The Tucker Carlson Show - Wikipedia Co-Creator Reveals All： CIA Infiltration, Banning Conservatives, & How to Fix the Internet

00:00:00.000 Larry Sanger, thank you for doing this. I think about you all the time. Literally, I know it's a little creepy because I think that Wikipedia is, you can't overstate the importance of Wikipedia in shaping our collective memory and a collective memory really is a culture, a civilization.

00:00:19.260 Who are we? And Wikipedia is the answer to that question. Like, who are we? Oh, it's on Wikipedia. And it's so embedded in search that, I mean, it shapes America. Wikipedia shapes America. And because of its importance, it's an emergency, in my opinion, that Wikipedia is completely dishonest and completely controlled on questions that matter.

00:00:49.260 So, thank you for coming back. And I'd love to start at the beginning. Like, you created Wikipedia. How did that happen? And what were your intentions when you did that?

00:01:13.220 So, Jimmy Wales had registered Newpedia.com, the domain name, and simply had the idea of a free public contributed encyclopedia. And he hired me. It was like my assigned job to get it started.

00:01:35.940 That happened in early 2000. So, I worked on Newpedia for about a year, and it was going very slowly. And so, a friend told me about wikis, and it was a revelation, this idea that somebody could just put up essentially a bulletin board, a blank bulletin board, invite other people to edit.

00:02:04.940 Edit the text in real time. And it would become something actually useful. And it wouldn't be just a lot of, you know, curse words and graffiti and so forth.

00:02:18.820 What does wiki mean?

00:02:21.040 It actually comes from a wiki, wiki web. And that, in turn, comes from the wiki, wiki taxis at the Honolulu airport, I guess.

00:02:33.620 What? Really?

00:02:35.900 Yes.

00:02:36.440 Like headed to Waikiki?

00:02:37.900 Yes. I didn't come up with this. It's Ward Cunningham. He invented the first wiki in 1995, I believe.

00:02:46.800 So, basically, a friend told me about wikis, and I was amazed at the basic idea and just the thought that it could work.

00:03:04.480 And I thought, well, this would be a way to make the problems with Newpedia go away, be a lot more articles coming into the system.

00:03:16.960 And then Newpedia could be like the, you know, beat them into proper shape.

00:03:24.620 But it didn't work that way. Wikipedia, the Newpedia editors wanted nothing to do with a wiki, anything that was so uncontrolled, essentially.

00:03:37.500 So, it took on a life of its own. We launched it. Originally, it was the Newpedia wiki.

00:03:43.400 And then on January 15, we relaunched under...

00:03:48.660 Of what year?

00:03:49.160 What's that?

00:03:49.600 Of what year? January 15?

00:03:50.640 2001.

00:03:51.320 2001.

00:03:52.260 We launched under wikipedia.com.

00:03:56.260 So, I coined the name Wikipedia and a lot of the other sort of basic jargon, like Wikipedian and various other things.

00:04:04.300 I came up with a lot of the original policies, like the neutrality policy, which actually started with Newpedia.

00:04:13.900 And the requirement that original research may not be, you know, published for the first time in the encyclopedia.

00:04:23.820 And a number of other things, of course.

00:04:27.960 I should say, for those who don't know, you come from a philosophy background.

00:04:30.920 Yeah.

00:04:31.720 You're a philosopher, which is kind of a great background for this job.

00:04:36.820 Why these policies?

00:04:39.400 For example, why would you ban the publication of original material on Wikipedia?

00:04:46.040 It's supposed to be a summary of what we all take ourselves to know, essentially.

00:04:52.880 And especially if it's a neutral encyclopedia, then it's supposed to canvas all of the views that can be found in humanity on every question, essentially, at a very high level, generally speaking.

00:05:08.800 Of course, specialized encyclopedias can get into the real nitty gritty.

00:05:14.960 And my hope with Wikipedia in the beginning was that eventually it would become that specialized.

00:05:22.060 So it would be the equivalent of, you know, bookshelves worth of articles.

00:05:30.520 And, well, I guess it did work out that way.

00:05:32.540 It replaced libraries.

00:05:35.320 It replaced books.

00:05:36.160 It replaced everything.

00:05:37.540 To a great extent.

00:05:39.600 I think you're right.

00:05:40.780 For a lot of people.

00:05:42.840 Yeah.

00:05:43.980 Basically, for a period until LLMs came out a couple of years ago, people used Wikipedia to look up quick answers about practically everything.

00:05:58.140 I actually, I would say until Siri started giving Wikipedia answers quickly, but it was still using Siri.

00:06:06.360 And for that matter, LLMs, you know, AI chatbots are also trained on Wikipedia now.

00:06:15.460 So it continues to be relevant.

00:06:18.740 Well, not just relevant.

00:06:19.660 I mean, of course, its power expands exponentially once it's tethered to this new technology, AI, right?

00:06:25.880 I think that's a very, that's very safe to say.

00:06:30.720 I think that's true.

00:06:32.780 LLMs are trained on a lot of different data, not just Wikipedia, of course.

00:06:36.880 But there's a lot of questions.

00:06:39.780 I use LLMs all the time now.

00:06:42.160 And I can tell you, I've looked up, you know, specialized questions.

00:06:46.520 Large language models.

00:06:47.620 Exactly.

00:06:49.500 I've looked up a lot of questions in theology because I'm into theology now.

00:06:53.020 And there are some places where I just know the only source for that particular factoid that I could find online outside of the LLM itself is Wikipedia.

00:07:08.700 Right, right.

00:07:09.460 So it's institutionalized it.

00:07:12.020 Google did, of course, did that in the most profound way when it tied its search to Wikipedia, put Wikipedia at the top of its searches.

00:07:17.920 So these questions, these core questions, like, you know, what do you put on Wikipedia?

00:07:24.100 What do you exclude?

00:07:25.520 Questions that you wrestled with 24 years ago.

00:07:29.260 These are like questions that affect every human being on the planet now.

00:07:34.120 It's kind of a scary thought.

00:07:35.560 It's scary, but it's true.

00:07:37.040 And so few things matter more than this from my perspective.

00:07:41.260 How we understand ourselves and the world around us, that's like the central human task.

00:07:45.680 Like, that's what we're here to do is to figure that out and to act accordingly.

00:07:49.560 And Wikipedia controls that more than any other force.

00:07:52.380 Right, right.

00:07:52.940 So I'm not blaming you.

00:07:56.500 Some people do.

00:07:57.720 So, but walk us through, like, how you, how Wikipedia went from what you created it to be to what it is now.

00:08:05.340 Like, when did you start to see changes?

00:08:07.560 What were the debates?

00:08:08.800 Yeah.

00:08:09.060 In the early years, we really did take neutrality seriously.

00:08:15.020 And it, it wasn't just a requirement of being unbiased, right?

00:08:21.320 It was, the aim was to bring people together, enable them to work together, even though they were from all parts of the world, different religions, different viewpoints.

00:08:32.760 Yes.

00:08:32.940 And, and then to essentially record their knowledge.

00:08:36.580 So I intended it.

00:08:39.200 And I think Jimmy Wales is on the record in a few places saying that he intended neutrality as being a way of bringing people together.

00:08:47.320 Yes.

00:08:47.740 Right.

00:08:49.000 Which it is.

00:08:49.640 Well, but I want to read the, the current definition of neutrality to show you what it has evolved into, which it did very gradually.

00:09:01.800 Right.

00:09:02.760 So here's how, how the neutral point of view page begins.

00:09:09.080 All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view.

00:09:15.100 NPOV.

00:09:16.080 So far, so good.

00:09:18.300 Which means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.

00:09:26.140 So far, it's great.

00:09:28.320 All the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

00:09:35.100 Okay.

00:09:35.280 So, I see two modifiers in that sentence.

00:09:37.400 Two modifiers that are very important.

00:09:39.460 Significant and reliable.

00:09:41.140 Yes.

00:09:41.520 Yes.

00:09:42.740 Yes.

00:09:43.400 And, and let me go on because if you look farther down on the page, they go on to discourage giving equal validity to, quote, minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claims.

00:09:58.520 Right.

00:09:58.820 So, and that such views should be labeled that way.

00:10:03.200 So, the neutral point of view policy essentially dictates that Wikipedians must write articles in a biased way.

00:10:14.640 Of course.

00:10:14.860 We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe country.

00:10:17.880 Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia.

00:10:19.680 Yeah.

00:10:19.980 Good luck.

00:10:21.440 So, most people, when they think about this, want to carry a firearm.

00:10:24.980 And a lot of us do.

00:10:26.540 The problem is there can be massive consequences for that.

00:10:29.420 Ask Kyle Rittenhouse.

00:10:30.620 Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment.

00:10:33.600 It was obvious once on video, and he was facing life in prison anyway.

00:10:38.240 That's what the anti-gun movement will do.

00:10:40.620 They'll throw you in prison for defending yourself of the firearm.

00:10:43.460 And that's why a lot of Americans are turning to Burna.

00:10:46.440 It's a proudly American company.

00:10:48.480 Burna makes self-defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust.

00:10:53.080 They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be empty-handed.

00:10:58.760 These pistols, and I have one, fire rock-hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and pepper projectiles.

00:11:05.260 And they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away.

00:11:07.760 There are no background checks.

00:11:09.060 There are no waiting periods.

00:11:10.560 Burna can ship it directly to your door.

00:11:13.300 You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Burna pistol.

00:11:17.000 Visit BurnaBYRNA.com or your local sportsman's warehouse to get yours today.

00:11:22.580 Burna.com.

00:11:24.260 Hate to brag, but we're pretty confident this show is the most vehemently pro-dog podcast you're ever going to see.

00:11:30.760 We can take or leave some people, but dogs are non-negotiable.

00:11:35.000 They are the best.

00:11:36.640 They really are our best friends.

00:11:37.960 And so for that reason, we're thrilled to have a new partner called Dutch Pet.

00:11:41.940 It's the fastest-growing pet telehealth service.

00:11:45.320 Dutch.com is on a mission to create what you need, what you actually need, affordable, quality veterinary care, anytime, no matter where you are.

00:11:53.260 They will get your dog or cat what you need immediately.

00:11:57.020 It's offering an exclusive discount, Dutch is, for our listeners.

00:12:00.920 You get $50 off your vet care per year.

00:12:03.900 Visit Dutch.com slash Tucker to learn more.

00:12:06.860 Use the code Tucker for $50 off.

00:12:08.980 That is an unlimited vet visit.

00:12:12.180 $82 a year.

00:12:13.380 $82 a year.

00:12:15.420 We actually use this.

00:12:16.540 Dutch has vets who can handle any pet under any circumstance in a 10-minute call.

00:12:23.140 It's pretty amazing, actually.

00:12:24.220 You never have to leave your house.

00:12:25.380 You don't have to throw the dog in the truck.

00:12:27.920 No wasted time waiting for appointments.

00:12:29.600 No wasted money on clinics or visit fees.

00:12:31.760 Unlimited visits and follow-ups for no extra cost, plus free shipping on all products for up to five pets.

00:12:38.500 It sounds amazing like it couldn't be real, but it actually is real.

00:12:42.020 Visit Dutch.com slash Tucker to learn more.

00:12:45.000 Use the code Tucker for $50 off your veterinary care per year.

00:12:49.180 Your dogs, your cats, and your wallet will thank you.

00:12:52.300 You don't want to be passive and tired and dependent, do you?

00:12:56.400 Of course you don't.

00:12:58.040 You want to be strong and self-sufficient.

00:13:00.200 That's the goal, and our friends at Beam can help you.

00:13:02.620 They understand that real strength does not come from drugs.

00:13:06.080 It comes from inside you.

00:13:07.480 Internal motivation, internal strength.

00:13:10.680 Health.

00:13:11.740 That's the key.

00:13:13.540 Bigger.

00:13:14.020 So we partner with Beam because they have the same values that we have, that Americans have.

00:13:18.500 Hard work, accountability, free will, independence.

00:13:21.480 Be strong.

00:13:22.380 Don't be dependent.

00:13:24.080 Not until you're really old, anyway.

00:13:25.480 Beam can help you achieve that.

00:13:28.140 This great U.S. company is offering our listeners a new bundle, the American Strength Bundle.

00:13:32.540 And it comes with top-selling creatine and protein powder that delivers what your body needs to perform, to recover, and to stay strong.

00:13:39.660 No junk at all.

00:13:40.980 All natural ingredients that actually taste good.

00:13:44.000 You will love it.

00:13:45.500 You can get 30% off this bundle at shopbeam.com slash Tucker.

00:13:49.500 This is not in stores.

00:13:50.880 Just on that page for people who listen to this podcast only.

00:13:55.320 They're encouraging you to be weak.

00:13:57.180 Don't let them.

00:13:57.800 Go to shopbeam.com slash Tucker for 30% off.

00:14:01.780 Well, the inclusion of the term fringe tells me right away that you're a freaking liar.

00:14:08.040 A liar, if you use that word.

00:14:10.300 Because it's a word like terrorism and so many words, racism, that we can't really define and don't care really to define.

00:14:17.240 Like, what does that mean?

00:14:18.920 And if the whole policy turns on the word, then it's fair to demand a precise explanation of what it means.

00:14:23.420 But we never get one.

00:14:24.260 What is fringe?

00:14:25.340 They can't tell you.

00:14:26.200 Fringe is what I don't like.

00:14:27.160 Fringe is hate speech.

00:14:28.580 Yes, yes.

00:14:29.080 Or it's simply a new view that is going to become dominant in 10 years or something.

00:14:33.540 Like Galileo, fringe character.

00:14:35.600 It happens all the time in the history of ideas.

00:14:38.080 No.

00:14:39.400 Right.

00:14:39.960 So that's so obvious.

00:14:41.860 Even a child understands that.

00:14:43.840 Right.

00:14:44.520 Right.

00:14:45.180 The key is the definition.

00:14:46.620 And if you can't come up with a definition, then we have to take the word out because it can only abet lying.

00:14:52.020 So how did that get in there?

00:14:53.380 Well, I think it happened like this.

00:14:57.360 I think Wikipedia developed in sort of in tandem with the development of media.

00:15:06.300 So basically as media from the founding of Wikipedia 2001 to about 2012 or so was became solidified in a center left establishment standpoint.

00:15:28.340 So if you were to read Wikipedia from 2012 or so 2010, it read a lot like the New York Times or the BBC.

