It's it's like, but it's not
• 46:07
  surprising. It's strange because we see that
• 46:10
  kind of banning so much. You know which is.
• 46:14
  Awful, right? Because that, you know, those
• 46:16
  sources not being neutral really limits the the viability of
• 46:21
  Wikipedia. It really hurts the product
• 46:22
  because you just want to go there just like you would
• 46:25
  Britannica. If you read Britannica, it
• 46:27
  wasn't biased, it just gave you information.
• 46:29
  So you're like, oh, OK, great, now I understand how blood works
• 46:32
  or how the the body works or how the bowel system works or what
• 46:36
  this animal is. It was very simple and right to
• 46:38
  the point you can find the source of the information.
• 46:40
  So when you think of Wikipedia, that's what you're really want,
• 46:44
  right? 100% So the the proposal is
• 46:49
  simply that they rethink and renegotiate their policies on
• 46:55
  sourcing and they should get rid of that perennial sources page
• 46:59
  entirely and they should allow articles from conservative
• 47:06
  sources. Now who's responsible for that?
• 47:08
  Larry, how do you think that came about?
• 47:10
  Was it the community or their specific individuals that have
• 47:13
  decided this is how we're going to do it?
• 47:14
  And that's all there is to it. It's the community.
• 47:19
  That's certainly what they will tell you and from the outside,
• 47:22
  just looking at what's going on on the website, it certainly
• 47:25
  looks like it's just a community decision.
• 47:28
  So they've got a, what they call a reliable sources notice board
• 47:33
  and somebody will, you know, say, just to take a, a random
• 47:38
  example, the the Federalist and there will be a discussion of
• 47:43
  the Federalist on the reliable sources notice board.
• 47:47
  And they will open different people will say, OK, this, this
• 47:51
  is the level of approval that I think that the Federalist should
• 47:56
  have on this type of topic. And it turns out that one is is
• 48:02
  basically banned. So yeah, it's The thing is, most
• 48:09
  of the people who are contributing to Wikipedia do so
• 48:13
  using anonymous accounts. You can't tell how many are
• 48:21
  being controlled by the same people or by the same group.
• 48:24
  You can't tell who is paid, who's working for for some well
• 48:29
  paid operation. There are some accounts that are
• 48:32
  clearly doing their work full time.
• 48:35
  Some of them I'm sure are are simply, you know, public
• 48:40
  spirited retirees and things like that.
• 48:43
  People who just have a lot of time on their hand.
• 48:45
  Are you able to if you were to all right?
• 48:48
  Let's let me go like this. I'm going to call it the Larry
• 48:51
  Singer come back. If you were able to go back in
• 48:53
  there, you able to root out these people like who may be
• 48:57
  contributing or is it or is it truly totally anonymous?
• 49:00
  Like is there anybody from the old guard there?
• 49:03
  Anybody can go in there, I mean. Basically, you don't even have
• 49:07
  to make an account, right? If your IP address has been
• 49:11
  blocked by Wikipedia, then you won't won't be able to to.
• 49:16
  There's ways around that, yeah. Of course there are, yeah.
• 49:21
  Although it's, it's sometimes it's kind of hard to get around
• 49:24
  them like that, that they have VPN blockers as well.
• 49:29
  So anyway, so the point is then that basically we need to.
• 49:40
  Open up. The the number and type of
• 49:44
  sources that are permitted. I'm not saying that, you know,
• 49:47
  we need to start counting the National Enquirer as a reliable
• 49:54
  source or anything like that. That's not the point.
• 49:57
  It's just, you know, I think Fox News and the New York Post, if
• 50:04
  they can serve as source, sources of factual claims,
• 50:07
  perhaps the claims, especially if they are disputed or they're
• 50:12
  the only source, then they should be, you know, that the
• 50:18
  claims should be attributed to Fox or to the Post, Right.
• 50:23
  All right, So that enough on that number 5, revive the
• 50:27
  original neutrality policy. So I don't really know if I need
• 50:31
  to go into this in a lot of detail because this summarizes
• 50:36
  the first 3 to a great extent. But there's yeah.
• 50:42
  And and it really does get into a lot of inside baseball.
• 50:45
  I will say this. There's a lot of really good
• 50:48
  examples of extreme bias on Wikipedia, and maybe the best
• 50:56
  way to to understand what's going on with #4 is to just give
• 51:01
  an example. Like, OK, one of my favorite
• 51:06
  examples is an article called Yahweh.
• 51:09
  So that's the name of my God. That's the name of the Christian
• 51:13
  God used to be called Jehovah. A lot of people still call him
• 51:18
  Jehovah. What's the name now again?
• 51:20
  What is it? Yahweh.
• 51:21
  Yahweh. It's.
• 51:23
  It's no, no Yahweh, yes, Jesus, I mean.
• 51:26
  They say in the Bible Yahweh is Jesus Christ's name, but OK,
• 51:30
  well, well, basically. Yahweh is the name of the
• 51:34
  Trinity. It's what I would say and so
• 51:37
  anyway. But if you go and look at the
• 51:41
  article about Yahweh on Wikipedia and then this is a
• 51:46
  page that is titled that the that the entire title is simply
• 51:51
  Yahweh. That's what it's called.
• 51:53
  Then you will see an article that says Yahweh was the God of
• 51:58
  the ancient kingdoms of Judea and and Samaria, the head of a
• 52:07
  polytheistic pantheon, a God of War and weather.
• 52:13
  It's like, what the hell? Yeah, that's what I that's.
