Calling All Wikipedians

An update on my books, and a request for help

This is a brief note to update those who may be interested on my latest work. And to ask for your help.

As I mentioned a while back, for the first time in my career I have two book contracts in hand.

I’ve mentioned one — my history of what are now old technologies when they were new. It’s been fascinating to watch the AI drama unfold while researching similar technological eruptions in the past. (And yes, they were similar despite all the hype about “unprecedented” this and “never before” that. Anyone who thinks the hope, fear, greed, confusion, uncertainty, and collective excitement surrounding AI is unique really needs to read more old magazines. Or better, my book. When it’s published.)

But that project is simmering on my back-burner as I focus on another. Which I haven’t discussed publicly until now.

I’m co-writing that book with Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. As you may imagine, the story of Wikipedia is at its core, but the theme and focus is trust: How do people and organizations cultivate and maintain the trust that is so critical for accomplishing literally anything in this world?

The story of Wikipedia is very much a story of trust.

It’s largely forgotten today but for the first five or ten years of Wikipedia’s existence, most people thought it was a joke. An online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone? Literally anyone? Surely it would be stuffed with nonsense, myths, lies, paranoia, and propaganda. Like social media. Does any reasonable person think Twitter or Facebook are reliable sources of factual information? Of course not. Nor would any reasonable person trust Wikipedia.

But billions of reasonable people the world over do trust Wikipedia because they have learned it is trustworthy. I swear I read it half a dozen times a day. It’s not perfect. Nothing is. But it is astonishingly good. And far better-informed people than I am agree. I was speaking with one of the world’s leading sociologists recently and he said that when he reads articles that are in his field — subjects about which he is one of the world’s top experts — he is often amazed at how good they are. And when they’re not, he added, he edits them to make them better.

Now add the fact that Wikipedia went from being a big joke to a globally trusted institution over the same years in which trust in so many others institutions and sources of information — think governments and news media — plunged. And add the fact that American society, and others, are now so divided that people seemingly cannot agree that two plus two equals four.

In that light, what Wikipedia has achieved is downright miraculous.

How did it do that? And what can others learn from the story of Wikipedia — and a few others like it — that they can use to nurture trust? That’s what the book is about. I hope you’ll agree that is urgently needed. I certainly think it’s one of the most important I’ve worked on.

Now for the favour I need to ask.

Theories, concepts, and academic research are all well and good, and we have plenty for the book. But a good story illuminates and motivates. A good story sticks.

There are tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors all over the world. You know who you are. And you know the best stories.

Following is an email I’ve been sharing around to describe exactly what I’m looking for. I’d really appreciate it if you took a quick read. If it rings bells, please contact me. And please do share this post (or just the message below) with any friends and colleagues you think may be interested.

Also, thank you for your service. Wikipedia is one of the best things to happen this century. You deserve a medal.

I’m Dan Gardner, author of various books. (Details at www.dangardner.ca) More importantly, I’m now writing a book with Jimmy Wales. The theme of the book is trust. The core of the book will be the story of Wikipedia: how it went from a ridiculous, unworkable idea to a globally trusted source of information.

A big part of that story is how a diverse array of strangers was able to get together, work cooperatively, and create something wonderful. That didn’t happen on Twitter. That didn’t happen on Facebook or Instagram or the rest. So why is Wikipedia different? Our answer is multifaceted. But at its core, we will argue that Wikipedia’s pillars and its norms – especially “assume good faith,” “civility and respect,” “neutral point of view,” and “no firm rules” -- were and are critical.

You’re probably thinking “that’s obvious.” You have worked with those principles. You know how valuable they are. In fact, you probably have personal experiences that illustrate their value.

And that’s what we’re looking for. Stories. Because nothing helps a reader understand like a good story. And nothing sticks in the mind like a good story.

Have you cooperated with people who have very different views than you? How? What about when the subject of an article was something that really stirs emotions and divides people, subjects like politics, abortion, or war? Disagreement is inevitable. Maybe even conflict. Did you sort it out? How? Did Wikipedia’s principles and norms help?

Has your experience with Wikipedia influenced how you deal with people elsewhere? How?

I know you have great stories and Jimmy and I want so much to hear them. We’ve set up an email address – WikipediaStories@protonmail.com – where you can share your stories with us. Please consider emailing us. You’ll help make our book a lot better. And maybe make the world a little better, too.