You're not argument averse. It I just

would like to note the smoothness of

which the staff managed to switch my

microphone. That was like a magic trick.

Um you're not averse to arguments

though. In the book you talk about

actually how that's quite an important

part of building trust and how actually

trust is actually a fundamental part of

having a good argument with somebody

because if you both trust that you're

both coming from a place that you're

trying to improve the thing

>> Yeah. then you can actually get into it

properly with people.

>> Yeah. No, and I I think what's what's

great is, you know, the example I like

to use because it's so clear and kind of

simple is, you know, imagine think about

our article on abortion,

>> a controversial topic, abortion, and

imagine a kind and thoughtful Catholic

priest and a kind and thoughtful Planned

Parenthood activist. And the key is I

specified kind and thoughtful. um well

they are never going to agree on the

fundamental issue but what they can

agree is to write about the issue in a

fair way. So the article will say, you

know, the Catholic Church position on

abortion is thus and such and critics

have responded thus and the pope said

this and so on. And at the end of the

day, as they've been working together,

they may even make friends if if they're

civil and kind people, and they can both

point at that and say, "Right, this is

good. Like, this is something if you

read this, you would really understand

what the debate is. You'd understand

some of the ins and outs and and all of

the different factors." Whereas if the

space isn't designed to support that

kind of conversation, what do you get?

You get people just screaming at each

other.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh and that's not really helpful for

anybody.

So how do we

I mean the the very fact that you have

felt the need to write this book and the

very fact that you talk about the loss

of trust being the symptom and the cause

of the problem suggests that you know

we've all collectively identified that

there is a problem here. There is a

there is an issue that we can no longer

agree on basic facts. M so

it's part of the there is a kind of

higher purpose to you writing this book

in some ways it's to sort of essentially

provide a blueprint for a return to a

fact-based discourse. Right. I I I mean

I I I'm ascribing that motivation. It's

not in the text. The text is very much

like consistent with the principles of

Wikipedia. It's about having a reasoned

and you know impassioned argument that's

based in fact. But it doesn't there is a

higher purpose here isn't there? you are

trying to get us back to a place where

we can all agree on a set of facts that

we have different opinions about. I mean

it's crucial that we do uh because we

have a lot of problems in society a lot

of conflicts and if we can agree on some

basic sets of facts and then we can

discuss the values that we have and how

do we accommodate you know how do we

compromise what are the what are the

pros and cons but if we're living in

completely different universes where we

don't share the facts at all I mean the

a great example you know uh Donald Trump

there was a famous time when he claimed

that uh Mexico was just sending

murderers and rapists.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. And you know if you actually look

at the statistics the crime rate of

people who have come illegally to the US

is actually lower than the crime rate of

police officers. So that that's not the

same as they're only sending murderers

and rapists. And obviously this country

has a big uh immigration debate and you

know but like that question like the

question of how do we deal with

immigration? Should we have more people

here? Should we have less people here?

What do we do about people who are

coming here on small boats? How do we

manage it? Those are legitimate. Like

people can have very different views on

that. But if your views are so colored

by misinformation that you don't even

know what's going on, then you begin to

think people on the other side are

supporting things they don't. Like if

you actually think so I've seen there's

a been a lot of discourse uh online and

actually a couple of tech bros who I

know from back in the day. I messaged

them privately because they, you know,

they're posting this stuff about that

London uh that that basically there's,

you know, a minority of English people

in London. And I was like, well, that's

not correct. And I sent some statistics

to say, yes, the number of foreigners in

London has increased some in the last

years. It's nowhere close to 50/50.

>> And he sent back another thing. And it

wasn't about whether people were British

or not. It was about whether they were

brown or not.

>> Yeah.

>> And I said to him, "Oh, so what you

really meant was race. I'm kind of

disappointed in you." And he's never

answered me again.

>> Yeah.

>> But also there's

>> I'm I'm a Londoner. I'm I was born in

Britain, but I don't think I figure in

some of the conceptions of what a

British person looks like in some.