• 52:17
  What I was thinking, I was like, well, that's an interesting
• 52:19
  start. Maybe it improves as you get
• 52:21
  through the rest of it. But The thing is.
• 52:25
  What it's trying to do is explain a secular theory of the
• 52:30
  origin of the built of Yahweh, as they call it, right?
• 52:37
  And of course they're not going to say, well, God revealed
• 52:41
  himself. He said I am that I am or you
• 52:45
  can refer to me as Yahweh right? And they're not going to say
• 52:51
  that they'll they what they ought to do and I don't know if
• 52:54
  they do any. I pulled it up on the page you
• 52:56
  want. Any particular?
• 52:58
  You want me to pull to on here? I'm sorry, I'll have Yahweh on
• 53:02
  Wikipedia. I pulled it up.
• 53:03
  For. Everybody to see what we were
• 53:05
  talking about. Yeah, so.
• 53:09
  You know, they, they are not going to present the, the
• 53:14
  Bible's account as as fact stating now that I understand,
• 53:19
  right, because it's supposed to be a neutral article and not
• 53:23
  everybody believes that. Of course, a lot of people do
• 53:26
  think that they, the belief in Yahweh had a naturalistic
• 53:32
  origin. In other words, you know, it,
• 53:35
  it's just sort of psychological historical processes and it
• 53:40
  didn't come from God himself. Fine, but at least they should
• 53:46
  share the view of the actual Christians and Jews whose God
• 53:53
  Yahweh is. But they don't.
• 53:55
  They don't do that. Yeah, you would think.
• 53:58
  And you would think the historical.
• 53:59
  Premise they'd kind of maybe even historically go through
• 54:02
  where the first time Yahweh appears in any kind of writings
• 54:05
  or words the first time. And you would think historically
• 54:07
  they'd come down and kind of say, well here's where the
• 54:09
  judeo-christian beliefs came in here's where the Jewish beliefs
• 54:13
  came in. Yeah, you you would think that,
• 54:14
  but the way that was described, it almost sounded like the Hindu
• 54:17
  God of War in a way. It kind of it kind of made me
• 54:21
  you. Know I was thinking wow that's.
• 54:22
  Pretty brutal right out of the cage.
• 54:25
  It's it's all speculative too you.
• 54:27
  Know this is just this is just some theory.
• 54:29
  They have no great evidence for this.
• 54:32
  The the biggest source of their evidence for this is actually
• 54:37
  from the Bible itself. And of course, they have to
• 54:41
  simply ignore a lot of the evidence that is in the Bible in
• 54:44
  order to come up with this theory.
• 54:46
  But we're the point point is not really about what what these
• 54:49
  secular scholars think about Yahweh.
• 54:51
  The point is, is that Wikipedia restricts its discussion of
• 54:59
  Yahweh to that gasp point of view, globalist, academic,
• 55:04
  secular and progressive. So in this on this page, it's
• 55:08
  the academic and secular perspective that holds sway.
• 55:14
  And and so they're not even going to report about the, I
• 55:21
  don't know, the sorts of views that are taught at seminaries or
• 55:28
  that are taught in religions and not just, you know, obviously
• 55:33
  it's not just Christianity, it's also Judaism.
• 55:36
  So anyway, so I just want to point to them out.
• 55:40
  So when you. Just do whatever Google search
• 55:43
  right and you put the name Yahweh.
• 55:45
  Wikipedia has competition now because your first things coming
• 55:48
  up is AI and and it gives you actually what?
• 55:51
  You're talking about. That, you know, the meaning,
• 55:53
  where it came from and stuff. And then if you go down a little
• 55:55
  bit, there's Wikipedia. Oops.
• 55:57
  But you can even do a deeper dive into AI mode.
• 56:00
  So I mean, Wikipedia's got some competition now with AI.
• 56:04
  They're going to have to clean up their act over there.
• 56:06
  Maybe that's right. Can I ask you this, Larry?
• 56:10
  Do you know? Because I don't.
• 56:11
  I didn't look this. Up I don't know is the traffic
• 56:13
  down on Wikipedia since the advent of AI being used by the
• 56:17
  public, there was a news report. About a month ago, as I recall,
• 56:23
  where they said that that was observed for the first time.
• 56:29
  It wasn't down by much, but it, it, it had dropped a bit.
• 56:35
  That is certainly what I would expect too.
• 56:39
  They're, they're going to be people who who just find,
• 56:44
  they'll just continue doing what they have always done and
• 56:46
  they'll continue to use Wikipedia.
• 56:49
  Sure. But but yeah, I mean, a lot of
• 56:54
  people are as soon as as soon as I turn people on to AI, you
• 56:59
  know, they they're like using it from then from that point
• 57:03
  forward because it's just so easy.
• 57:05
  Except for my wife. My wife just just got into it.
• 57:08
  She isn't, you know something. There is a stubbornness when it
• 57:11
  comes. To the use of it because I've
• 57:12
  recommended some people I just don't want to bother with it,
• 57:15
  but it is incredible that you can ask it, you know, what
• 57:18
  should my caloric intake be? You know, hey, I've got diabetes
• 57:21
  and I want a solution or hey, you know, I just got sued and I,
• 57:25
  I want I here's the document. Can you tell me, you know, is
• 57:28
  this a legitimate concern I should have do it?
• 57:30
  Can I handle this on my own? I mean, you know, people are
• 57:33
  doing it for medical, they're doing it for legal, they're
• 57:35
  doing it for their personal life.