00:15:38.140 I remember saying that at the time and then especially around about 2016 and maybe a few years before that, the media landscape changed almost overnight.

00:15:54.980 So that once stayed mainstream sources became totally biased.

00:16:04.000 They stated in their own voice that the president was lying and so forth.

00:16:10.040 Kind of racist.

00:16:11.000 A racist, exactly.

00:16:12.980 Racist.

00:16:13.680 Tucker Carlson is a conspiracy theorist.

00:16:16.400 So, for example, and that, of course, then was echoed in Wikipedia.

00:16:26.740 So Wikipedia feels perfectly free to say that Donald Trump is telling lies and that various pundits are conspiracy theorists.

00:16:37.020 Here's my question.

00:16:40.420 I mean, so Wikipedia became a weapon of ideological, theological war used to, you know, destroy its enemies, of course.

00:16:49.700 And that's what it remains.

00:16:51.460 But someone had to allow that.

00:16:55.100 And that's so far from what it was created to be.

00:16:57.900 In fact, it's the opposite, the mirror image of what it was created to be.

00:17:00.720 That you have to ask, like, was there a fight over that?

00:17:03.740 Who allowed it?

00:17:04.740 But, like, if you're getting to the point where you're disallowing, quote, fringe theories or conspiracy theorists or some other term made up by the CIA to hide its secrets, someone has to, like, okay that.

00:17:18.580 What was that process?

00:17:20.900 It's a good question.

00:17:23.460 You can look at it from an organic point of view.

00:17:26.520 I can't tell you what was going on behind the scenes.

00:17:28.800 If there were any, you know, puppet masters that were controlling the process, I don't know.

00:17:33.820 What I can tell you is that over the years, conservatives, libertarians were just pushed out.

00:17:43.540 They, in many cases, well, there is a whole, you know, army of administrators, hundreds of them, who are constantly blocking people that they have ideological disagreements with.

00:18:07.860 And that's not new.

00:18:10.480 So, if somebody really does become a problem from their perspective, then they can be simply gotten rid of on a pretext.

00:18:23.100 It's very difficult now.

00:18:25.060 It's possible.

00:18:25.940 It's possible.

00:18:26.520 But it's very difficult for conservatives to get into Wikipedia and actually play the game.

00:18:34.340 But you have to play the game.

00:18:36.060 And that means you have to walk on eggshells.

00:18:40.520 So, the point is, it wasn't always like this.

00:18:43.080 Over the years, basically, the left consolidated its power.

00:18:46.980 But the way I like to put it is that, you know, the left has, it's marched through the institutions.

00:18:56.280 And when Wikipedia appeared, it was one of the institutions that they marched through.

00:19:01.300 The difference is it's brand new.

00:19:03.400 Yeah.

00:19:03.540 So, like, I'm, you know, I grew up in this country.

00:19:05.880 I've never believed in Harvard.

00:19:07.340 It's absurd.

00:19:08.000 I've always thought it was absurd.

00:19:09.720 I really believed in Wikipedia.

00:19:11.400 I sent money to, I'm on, I mean, you can check the records.

00:19:13.500 I've sent money, like, significant money to Wikipedia because I was so thrilled by its existence.

00:19:18.200 So thrilled.

00:19:19.680 And so, it wasn't always this.

00:19:21.880 And now it's, like, the leading source of dishonesty or, I would say, disinformation.

00:19:26.860 I mean, most topics in Wikipedia seem totally straight to me.

00:19:29.940 But if you go to anything that intersects, any topic that intersects with theology, politics, ideology, power,

00:19:36.600 and you know something about the topic, and in my case, a couple of topics,

00:19:40.300 I have firsthand knowledge, direct knowledge of it.

00:19:42.360 But they lie.

00:19:44.380 They leave out key information.

00:19:47.460 They load up the top of the entry with either superlatives or insults that are not, they're totally subjective and insane.

00:19:56.700 Far-right conspiracy theorist.

00:19:58.540 I mean, with a straight face.

00:19:59.480 Like, if you're calling someone a far-right conspiracy theorist before even explaining to me who this person is,

00:20:04.160 then you're a propagandist.

00:20:05.820 You're a liar.

00:20:06.580 Absolutely.

00:20:07.240 Yeah.

00:20:07.680 No, I agree.

00:20:08.260 I described it as propaganda beginning around 2020.

00:20:14.600 Before that, I don't know that I would have given it that word.

00:20:18.700 It was already emerging, you know.

00:20:20.540 I agree.

00:20:21.020 No, no.

00:20:21.240 This has happened before our eyes.

00:20:22.780 Yeah.

00:20:23.120 Yeah.

00:20:24.000 Absolutely.

00:20:24.400 So, when did you leave and why?

00:20:26.660 Oh, a long time ago.

00:20:28.720 Yeah.

00:20:29.440 20, 2002.

00:20:31.780 So, no, yeah, I was only there for the first two years of the project.

00:20:35.620 I got it off the ground.

00:20:37.340 I set a lot of the original policies.

00:20:39.420 And then, so, the company that launched Wikipedia, Balmas Inc.

00:20:46.960 So, Jimmy Wills was the CEO of that.

00:20:50.760 And he had a couple of partners.

00:20:53.920 So, it was my job to start it.

00:20:56.660 And I did.

00:20:59.260 And then, the bottom fell out of the tech market, you know.

00:21:04.080 That's for sure.

00:21:05.140 Yeah.

00:21:05.500 Back in 2000.

00:21:07.780 So, they lost a big contract with, I think it was Google.

00:21:12.800 And so, they weren't able to pay people anymore.

00:21:15.700 I was laid off.

00:21:16.500 And I decided, I made the decision to, you know, just step back from my role.

00:21:23.520 I was, I would have been welcome to continue on.

00:21:27.640 But I decided not to basically devalue my professional labor.

00:21:31.680 But with distance in 2002, I saw that Jimmy Wills was essentially allowing

00:21:41.200 troublemakers, leftists, really, to take over.

00:21:48.020 And they did.

00:21:50.540 As early as that.

00:21:52.680 It took them time, I think, to really consolidate their power and create sort of internal processes

00:21:59.540 and institutions and policies that really consolidated their power.

00:22:04.020 But, yeah.

00:22:06.780 Who is Jimmy Wales?

00:22:08.380 And what's he like?

00:22:09.220 Jimmy Wales is the other co-founder of Wikipedia.

00:22:16.420 He's got a finance degree.

00:22:21.200 Let's see.

00:22:22.680 He comes from Alabama.

00:22:24.240 He went to a private school in Alabama, I think.

00:22:27.040 I knew him from, you know, online debating forums about Ayn Rand in the mid-1990s.

00:22:36.400 I actually met him face-to-face on a little junket that I took to visit my uncle.

00:22:43.920 So I just made a stopover in Chicago when he was living there.

00:22:47.480 So I met him before he hired me to start Wikipedia.

00:22:53.560 But he's a very personable person, actually, if you meet him for the first time and you don't know anything about him.

00:23:05.200 What are his views?

00:23:09.480 I don't know, actually.

00:23:11.480 That's a good question.

00:23:13.340 I'd like to know.

00:23:16.760 They used to be broadly libertarian.

00:23:23.260 Yes.

00:23:23.580 But he's now associated with the left.

00:23:27.940 He has got a lot of lefty pals.

00:23:31.720 And so I think he would probably say he still is, you know, a believer in classical liberalism or something like that.

00:23:41.360 But I don't know if I believe it.

00:23:43.400 Well, look at the results.

00:23:44.540 Right.

00:23:45.320 I mean, it's an authoritarian enterprise.

00:23:48.420 And it's a proper, you know, it's his vestia.

00:23:52.080 But with much greater reach and a much more profound effect.

00:23:55.300 And it's one of the worst things about our society, actually.

00:23:58.920 But let's be fair to Jimmy Wales here.

00:24:01.820 However, it isn't clear that he approves of the current approach that Wikipedia is taking.

00:24:11.840 I've never spoken to Jimmy Wales other than to send him money years ago.

00:24:15.980 And let me ask you about the money.

00:24:17.860 So, it's a nonprofit, correct?

00:24:21.880 Yes.

00:24:22.300 Can you make money from it?

00:24:24.060 Oh, of course.

00:24:25.020 You know, just like any big nonprofit that's raising hundreds of millions of dollars, you know, you can essentially transfer money through grants.

00:24:36.300 And now they are a grant-making institution.

00:24:39.580 So, I mean, I certainly don't need to explain to you how really big foundations work, right?

00:24:49.560 But money can change hands, large amounts of money can change hands through institutions like the Wikimedia Foundation.

00:25:01.540 That's the name of the legal entity that owns the platform.

00:25:06.520 So, the First Amendment is the one truly distinctive thing that makes America America.

00:25:11.280 It makes this country great.

00:25:12.440 You are a citizen.

00:25:14.020 That means you can speak openly and honestly without fear about what you actually believe.

00:25:19.000 The government doesn't own you.

00:25:21.020 You own the government.

00:25:22.980 That's the premise.

00:25:24.100 And for 250 years, we've lived it.

00:25:26.160 We hope to keep living it.

00:25:27.580 Our sponsor, PureTalk, understands how important this is, how central it is.

00:25:31.220 So, if you want to support brands that defend freedom and American values, we recommend switching your wireless service to PureTalk, which is way cheaper and uses the same towers the other guys use.

00:25:40.760 It's the best.

00:25:41.780 We know what you're thinking.

00:25:43.040 Of course, giving business to companies that share your values sounds nice.

00:25:45.960 But at the end of the day, you don't want to spend more for the privilege of buying products from a company that loves America.

00:25:54.220 Well, you don't have to.

00:25:55.660 PureTalk's plan started at just $25 a month, $25 for the same 5G coverage the other companies provide, literally the same cell towers.

00:26:04.660 And you support a business that believes in this country and creates jobs here in this country.

00:26:08.440 If you're interested, visit puretalk.com slash Tucker to switch to our wireless company, the one we use, PureTalk.

00:26:14.860 Right now, you save an additional 50% off your first month.

00:26:17.640 Again, puretalk.com slash Tucker.

00:26:19.980 You may have noticed this is a great country with bad food.

00:26:24.780 Our food supply is rotten.

00:26:27.000 It didn't used to be this way.

00:26:28.520 Take chips, for example.

00:26:30.260 You may recall a time when crushing a bag of chips didn't make you feel hungover, like you couldn't get out of bed the next day.

00:26:38.020 And the change, of course, is chemicals.

00:26:40.560 There's all kinds of crap they're putting in this food that should not be in your body.

00:26:44.560 Seed oils, for example.

00:26:45.720 Now, even one serving of your standard American chip brand can make you feel bloated, fat, totally passive, and out of it.

00:26:56.540 But there is a better way.

00:26:57.640 It's called masa chips.

00:26:59.000 They're delicious.

00:27:00.160 Got a whole garage full of them.

00:27:01.900 They're healthy.

00:27:02.840 They taste great.

00:27:04.060 And they have three simple ingredients.

00:27:06.000 Corn, salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow.

00:27:10.680 No garbage, no seed oils.

00:27:12.580 What a relief, and you feel the difference when you eat them, as we often do.

00:27:17.100 Snacking on masa chips is not like eating the garbage that you buy at convenience stores.

00:27:21.900 You feel satisfied, light, energetic, not sluggish.

00:27:26.300 Tens of thousands of happy people eat masa chips.

00:27:30.420 It's endorsed by people who understand health.

00:27:32.560 It's well worth a try.

00:27:34.040 Go to masa, M-A-S-A, chips.com, slash Tucker.

00:27:36.940 Use the code Tucker for 25% off your first order.

00:27:39.300 That's masachips.com, Tucker.

00:27:43.640 Code Tucker for 25% off your first order.

00:27:46.960 Highly recommended.

00:27:48.120 So we made a pledge only to advertise products that we would use or do use.

00:27:53.440 And here's one that I personally used this morning.

00:27:56.400 It's Liberty Safe.

00:27:57.760 There's a huge one in my garage.

00:27:59.620 It is the company that protects your valuables.

00:28:02.860 High-end safe lines represent the pinnacle of American-made.

00:28:06.500 They're made here in the U.S., pinnacle of American-made security and craftsmanship.

00:28:10.600 They're more than just safes.

00:28:11.960 They are a safeguard.

00:28:13.960 They've got seven-gauge-thick American steel, and they're beautiful.

00:28:19.240 Any kind of paint color you want, polished hardware, we have one.

00:28:24.200 They're really good-looking.

00:28:25.360 They do not detract from a room.

00:28:27.700 They enhance a room.

00:28:28.880 I keep my father's shotguns and all kinds of other things in there.

00:28:31.980 You can keep jewelry, money, anything else that you want to keep safe.

00:28:35.140 When you put your belongings in a Liberty Safe, you can just relax.

00:28:40.000 Safes come equipped with motion-activated lighting, drawers for storage, locking bars, dehumidifiers,

00:28:45.020 and up to 150 minutes of certified fire resistance.

00:28:48.240 You can customize them any way you want.

00:28:50.280 They are the best.

00:28:51.740 We highly recommend them.

00:28:53.180 Visit libertysafe.com to find a deal to learn about how you can protect what matters most to you.

00:28:58.900 Demand the best.

00:29:00.000 Liberty Safe.

00:29:01.240 So, can you describe how the process works?

00:29:05.900 So, we've got, you know, Wikipedia entry on you, let's just say.

00:29:11.280 How is that?

00:29:13.200 And I haven't actually read your Wikipedia entry.

00:29:14.920 I'm sure it's hostile in a subtle way.

00:29:16.900 It's actually okay.

00:29:17.820 It's okay.

00:29:18.440 I've never read my own Wikipedia entry, not one time.

00:29:21.220 Because I don't want to go crazy.

00:29:25.760 Because I am an expert on that subject.

00:29:27.020 So, I feel like I, you know, could probably compare their description to what I know to be true.

00:29:33.060 And it would just make me angry.

00:29:34.120 And I don't want to be angry.

00:29:35.120 But I have no doubt that it's hostile, right?

00:29:38.740 It'd piss you off.

00:29:40.080 Oh, is that true?

00:29:40.820 Oh, yeah.

00:29:41.140 I'm pretty sure.

00:29:42.320 Have you read it?