>> Yeah. And that and that's insane, right?

We we all agree that's completely

insane. And I think in a different

context he was, "Oh, yeah, right." Cuz

I, you know, I was tempted. I just

decided arguing with people on the

internet's a waste of time.

>> Yeah.

>> But I nearly said, "So, do you think

African-Americans aren't real Americans

because you're basically saying the same

thing?" Like, they're you. Anyway, but

also there's this there's this sort of

vision of London as being a lawless hell

hole.

>> Yeah.

>> And I'm like, I live in London and it's

really nice. [laughter]

Like, you can you can walk home at night

and you'll be fine. And you know what?

It's a big city and there are places you

probably shouldn't go at 2:00 in the

morning. I don't know of any big city

that doesn't have that.

>> Yeah.

>> And

>> I wouldn't hang around the Tiger Tiger

in Leicester Square at 2:00. [laughter]

>> You see some really interesting stuff.

[laughter]

>> Exactly. Uh but you know,

>> I've seen a guy poop in the street.

Okay, let's not go down that road

anyway.

>> Well, and by the way, I'm like someone

living in San Francisco has the goal to

say something about I mean, San

Francisco, it is not uncommon to be

accosted in the street by a mentally ill

person who's screaming at the sky. And

that's a sad, like, it's a really tragic

thing about San Francisco, one of the

wealthiest places in the world that also

tolerates,

>> you know, really like pretty pathetic

situation. And I'm like, it's a big

city. I suppose you might occasionally

see a crazy person screaming at the sky,

but it's not that common. But how do you

get back if we

>> if we look at the but if we just look at

the trajectory of someone like Donald

Trump. So Donald Trump becomes a

politician

>> becomes a political figure. I mean he's

there are various interventions in the

past when he took out an advert you know

calling for the death penalty to be

applied to the central park five but

really his meaningful political career

begins pushing a conspiracy theory that

Barack Obama was is not an was a Kenyan

and it's known as the birther

conspiracy. He then essentially uses

becoming the figurehead of that birther

of conspiracy movement as a platform to

run for the Republican nomination. His

opening speech, you've already mentioned

the fact that he said that Mexico was

sending murderers and rapists to

America. He he becomes president in a

kind of blizzard of lies. Then he loses

the presidency. He spends he spreads a

lot of again unverified claims about

electoral interference and electoral

fraud in January 2020. He then uh sorry

in November 2020 he then claims makes

claims about the events of January the

6th that would not pass muster on

Wikipedia. His characterization of that

would be taken down by moderators on

January the 6th but he becomes president

again. So in a world where somebody is

being rewarded for that macity

>> repeatedly politically, how do we get

back to a place of fact-based

discussion? Because if you were looking

at this objectively, you'd say, well,

there's no consequence

>> for

essentially just weaponized macity.

>> Yeah. So I this is where I would say I

would point to him and and his you know

career arc there as a good example of

being both the cause and the symptom. So

obviously he has caused a lot of uh

mistrust and distrust. So he rants

against the media all the time. He says

things that are patently untrue and then

two days later denies he ever said it

even though it's right there, you know.

Um, and you know, his followers uh

really believe. I mean, I here here's a

sad ex moment. Um, a friend of mine from

high school posted something on Facebook

and I was like, I don't I don't think

that's right. So, I quickly checked and

I found a debunking of this rumor on

social media in the New York Times and I

posted that and he said to me, I can't

believe you would send a link to the New

York Times. They just make stuff up. As

if I had sent some crazy blog or

something. And if he had said, as he

might have at another point in life, uh,

you do realize the New York Times is a

left-leaning paper and has a liberal

bias and that's we can engage with that.

That's of course that's that's a thing.