• 57:36
  And of course, if I was going to source some information
• 57:39
  nowadays, I would just dump it into AI because it would give me
• 57:41
  more of what I wanted. Let's go to number six here.
• 57:45
  I want to talk about this, reveal who the Wikipedia leaders
• 57:48
  are, right? So.
• 57:52
  I I collected what I thought were the most powerful people by
• 58:01
  role on Wikipedia. So three different groups.
• 58:05
  When you add up those people, there are 62 of them.
• 58:09
  Of those, 6285% are anonymous and they go by account names
• 58:16
  that I can't remember very many of the names, but they they
• 58:21
  sound silly. The usernames it sound like old
• 58:26
  chat room handles from the 1990s, which is what they're
• 58:30
  based on right? And and yet these are some of
• 58:34
  the most powerful accounts in media period.
• 58:38
  Wow. No, think about it.
• 58:40
  We're talking. About.
• 58:41
  What, which is the like, the single most powerful media
• 58:48
  source of its kind? It's more powerful than any
• 58:51
  single newspaper. It's probably not more powerful
• 58:56
  than than Google or X or or Facebook, but it's in it.
• 59:02
  It's at that level, right? Wikipedia forms opinions.
• 59:06
  It's sort of sets the standards of what is supposed to be true
• 59:13
  for a lot of people. It's used by Siri, it's used by
• 59:17
  AI, it's used to train AI, and people continue to to consult it
• 59:24
  directly. And yet 85% of the most powerful
• 59:29
  people who consult Wikipedia or who depend on Wikipedia for
• 59:33
  their information are anonymous. Now, you might think this
• 59:37
  doesn't matter. These are just like they're,
• 59:40
  they're, they're hobbyists. They're, you know, college
• 59:44
  students, grad students, retirees.
• 59:46
  This is what I used to think, you know, and it was probably
• 59:49
  true back in like 2004 or something like that.
• 59:54
  I don't think it's true anymore because there's way too much at
• 59:57
  stake, right? So, you know, I have been,
• 1:00:04
  they've gotten mad at me on Wikipedia itself.
• 1:00:08
  They, they've, they've pushed back hard on #6 but I say those
• 1:00:15
  the people who occupy the positions in the power 62, they
• 1:00:19
  shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous.
• 1:00:21
  They should go by their real names and then they should be
• 1:00:24
  indemnified by the Wikimedia Foundation.
• 1:00:27
  So they if they're sued, then then they don't have to like
• 1:00:31
  lose their the all powerful ghost author.
• 1:00:34
  Is dangerous, right? Because this is what we're
• 1:00:36
  talking about. Because if we gave them ratings,
• 1:00:38
  we took those people and we said, OK, here's all the ghost
• 1:00:41
  authors and the rating is biased 5 stars, biased 4 stars.
• 1:00:46
  If they had that kind of a rating, it would discredit what
• 1:00:49
  they're writing. But right now they're just, you
• 1:00:50
  know that they're the, they're the all powerful demigods of
• 1:00:53
  Wikipedia, right? Yes, yes.
• 1:00:56
  And I'm not saying that. Other Wikipedia's are not also
• 1:01:00
  anonymous. They are, and the other
• 1:01:03
  Wikipedians are are just as anonymous as the leaders.
• 1:01:07
  But the point is, you would think that the people at the top
• 1:01:10
  of the heap would be more responsible.
• 1:01:12
  They would more be more accountable.
• 1:01:13
  They would be the adults in the room.
• 1:01:15
  But they're not. Yeah.
• 1:01:18
  And and but then you have to wonder.
• 1:01:20
  Maybe it's you. Know without, without inferring
• 1:01:24
  too much or maybe maybe they're paid guns for hire, you know,
• 1:01:27
  you know, maybe that's why they want to stay anonymous, because
• 1:01:30
  I see stuff sometimes. If you look around, if you, if
• 1:01:33
  you look at Wikipedia, I've looked at it years ago.
• 1:01:34
  I don't know if it's still true. You used to be able to hire
• 1:01:36
  Wikipedia editors on Fiverr and indeed and they would author,
• 1:01:41
  you know, whatever needed to be submitted.
• 1:01:43
  Now you could probably use AI now you could probably do it on
• 1:01:45
  ChatGPT and get a better article.
• 1:01:47
  But the point was you can hire them and they would craft an
• 1:01:49
  article, they would submit it and then it would be approved or
• 1:01:52
  not approved, whatever it was, and they would edit till it got
• 1:01:54
  approved, you know. So the question is, are some of
• 1:01:57
  those guys guns for hire? What are you, What are your
• 1:02:00
  internal thoughts? Do you think that's true?
• 1:02:02
  I think that considering that. Wikipedia itself has caught
• 1:02:08
  many, many rank and file editors in the act of paid editing.
• 1:02:15
  Considering that one can prove that the the PR firms that are
• 1:02:23
  editing Wikipedia are bringing in millions and millions of
• 1:02:26
  dollars a year. Who knows how much it might be,
• 1:02:29
  you know, in the hundreds of 1,000,000.
• 1:02:31
  It's a it's a lot of money. This is this is what the people
• 1:02:35
  who have looked into it. That's it.
• 1:02:36
  Larry, we're going to form APR firm you.
• 1:02:38
  Myself and George, we're going to start doing it.
• 1:02:40
  We'll, we'll be raking it in, man.
• 1:02:43
  Larry, is there any chance of you going?
• 1:02:44
  Let's do it. Is there any chance of you going
• 1:02:46
  back in there and cleaning Wikipedia up like what's what
• 1:02:49
  I'm trying to do? I mean, that's that's the whole
• 1:02:52
  point. I mean, you're like, OK, I'm
• 1:02:53
  going to say it right. You're you're one of the.