00:29:43.480 I think I've read the first paragraph anyway.

00:29:46.100 Pretty tough, huh?

00:29:47.780 I think so.

00:29:49.800 You know what?

00:29:50.880 I'm not just saying this.

00:29:52.600 Anyone who knows me knows it's true.

00:29:53.880 I've never done this before.

00:29:55.800 But I'm going to look it up right now.

00:29:58.400 And I'm just going to read the first paragraph.

00:30:00.660 I promise I've never.

00:30:03.120 I don't even know where it is.

00:30:05.400 Oh, there it is right there.

00:30:06.220 Oh, I knew I was going to use the first paragraph.

00:30:18.840 It basically just says, I'm a conservative political commentator.

00:30:21.320 Okay.

00:30:22.740 But I'm a leading voice of white grievance politics.

00:30:27.900 White grievance politics.

00:30:29.860 Okay.

00:30:30.120 I thought I was going to be mad.

00:30:32.040 I'm amused.

00:30:32.820 I don't even know what that is.

00:30:34.520 White grievance politics.

00:30:36.820 Okay.

00:30:37.400 So then you click on white grievance politics.

00:30:39.920 And it cites columnist Michael Gerson, who I happen to know.

00:30:44.280 Not someone.

00:30:45.940 I think he's passed away.

00:30:46.940 I'm sorry.

00:30:47.380 I don't want to make fun of him.

00:30:49.160 But he's not.

00:30:51.800 A real.

00:30:52.660 I mean, he was an ideologue.

00:30:54.480 Okay.

00:30:55.020 Big time ideologue.

00:30:56.440 And it quotes his quote.

00:30:59.120 Non-primary source needed.

00:31:00.600 It says in brackets that the Republican Party has been swiftly repositioned as an instrument of white grievance.

00:31:05.800 I guess it was a column attacking me.

00:31:07.340 No doubt about that.

00:31:08.780 So they call me in the first paragraph, a leading voice of white grievance politics.

00:31:13.960 Not how I'd describe myself.

00:31:15.400 I've never thought of myself that way.

00:31:18.800 Right.

00:31:19.040 I don't really care.

00:31:20.000 But in order to call me, basically, they're calling me a Nazi, of course.

00:31:25.520 They cite a Washington Post columnist who hated me.

00:31:29.440 Right.

00:31:30.280 And that's the citation.

00:31:31.240 Right.

00:31:33.960 Yes.

00:31:34.600 That's pretty much it.

00:31:35.800 If they were following a genuine neutrality policy, then they might say that if that was what your detractors were really focused on.

00:31:47.800 And perhaps it is.

00:31:49.060 But they would certainly, certainly quote you in response to that.

00:31:53.880 And they would give examples.

00:31:55.260 I mean, it wouldn't be ad hominem.

00:31:56.720 It would be, you know, quoting me saying, white people are angry.

00:32:01.140 We have a lot of grievances and they're justified.

00:32:03.580 Okay.

00:32:04.360 There he is, you know, espousing white grievance politics.

00:32:08.040 Right.

00:32:08.920 Yeah.

00:32:09.280 I don't think I've done that.

00:32:10.300 Though I do think that, by the way.

00:32:11.500 So maybe I am a white grievance politics guy.

00:32:13.900 But whatever.

00:32:14.900 I don't even care.

00:32:16.320 But it's just interesting.

00:32:17.480 They don't care either.

00:32:18.400 The point is to make you sound scary and Hitler-like.

00:32:22.600 Right.

00:32:23.120 No, that's right.

00:32:24.760 Yeah.

00:32:25.300 I don't know what white grievance politics is.

00:32:29.960 And I'm pretty sure you're not into it.

00:32:32.200 I'm actually not into it.

00:32:33.280 Yeah, yeah.

00:32:33.760 I mean, I do think white people have been completely mistreated and they have every reason to be mad about it.

00:32:37.720 But I don't want anyone to be mad about anything.

00:32:39.980 And I definitely don't want racial conflict.

00:32:41.580 I've never wanted that.

00:32:42.700 Yes.

00:32:43.880 So, but whatever.

00:32:45.280 Sure, but that, it's not about me and I'm sort of sorry I even brought that up.

00:32:49.240 No, it's fascinating.

00:32:49.520 And that's all I'm ever going to read in my Wikipedia entry.

00:32:52.280 But that's kind of the point.

00:32:57.040 How is it allowed to use subjective terms with no clear definition in someone's entry?

00:33:04.800 Those are, that's a political term.

00:33:06.140 That's a term of propaganda.

00:33:07.820 Yeah.

00:33:08.160 It's a term designed to discredit, not to illuminate or explain, but to attack.

00:33:12.240 Like, that's very common in political language, if that is political language.

00:33:16.040 But how is that, how is no editor like, wait a second, we don't even define white grievance politics.

00:33:22.300 How can we accuse someone of engaging in it?

00:33:24.640 Yeah.

00:33:27.660 It's, there's a lot of history there and we could take it in many different directions.

00:33:34.300 I mean, we've already talked about the policy that permits it.

00:33:40.940 We could also talk about the sources that are permitted.

00:33:44.540 Like, if you look at only the sources that are permitted to be used in Wikipedia, so mostly secondary sources, and they are mostly left-wing or center.

00:33:59.060 Generally speaking, there is now a blacklist called the perennial sources page that contains lists of dozens of conservative sources that are just not allowed.

00:34:15.400 And so, if the only defenders of Tucker Carlson can be found in those other sources, then you won't be defended in the article about you, and they will call the article about you neutral.

00:34:33.380 That's quite amazing.

00:34:34.780 Who makes the decision on the blacklist?

00:34:37.340 So, there is a reliable sources group, essentially, that debates it.

00:34:46.700 Now, there are people who spend the most time, you know, probably are working full-time for somebody on Wikipedia.

00:34:59.780 They build up a lot of clout.

00:35:02.720 What does that mean, working full-time for somebody on Wikipedia?

00:35:05.160 Well, there are PR firms, just for example, that do nothing but edit articles on Wikipedia in order to be able to insert desired factoids according to how people pay them, essentially.

00:35:26.860 So, it's a thing.

00:35:28.240 Oh, yes.

00:35:29.240 Wikipedia PR firms, essentially.

00:35:31.480 And this is not allowed, officially.

00:35:35.040 It's called paid editing.

00:35:36.460 Big no-no.

00:35:39.300 And if you do do it, then you have to announce yourself.

00:35:43.920 A lot of people do it, and they don't announce themselves, of course.

00:35:46.880 So, my point, then, to answer your question, is that there are a lot of people who have built up clout over the years in the Wikipedia system.

00:35:57.260 And a lot of them have been made into the leaders of the project.

00:36:07.660 There are 833 administrators, as they're called.

00:36:12.460 So, these are sort of the rank-and-file cops.

00:36:15.780 Then, you've got 16 bureaucrats who can name the cops.

00:36:22.000 Then, you've got 49 check users, and these are accounts that can identify the IP address of accounts.

00:36:30.760 And then, there are 15 members of an arbitration committee, which is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia.

00:36:36.920 It deals mostly with behavioral issues, as opposed to editorial.

00:36:43.280 So, now, here's an interesting...

00:36:45.760 Do we know who these people are?

00:36:47.740 That's what I was about to answer.

00:36:49.900 Of this power 62, because if you add up all of those accounts, and there's overlap, there's 62 such accounts.

00:36:57.900 Only 9, 14.5% are named.

00:37:03.160 So, 85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia, on the editorial side, are anonymous.

00:37:12.040 So...

00:37:12.840 Wait a second.

00:37:13.980 No, it's true.

00:37:16.040 So, again, these are the people who are shaping Americans' understanding of the world, of their own country, of themselves, of reality itself.

00:37:25.020 Mm-hmm.

00:37:25.760 And we don't know who they are.

00:37:27.900 Because their identities are hidden?

00:37:30.240 That's correct.

00:37:31.180 Yes.

00:37:31.780 They can libel people with impunity, as they do you.

00:37:37.680 And there is no legal recourse, because they are anonymous.

00:37:42.140 And the Wikimedia Foundation enjoys Section 230 immunity, which means it can't be sued in the United States.

00:37:50.120 So, we've done a lot of segments over many years attacking college.

00:37:53.220 Most of them are not worth sending your kids.

00:37:55.720 They're definitely not worth paying for.

00:37:56.900 In fact, they're counterproductive.

00:37:58.380 They're the source of a lot of this country's problems.

00:38:00.020 But that doesn't mean that all colleges are bad.

00:38:02.240 We've looked far and wide for good ones.

00:38:04.320 And Grand Canyon University is near the top of the list.

00:38:07.520 It's a private Christian university located in the Arizona mountains, the best part of Arizona.

00:38:12.740 Grand Canyon believes that every one of us is endowed by God with inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

00:38:20.800 Rights are not something that politicians give us.

00:38:23.100 Rights are something they are sworn to uphold and defend.

00:38:26.440 It's a totally different way of looking at the world.

00:38:27.980 At GCU, purpose starts with service-equipping students to affect their families, communities, and the world for good.

00:38:35.760 Whether you're called to business, education, ministry, whatever it is, Grand Canyon University helps you honor that calling while glorifying God through your work.

00:38:44.360 Real purpose in life.

00:38:45.780 Over 340 academic programs offered online, on campus, in hybrid formats.

00:38:51.240 Take your pick.

00:38:52.380 GCU makes education accessible and is tailored to you and your goals.

00:38:56.260 Whether you're starting fresh, you're going back to school to advance your career, if you're ready to pursue a degree and a purpose, Grand Canyon University, GCU is ready for you.

00:39:05.080 It's private, it's Christian, it's affordable.

00:39:07.640 Visit gcu.edu today.

00:39:11.080 So my question is, there's nothing that can be done.

00:39:13.780 They're protected by 230 immunity.

00:39:15.780 So they can't be sued into better behavior.

00:39:19.760 But presumably they can be shamed and reasoned with.

00:39:23.280 And the first, so the first step in that is just asking the question, on what grounds are you keeping the identities of some of the most powerful people in the country secret?

00:39:31.020 Why can't I know who's making these decisions?

00:39:33.920 Who's blacklisting entire news organizations on the basis of their politics, for example?

00:39:38.280 Who's responsible for the slander?

00:39:39.560 Why can't I know their names?

00:39:41.140 What would Wikipedia, the foundation, say if I ask that question?

00:39:45.780 They would say that according to the policies of the editorial side of their organization, which they're not responsible for, people can participate anonymously at all levels.

00:40:01.380 So you could be the most powerful person on the editorial side, and you don't need to reveal your identity.

00:40:09.640 It's a matter of policy.

00:40:12.080 Now, you know.

00:40:13.440 Talk about a non-answer.

00:40:15.000 Sure.

00:40:16.320 They're hiding their identities because they're allowed to.

00:40:19.260 Okay.

00:40:19.600 Got it.

00:40:20.800 Well, yes.

00:40:22.540 But why are they allowed to?

00:40:23.980 Okay.

00:40:24.280 So I think the answer is basically it goes back to like the zeitgeist of 1990s hacker culture when people went on like these funny names, nicknames, handles, not their real names.

00:40:46.220 And that has continued.

00:40:47.760 It never stopped all across Wikipedia.

00:40:50.600 People use these sort of cutesy names.

00:40:54.260 And they like to portray themselves to the public as just, you know, mop-wielding janitors of the site.

00:41:03.720 And, of course, it's ludicrous, right?

00:41:07.420 But it's just, as far as I can tell, it's a game that they're playing.

00:41:13.480 They're putting on the air of being like harmless college students that are only interested in comma placement and that sort of thing.

00:41:21.020 So why do you need to know my identity and so forth?

00:41:25.180 But I'll tell you, people, they just haven't pressed them on this question.

00:41:29.680 Well, and they should be pressed immediately and, I mean, because just in practical terms, as you said, it's ludicrous.

00:41:35.280 Who has more effect on Americans or the world's understanding of history, the seven history departments of the Ivy League or Wikipedia?

00:41:44.260 It's not even close.

00:41:45.420 It's not even close.

00:41:46.560 Not in the same universe.

00:41:47.700 Yes.

00:41:48.280 But if all of a sudden every history professor at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, et cetera, decided, I'm not telling you my name.

00:41:56.040 As I teach your kids about the Renaissance or whatever, we would say, that's freaking nuts.

00:42:03.260 Of course, I have to know your name.

00:42:05.600 Right, right.

00:42:06.520 And, you know, traditional media organizations, they name their editors and their journalists, of course.

00:42:14.960 They have real world reputation to live up to.

00:42:18.780 And if they do bad reporting, then they can be fired, they experience career consequences.

00:42:26.700 And that simply doesn't happen on Wikipedia.

00:42:29.460 Now, you know, people, they can mess up on Wikipedia and be kicked out.

00:42:33.980 They can lose their administratorship, whatever that happens, I suppose.

00:42:39.500 But it's not real world consequences, is it?

00:42:42.200 Not really.

00:42:42.760 No, it's not.

00:42:43.460 And I, so here's, okay, so I'm sort of getting to one of my core concerns, which you've made me think is something to be concerned about, which is the influence of intelligence agencies on the work product of Wikipedia.

00:42:59.260 It's very obvious to me, having been around that world a lot, that they're influencing some of the answers, some of the entries on Wikipedia.

00:43:05.920 It's super, super obvious.

00:43:07.260 It's part, it's part of the propaganda campaign, which is the real war, the info war.

00:43:14.340 And, like, you must have thought of that when you were building this thing.

00:43:17.120 Like, man, you know, the intel agencies could get involved and start changing the way people understand what they did, for example.

00:43:25.640 No.

00:43:26.380 You didn't, you never thought of it?

00:43:27.680 No.

00:43:28.600 I had no such idea.

00:43:30.740 Not in 19, not in 2001, in 2000, 2002.

00:43:35.580 No, I mean, I was a babe in the woods.

00:43:41.720 Yes, it wasn't until, like, I think it was 2006, 2007, Virgil Griffiths did master's research.

00:43:51.460 He came up with a tool called WikiScanner that enabled people to look up the IP addresses of people who had done edits and, like, who had edited which articles.

00:44:10.400 And so, they were able to find a whole bunch of edits coming from Langley.

00:44:16.020 No.

00:44:16.740 Oh, I didn't even know that.