>> But, you know, his lack of trust in the

media is so much that if Trump says one

thing, he's as likely to believe that as

the debunking. And that's, you know, so

some of it is uniquely that Donald Trump

has deliberately undermined trust in the

media. So he's part of the cause, but

it's also a symptom because you know

that a as the decline in media trust,

the decline in trust in journalism, if

you look at the numbers from the Edelman

trust barometer survey, it started a

long time before that. It started, you

know, uh it's been a problem for a very

long time. And I think that there are

things that the media can do. There's

things that everybody can do, but um in

terms of, you know, recommendations for

journalism. So, one of the things I talk

about in the book is uh quite famously

just before the most recent election, uh

the Washington Post made the decision,

well, we should say Jeff Bezos made the

decision for the Washington Post that

they would not endorse a presidential

candidate. And this was caused quite an

outcry and was widely regarded as Jeff

trying to support Trump or or do a favor

for Trump or whatever. And my slightly

contrary position is actually the Post

should have stopped doing endorsements a

long time ago.

>> Um,

>> this is in the book and it's one of the

things I found so interesting because

I'm not sure that I agree with it, but I

respect the way that I respect the way

that you've articulated it so much. I

think it's such an interesting

>> You're almost a Wikipedia now.

[laughter]

That's good. My my work is done here. I

thought it was such an I think it's such

an interesting point because newspaper

endorsements in my lifetime are

something that are pretty common place

in elections and then it's almost more

of a story when a newspaper doesn't

endorse a candidate in British general

elections. I think

I I think the Guardian may not have

endorsed the Labour Party in 2019. I

think I can't remember. Somebody in this

room will definitely be able to correct

me on it. But there are it is it is

relatively common place. But it is an

interesting perspective. Your argument

is newspapers should not take a kind of

full editorial position where they

endorse a candidate in either direction,

right?

>> Yeah. I mean, I think in general it's

just something that doesn't do any good.

It it's it's it's performative on their

part and I don't think it convinces

anybody. There's evidence from research

that says it reduces trust in the paper.

Uh and so that, you know, like that's a

problem. Now, they timed it very badly.

like if they had stopped doing

endorsements at a a less sort of fraught

moment that would have been a great

thing.

>> Uh but we also have seen and part of

this is you know the the the terrible

sort of decline of the business model

for journalism particularly local

journalism is a big piece of this whole

thing.

>> And one of the responses we've seen to

that is and there's other responses that

are better. One of the responses we've

seen is um in order to chase clicks uh

online, you get clickbait headlines and

more inflammatory stuff. You also get

outlets becoming more and more partisan.

>> Yeah.

>> And you know, you you don't feel like I

my my example like I have an electric

car. I like electric cars. I don't have

a Tesla. Um [laughter]

but I have an electric car and uh so I'm

I'm interested. And so I, you know, in

my in my feed, uh, you know, when I get

news stories, if I see a headline in the

Guardian, it's going to be in favor of

electric cars and it's going to be all

great stuff. If I see it in the

Telegraph, it's going to be against. And

I think that's unfortunate, right?

That's that then you think when you're

reading either of them, am I getting the

full story here or is this just like

they're campaigning for the thing they

believe in? And I do really think it's

quite important to have news that we can

trust, which means maybe don't campaign

all the time. Maybe actually keep your

editorial page editorials in the

columnists and and that sort of thing,

but try to be as straight as possible

with the news. And one of the things

that one of the good things that is

happening is the rise of uh

subscriptions. You know, like the the

New York Times has managed to this

hasn't helped local journalism.

>> Yeah. uh because it's hard to get enough

subscriptions at the local level

particularly when you've already

destroyed your paper. So that's a

problem. Getting back to that is going

to be a long job. But you know because

if if people are are paying

uh then and this is actually why I think

the financial papers tend to be a little

calmer and all that. Their business

model is much more about paid

subscriptions. If people are paying uh

then you know you don't have to try and

get as many clicks as possible, right?

you have to actually be a little bit

more broad with what you're doing and

sort of informative and so on. So that's

just one piece is sort of recommendation

to media is like try not to be so

hyperartisan that nobody believes you're

anything other than yet another

campaigning organization.