• 1:02:55
  You're the Co founder, right? So why can't you?
• 1:02:57
  What's like are you not allowed? Oh, they don't like me there,
• 1:03:00
  for one thing. Well, we don't like them, do
• 1:03:02
  you? You got back up.
• 1:03:03
  Where, where? Where are they based out?
• 1:03:05
  Do they have offices? No, it doesn't matter where
• 1:03:08
  their. Offices are, yeah.
• 1:03:09
  Well, it does if we go there. We're talking about.
• 1:03:13
  The offices of the Wikimedia Foundation and those would be in
• 1:03:16
  San Francisco, but the, the, the Wikimedia Foundation is not in
• 1:03:22
  control of, or at least they say they're not in control of what's
• 1:03:27
  going on on Wikipedia. It's just like any sort of
• 1:03:31
  journalistic enterprise, right? They're supposed to be this,
• 1:03:34
  this wall between the the owners and The Newsroom, right?
• 1:03:40
  So in the same way, there is a big wall between the platform
• 1:03:47
  owners of the Wikimedia Foundation on the one hand and
• 1:03:50
  the just the the rank and file editors who are supposed to not
• 1:03:57
  be paid. So if I were to have some
• 1:04:01
  position at the Wikimedia Foundation, that wouldn't give
• 1:04:05
  me any more authority over Wikipedia itself.
• 1:04:09
  The only way that I could get any sort of official authority
• 1:04:14
  over Wikipedia would be as if I were to be made into an
• 1:04:21
  administrator. And then after I am an
• 1:04:24
  administrator, they can add other sorts of of rights in the
• 1:04:28
  system. Has anybody?
• 1:04:30
  Has anybody ever hacked Wikipedia?
• 1:04:33
  Hacked. Yeah.
• 1:04:34
  Has it ever? Been hacked?
• 1:04:39
  Not to my knowledge. Maybe it's about.
• 1:04:41
  Maybe it's time that it does get.
• 1:04:43
  Hacked. That's what we need.
• 1:04:44
  We hack it. We write a.
• 1:04:46
  Chat ChatGPT, we don't have anything.
• 1:04:48
  I don't know what you're. Talking about No, no, no.
• 1:04:51
  I'm. Just saying, here's my.
• 1:04:52
  Here's my idea. You hack it, you write this.
• 1:04:54
  Chat, chat, ChatGPT bot, and you have it run.
• 1:04:57
  Just set it loose. You block all other editors,
• 1:05:00
  right? You block especially the top.
• 1:05:02
  And then we just let the chat bot cut through and rewrite all
• 1:05:04
  of Wikipedia into a neutral format.
• 1:05:06
  That's it. Overnight.
• 1:05:07
  The point is, it's not a an. Institutional secret that the
• 1:05:12
  Wikimedia Foundation serves servers are are holding like the
• 1:05:16
  identities of all the people they don't know they don't know
• 1:05:19
  and and if you no, I mean. If you have the IPS and stuff,
• 1:05:25
  you can find them. I can find them.
• 1:05:29
  They they there is a role in the Wikipedia system called the
• 1:05:34
  check user is the people who can look up the IP address, the
• 1:05:38
  Internet Protocol address. OK, you can use that and and
• 1:05:42
  that'll give you a clue, but it's only a clue and it isn't
• 1:05:47
  going to, you know, disclose where the people are.
• 1:05:50
  You know, that's not going to solve anything like doing what
• 1:05:54
  you're talking about doxing. That's with no, I don't want to
• 1:05:57
  dox anybody. No, I'm not looking to.
• 1:05:58
  Dox anybody? I'm not calling.
• 1:06:00
  You're already accused. No, he's looking for neutral
• 1:06:03
  reporting is what Jordan hopes to dox everybody.
• 1:06:09
  No, no, no, I don't. I don't.
• 1:06:10
  First of all, I don't. I don't.
• 1:06:11
  Believe in doxing Larry no. So what I would like to do is
• 1:06:16
  get in there, blocked all those people from being able to enter
• 1:06:19
  your information and go like Lance's route.
• 1:06:21
  Make a ChatGPT bot and fix it all up.
• 1:06:25
  Yeah, make it neutral. I don't want to dox any.
• 1:06:27
  But here's the idea you. Had #7 you talk about?
• 1:06:29
  Let the public rate the articles, Larry.
• 1:06:32
  And that seems to be a great idea.
• 1:06:33
  To me, that seems like an amazing opportunity because
• 1:06:36
  people can say, oh, this article is garbage, or I like it, or I
• 1:06:39
  think it's accurate or I think it's completely inaccurate.
• 1:06:41
  Yeah. Well, in order for that to
• 1:06:43
  happen. Right.
• 1:06:45
  There would have to be some means of adopting really radical
• 1:06:52
  changes in the Wikipedia system, and I don't see that happening.
• 1:06:58
  Like thesis #9 is adopt A legislative process.
• 1:07:03
  Wikipedia lacks any method of major reform.
• 1:07:09
  It needs something like a constitutional convention, which
• 1:07:12
  it has never had. It has nothing remotely
• 1:07:16
  resembling an editorial assembly.
• 1:07:18
  It just doesn't exist. So it it at a certain level of
• 1:07:23
  description, it, it, it remains a total anarchy, right.