00:44:18.240 No, it's true.

00:44:19.360 Not to brag.

00:44:20.240 I could just tell by reading it.

00:44:21.700 Like, because I know what that is, right?

00:44:23.760 I since have learned differently and learned much better.

00:44:28.100 I don't have the background that you have, but it's also very clear to me what we are told about the way that intelligence works now.

00:44:39.300 Is that, of course, there's the old-fashioned cloak and dagger spying going on.

00:44:46.060 But a large part of the remit of intelligence today is to manipulate public opinion in various ways.

00:44:55.720 And Wikipedia is, like, just a goldmine for the intelligence agencies of the world because it's, like, a one-stop shop.

00:45:06.060 You know, you can just, like, type in the things that you want people to believe, I suppose.

00:45:10.700 Now, how that works, like, which agencies are involved, how the heck should I know?

00:45:15.620 Well, you can tell by reading it.

00:45:16.980 You can tell instantly by reading it.

00:45:18.880 Some of what's going on.

00:45:19.740 I mean, you never know the whole story, of course.

00:45:22.460 But it's super obvious to me.

00:45:24.620 Some of the players in this, very obvious.

00:45:26.900 And they're the big ones, of course.

00:45:28.460 So, but my question, and everything you've said makes sense.

00:45:34.320 My question, however, is, like, how is this allowed?

00:45:37.540 So, if you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia for pay on behalf of, say, a PR agency,

00:45:44.460 how are you allowed to do it on behalf of an intelligence agency?

00:45:50.020 That's a good question.

00:45:51.560 I actually asked Elon Musk and the president to, you know, use Doge or other government resources

00:46:05.060 to investigate what United States employees were actually editing Wikipedia and, you know, perhaps stop that.

00:46:21.920 I don't know.

00:46:22.840 Maybe we shouldn't.

00:46:23.940 Maybe there's reasons, legitimate reasons for government employees to do this.

00:46:29.200 But at least Elon Musk did retweet that and got a lot of support.

00:46:36.220 So, it's...

00:46:37.140 Did anyone do anything about it?

00:46:38.580 What's that?

00:46:39.060 Did anyone do anything about it?

00:46:40.540 Not to my knowledge, except now there is a congressional investigation.

00:46:49.020 I don't know if my tweet had anything to do with the start of that.

00:46:52.860 I don't think so.

00:46:54.200 I think it had more to do with the reporting of Ashley Rinsberg.

00:46:58.680 And, well, of course, Israel, and I would add, Hindus, are very bothered with the way that their ethnic groups are treated in Wikipedia.

00:47:17.060 And both of them, both a whole bunch of Jews and a whole bunch of Hindus have been after me in the last couple of years,

00:47:24.520 saying, you've got to speak out.

00:47:26.440 You've got to help us.

00:47:28.220 You know, and I've said, well, I don't really know a lot about the situation.

00:47:31.860 I mean, there isn't a whole lot that I could do.

00:47:33.880 Will they be accused of Indian or Israeli grievance politics?

00:47:37.000 Probably not.

00:47:38.060 What's that?

00:47:38.720 No, sorry.

00:47:39.580 I'm just thinking like...

00:47:41.700 No, that was a bitter sardonic aside.

00:47:45.380 No, excuse me.

00:47:46.260 I take that back.

00:47:47.920 I don't want to be a grievance person.

00:47:50.040 You know, of course.

00:47:50.640 But the answer, what you're really saying is people who are organized...

00:47:54.520 have a way to push back against the lying.

00:47:58.840 For sure.

00:47:59.980 For sure.

00:48:00.540 I think that if, like, Israeli intelligence, for example, got together and made a real concerted effort

00:48:10.620 to fight against this group of 40 Muslim activists that Ashley Rinsberg identified,

00:48:27.900 they might be able to make some inroads.

00:48:29.720 Oh, you think?

00:48:30.080 You think they might be able to do that?

00:48:31.880 Yeah, they might.

00:48:34.100 Yeah, it really depends.

00:48:35.360 It's possible.

00:48:35.940 I'll just throw that out there.

00:48:36.880 Yeah, here's the thing.

00:48:39.840 I actually think, concurrently, we're going to talk about the nine theses here, I assume.

00:48:46.560 So, I would like to encourage people to at least test the waters.

00:48:53.040 Don't go to Wikipedia and be a jerk and get yourself kicked out right away, because they

00:48:59.980 will kick you out, for sure, if you are not playing by the rules.

00:49:04.000 But go there and maybe not all at once, but, you know, over the next few weeks, make some

00:49:12.060 real efforts to make good faith edits to Wikipedia and build up some credibility within the community.

00:49:22.160 You can make a difference there.

00:49:24.060 I think it's a good idea to give it a try.

00:49:29.200 You know, one thing that has never been tried is to simply get all of the libertarians and

00:49:38.640 all of the conservatives and the Jews and the Hindus and the Christians and whoever else

00:49:45.400 has grievances against Wikipedia, organize them, and descend on Wikipedia and actually try to make

00:49:53.280 a change.

00:49:54.020 Remember this name, Last Country Supply.

00:49:56.040 The world can change at any moment.

00:49:57.640 Pretty obvious at this point.

00:49:59.060 Could be a power outage, a hurricane, a supply chain breakdown, a pandemic, and God knows what

00:50:04.440 else.

00:50:04.660 Literally, only God knows what else.

00:50:06.300 Are you ready to protect your family in case things are a little bit different tomorrow?

00:50:10.500 And we are.

00:50:11.060 In fact, we have an entire company dedicated to helping you be.

00:50:14.340 It's called Last Country Supply.

00:50:15.760 Here's what we have in our garage right now.

00:50:19.220 Emergency solar flashlight, five-in-one hatchet, 100-hour candle supply, multi-week food kits

00:50:24.920 with meat, fruit, nuts, vegetables, grains, bean, milk, survival protein kits loaded with

00:50:29.540 all the health benefits you need.

00:50:31.060 Our supply lasts up to 25 years.

00:50:33.000 In other words, you don't have to worry that if things go south for a short period or a long

00:50:37.580 period, you're going to be okay.

00:50:39.080 And that's a huge relief.

00:50:40.400 You're not crazy or paranoid for wondering, you're just wise and aware.

00:50:44.980 Visit LastCountrySupply.com, browse the same survival gear and fuel that we are grateful

00:50:49.540 to have for ourselves.

00:50:51.100 LastCountrySupply.com can keep you prepared.

00:50:53.920 That never occurs to most conservatives.

00:50:56.800 Their first instinct is to, I'll speak for myself, my first instinct is to run away.

00:51:01.620 I don't want to deal with this, it's horrible.

00:51:03.020 Me too.

00:51:03.820 I hate these people.

00:51:04.720 And this is my internal monologue.

00:51:07.100 And if I'm mad enough, we should start something better.

00:51:10.400 It never occurs to your average conservative to take back the institution that's been perverted

00:51:18.620 and corrupted.

00:51:19.500 It never occurs to them, well, maybe I should, I don't know, try to join the faculty at Harvard

00:51:23.860 and stop lying.

00:51:25.120 You know what I mean?

00:51:26.100 Or why don't I fix Wikipedia?

00:51:28.000 And I think that's your right.

00:51:29.200 Yeah.

00:51:29.680 So, I think it was either the first or second interview that you did of me was in 2019 when

00:51:37.580 I started something called a social media strike.

00:51:42.640 And it actually went pretty well.

00:51:46.620 But it always struck me that, first of all, I could have followed it up.

00:51:51.940 And second of all, it could have been much bigger, like if I had organized it properly.

00:51:57.480 But it was mostly just me and my blog, you know.

00:52:01.440 And still, there were like a half a dozen or 10 different media sources that covered this

00:52:07.540 social media strike.

00:52:08.820 Um, so maybe we should organize something similar with regard to, uh, I think part of

00:52:14.920 the problem is that most non-liberals have just no patience for bureaucracy.

00:52:20.700 Right.

00:52:21.260 And liberals, because they, you know, as Ted Kaczynski famously wrote, the whole point of

00:52:25.940 liberalism is safety in numbers.

00:52:28.320 These are people who are hollow and afraid inside.

00:52:31.160 And so, they seek each other out and they create these institutions so they can feel

00:52:35.640 safe.

00:52:37.000 And non-liberals just don't feel that way at all because they're not, you know, because

00:52:41.680 they believe in something and they're not ruled by fear.

00:52:45.740 And so, the average conservative, when told to sit through like a PTA meeting or join the

00:52:52.300 Wikipedia, you know, editor's process or something like, goes crazy.

00:52:57.420 Can't deal with it.

00:52:58.440 Right.

00:52:58.860 Right.

00:52:59.180 Do you notice this?

00:53:00.160 Yes, and, and, and there's another, um, sort of practical, uh, problem that, that stands

00:53:07.960 in the way of this.

00:53:08.840 There's, uh, you're not allowed to do what's called brigading on Wikipedia.

00:53:14.340 So, brigading means organizing, editing of a particular article off the wiki.

00:53:22.940 So, if you're caught doing this, then you can be, um, you can be blocked.

00:53:30.160 So, if I were to tell everybody to go to the article about Larry Sanger, um, and please

00:53:36.380 don't do that.

00:53:38.120 But if I, if I were to try to organize that, like, on this show right now, then I might

00:53:43.520 be blocked for brigading.

00:53:44.760 But it's cool for like Saudi intelligence or Mossad or the CIA to do it.

00:53:48.760 For sure.

00:53:49.160 I mean, this is so bonkers.

00:53:54.060 For, for sure.

00:53:55.600 Okay.

00:53:56.340 No, it's true.

00:53:57.760 Yeah.

00:53:57.960 Got it.

00:53:58.340 And it's so obvious.

00:53:59.460 I mean.

00:54:00.660 It's, it's, it's, it's an obvious thing for them to do.

00:54:03.000 They wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't doing it.

00:54:05.340 Right.

00:54:05.780 Right.

00:54:06.300 I mean, they're supposed to be shaping public opinion.

00:54:08.720 That's part of their remit is the intelligence committee or community now.

00:54:13.260 Right.

00:54:13.500 Yeah.

00:54:13.660 And, and, um, or the way to shape, uh, public opinion, one of the main ways is to make sure

00:54:22.360 that Wikipedia reads the way you want it to read.

00:54:25.040 And yes, then they can organize secretly behind the scenes and they do.

00:54:31.120 Yeah.

00:54:31.820 There's such a lot.

00:54:32.680 I mean, I just happened to know some of the topics.

00:54:35.120 Like I was there for not many things, but some things.

00:54:38.120 And you read about, you know, something that you just happen to have direct knowledge of

00:54:43.000 and it's the account of it is so intentionally distorted, such a lie.

00:54:49.020 And then people, you know, you read about, it's like, wait, I, I remember when you had

00:54:53.320 a DUI arrest or, or whatever.

00:54:55.560 And it's gone.

00:55:00.080 If they can't even keep the paid PR people out, then that suggests to me that the people

00:55:09.000 who edit Wikipedia are probably making money on this.

00:55:11.740 It's like the fastest way would just be to bribe them.

00:55:14.320 Right.

00:55:15.680 If you are really good at playing the Wikipedia game and you're like one of these, this power

00:55:21.680 62 and you're not in the pay of somebody, then you're just leaving money on the table.

00:55:27.820 Right.

00:55:28.240 That seems obvious to me.

00:55:30.300 Well, and if we can't even know their names, then what would be the disincentive?

00:55:33.060 Like, and that would be one of the reasons why we don't know their names.

00:55:36.560 And that actually is one of the main reasons why I say we should know their names.

00:55:41.460 So I'm just calling on WikiLeaks, you know, or Julian Assange, where are you?

00:55:46.580 I, I, I cannot, I cannot agree.

00:55:48.760 I don't, I, I don't, uh, I don't think that we should dox the, the power 62.

00:55:55.000 Um, this is what I call them.

00:55:56.700 By dox, what do you mean?

00:55:57.420 Does that mean like home address or does that just mean name?

00:56:00.640 Name.

00:56:01.360 Name.

00:56:01.680 Name is enough.

00:56:02.780 That would be doxing them.

00:56:04.200 Okay.

00:56:04.440 Um, in the Wikipedia system, they are, um, basically anyone who reveals their name and

00:56:15.660 they don't want their name revealed would be immediately blocked for doxing and it would

00:56:21.540 be in a permanent block for sure.

00:56:24.600 Um, so it's a very serious offense on Wikipedia.

00:56:27.420 So I'm, I am not encouraging people to do this.

00:56:30.900 That, that, okay.

00:56:31.440 That's fair.

00:56:31.960 I, I respect the fact that you've thought about this a lot and much more than I have

00:56:36.380 and you're decent.

00:56:37.980 Um, and so you're probably right.

00:56:39.760 I'm just frustrated, but I wonder, is there, it seems to me knowing the names of the people

00:56:45.380 making these decisions is in the public interest.

00:56:47.860 That's for sure.

00:56:48.560 These are not just random Twitter users.

00:56:50.840 Okay.

00:56:51.300 They're shaping history.

00:56:53.260 They are the authors of history.

00:56:55.180 Certainly the gatekeepers of history.

00:56:56.680 So.

00:56:57.080 And they're libeling.

00:56:58.080 We need to talk about that.

00:57:00.700 Well, they certainly, they are.

00:57:01.960 You know, obviously.

00:57:04.320 And I say this as Mr. Wake Reaven's politics.

00:57:08.380 Um, they, I can't, I'm, yeah.

00:57:10.900 Uh, they certainly have libeled a lot of people I know.

00:57:13.540 Yes.

00:57:14.120 Literally libeled, like saying things that are untrue about them.

00:57:16.500 Yeah.

00:57:16.640 And there's no, there's no recourse.

00:57:18.520 Right.

00:57:18.880 So this, this is the problem.

00:57:20.580 Right.

00:57:20.920 Um, John Siegenthaler, senior, um, called me up in 2005.

00:57:27.740 He was a newspaper editor from Tennessee.

00:57:29.580 Exactly.

00:57:30.280 He was a longtime publisher and editor of the Tennessean, one of the founding board members,

00:57:36.100 I believe, of USA Today.

00:57:38.420 Yep.

00:57:38.840 So very important newspaper man.

00:57:41.220 And kind of a center left liberal, I would say.

00:57:43.780 Right.