>> That's a perfect moment to segue into

the real purpose of this evening. Please

donate to Wikipedia.

[laughter]

Well, that that is important, right?

Because that again we we sort of return

to the model of Wikipedia as something

that's going going right on the

internet, which there's increasingly few

things on the internet that we can say

are like not actively harming the way

that we live our lives. But part of the

thing with Wikipedia is the fact that

people donate, the fact that you're not

relying on, you know, advertising

revenue or anything like that, it it

preserves the independence of the thing,

right?

>> Yeah. Yeah. I I actually one of the

things that is very very important is

independence. That's one of the rules.

Be independent. Uh and for us that means

intellectual independence is very

important. So our uh financial model uh

you know when uh Elon Musk cut his

chainsaw out with Doge, you know,

cutting programs uh and and things that

the US government was doing, we weren't

worried because we don't have any

funding from the US government or any

governments. Um, I just saw some big

foundation in the US has decided to stop

making grants and a lot of corporations

are pulling back on their uh, you know,

sort of social giving kind of work.

>> Well, that's not how we get our money

either. The vast majority of the money

that funds Wikipedia is from the small

donors.

>> So, people who they see the little

banner um, thank god they don't use my

picture nearly as much as they used to.

>> They're using it today. aware.

>> Yeah. I don't know whether that's cuz my

phone is reading the fact that it's near

your phone or something [laughter] and

they're like, "You better stick the

Jimmy picture up if you stand next to

him." Um, but yeah.

>> No, but but it's people uh giving their

20 quid. Yeah.

>> Uh which is like hugely important

because that means if we were mostly fun

and sometimes people say, "Oh, why don't

you know why don't you just get uh you

know, Google and Facebook to pay for

it?" And I'm like, "Well, think it

through a little bit." Right? that would

you really be comfortable with us having

major donors who basically could call

the tune like and say oh if you don't

change

>> sort of implied that he wants to buy

Wikipedia a couple of times right

>> yeah yeah he yeah I mean I my most

successful tweet in history there was a

a New York Post journalist who said to

Elon who was moaning about something in

Wikipedia he said Elon you should just

buy Wikipedia and I just like retweeted

that and just said not for sale And um

that was very successful. People loved

that. Um and then you know there other

things like you know the day he said uh

defund Wikipedia I think we brought in

$5 million that day. [laughter]

>> So I'm like bring it man bring it.

because I I think there are a lot of

people who uh will say like actually

it's very concerning to have this guy

thinking he's going to call the shots

and like it's really important that we

have like super geeky Wikipedia. So

actually a fun story I was in we have an

annual conference every year uh and I

was in Alexandria Egypt a few years ago

and a friend of mine was there at the

conference who's not a Wikipedian and um

we had dinner one night we sat at at a

table and you this is like a geeky

conference you know so we sat at a table

for dinner and we just happened to sit

down with the English arbitration

committee uh several of the members of

of the arbcom as we call it so this is

like the Supreme Court of English

Wikipedia and we're having this sort of

super geeky discussion over dinner and

then we got up to walk away and I said,

"Do you realize you just had dinner with

some of the most powerful people in

media in the entire world? This is the

Supreme Court of English Wikipedia." And

do you know who they are? A bunch of

freaking geeks, right? They're absolute

nerds and they're really passionate

about Wikipedia. They're, by the way,

they're not woke leftists as Elon would

have you believe. They're like not very

political in many ways, right? except

for they're quite political about truth

and facts and things like that. And so

I'm like, this is great, right? This is

actually really really cool that and

their concerns are never about um how do

we increase our revenue? Are we going to

lose the grant from that rich

organization? Uh is the government going

to cut our funding if we are critical of

government policy? Nothing like that.

They're just like, let's follow the

facts. Let's document the world and be

as fair as we can. Fantastic. But

don't