• 1:07:28
  So if you say, OK, let's just like en masse rewrite a bunch of
• 1:07:37
  articles using AI, the, the rank and file editors would be up in
• 1:07:41
  arms. They'd like read the same, OK,
• 1:07:44
  we're going to fork. We're going to like make the,
• 1:07:46
  the pure Wikipedia. And they're, you know, there's
• 1:07:49
  always that sort of threat hanging over their heads.
• 1:07:53
  Well, the the editor overlords, you know.
• 1:07:55
  What and and I have to say, this ultimate power corrupts, right?
• 1:07:59
  So the fact that these overlords can go in there and, and, and a
• 1:08:03
  whim, you know, take any, you know, article they want to take
• 1:08:08
  and they can, they can modify it probably very simply, you know,
• 1:08:11
  and, and of course put any tilt they want on.
• 1:08:13
  Nobody wants to give up that kind of power.
• 1:08:15
  Cause Wikipedia is a tremendous amount of power.
• 1:08:18
  Cause of course it's, you know, usually in the top of all the
• 1:08:21
  search engines when you look, if you type something in, you want
• 1:08:23
  information, Wikipedia being one of the top one, it'll definitely
• 1:08:26
  be on the front page, that's for sure.
• 1:08:28
  So, yeah, I, you know, but it's, I guess, you know, is that what
• 1:08:31
  the fear is? Are the overlogs so convinced
• 1:08:34
  that they've got to, you know, keep the things?
• 1:08:35
  Because my opinion is Wikipedia's in a tough moment in
• 1:08:39
  their own way, not because of Grokapedia and not because of
• 1:08:42
  competitors, because they're, they're, they're, they're losing
• 1:08:45
  the plot right now. There's a, a massive amount of
• 1:08:48
  change on the Internet, especially when it comes to AI.
• 1:08:50
  Like George said, Google's got it.
• 1:08:52
  The first thing, if you type something in and you want some
• 1:08:54
  information about, you know, you know, an echidna or some kind of
• 1:08:59
  an animal, the first thing that comes up is Google's listing
• 1:09:03
  about what they think an echidna is or what they think Bitcoin is
• 1:09:06
  or whatever you're researching. So it would seem to me that if,
• 1:09:10
  if Wikipedia wanted to stay at the forefront and, and if they
• 1:09:14
  wanted to be the, the, you know, the entity they've always been,
• 1:09:17
  that they have to embrace the change.
• 1:09:19
  And I don't feel like they're doing that.
• 1:09:21
  Do you? Absolutely not.
• 1:09:24
  There's been a lot of resistance to the use of AI.
• 1:09:28
  There's been a lot of resistance to reform generally, although I
• 1:09:32
  will say that there have been there has been a lot of support
• 1:09:37
  for my for my 9 theses. So maybe there is some hope.
• 1:09:45
  I think there are a lot of people in Wikipedia who, who can
• 1:09:52
  see the writing on the wall and that that you're describing.
• 1:09:56
  And I know exactly what you're talking about.
• 1:09:59
  Anybody, especially who's been using a lot of AI, who has
• 1:10:03
  basically looked at Trump's, you know, Trump's election really is
• 1:10:10
  a, a turning point, a, a pivot point, along with, with the
• 1:10:15
  change of ownership of, of X. Now, you know, Facebook and and,
• 1:10:20
  and YouTube have to compete with XX, you know, for, for all of
• 1:10:26
  its ongoing problems, is I think a, a, a a little bit more open
• 1:10:33
  and respectful of free speech that that pressures the other of
• 1:10:39
  the big guys. And that that basically means
• 1:10:43
  that basically the, the big tech corporations are realizing.
• 1:10:49
  I think that the executives must have realized if a few years
• 1:10:55
  ago, perhaps even that they're no longer in control of the of
• 1:11:01
  the narratives because people just aren't buying it.
• 1:11:04
  They're going to vote with their feet.
• 1:11:05
  They're going to they're going to object there.
• 1:11:08
  There was a real wrenching time, you know, it is a, it's an
• 1:11:12
  epiphany moment. Kind of it's a tipping point
• 1:11:14
  because you're right, there is no doubt that of course, whether
• 1:11:17
  it's alt media or whether it's, you know, Project Colossus, when
• 1:11:21
  you start looking at the potential for information that
• 1:11:24
  sits outside the scope in the, in the original, in the original
• 1:11:28
  years, Wikipedia was that source, right?
• 1:11:30
  They were kind of the rogue, right?
• 1:11:32
  Because up until then it was a printed encyclopedia.
• 1:11:34
  If you wanted it, you could search stuff, but there really
• 1:11:36
  wasn't that source like what you created.
• 1:11:39
  And I agree with you. I think, I think it is.
• 1:11:41
  I think it is a tipping point. People are when I talk to people
• 1:11:44
  and, and we, you know, we stay relatively neutral.
• 1:11:46
  We've had liberals and conservatives on the show.
• 1:11:51
  People are frustrated and frustration always causes change
• 1:11:55
  because people want a solution. To me, I'd love to see Wikipedia
• 1:11:59
  embrace, you know, embrace the suck, embrace the change and say
• 1:12:03
  we're going to make this move. I don't want to run out of time
• 1:12:05
  with you. And I want to make sure we talk
• 1:12:07
  about this. So I'm going to switch gears a
• 1:12:08
  little bit. You know, you as president of
• 1:12:10
  the the Knowledge Standards Foundation, you, you know,
• 1:12:13
  you're forging, I think alternatives like encyclosphere,
• 1:12:16
  I mean, 69,000 books on a thumb drive.
• 1:12:19
  I don't know if I have that right.