00:57:44.540 Um, and he, um, the article about him said that he had been under suspicion of being responsible in some way for the assassination of RFK.

00:57:59.820 And, uh, he was livid, of course, because he had actually, like, worked on RFK's campaign and things like that.

00:58:08.260 Um, and, uh, he blamed me, and, like, I kind of didn't, you know, uh, blame him for doing so.

00:58:19.320 Um, and, uh, he opened my eyes to just how reputations can be harmed by people.

00:58:29.820 And I have heard from dozens and dozens, maybe over a hundred different reasonably famous people, um, since then, uh, with, with grievances about the Wikipedia articles.

00:58:44.060 And they're, like, at their wits' end, they know I'm long gone from Wikipedia, and they don't know what to do.

00:58:51.280 Right.

00:58:51.620 So I've kept abreast of, of, um, this issue on Wikipedia quite a bit.

00:58:58.520 And it bothers me because I take sort of personal responsibility.

00:59:02.800 I, I feel personal responsibility, which is one of the reasons why I came up with the nine theses in the first place.

00:59:10.580 But, so, like, what did Siegenthaler do?

00:59:13.100 Like, was he able to get that off Wikipedia?

00:59:14.860 He was able to get satisfaction.

00:59:17.300 I don't think he got an immediate response and, and, um, immediate reversal, um, but, uh, reasonably quickly.

00:59:26.840 But I, I, I can't remember if it was before or after they had changed his article that he called me.

00:59:34.000 But he wanted me to know, right?

00:59:36.680 And, and I don't blame him.

00:59:37.880 And, and another time, Philip Roth, the famous journalist, um, also.

00:59:43.600 Philip Roth, the novelist?

00:59:44.480 The novelist, yes.

00:59:45.460 He, he contacted me also and was, uh, complaining that, um, the, the story of the, the origin of the inspiration of The Human Stain was wrong on Wikipedia.

00:59:58.040 He had gone to the Wikipedia talk page and said, hi, I am Philip Roth.

01:00:04.120 And, uh, you've got the story wrong and here's the real story.

01:00:07.780 And they said, sorry, we can't use that.

01:00:09.540 You're a primary source.

01:00:14.060 I mean, it's ridiculous.

01:00:15.960 Of course.

01:00:17.620 I, I mean, just what kind of person do you have to be to, to, like, to take that sort of disrespectful stance to, to somebody like Philip Roth.

01:00:32.780 And, and, and to twist your own rules in that way for almost a petty reasons.

01:00:41.200 There's a lot of petty power players on, on Wikipedia, I find.

01:00:46.340 I believe that.

01:00:47.600 The people behind this, they hide behind their anonymity.

01:00:52.380 So there is no legal recourse when somebody is seriously libeled so that, you know, their career is damaged.

01:01:00.680 I've heard from people whose careers were materially damaged.

01:01:04.240 Oh, well, I'm, I'm sure I'm one of them.

01:01:06.740 By Wikipedia.

01:01:07.580 Yeah.

01:01:08.840 Uh, yeah.

01:01:09.780 I mean, my recourse has just been to, you know, stay cheerful, focused on God and my family.

01:01:16.240 You know, like not get mad, I think is kind of the only, that's the only thing I've been able to do about it and not read it.

01:01:21.460 Don't marinate in that.

01:01:23.380 But I don't think it's just petty power.

01:01:26.180 It's like global power because.

01:01:28.920 Right.

01:01:29.360 They're aligned with Google.

01:01:30.860 The biggest search engine, the search monopoly that dominates English language search completely has a monopoly on it.

01:01:38.240 And they have somehow made a deal with Google that allows them to be the top search results.

01:01:43.200 So, for example, I just Googled myself for the first time ever.

01:01:46.840 And Wikipedia is the first result.

01:01:48.460 Now, why would Wikipedia be the first result on me?

01:01:50.580 I still work.

01:01:51.480 I still have a job.

01:01:52.220 So, like, they're, why would that be number one?

01:01:56.000 Why would a bunch of anonymous editors get to be the first result on my name because they have a deal with Google?

01:02:01.100 I can explain it.

01:02:03.080 I, you very well could be right.

01:02:05.600 I bet my house on it, but.

01:02:09.960 Right.

01:02:11.520 Well, look, in the early days, Wikipedia was the only source of information on a whole bunch of topics.

01:02:20.900 For sure.

01:02:21.240 Okay.

01:02:21.980 And then the way that the Google algorithm worked back then, if you ended up being the first source for a lot of topics,

01:02:31.580 then your Google PageRank score was higher.

01:02:36.740 And so, Wikipedia just shot to the top of Google's PageRank algorithm.

01:02:42.280 At least this is the story they tell, right?

01:02:44.480 And so, one of the reasons why Google, or Wikipedia rather, took off so quickly is this feedback loop that it had with Google, right?

01:03:00.360 So, you know, Wikipedia would write a hundred articles that never had any coverage by Google before.

01:03:07.180 They would appear on Google.

01:03:08.480 People would search for those topics, and they would come to Wikipedia.

01:03:12.520 And then the number of contributors would expand and lather, rinse, repeat.

01:03:17.500 And there was exponential growth.

01:03:20.740 Well, so I think we're saying the same thing.

01:03:22.580 I mean, you're describing the mechanism by which Wikipedia is the guaranteed first response to any query on a fact about a person or history.

01:03:33.140 Right.

01:03:34.600 I mean, that's to say it doesn't matter kind of what the mechanism is.

01:03:38.700 The result is the same.

01:03:39.780 Yes, yes, yes.

01:03:40.760 And they know that.

01:03:41.320 Yes, and I guess what I'm saying is, if there was an actual deal from the beginning, it would be from the beginning.

01:03:49.000 And I wouldn't rule that out.

01:03:50.500 I'm enough of a conspiracy theorist to say that's not totally impossible.

01:03:56.540 In fact, how many startups can you say were the first reviews by any news source was the New York Times and MIT Technology Review?

01:04:11.960 But those were the first reviews that were published by any mainstream source of Wikipedia.

01:04:19.280 Amazing.

01:04:20.140 Yeah, that was in September of 2001.

01:04:22.320 So we were immediately on the establishments.

01:04:27.100 Well, I mean, Wikipedia is a servant to the ruling class, obviously, which is corrupt.

01:04:32.620 So Wikipedia is itself corrupt, the most corrupt.

01:04:37.060 Yeah, you can't over...

01:04:38.520 I must say my last editorial comment that I want to get to what we can do to make this better, and you've written extensively about it.

01:04:44.840 But my last comment is that when people grouse about the media or corrupt news media, they're always referring to, like, companies that really don't matter, like CBS or NBC or CNN or Fox News.

01:04:59.600 It's like, who cares?

01:05:00.240 They're all going away.

01:05:01.540 They're totally discredited.

01:05:03.300 Everyone knows that.

01:05:04.320 And they won't even be here in 10 years.

01:05:08.140 Wikipedia has a much greater effect on how people understand the world than any of those media outlets.

01:05:14.300 Wikipedia is a media outlet, and it's never included in the list of corrupt media outlets.

01:05:19.800 And that just bugs me.

01:05:21.260 Well, could I push back slightly?

01:05:22.780 Of course.

01:05:23.120 People our age and older still do take CNN and NBC and all the rest very seriously.

01:05:35.460 So, no, not the conservatives, but basically centrists.

01:05:40.760 My mother votes Republican, and she still watches, you know, the mainstream media.

01:05:46.320 And it still defines her reality, essentially, you know.

01:05:51.720 So, it's a generational thing.

01:05:54.640 It is.

01:05:55.460 I'm just saying that the actuarial tables tell us that this has a limited shelf life.

01:06:00.060 So, that's it.

01:06:01.440 And just looking forward, extrapolating forward, you know, 10, 15, 20 years, you know, that stuff is not meaningful.

01:06:10.360 Digital media is very meaningful, and Wikipedia is the most meaningful.

01:06:14.700 That's my only point.

01:06:15.520 And I just think that someone should say that out loud.

01:06:18.080 I agree.

01:06:19.160 No, I think that's true.

01:06:20.040 So, it's probably, Wikipedia by itself is more influential than the New York Times or any other single media source.

01:06:32.220 And it works in tandem with the New York Times.

01:06:33.860 Right.

01:06:36.180 Any chance of getting the New York Times blacklisted at Wikipedia?

01:06:40.020 So, you laugh.

01:06:41.160 I don't think so.

01:06:41.940 Well, I know for a fact that I'm more honest than the New York Times.

01:06:47.400 I mean, take a live tech test.

01:06:50.000 I really believe that I am.

01:06:51.140 But I'm blacklisted, and they're not.

01:06:52.360 So, like, I just think that's not neutral, whether I'm right or wrong.

01:06:57.220 Okay.

01:06:59.160 You have, you know, following the example of our beloved German monk 500 years ago, written some theses that you want to nail to the front door of Wikipedia.

01:07:08.260 That's right.

01:07:09.280 What are they?

01:07:11.280 All right.

01:07:13.780 Let's go through the list.

01:07:15.340 All right.

01:07:15.900 This should take about five minutes, maybe.

01:07:17.800 So, take your time.

01:07:18.520 This is, I just want to restate if you're coming to the video right now.

01:07:21.060 Right.

01:07:21.200 This is the creator of Wikipedia explaining how Wikipedia can be saved from corruption.

01:07:27.260 Yes.

01:07:27.800 Nobody has ever actually made a thoroughgoing reform proposal of Wikipedia.

01:07:34.120 This is the first time anybody has done that, and it's certainly the first time I have done that.

01:07:40.420 There's been a lot of piecemeal reform proposals, but this is thoroughgoing.

01:07:45.020 And I'm trying, just as Luther did, I'm trying to start a conversation.

01:07:49.620 All right.

01:07:49.820 So, this is not a—

01:07:50.860 I hope this starts a reformation.

01:07:52.640 Well, I do.

01:07:54.420 I hope this starts what Luther started.

01:07:57.340 Right.

01:07:57.980 A return to honesty.

01:08:00.120 We'll be the Protestant Wikipedians.

01:08:04.520 Okay.

01:08:04.960 So, the nine theses begin this way.

01:08:09.500 Number one, end decision-making by consensus.

01:08:13.420 So, Wikipedia pretends to make difficult editorial decisions based on a process they call consensus.

01:08:23.520 But it's a sham because this allows ideologues to silence dissent by falsely claiming, in effect, unanimous agreement.

01:08:38.600 But, of course, there isn't unanimous agreement.

01:08:42.040 So, the scientific consensus on climate change would be a perfect example of this.

01:08:45.480 Would be a very good example.

01:08:48.100 So, the consensus, I say, has a description of how they arrive at difficult editorial decisions should be abandoned.

01:08:59.660 Now, what they replace it with, that's a good question.

01:09:03.280 But let's begin there.

01:09:06.320 End decision-making by consensus because it allows an aggressive faction to overwhelm the skeptical faction.

01:09:15.560 Exactly.

01:09:16.600 It's really a cynical institutional fiction.

01:09:21.560 It has to end.

01:09:23.320 They can't call what they're doing consensus anymore.

01:09:28.320 That's not a consensus at all.

01:09:30.400 Especially if they claim to be an open global project.

01:09:36.800 Period.

01:09:38.080 Right?

01:09:38.700 Period.

01:09:39.320 Thank you.

01:09:40.020 I agree.

01:09:41.040 Number two, enable competing articles.

01:09:43.900 So, this is a little bit out there, but I think it's a good one.

01:09:49.240 Since true neutrality is impossible, as we've been discussing under the current editorial monopoly,

01:09:55.820 Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles written from different declared perspectives,

01:10:03.980 each striving for neutrality within its own framework.

01:10:07.920 So, let the people write alternative articles.

01:10:11.160 And for this, let me quickly tell you about what I think.

01:10:16.340 That's not far out.

01:10:17.940 No, it really shouldn't be.

01:10:19.720 That's a great idea.

01:10:20.960 Yes.

01:10:21.480 I mean, why not just allow, you know, there can be multiple articles titled Donald Trump.

01:10:28.140 Right?

01:10:28.660 So, you could have, you know, Special Report on Fox News, or you could have the CBS Evening News,

01:10:35.300 and you could also have Joe Rogan.

01:10:36.820 Right.

01:10:37.260 Because that's what alternative media is.

01:10:38.700 Right, right, right.

01:10:39.860 Why not?

01:10:40.120 And people can decide what they believe.

01:10:42.000 Yes.

01:10:42.820 So, fine.

01:10:45.960 Number three, abolish source blacklists, which we've already talked about this quite a bit.

01:10:53.440 Wikipedia maintains a list of perennial sources, which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources.

01:11:03.960 All right.

01:11:04.120 Can I ask, what is the justification for that?

01:11:09.320 And, like, internally, we just don't believe them.

01:11:13.400 They're not real.

01:11:14.500 What are the criteria for determining authenticity of a news source?

01:11:19.480 That's pretty much it.

01:11:21.000 That's, like, my opinion.

01:11:22.440 They, well, they don't say.

01:11:24.500 It's just their opinion.

01:11:25.260 They say, as a matter of objective fact, we have...

01:11:29.260 Right.

01:11:31.640 I've got to start doing that.

01:11:32.820 You know, studies show the New York Times lies.

01:11:35.480 Therefore, you know, I'm just banning it.

01:11:37.900 Well, you would think that that would hold some weight with an objective analysis.

01:11:45.340 Boy, definitely.

01:11:46.340 I can tell you it does.

01:11:46.860 Yes, yes, yes, yes.

01:11:49.060 Okay.

01:11:50.760 So, you can't cite the New York Post, Fox News, or you on Wikipedia as a source.

01:11:58.400 So, I am making the modest proposal that this blacklist should be abolished.

01:12:06.320 It was established in 2017.

01:12:08.560 It's fairly new.

01:12:09.980 Right after Trump.

01:12:11.220 What's that?

01:12:11.700 The year Trump gets inaugurated.

01:12:13.560 That's right.

01:12:14.340 They decide that we're just not going to hear from certain news organizations just because.

01:12:19.200 Because objectively, they're bad.

01:12:20.940 Wikipedia may not cite the, well, for example, the New York Post, and we should actually investigate

01:12:31.600 whether that decision was made at about the time that the Hunter Biden laptop story was

01:12:38.100 breaking, right?

01:12:39.600 Is this public, by the way?

01:12:41.180 Can you, can I go on the Wikipedia site and find out what's blacklisted?

01:12:45.080 Sure.

01:12:45.400 Just type in perennial sources, Wikipedia, into any search engine, and the first result will be this page.

01:12:52.900 And it names them, the blacklist.

01:12:55.480 Oh, of course.

01:12:57.080 Yeah, it's all color-coded.

01:12:59.880 Green.

01:13:01.140 Do you have the list?

01:13:02.700 Do you mind if I do that really quick?

01:13:04.140 Go right ahead.

01:13:05.160 Okay, so it's, let me just do, I'm testing your thesis, so it's perennial.

01:13:08.620 I don't know.

01:13:12.320 Source.

01:13:13.320 Yeah.

01:13:14.280 List.

01:13:15.660 Wikipedia, right?

01:13:17.300 While you're doing that, I'll give you some fully approved sources.

01:13:22.400 New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones, GLAAD.

01:13:28.760 Come on!

01:13:29.920 These are all green lit, fully green lit.

01:13:32.820 Okay, the blacklisted sources are Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epoch Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist.

01:13:42.700 So you can't use those as sources on Wikipedia.

01:13:47.100 Oh, wow.

01:13:50.880 Well, they've got, of course.

01:13:53.820 So is red, I'm looking at it now.

01:13:56.020 Yes.

01:13:56.960 Red means it's blacklisted.

01:13:59.940 You cannot cite it as a source of facts.

01:14:04.160 Maybe as a source of opinion, but generally that works out.

01:14:07.640 Anti-defamation league gets a green light.

01:14:09.380 Only for some.

01:14:12.560 Yes.

01:14:12.900 If you're actually reporting about the Arab.

01:14:18.000 The Israeli conflict?

01:14:19.000 Yes, yes.

01:14:19.800 Okay.

01:14:20.580 You may not cite them.

01:14:22.480 Interesting.

01:14:23.520 So you can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore on Wikipedia.

01:14:31.300 Yeah, Catholic hierarchy, celebrity.

01:14:39.040 This is interesting.

01:14:40.580 Yes.

01:14:41.580 There's a serious academic encyclopedia of Christianity that is not allowed on Wikipedia.

01:14:49.820 I was surprised to find that one.

01:14:51.080 Counterpunch is not allowed.

01:14:52.860 Oh, they're naughty.

01:14:54.420 They're naughty.

01:14:55.940 Daily Caller, not allowed.

01:14:57.540 Of course.

01:14:59.300 Oh.

01:14:59.620 Daily Mail, not, yeah, I did start it.

01:15:02.900 I've got nothing to do with it now, but I did start it.

01:15:05.140 That's interesting.

01:15:07.200 Well, this is kind of incredible.

01:15:10.520 Okay.

01:15:12.240 I never hear about this.

01:15:15.760 And we don't know who made this decision.

01:15:18.980 Mr. X is the name of his account.

01:15:24.320 Now, it's edited, of course, as Wikipedia pages are,

01:15:29.100 by a whole bunch of other people.

01:15:30.940 LifeSite News, not allowed.

01:15:32.880 Right.

01:15:33.920 Of course, the pro-lifers.

01:15:35.920 Yeah.

01:15:36.580 That's interesting.

01:15:37.620 I'm going to see if this...

01:15:39.660 Okay.

01:15:40.260 Well, why does no one talk about this?

01:15:42.260 Oh, Sputnik, of course, not allowed.

01:15:46.560 Talkie Maggie.

01:15:47.300 Search me.

01:15:48.000 I don't know why people aren't talking about it.

01:15:49.720 It's obviously huge news.

01:15:52.500 I think it's simply embarrassing for the left.

01:15:56.840 And so the left aren't going to report about it.

01:16:00.200 And the right has been reporting about it.

01:16:03.700 TV Guide, allowed.

01:16:06.580 The Unz Review, not allowed.

01:16:11.780 TV Guide, totally cool.

01:16:14.960 Unz, V-Dare, not allowed.

01:16:18.760 This is so funny.

01:16:20.740 This is amazing.

01:16:22.320 Okay.

01:16:22.600 All right.

01:16:27.260 You've amused me deeply.

01:16:28.700 Okay.

01:16:28.920 I'm so sorry.

01:16:29.620 I just had...

01:16:30.060 I'm sorry for the...

01:16:32.360 It's all so incredible to me.

01:16:34.560 Okay.

01:16:35.520 So, number three...

01:16:37.180 Right.

01:16:38.840 All right.

01:16:39.380 Shall I go on then?

01:16:40.120 Yes.

01:16:40.600 And I will not interrupt.

01:16:41.760 I just can't.

01:16:43.100 So, to conclude the discussion of number three,

01:16:47.600 the blacklist should be abolished.

01:16:49.800 Diverse sources should be cited

01:16:52.340 with acknowledgement

01:16:54.500 of how different groups assess their credibility

01:16:56.860 if necessary.

01:16:58.500 Yeah.

01:16:59.000 Okay.

01:16:59.940 Number four.

01:17:01.160 Revive the original neutrality policy.

01:17:04.180 Wikipedia must return to genuine neutrality

01:17:06.840 by refusing to take sides on controversial issues.

01:17:10.340 Even when one view dominates Wikipedia,

01:17:14.860 well, academia and mainstream.

01:17:19.800 media.

01:17:20.880 So, I suppose that one is fairly straightforward.

01:17:26.600 Yes.

01:17:26.780 And we've already discussed it quite a bit,

01:17:30.400 that the neutrality policy right now defines neutrality

01:17:36.520 in terms of what are called significant views

01:17:40.600 and the reliable sources.

01:17:45.420 And significant views are significant views according to,

01:17:49.000 you know, the faculty members of Harvard

01:17:50.660 and things like that.

01:17:52.920 And if your view is held only at, you know,

01:17:58.360 conservative seminaries, for example,

01:18:00.480 or other bastions of conservatism,

01:18:03.780 then they're not significant.

01:18:05.360 At least that's how it's treated on Wikipedia right now.

01:18:08.340 So, that needs to be,

01:18:10.500 Wikipedia should be a big tent as it used to be,

01:18:13.880 enabling many, many different people to come together,

01:18:17.840 you know, in a big,

01:18:19.360 I just think of it as like old-fashioned liberal kumbaya,

01:18:22.720 you know,

01:18:23.120 people should be able to come together

01:18:25.240 and talk to each other

01:18:28.740 from radically different points of view

01:18:30.980 and just make sure that their views

01:18:33.100 are all respected on the same page.

01:18:36.540 Yeah, it shouldn't just be the most reactionary views,

01:18:40.600 NBC, Harvard,

01:18:42.260 you know,

01:18:43.340 only the most kind of stalwart defenders

01:18:45.780 of this broken project.

01:18:48.920 Yes, yes.

01:18:49.680 Right?

01:18:50.020 It shouldn't just be the College of Cardinals voting here.

01:18:52.320 Right.

01:18:52.780 So, in my opinion.

01:18:53.960 Okay.

01:18:54.220 Yes, yes.

01:18:55.300 There's a good way to characterize

01:18:57.520 the currently only permitted viewpoint on Wikipedia,

01:19:04.360 and that is with the acronym GASP,

01:19:08.940 which stands for

01:19:10.460 Globalist, Academic, Secular, and Progressive.

01:19:16.660 And each one is necessary,

01:19:19.600 and together they just give a perfect picture

01:19:23.000 of the viewpoint of Wikipedians today,

01:19:26.860 of most Wikipedians.

01:19:28.380 Do they know that they're like representing,

01:19:31.420 selling the views of, say,

01:19:33.120 the Aspen Institute or the Atlantic Council

01:19:35.080 or the CIA

01:19:35.840 or the Washington Post editorial board,

01:19:38.580 like such a tiny minority of the globe's population,

01:19:41.800 but the most powerful people in the world.

01:19:45.040 Like, they are the Praetorian Guard

01:19:47.140 protecting the powerful.

01:19:48.520 Do they see that?

01:19:50.940 I think they do.

01:19:53.220 I think a lot of,

01:19:54.300 of course,

01:19:55.120 it's a fairly big group of people,

01:19:57.920 you know,

01:19:58.360 in the single digits,

01:19:59.940 thousands of regular editors these days.

01:20:03.180 I think a lot of those people do know that,

01:20:05.700 and they take pride in it, frankly.

01:20:07.400 Wow.

01:20:08.040 Yeah.

01:20:08.500 In oppressing the rest of the population

01:20:10.540 on behalf of the richest and most powerful.

01:20:12.140 They don't think they're doing that,

01:20:14.120 but yeah.

01:20:14.620 That's exactly what they're doing.

01:20:15.740 Yeah.

01:20:16.020 By lying to people,

01:20:16.960 you oppress them.

01:20:18.060 Yeah.

01:20:18.180 Right.

01:20:19.120 All right.

01:20:19.720 Then, number five.

01:20:22.200 So, just a little throat clearing here.

01:20:25.180 A short little proposal.

01:20:27.560 So, repeal ignore all rules.

01:20:31.040 So, there is a policy called ignore all rules,

01:20:35.860 which I came up with

01:20:36.940 in the first few days of the project.

01:20:41.380 Originally, I meant it as a joke

01:20:43.060 to encourage newcomers, right?

01:20:45.820 So, like, if rules make you nervous

01:20:48.180 and, like, you're not sure what to do,

01:20:50.800 then just ignore them

01:20:51.700 and go about your business.

01:20:52.840 That's essentially what I said.

01:20:55.720 It's a good rule for responsible, honest people.

01:20:58.460 And this became, essentially, a cargo cult.

01:21:02.380 You know, over the years,

01:21:03.740 people started using this

01:21:05.880 to shield insiders from accountability.

01:21:10.320 So, I made this rule,

01:21:14.200 and so I now declare

01:21:15.700 that it should be repealed.

01:21:17.980 How has it been used to protect corruption?

01:21:20.840 Well, generally, what happens is

01:21:25.420 if somebody can't think of a covering rule

01:21:29.980 in a special case,

01:21:31.400 but it just seems plausible

01:21:33.080 to the people who are working on an article,

01:21:36.160 you know, this really ought to be against the rules,

01:21:38.980 but whatever, just ignore all rules,

01:21:42.340 and they'll just say that, you know,

01:21:44.240 and they usually say

01:21:46.000 in a kind of tongue-in-cheek way,

01:21:47.960 but in a way that's serious enough

01:21:50.460 to actually have an effect, right?

01:21:53.480 But, you know, a lot of lesser contributors,

01:21:58.520 they wouldn't be able to get away

01:22:00.580 with that sort of thing.

01:22:02.580 So, there's one guy who said,

01:22:06.620 at the height of COVID,

01:22:08.640 if there is one serious application

01:22:10.740 of ignore all rules,

01:22:12.300 it should be now,

01:22:14.300 we should be able to ignore

01:22:17.480 all the rules regarding whatever

01:22:19.880 in order to get people

01:22:22.220 to believe that COVID is serious

01:22:25.040 and they should be jabbed and masked

01:22:27.100 and so forth.

01:22:27.900 And the VAX is the only answer to it.

01:22:28.800 Yeah.

01:22:29.980 So, basically, we should,

01:22:32.460 if you, when you ignore all rules after a while,

01:22:34.320 you're ignoring all principles,

01:22:35.560 and they're doing it, again,

01:22:38.280 in the service.

01:22:39.400 Yeah, selectively,

01:22:40.220 in the service of, like,

01:22:41.840 the most powerful people in the world.

01:22:44.060 Right.

01:22:45.400 Okay.

01:22:46.600 Number six,

01:22:47.980 reveal who Wikipedia's leaders are.

01:22:52.060 So, we've talked about-

01:22:53.060 Why is that number one?

01:22:54.260 I like that one.

01:22:55.780 Yes.

01:22:56.800 So, Wikipedia's most powerful editors

01:22:58.700 remain overwhelmingly anonymous

01:23:01.380 despite wielding enormous influence

01:23:03.920 over one of the world's

01:23:05.160 most powerful media platforms.

01:23:07.860 These leaders must be publicly identified

01:23:10.100 for accountability

01:23:11.000 and given liability insurance

01:23:13.540 as, you know,

01:23:16.540 as volunteers of nonprofits often are.

01:23:22.200 So, there's no reason

01:23:23.620 why they shouldn't do this.

01:23:25.160 If you're wielding real power,

01:23:27.320 I think it's,

01:23:28.060 and by the way,

01:23:28.580 I like anonymity online a lot of the time

01:23:30.480 because I think it helps

01:23:31.500 the underdog tell the truth.

01:23:33.720 And so,

01:23:34.640 I am for anonymity

01:23:35.840 on social media, for example.

01:23:36.980 I don't think you should have to register

01:23:37.920 with the government

01:23:38.380 to give your opinions,

01:23:39.620 just to be clear.

01:23:40.920 But if you're wielding

01:23:41.900 real institutional power,

01:23:44.560 I think it's fair to require people

01:23:46.780 to say who they are.

01:23:48.920 Just like Supreme Court justices

01:23:50.500 have to give their real names.

01:23:53.120 Right?

01:23:53.980 Right.

01:23:54.960 It's a no-brainer.

01:23:57.340 If there is one thing

01:23:58.640 that might get the attention

01:24:00.540 of the mainstream media,

01:24:01.940 it seems to me

01:24:02.620 it might be this one.

01:24:03.920 I don't think it's widely known

01:24:05.720 that 85%

01:24:07.360 of the most powerful accounts

01:24:11.800 on Wikipedia

01:24:12.900 are anonymous.

01:24:14.560 How is that allowed?

01:24:15.900 No, I know.

01:24:16.720 I couldn't agree more.

01:24:18.160 It's just disgusting.

01:24:19.040 And by the way,

01:24:19.400 there are consequences

01:24:20.220 to having your identity known,

01:24:21.480 I can tell you.

01:24:22.340 And they're not great.

01:24:24.540 On the other hand,

01:24:25.720 you know,

01:24:26.040 that's the price that you pay

01:24:27.720 for having influence.

01:24:29.120 I don't know.

01:24:30.060 That's fair.

01:24:31.140 Right.

01:24:31.640 And by the way,

01:24:32.780 I don't want those people

01:24:33.700 to be doxed.