• 1:12:20
  I hope I do. You know, you know, you know,
• 1:12:23
  you see it. I can see in you that you
• 1:12:25
  recognize that Wikipedia could be could turn into and I'm going
• 1:12:30
  to use a, you know, kind of a a comparison that may not be fair,
• 1:12:33
  but maybe is it the next Myspace?
• 1:12:35
  Because even maybe what you're doing with encyclosphere is a
• 1:12:38
  real competitor. Where do you think this is all
• 1:12:41
  going looking ahead? You know, where where is this
• 1:12:44
  all head right now? What's your what are your
• 1:12:45
  thoughts? So.
• 1:12:49
  To sort. To sum up, essentially I.
• 1:12:52
  Think encyclopedias are going to continue to be needed because
• 1:12:58
  the people who make it their business to, you know, research
• 1:13:02
  and know things, the experts of the world are going to continue
• 1:13:07
  to want to record the best of their knowledge in
• 1:13:12
  encyclopedias. And even if those don't exist in
• 1:13:17
  general encyclopedias like Wikipedia or Britannica, they're
• 1:13:20
  still going to be a lot of subjects encyclopedias.
• 1:13:25
  Now, you might say, what? Why am I talking about that?
• 1:13:27
  Well, there's a reason those sorts of encyclopedia entries,
• 1:13:33
  they represent the best of our research on various topics.
• 1:13:41
  They, they are summaries. And what a general encyclopedia
• 1:13:46
  will try to do is to give a, a simplified version of that sort
• 1:13:53
  of take. So the Stanford Encyclopedia
• 1:13:57
  philosophy is like the best in encyclopedia philosophy.
• 1:14:01
  The people who are writing the philosophy articles for
• 1:14:04
  Wikipedia will look at the Stanford Encyclopedia philosophy
• 1:14:07
  articles, right? But there's they serve as a kind
• 1:14:11
  of reference. You see what I'm saying as as OK
• 1:14:14
  now when it comes to AI, right? The AI does not generate
• 1:14:19
  knowledge on its own. All it does is aggregate
• 1:14:23
  knowledge in various not terribly creative ways.
• 1:14:27
  Now it it, it aggregates it, and the ways in which it aggregates
• 1:14:32
  it are very new and interesting. It can draw inferences a lot of
• 1:14:38
  a lot of times the inferences that it draws are, are crap.
• 1:14:41
  Sometimes they're interesting, right?
• 1:14:43
  But for the most part, it, you know, any interest drawing
• 1:14:47
  itself is so complicated, it requires a human being to do it.
• 1:14:51
  What is my point? My point is that we're always
• 1:14:53
  going to need people summarizing the best of our knowledge.
• 1:14:57
  That's called an encyclopedia, and it is going to require a
• 1:15:00
  human being to do it right. OK, so we're going to have to
• 1:15:05
  keep writing encyclopedias even if the human beings aren't
• 1:15:09
  directly consulting them. My guess is in 10 years people
• 1:15:15
  will not be looking up things on Wikipedia very much.
• 1:15:19
  It will be asking AI interfaces, and the AI interfaces will be
• 1:15:25
  quoting Wikipedia. Maybe, but if they're better,
• 1:15:29
  they will be quoting Wikipedia's sources or they'll be quoting
• 1:15:33
  more reliable encyclopedias. Now as as far as the
• 1:15:38
  encyclosphere goes, we, we're actually, we want to collect all
• 1:15:44
  of the free encyclopedias online.
• 1:15:47
  Ultimately we'd like to have all of the encyclopedias period, but
• 1:15:51
  that's probably going to have to be a for profit venture and we
• 1:15:57
  are running a non profit venture right now.
• 1:15:59
  We've got over 60 of them and this can be used as a training
• 1:16:05
  material for AI and I, I, we are now actually looking for
• 1:16:14
  funding. We've got some people who are
• 1:16:15
  interested in in continuing to support our work, and it's not
• 1:16:22
  cheap, unfortunately, that the sorts of things that you have to
• 1:16:25
  do to aggregate all the world's encyclopedias in one place under
• 1:16:29
  a single unified encyclopedia format, the ZWI.
• 1:16:36
  That means zipped Wiki, the ZWI file format for putting all of
• 1:16:41
  the encyclopedia articles in the world in this format.
• 1:16:45
  Wikipedia. We have to get you connected
• 1:16:47
  with Elon Musk. I bet he'd be.
• 1:16:49
  Excited about the thought of this.
• 1:16:51
  I don't know whether it fits, but I could see what you're
• 1:16:54
  recommending. I could see him having great
• 1:16:56
  interest in that. You know what, I'm going to take
• 1:16:57
  short form contact and when I. Put it on next.
• 1:16:59
  I'm going to tag you, Larry. I'm going to tag him, too.
• 1:17:02
  Let's see if we can get it done. Yeah, it'd be great to connect
• 1:17:04
  the two of you because I think. That you could have maybe
• 1:17:08
  Grocopedia could be the answer. I mean, maybe it could.
• 1:17:10
  And maybe with what you're doing in an encyclosphere, maybe you
• 1:17:13
  could find the funding with Elon Musk.
• 1:17:15
  And my hope would be that you could create something
• 1:17:18
  incredible, the new age of you know, what Wikipedia, what it
• 1:17:23
  what was and what it should be moving forward.
• 1:17:26
  So he he has actually been. Sharing the 9 theses he actually
• 1:17:35
  he announced Grocopedia the day after the 9 theses came out.
• 1:17:40
  Now I'm I was, I was not working with him and not only that, but
• 1:17:45
  he, he made the announcement as a comment on a post about the
• 1:17:50
  the sit down that I did with Tucker about the 9 theses.
• 1:17:57
  So, so basically he, he and A and a lot of, let's just say a
• 1:18:05
  lot of Grokopedia fans, whether human or otherwise, have piled
• 1:18:11
  on my threads about the 9 theses promoting Grokopedia.
• 1:18:16
  So I think we're we're on Elon's radar or yeah.
• 1:18:23
  And that could be amazing. I think that could be amazing.
• 1:18:27
  I mean. Assuming you're, you would be
• 1:18:29
  excited about that and and he he has said.
• 1:18:33
  That Grocopedia itself is going to be open source and and you
• 1:18:37
  know, I have tweeted to him and I think he's aware that we are
• 1:18:41
  going to make ZWI files out of the Grocopedia articles and add
• 1:18:46
  it to the encyclosphere. So I mean, which is great
• 1:18:49
  because then there's the whole thing is going to be incredible
• 1:18:52
  synergy there, that's for sure. I can see an amazing.
• 1:18:55
  Amazing, amazing future for a cyclosphere.
• 1:18:58
  I'd love to see that connection. I don't know.
• 1:19:00
  Well, George, like he said, he'll do some short form.
• 1:19:02
  We'll try to make it happen. I know some people that are
• 1:19:04
  friendly with Elon. Maybe I can give that a little
• 1:19:06
  nudge behind the scenes for you. Because of course, what an what
• 1:19:09
  an incredible source of capital. It would allow you to have the
• 1:19:12
  power to do exactly what you want and you wouldn't be you
• 1:19:14
  wouldn't be worried about the editor overlords, you know, any
• 1:19:17
  longer. You know what, hold on.
• 1:19:19
  I got a question because you brought up capital and you.
• 1:19:20
  Said Wikipedia has an endowment. How come sometimes then when I
• 1:19:24
  when I go into Wikipedia to have their looking for money like
• 1:19:28
  donations or whatever? Well.
• 1:19:33
  What they will tell you, especially what what Jimbo said
• 1:19:36
  for many years, is that most of their fund funding comes from
• 1:19:40
  small donors, like people giving from one to 10 or $20.
• 1:19:45
  Is that true? I don't think that's true
• 1:19:47
  anymore. I I.
• 1:19:50
  I'm not. Sure, though.
• 1:19:52
  So I, I, I can't say for sure, but I, I can say that they do
• 1:19:59
  receive a lot of institutional funds at this point.
• 1:20:03
  They have received a lot of money from Google.
• 1:20:09
  Got you. And yeah, no surprise there with
• 1:20:12
  Google. They love to.
• 1:20:13
  Control the media, that's for sure.
• 1:20:14
  That's that's all about the controlled, very powerful group.
• 1:20:20
  Well, listen, Larry. I know we're out of time today,
• 1:20:22
  but before we cut, we break off here, you know, I call this the
• 1:20:25
  shameless plug. Let's mention your social media,
• 1:20:28
  let's mention any of your websites, anything that people
• 1:20:31
  can do to support you. Maybe the people that watch the
• 1:20:33
  show that would be interested in getting involved and helping you
• 1:20:35
  fund some of this stuff. Give it the give it the go, man.
• 1:20:38
  The shameless plug. Go for it.
• 1:20:40
  All right? I'm at Larry.
• 1:20:42
  Sanger.org, that's my well, other people have a sub stack.
• 1:20:46
  I've got an old fashioned blog. I own it, damn it.
• 1:20:50
  And if you go to the front page of larrysanger.org, then at the
• 1:20:56
  top there is the 9 theses. I encourage you to read that and
• 1:21:02
  follow up on it. If you've got a Wikipedia
• 1:21:05
  article, what I want you to do is to go to Wikipedia, and
• 1:21:09
  especially if you have been left out just for the next couple of
• 1:21:14
  months, I want you to get involved and and let them sweat
• 1:21:19
  a little bit. Show our numbers there.
• 1:21:22
  I think there are not that many people at work on Wikipedia any
• 1:21:26
  given month. If we simply get a few 100
• 1:21:28
  people, we can actually change the way that it works.
• 1:21:33
  So this is a hypothesis of mine and I'm testing it.
• 1:21:36
  So that's why I'm taking taking the time to tell people to do
• 1:21:39
  that on XI am L Sanger and I'm I'm also a a an advisor to bit
• 1:21:49
  shoot. It's OK.
• 1:21:52
  It's a Rumble competitor, but we were there before Rumble, so.
• 1:21:55
  OK, yeah. And it's.
• 1:21:58
  Yeah, yeah. And, and so I, I post my videos
• 1:22:02
  there first when I do post videos.
• 1:22:05
  And yeah, I guess that'll probably do it.
• 1:22:09
  Well, we appreciate. First of all, thank you so very.
• 1:22:10
  Much for taking the time out of your life to share it with our
• 1:22:13
  audience. We appreciate we're going to
• 1:22:15
  make short form and long form. If you want the notifications
• 1:22:18
  follow, follow us back and you'll see when we're posting
• 1:22:20
  and putting up the short form content.
• 1:22:22
  Feel free if you want to scrape this interview and use it on
• 1:22:25
  your own platforms or anything you want to do.
• 1:22:27
  We want you to do that. Take it, share it foreign wide
• 1:22:30
  George can put it in a drop box for you or anything else if
• 1:22:33
  you'd like to use it. So we really appreciate you and
• 1:22:35
  for anybody out in the audience, really take the live link,
• 1:22:38
  repost this interview. Great stuff.
• 1:22:39
  Maybe dump it into Elon Musk feed over on X.
• 1:22:42
  Let's give him a little nudge nudge.
• 1:22:44
  Maybe we can make something happen here for Larry.
• 1:22:47
  I'd like to see a neutral editorial, new version of
• 1:22:52
  Wikipedia. Maybe it is Grokapedia.
• 1:22:54
  I don't know. At the end of the day, if you
• 1:22:56
  like the show, don't forget the thumbs up, share, comment,
• 1:22:59
  subscribe. If you can do the paid
• 1:23:01
  subscription, it's 5 bucks a month.
• 1:23:02
  It's nothing if you can do Rumble Premium.
• 1:23:04
  Listen, these guys are the true free speech platform.
• 1:23:07
  We've been here. They take care of us.
• 1:23:10
  You can find us here on Rumble and locals.
• 1:23:12
  And of course, don't forget to follow L Sanger, G Valentine,
• 1:23:15
  Lance from the outer and the big big show on X.
• 1:23:17
  You can also find us on Gab Getter Pickaxe, true social.
• 1:23:22
  You can follow us over there also.
• 1:23:24
  So George last words. My brother just thought us out
• 1:23:27
  if the people if the people on Wikipedia see this show.
• 1:23:31
  They're going to put a negative article about me.
• 1:23:32
  Look, he wants a hack Wikipedia. Well, exactly I.
• 1:23:37
  Wouldn't put nothing negative about me, I'm just saying.
• 1:23:40
  But anyway. Yeah, it's Friday.
• 1:23:42
  Have a good weekend. I got.
• 1:23:44
  Friends, Larry. Trust me.
• 1:23:45
  All right. Have a good.
• 1:23:48
  Have a good weekend, stay blessed.
• 1:23:50
  Stay healthy. I might have.
• 1:23:52
  I might. I might have.
• 1:23:53
  I might. Have I might I might have to let
• 1:23:54
  it see it. Got it.
• 1:24:05
  Are you ready to stand up for your?
• 1:24:07
  Community and support your local sheriff.
• 1:24:10
  Join the Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers
• 1:24:13
  Association and become a vital member of the Sheriff's Citizens
• 1:24:17
  Posse at CSP oa.org. We empower citizens like you
• 1:24:22
  through weekly webinars, arming you with the knowledge to back
• 1:24:25
  your Constitutional County Sheriff.
• 1:24:27
  Together, we can uphold our Constitution and ensure liberty
• 1:24:31
  and justice for all. Your community needs you now
• 1:24:34
  more than ever. Visit CSP oa.org and join the
• 1:24:38
  Sheriff's citizens posse today. Make a difference.
• 1:24:40
  Stand for freedom. That's CSP oa.org, Your country,
• 1:24:45
  your fight, your future. What if you could predict your
• 1:24:51
  financial future? And what if you could trade on
• 1:24:54
  it? Introducing block trust IRA the
• 1:24:57
  future in your hands. An astonishing 88,000
• 1:25:00
  millionaires were created last year from the Bitcoin boom and
• 1:25:04
  you be next. Block Trust IRA is the only
• 1:25:07
  crypto management firm powered by AI driven strategies, ranked
• 1:25:11
  number one in the world by Bitcoin magazine, the Block
• 1:25:15
  Trust IRA. Platform is built for everyone.
• 1:25:17
  From first time buyers to seasoned investors, predictive
• 1:25:22
  AI technology that was once only reserved for insiders and elites
• 1:25:26
  is now available to you. It's time to leave the old buy
• 1:25:29
  and hold strategies behind. Your assets are protected with
• 1:25:32
  military grade security, offline cold storage and $200 million in
• 1:25:37
  insurance. Visit blocktrustira.com to book
• 1:25:40
  your free consultation and ask how to claim up to $2500 in
• 1:25:44
  deposit bonuses today. Bitcoin changed the game.
• 1:25:48
  AI changes the strategy. Hi folks.
• 1:25:51
  I'm here today to introduce. You to the Prepper Bar from
• 1:25:53
  prepperbar.com, the most unique precious metals product we have
• 1:25:57
  seen in a long time. These 62g bars are perforated
• 1:26:01
  and easily broken down into your choice of three different sizes
• 1:26:05
  to fit a multitude of needs. Whether it be from asset
• 1:26:08
  protection from inflation, economic turmoil, or its unique
• 1:26:12
  utility for barter and trade, the Prepper Bar makes a perfect
• 1:26:15
  gift for all the precious metal lovers out there.
• 1:26:18
  Exclusively made here in the USA and selling out fast.
• 1:26:21
  Available in both gold and silver, these slim prepper bars
• 1:26:25
  fit neatly in your wallet and their utility enables use in any
• 1:26:29
  situation. Forged through rigorous.
• 1:26:32
  Training and honed. By the finest instructors on
• 1:26:35
  earth, these canine units serve. Beside our nation.
• 1:26:38
  'S warriors as they fight to preserve, who will be cherish
• 1:26:43
  when these warriors complete? Their duty?
• 1:26:45
  The Warrior Dog Foundation provides them with the home
• 1:26:48
  deserving of the service they've given us all at our
• 1:26:51
  state-of-the-art kennels. They receive rehabilitation and
• 1:26:55
  care suitable for heroes because that's what they are.
• 1:27:01
  Be a part of giving them a future today.
• 1:27:04
  Visit warriordogfoundation.org.