01:24:34.540 I'm going to say it again.

01:24:36.300 And I'm not saying

01:24:38.700 that the people

01:24:39.240 who are there

01:24:40.060 should be forced

01:24:41.280 to reveal their identity

01:24:43.020 or anything like that.

01:24:43.980 They can resign.

01:24:45.200 I agree.

01:24:45.520 And then new people

01:24:46.520 can be brought on board.

01:24:48.160 That's exactly right.

01:24:48.540 And then maybe,

01:24:50.340 if necessary,

01:24:51.320 you could pay them

01:24:52.840 a little stipend

01:24:54.060 for their trouble.

01:24:55.820 They've got,

01:24:56.500 they're raising,

01:24:57.960 I think,

01:24:58.760 something like

01:24:59.360 $200 million a year now.

01:25:01.700 Right?

01:25:02.260 It's a huge amount of money.

01:25:03.860 As I said,

01:25:04.340 I was a donor.

01:25:05.260 Yeah, no, I get it.

01:25:06.460 Yeah.

01:25:07.100 Okay.

01:25:11.400 Let the public

01:25:12.320 rate articles.

01:25:13.980 That's number seven.

01:25:15.920 Wikipedia should implement

01:25:16.980 a public rating

01:25:17.920 and feedback system

01:25:19.200 allowing readers

01:25:20.700 to evaluate articles.

01:25:22.640 They can't do that now.

01:25:24.200 We call it,

01:25:24.780 that's the comment section,

01:25:26.200 but they don't have

01:25:26.620 a comment section.

01:25:27.360 They don't have

01:25:27.840 a comment section.

01:25:28.740 They don't have

01:25:29.200 any sort of rating section.

01:25:30.540 There are no metrics

01:25:31.940 that they can use.

01:25:33.040 They've metricized everything,

01:25:34.580 you know,

01:25:34.840 books on Amazon,

01:25:36.240 you know,

01:25:36.860 thumbs up on X

01:25:39.100 and,

01:25:39.620 you know,

01:25:41.800 YouTube

01:25:42.760 and whatnot,

01:25:44.040 but not Wikipedia.

01:25:45.900 And if there's one...

01:25:46.980 I've never thought of that.

01:25:47.980 What's that?

01:25:48.320 I've never thought of that.

01:25:49.160 That's so smart.

01:25:50.220 Yeah.

01:25:50.620 Well,

01:25:51.120 and look,

01:25:52.740 if there's one place

01:25:55.320 where an actual rating system

01:25:57.380 would matter

01:25:58.060 and actually be important,

01:25:59.440 it would be Wikipedia

01:26:00.580 because we,

01:26:02.200 I think you and I agree

01:26:03.620 that Wikipedia

01:26:04.860 does have some decent articles.

01:26:06.920 Right?

01:26:07.280 It's great articles.

01:26:08.700 Yeah.

01:26:08.860 You want to learn

01:26:10.220 about the Falkland Islands?

01:26:11.540 You want to learn

01:26:12.320 about some bird species?

01:26:13.880 Yeah,

01:26:14.140 it's amazing.

01:26:15.080 It's odd.

01:26:15.620 That's why it's so frustrating.

01:26:17.260 Yes.

01:26:17.640 So,

01:26:17.860 I mean,

01:26:18.820 wouldn't it be nice

01:26:19.920 if there were some

01:26:21.460 independent reviews,

01:26:23.320 independent of Wikipedia,

01:26:25.000 that would,

01:26:26.840 you know,

01:26:28.020 give the public

01:26:29.060 a notion

01:26:30.700 of whether they can

01:26:31.540 actually trust

01:26:32.280 the information?

01:26:32.900 And I actually think

01:26:34.720 that you should

01:26:35.260 be able to identify

01:26:37.200 and even rate the raters

01:26:38.840 and say,

01:26:40.200 okay,

01:26:41.020 these accounts

01:26:42.040 who have rated

01:26:43.960 the Trump article

01:26:45.740 very highly

01:26:46.920 are mostly Democrats.

01:26:49.260 And those that

01:26:50.840 rate the article

01:26:52.180 very poorly

01:26:53.720 are mostly Republicans.

01:26:56.440 And then you should,

01:26:57.720 there should be a system

01:26:58.960 that would enable you

01:27:00.360 to go and learn

01:27:02.660 what the best articles are,

01:27:05.520 especially if they're

01:27:07.120 competing articles,

01:27:08.160 again,

01:27:09.020 from anybody's

01:27:09.980 point of view.

01:27:11.240 Yes.

01:27:11.840 I love that.

01:27:14.240 Would be nice.

01:27:15.760 Let's see.

01:27:19.100 Thesis number eight,

01:27:20.720 end indefinite blocking.

01:27:22.880 Wikipedia's practice

01:27:23.920 of blocking accounts

01:27:25.420 permanently

01:27:26.060 is unjust

01:27:27.920 and ideologically

01:27:29.360 motivated.

01:27:30.580 So,

01:27:31.120 I did

01:27:32.400 a little

01:27:33.500 personal investigation

01:27:35.520 last June.

01:27:37.240 In a period

01:27:38.320 of two weeks,

01:27:40.160 47%

01:27:41.300 of the blocks

01:27:42.620 that had been done

01:27:43.600 by Wikipedia

01:27:44.640 were indefinite,

01:27:46.380 which means

01:27:46.960 permanent.

01:27:48.440 And

01:27:48.800 you can sort of

01:27:50.200 understand

01:27:50.680 some of them

01:27:51.380 because you're

01:27:52.340 re-blocking

01:27:53.200 the same people

01:27:53.960 who have already

01:27:54.700 been blocked

01:27:55.780 because they made

01:27:56.480 new accounts.

01:27:57.280 Those are called

01:27:57.740 sock puppets.

01:27:59.080 It's still

01:27:59.860 a very,

01:28:00.620 very high number,

01:28:02.240 right?

01:28:02.540 And they do,

01:28:04.060 as I have said,

01:28:05.760 block willy-nilly

01:28:07.200 and they will

01:28:08.220 block permanently.

01:28:09.560 I mean,

01:28:09.920 there are people

01:28:10.540 online who

01:28:11.380 complain

01:28:12.720 that they were

01:28:14.420 blocked for

01:28:15.240 making grammar

01:28:16.400 corrections.

01:28:17.800 You know,

01:28:18.460 I've seen,

01:28:19.760 I don't know,

01:28:20.540 three or four

01:28:21.400 cases of just

01:28:22.800 that.

01:28:25.120 I quote a few

01:28:26.660 in the

01:28:27.760 essay.

01:28:28.500 So,

01:28:28.620 each of these

01:28:29.560 theses,

01:28:30.420 by the way,

01:28:30.860 has a whole

01:28:31.460 essay to go

01:28:32.260 with it,

01:28:32.760 which I

01:28:33.520 very carefully

01:28:34.440 wrote over

01:28:34.980 the last

01:28:35.380 nine months.

01:28:36.460 And where

01:28:36.720 can interested

01:28:38.020 people find

01:28:38.700 that?

01:28:39.380 They can

01:28:39.600 find it

01:28:40.120 on my

01:28:41.440 user page

01:28:42.360 on Wikipedia.

01:28:44.340 So,

01:28:44.900 just go there.

01:28:45.600 I don't know

01:28:45.900 if it'll be

01:28:46.240 on the user

01:28:46.780 page or maybe

01:28:47.540 it will be

01:28:48.540 linked from

01:28:49.220 the user

01:28:49.640 page,

01:28:50.140 but it'll

01:28:50.640 be on

01:28:51.120 Wikipedia

01:28:51.600 itself.

01:28:52.700 So,

01:28:53.000 I actually

01:28:53.320 want to

01:28:53.900 take the

01:28:54.300 debate to

01:28:54.980 them.

01:28:55.900 You know,

01:28:56.200 I still have

01:28:56.880 an account in

01:28:57.720 good standing

01:28:58.700 for now.

01:28:59.460 We'll see

01:28:59.820 if they

01:29:00.060 block me

01:29:00.560 over this.

01:29:01.060 I'm not

01:29:01.300 sure.

01:29:02.820 But I

01:29:05.840 would like

01:29:06.760 to start

01:29:07.380 a debate

01:29:08.360 there.

01:29:09.520 So,

01:29:10.100 that's why

01:29:10.460 I've posted

01:29:11.000 it there.

01:29:11.900 I also

01:29:12.800 have a

01:29:13.880 version of

01:29:14.620 the nine

01:29:15.040 theses

01:29:15.480 on my

01:29:16.860 blog.

01:29:18.660 And it's

01:29:20.540 identical,

01:29:21.600 but it also

01:29:22.280 has links

01:29:23.200 to archived

01:29:24.000 versions of

01:29:24.700 all the

01:29:25.100 resources

01:29:25.580 that I

01:29:26.500 cite.

01:29:26.900 So,

01:29:27.200 they can't

01:29:27.500 take anything

01:29:28.200 down.

01:29:28.700 without

01:29:29.700 people

01:29:30.240 knowing.

01:29:32.060 Let's

01:29:32.940 see.

01:29:33.760 So,

01:29:35.560 I think

01:29:36.880 that basically

01:29:37.900 indefinite

01:29:39.120 blocks should

01:29:40.440 be extremely

01:29:41.320 rare.

01:29:42.640 They should

01:29:42.920 require multiple

01:29:44.080 administrators

01:29:44.920 to agree

01:29:45.680 because right

01:29:46.320 now one

01:29:47.080 person can

01:29:48.320 for arbitrary

01:29:50.120 reasons

01:29:50.880 practically block

01:29:52.580 another

01:29:53.080 account,

01:29:54.400 an account

01:29:55.540 in good

01:29:55.940 standing that

01:29:56.560 might have

01:29:57.100 had like

01:29:57.580 thousands of

01:29:58.300 edits

01:29:58.700 without

01:30:00.880 really any

01:30:02.060 meaningful

01:30:02.540 recourse,

01:30:03.460 right?

01:30:03.840 So,

01:30:04.340 at least

01:30:04.820 let's have

01:30:05.220 a panel

01:30:05.820 of people

01:30:06.460 convened if

01:30:07.420 you want

01:30:07.900 to block

01:30:08.340 somebody

01:30:08.780 permanently.

01:30:09.680 and,

01:30:12.100 and of

01:30:14.420 course,

01:30:14.740 you should

01:30:15.400 be able

01:30:15.700 to

01:30:16.880 appeal

01:30:18.500 your

01:30:19.580 permanent

01:30:20.240 block

01:30:20.740 if you

01:30:21.040 are

01:30:21.260 permanently

01:30:21.880 blocked

01:30:22.460 every

01:30:23.860 maybe

01:30:24.300 three,

01:30:24.940 six,

01:30:25.420 maybe

01:30:25.680 12 months,

01:30:27.660 right?

01:30:28.080 So,

01:30:28.380 the idea

01:30:28.980 is it's

01:30:29.500 only fair

01:30:30.340 to give

01:30:30.880 people the

01:30:31.460 opportunity

01:30:32.020 to say,

01:30:32.780 well,

01:30:33.020 I've

01:30:33.260 reformed,

01:30:33.840 I'm not

01:30:34.140 going to

01:30:34.460 do what

01:30:34.860 that I've

01:30:35.140 done

01:30:35.700 before.

01:30:37.140 People,

01:30:38.580 you remember

01:30:39.040 the movie

01:30:40.820 Escape from

01:30:41.600 Alcatraz?

01:30:42.580 Yes.

01:30:42.960 There was a

01:30:43.840 character in

01:30:44.820 it who's

01:30:46.680 befriended by

01:30:47.560 Clint Eastwood's

01:30:48.440 character,

01:30:49.440 who's this

01:30:50.220 great painter,

01:30:51.240 and he makes

01:30:52.000 a painting

01:30:52.920 of the

01:30:54.680 warden.

01:30:56.060 The warden

01:30:56.700 sees a copy

01:30:57.940 of this as

01:30:58.900 he's snooping

01:30:59.440 around in

01:31:00.020 a cell,

01:31:01.040 and it's

01:31:03.280 an unflattering

01:31:04.060 picture of

01:31:05.000 the warden.

01:31:07.100 So,

01:31:07.680 that man's,

01:31:10.300 his painting

01:31:11.780 supplies are

01:31:12.960 taken away

01:31:13.640 by the

01:31:14.880 warden,

01:31:15.860 and they

01:31:16.360 have so

01:31:17.040 few joys

01:31:17.960 in this

01:31:18.520 place,

01:31:18.940 it's like

01:31:19.340 living death,

01:31:20.660 and so

01:31:21.680 the painter

01:31:24.440 then commits

01:31:26.440 suicide.

01:31:27.040 a lot of

01:31:29.300 people feel

01:31:30.340 very strongly

01:31:31.280 about Wikipedia

01:31:32.480 because it

01:31:33.720 is a

01:31:34.420 significant

01:31:35.180 hobby in

01:31:36.020 some cases,

01:31:36.960 you know,

01:31:37.320 in the way

01:31:37.940 that like I

01:31:38.580 play Irish

01:31:39.220 fiddle,

01:31:39.640 that's like

01:31:40.080 one of my

01:31:40.780 big hobbies,

01:31:42.020 and I don't

01:31:42.500 know,

01:31:42.760 you're fly

01:31:43.260 fishing,

01:31:43.700 I guess.

01:31:44.260 If you were

01:31:44.720 to take

01:31:45.060 this away

01:31:45.740 from people

01:31:47.120 forever,

01:31:48.460 you know,

01:31:48.680 just disallow

01:31:49.500 them,

01:31:50.520 then,

01:31:51.060 you know,

01:31:51.600 it can be

01:31:53.440 really upsetting

01:31:54.260 to people.

01:31:55.340 One person,

01:31:55.900 there's a

01:31:56.200 story,

01:31:56.540 I quote

01:31:57.380 in the

01:31:58.220 essay of

01:31:59.480 a guy

01:32:00.400 who came

01:32:01.600 close to

01:32:02.160 suicide when

01:32:03.160 his account

01:32:03.820 was blocked,

01:32:04.980 and you

01:32:05.560 know how

01:32:05.800 they responded,

01:32:07.460 they responded,

01:32:08.620 Wikipedia is

01:32:09.260 not therapy.

01:32:10.620 There's an

01:32:11.060 essay to

01:32:11.620 this effect,

01:32:12.880 you know,

01:32:13.500 Wikipedia is

01:32:14.680 not therapy.

01:32:15.600 No,

01:32:15.740 it's cruelty,

01:32:16.620 obviously.

01:32:17.480 That's basically

01:32:18.460 what they're

01:32:18.920 implying.

01:32:19.520 Yeah.

01:32:20.640 Okay.

01:32:21.100 Right,

01:32:21.400 it's a way

01:32:22.600 to hurt

01:32:23.100 people.

01:32:23.440 So that

01:32:26.120 should stop.

01:32:27.040 They should

01:32:27.280 be nicer,

01:32:28.060 frankly,

01:32:28.600 to the

01:32:29.360 people who

01:32:29.840 are spending

01:32:30.300 so many

01:32:30.800 hours on

01:32:32.140 the system.

01:32:34.380 Number nine,

01:32:35.580 adopt a

01:32:36.240 legislative

01:32:36.760 process.

01:32:38.380 So if

01:32:39.720 you take

01:32:40.160 all eight

01:32:41.160 together,

01:32:43.220 you might

01:32:43.720 very well

01:32:44.420 ask,

01:32:45.040 how can

01:32:45.660 these changes

01:32:46.660 be made?

01:32:47.360 Wikipedia is

01:32:48.760 extremely

01:32:49.600 institutionally

01:32:51.180 conservative.

01:32:52.200 It's hard

01:32:52.740 to change

01:32:53.600 from within.

01:32:55.000 It's the

01:32:55.400 DMV,

01:32:56.000 I noticed.

01:32:56.800 Yes.

01:32:57.240 So what I

01:32:58.420 propose is

01:32:59.600 that because

01:33:00.380 they lack

01:33:01.220 any method

01:33:02.760 of major

01:33:04.580 reform,

01:33:05.700 there is

01:33:06.140 nothing like

01:33:06.780 an editorial

01:33:07.460 council on

01:33:08.960 Wikipedia.

01:33:11.500 Because it

01:33:12.480 needs major

01:33:13.520 reform now,

01:33:14.580 especially,

01:33:15.040 it needs

01:33:16.400 an elected

01:33:16.960 editorial

01:33:19.280 legislature

01:33:20.040 with real

01:33:20.920 powers to

01:33:22.780 implement

01:33:23.740 reforms

01:33:24.500 established

01:33:25.460 through

01:33:26.300 Wikipedia's

01:33:27.260 first

01:33:27.680 constitutional

01:33:28.780 convention.

01:33:30.680 So

01:33:31.000 Wikipedia

01:33:32.240 should

01:33:33.000 treat itself

01:33:33.960 as a

01:33:34.640 kind of

01:33:35.080 polity,

01:33:35.880 which until

01:33:36.560 now has

01:33:37.580 been a

01:33:38.820 strange

01:33:39.640 mixture.

01:33:40.660 For years

01:33:41.460 and years,

01:33:42.000 I have said

01:33:42.500 this.

01:33:42.720 it is a

01:33:43.600 strange

01:33:44.080 mixture

01:33:44.860 of

01:33:45.400 oligarchy

01:33:46.440 and

01:33:47.160 anarchy.

01:33:48.680 Right?

01:33:49.320 Like America

01:33:49.980 itself.

01:33:52.600 Right.

01:33:54.160 So,

01:33:55.320 and what

01:33:56.340 they really

01:33:56.960 need to

01:33:57.360 do is

01:33:57.740 have a

01:33:58.260 serious

01:33:58.960 constitutional

01:34:01.680 convention.

01:34:02.540 Take their

01:34:02.980 own

01:34:03.380 governance,

01:34:04.780 editorial

01:34:05.180 governance,

01:34:05.920 seriously.

01:34:06.880 And I'm

01:34:07.260 not saying

01:34:07.740 this would

01:34:08.140 be run

01:34:08.780 by the

01:34:10.020 Wikimedia

01:34:10.580 Foundation.

01:34:11.180 It would

01:34:11.540 be run

01:34:12.080 by the

01:34:13.360 volunteers.

01:34:14.400 Of course,

01:34:14.980 the Wikimedia

01:34:15.880 Foundation

01:34:16.440 would pay

01:34:17.140 for the

01:34:18.060 constitutional

01:34:18.660 convention

01:34:19.180 and also

01:34:19.880 for,

01:34:20.800 you know,

01:34:21.160 the travel

01:34:21.680 expenses of

01:34:22.700 people who

01:34:23.620 later come

01:34:24.240 together in

01:34:24.980 an editorial

01:34:25.800 assembly,

01:34:26.380 which would

01:34:26.820 meet face

01:34:27.540 to face.

01:34:28.580 Right?

01:34:28.820 Because these

01:34:29.260 people have

01:34:29.780 to be

01:34:30.220 identified,

01:34:31.900 one person,

01:34:32.700 one vote.

01:34:33.620 And for that

01:34:34.120 matter, I

01:34:34.460 also say

01:34:35.080 that if

01:34:36.640 you vote

01:34:37.380 for the

01:34:38.020 people in

01:34:38.680 such an

01:34:39.160 editorial

01:34:39.560 assembly,

01:34:40.520 then you

01:34:41.280 have to

01:34:41.860 be

01:34:42.740 identified,

01:34:44.000 not necessarily

01:34:44.480 publicly,

01:34:45.660 but to

01:34:46.260 someone to

01:34:47.340 ensure that

01:34:47.860 there is

01:34:48.320 indeed only

01:34:49.080 one person,

01:34:50.020 one vote.

01:34:50.960 Because right

01:34:51.400 now, that's

01:34:51.860 one of the

01:34:52.300 big problems

01:34:53.020 about voting

01:34:53.780 in the

01:34:54.640 Wikipedia

01:34:55.260 community.

01:34:56.340 Because

01:34:56.840 Wikipedia is

01:34:57.940 anonymous,

01:34:59.340 it's only

01:35:00.260 too possible

01:35:01.160 for people

01:35:01.660 to run

01:35:02.180 multiple

01:35:02.840 sock puppets

01:35:03.700 or they

01:35:05.200 run separate

01:35:06.000 accounts that

01:35:07.160 they pretend

01:35:08.020 belong to

01:35:08.960 different

01:35:09.400 people.

01:35:10.540 Right?

01:35:10.880 And then

01:35:11.460 that gives

01:35:11.920 them more

01:35:12.320 than one

01:35:12.680 vote.

01:35:13.080 That's not

01:35:13.420 fair.

01:35:14.200 No.

01:35:14.680 Yeah.

01:35:15.240 So it

01:35:15.940 should be

01:35:16.460 the editorial

01:35:18.140 assembly,

01:35:19.180 I'm saying,

01:35:20.060 should be

01:35:20.540 run face

01:35:21.160 to face.

01:35:21.920 You know,

01:35:22.140 can meet

01:35:22.700 in different

01:35:23.180 places in

01:35:24.380 the world

01:35:24.780 and,

01:35:25.200 you know,

01:35:26.460 people could

01:35:27.360 be paid

01:35:28.220 a stipend

01:35:29.060 for both

01:35:30.840 travel and

01:35:31.880 just like

01:35:32.440 an ordinary

01:35:32.960 legislature.

01:35:33.340 I would

01:35:34.240 donate to

01:35:34.700 that.

01:35:35.140 I donate

01:35:35.540 in a real

01:35:36.100 way to

01:35:36.360 that.

01:35:36.620 because

01:35:37.580 I think

01:35:38.140 what you're

01:35:38.380 really

01:35:38.560 saying,

01:35:39.800 which is

01:35:40.000 what Martin

01:35:40.460 Luther was

01:35:40.840 really saying,

01:35:41.660 is this is

01:35:42.160 really serious.

01:35:43.060 This is worth

01:35:43.620 reforming because

01:35:44.480 it matters.

01:35:45.720 Yes,

01:35:45.980 it really

01:35:46.440 matters.

01:35:47.000 It's not

01:35:47.280 all bad.

01:35:48.000 By the way,

01:35:48.360 the idea of

01:35:48.940 Wikipedia is a

01:35:49.720 beautiful idea,

01:35:50.420 an important

01:35:50.780 idea.

01:35:52.220 You know,

01:35:52.620 broadcasting truth

01:35:53.640 at scale,

01:35:54.260 like that's just

01:35:54.700 always a good

01:35:55.280 thing,

01:35:55.760 right?

01:35:56.180 And so it's

01:35:57.200 worth saving.

01:35:58.140 It's imperative

01:35:58.920 to save it.

01:36:00.060 And like running

01:36:01.120 it like out of

01:36:02.140 your garage

01:36:03.060 without the

01:36:04.120 safeguards that

01:36:04.720 you've described

01:36:05.520 just makes you

01:36:07.100 pray,

01:36:07.680 of course,

01:36:08.100 to the worst

01:36:08.580 people in the

01:36:09.080 world,

01:36:09.300 PR firms,

01:36:10.320 intelligence

01:36:10.760 agencies,

01:36:11.540 paid liars.

01:36:13.300 Right,

01:36:13.580 right.

01:36:15.300 I think that

01:36:16.540 if there is

01:36:17.820 one of all

01:36:19.420 of these

01:36:19.840 theses,

01:36:20.500 if there is

01:36:21.180 one that

01:36:22.200 the mainstream

01:36:24.020 media and

01:36:25.040 governments around

01:36:25.860 the world might

01:36:26.640 be able to get

01:36:27.160 behind,

01:36:28.000 it is this

01:36:28.640 idea that they

01:36:29.720 need to get

01:36:30.140 their house in

01:36:30.760 order and

01:36:31.880 have a

01:36:35.600 council of

01:36:36.880 people that

01:36:37.920 take responsibility

01:36:39.240 for the shape

01:36:40.640 of policy.

01:36:41.620 Exactly right.

01:36:42.720 That's exactly

01:36:43.300 right.

01:36:43.800 I mean,

01:36:43.960 because it's like

01:36:44.240 if you don't

01:36:44.540 like Google,

01:36:45.040 you could say,

01:36:45.440 well,

01:36:46.020 it's on

01:36:46.360 Darpechei's

01:36:46.840 fault.

01:36:47.140 If you don't

01:36:47.420 like any

01:36:48.540 publicly traded

01:36:49.100 company,

01:36:49.700 at least you

01:36:50.260 can identify

01:36:50.760 the person

01:36:51.200 making decisions

01:36:51.860 or responsible

01:36:52.420 for the

01:36:52.700 decisions.

01:36:54.120 But here you

01:36:55.000 have this

01:36:55.660 shadowy,

01:36:57.380 incredibly

01:36:57.860 influential

01:36:58.500 institution

01:36:59.360 and there's

01:37:01.200 no request.

01:37:01.600 you can't

01:37:02.140 even be

01:37:02.400 mad at

01:37:02.720 someone

01:37:02.960 because you

01:37:03.340 don't know

01:37:03.540 who they

01:37:03.740 are.

01:37:04.480 Right.

01:37:06.300 Larry Sanger,

01:37:06.940 I so appreciate

01:37:08.080 the seriousness

01:37:08.800 with which you

01:37:09.700 take this,

01:37:10.600 the brilliance

01:37:11.460 that allowed

01:37:12.000 you to create

01:37:12.420 this in the

01:37:12.780 first place

01:37:13.260 and I hope

01:37:14.180 that people

01:37:14.480 listen to you.

01:37:15.140 I hope they

01:37:15.360 understand how

01:37:15.860 much it

01:37:16.120 matters.

01:37:17.500 Thank you.

01:37:17.960 I appreciate

01:37:18.360 it.

01:37:18.720 Thank you.

01:37:19.480 Good to see

01:37:19.820 you again.

01:37:20.180 It's the third

01:37:20.660 time we've

01:37:21.300 done an interview.

01:37:22.980 I don't know.

01:37:23.720 Fourth,

01:37:24.080 actually.

01:37:24.540 Okay,

01:37:24.820 okay.

01:37:25.880 I care about

01:37:26.880 this.

01:37:28.060 I hope other

01:37:28.800 people start to

01:37:29.320 care too.

01:37:30.040 Second time,

01:37:30.920 in person.

01:37:32.600 So,

01:37:33.020 yes.

01:37:34.120 You're making

01:37:34.700 me feel crazy.

01:37:36.760 I'm obviously

01:37:37.440 obsessed.

01:37:38.060 But there's a

01:37:38.620 reason I am

01:37:39.220 and it has

01:37:39.460 nothing to do

01:37:39.840 with me.

01:37:40.180 It has to do

01:37:40.640 with history

01:37:41.200 and the

01:37:41.520 collective

01:37:41.820 memory,

01:37:42.780 which is another

01:37:43.480 way of saying

01:37:44.180 you're civilization.

01:37:45.300 It can't exist

01:37:46.020 unless it

01:37:46.440 understands

01:37:46.880 itself.

01:37:47.820 I appreciate

01:37:50.320 your interest

01:37:51.040 and your

01:37:51.340 support.

01:37:53.000 I'm very

01:37:53.820 grateful for

01:37:54.500 it.

01:37:55.320 Well,

01:37:55.820 I mean it.

01:37:56.740 Thank you

01:37:57.120 very much.

01:38:02.620 We want to

01:38:03.260 thank you for

01:38:03.660 watching us on

01:38:04.300 Spotify,

01:38:05.060 a company that

01:38:05.540 we use every

01:38:06.380 day.

01:38:06.640 We know the

01:38:06.900 people who run

01:38:07.340 it, good

01:38:07.760 people.

01:38:08.560 While you're

01:38:09.160 here, do us

01:38:09.920 a favor, hit

01:38:10.680 follow and tap

01:38:12.120 the bell so you

01:38:13.080 never miss an

01:38:13.640 episode.

01:38:14.600 We have real

01:38:15.320 conversations, news,

01:38:16.380 things that actually

01:38:17.120 matter, telling the

01:38:18.120 truth always.

01:38:18.960 You will not miss

01:38:19.680 it if you follow

01:38:20.900 us on Spotify and

01:38:21.980 hit the bell.

01:38:22.760 We appreciate it.

01:38:23.340 Thanks for

01:38:23.580 watching.

The Tucker Carlson Show - September 29, 2025

Wikipedia Co-Creator Reveals All： CIA Infiltration, Banning Conservatives, & How to Fix the Internet

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript