October 28, 2025 • 7 mins
Long before it became the biggest collection of knowledge in the history of the world, Wikipedia had to overcome its greatest challenge: getting strangers on the Internet to trust each other. They had to trust that others would not be abusive or uncivil, that others would not unfairly change or erase their contributions, and that people had good intentions.
Jimmy Wales, the internet entrepreneur who founded Wikipedia, details the global experiment in sharing knowledge and expertise online that has become part of the fabric of our modern, connected life. It's all laid out in his new book, "The Seven Rules of Trust: A Blueprint for Building Things That Last." Jimmy speaks with Carol Massar and Tim Stenovec on Bloomberg Businessweek Daily.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and
Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Jimmy Wales is founder of Wikipedia. He has a new
book out, The Seven Rules of Trust, a blueprint for
building things that last. That book out tomorrow and lucky
for us, he joins us right here in studio. Welcome, Welcome,
Nice to have you here with us.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Yeah, thanks for having me. It's like a spaceship.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
So call it the fishball, we call it home, this
book about trust. When did you start writing it.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
It was a couple of years ago. I had had
some ideas around this, and yeah, just just started. And
it's obviously turned out to be quite timely, as we
have a lot of issues around trust in society, and
you know, I want to encourage people to let's get
back to society of trust. You know.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
It's funny, Carolyn, I spent a lot of time talking
about this ahead of the interview because Wikipedia sort of
seems and look, it's had its challenges, it's had its controversies,
but for things that are online, m it's kind of
a weird utopia in.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
The sense that it's kind of remarkable.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
It's really remarkable. I mean, we know anonymous people online
oftentimes are full of bitrial and hate. We can see
that even when people use their names on social media platforms.
We lock our doors when we leave the house. Why
does trust work on Wikipedia? But kind of seems like
nowhere else right now?
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Yeah, I mean I think for me, you know, one
of the seven rules of trust that is most meaningful
in that regard is purpose. Like Wikipedia has a very
simple purpose, which is to build an encyclopedia, and we
make all our decisions around that and the rules about
participation and so forth. And that's very different from social media,
where there isn't a clear purpose other than free speech
(01:55):
and openness. And therefore that tux city really creeps in
quite a lot. In social media. You know, people say
outrageous things because they get rewarded for it. They get
more followers, they get more engagement, and they algorithms love that.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
You talk about clickbait all the time.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Clickbait all the time. And you know that's very different
from the world of Wikipedia, where I mean, thank goodness,
our headlines are so boring. There's no clickbait. You know,
it's like the erical on Thomas Jefferson's called Thomas Jefferson,
you know, but it does what it says on the
ten you know, that's that's a very British expression off ray.
But but yeah, I mean I do think that that
(02:33):
having a simple purpose is a part of what keeps
us focused and keeps our community focused.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
How do you describe facts? How do you determine facts?
Speaker 4 (02:41):
And I am amazed in I mean, I've been doing
this a few years and I felt like when I
started it was very clear fact versus ficion in terms
of reporting and doing stories, and I feel like there's
a lot of gray area and I just feel like
a fact is a fact. So how you guys determine
what's a fact?
Speaker 1 (03:00):
An entry?
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Yeah, I mean we're we're really old fashioned, Like what
we look for are reliable sources. So we want, you know,
sort of academic research or quality newspapers, quality magazines, quality books.
Really old fashioned and you know, uh, the the idea
that we should treat you know, the New England Journal
(03:21):
of Medicine as the same as social media influence. Our
line is obviously just wrong. Like you, you really want
facts and that's what people want from Wikipedia they don't
want sources matters. Sources really matter, Like having a good
quality source is what it's all about.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
But why don't sources matter to everybody?
Speaker 4 (03:40):
And other people will say, Okay, I believe this source
is reliable, so like you know what I mean, Like
we're living in like different worlds.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
I think, I think, and I think that's a huge problem.
I mean, I do think, you know, it's really important.
I mean one of the problems that we've seen is
that a lot of them, in response to the changing
and very difficult financial model for journalism, they've chased after
a really partisan audiences and so you know, sometimes you
read something and you're like, yeah, that was that was interesting,
(04:14):
that was good, but I'm not sure I got both
sides of the story there. I live in the UK
and we have a just an example, two quality newspapers,
the Guardian and the Telegraph, left leaning, right leaning. They're
both great newspapers. But I often read one and I'm like, oh,
but and then I go read the other and I'm like, yeah,
you probably should have been somewhere in the middle both
of you, and it would have been I think a
(04:36):
better story had you said, well, you know, we got
one side of the story, but we actually had to
go out and find somebody to tell us a little
bit out the other side. You know, you can't be
too like the moon is made of rocks or is
it cheese? Who knows? I don't mean that, but I
mean seriously hopefully geez. But but you know, like seriously
thinking about like who are we talking to and are
(04:56):
we are we getting to the bottom of.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
This with media trust in media here in the United
States declining and having declined over the last few years.
In your view, is there something that we can do better,
that the media can do better, that it can borrow
from what has worked at Wikipedia, what has worked with
the trust, the methods of trust that you've studied, that
can make us build trust again with our audiences.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Yeah, I mean, well, the good news is that the
financial press, like Bloomberg, is still among the most trusted.
And I think that's because by the mandate of what
you're trying to do informing business people and investors, you
kind of have to be like ruthlessly objective. You're not
chasing after partisan audiences and things like that.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
But I do think we do up data.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Big data. Data is important. Transparency, I think, you know, realistically.
You know, one of the things that Wikipedia does that's
kind of odd is we'll have a you know, at
the top of a page, the neutrality of this article
has been disputed.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
And we've all seen it.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Yeah, we've all seen it. And I always say, you know,
I kind of wish sometimes the New York Times would
put a banner up just saying, you know, we had
a big fight in the newsroom. We weren't quite sure,
so like this but yeah, yeah, but here's a little
bit of their inside thinking, like we did want to
report this, We're not sure we've got the full story yet,
because that pretending to be perfection all the time. People
(06:11):
see through that and they know, of course, and I
think they're willing to say, yeah, like, actually, journalism is
quite hard, you know, so a little more transparency is
always good.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Do you get pressure a lot from companies, politicians, individuals
to like change an entry?
Speaker 3 (06:26):
No, not really, I mean people, you know, I meet
a lot of people, and people often are like, well,
you know, my wikiped the entry, what about this? What
about that? Much like yeah, send us an email, like
you know, we'll have somebody look at that. That's all
fine in general.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
No, and actually we're but you really just say, just
send in an email and then I'm not going to
do anything about it.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Kind of yeah, okay, but no. Sometimes people have a
legitimate point. They're like, oh, well, you know I did
this thing and it was in the press, and you know,
it's like, okay, well maybe we just overlooked it, and
that's that's great, But you know, they at a deeper level.
One of the things that's really important is, you know,
we aren't funded by governments, we aren't funded by sort
of major donors. We're funded by people giving their twenty
(07:04):
dollars and that makes a big difference for our intellectual independence.
We're not worried like if we've got something negative about whatever,
then we might lose our donation.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
How is how is the fundraising going? Because I feel
like I've gotten a lot of messages from you throughout
the year. Throughout the year, from Jimmy Wills ye on Wikipedia,
we've all seen it.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Is it going okay? Is funding going okay?
Speaker 3 (07:25):
It's okay. Yeah, we've we've been you know, we're stable.
We're very cautious with money, so we always try to
build our reserves and so on, and then you know. Recently,
I don't know, Elon tweeted defund Wikipedia. I think we
were at five million dollars that day.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
So you can text us on, I know you guys
have been in touch you and say, tweet about us
again to the.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
End of the year. Well you have. That's to raise money.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and
Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Jimmy Wales is founder of Wikipedia. He has a new
book out, The Seven Rules of Trust, a blueprint for
building things that last. That book out tomorrow and lucky
for us, he joins us right here in studio. Welcome, Welcome,
Nice to have you here with us.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Yeah, thanks for having me. It's like a spaceship.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
So call it the fishball, we call it home, this
book about trust. When did you start writing it.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
It was a couple of years ago. I had had
some ideas around this, and yeah, just just started. And
it's obviously turned out to be quite timely, as we
have a lot of issues around trust in society, and
you know, I want to encourage people to let's get
back to society of trust. You know.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
It's funny, Carolyn, I spent a lot of time talking
about this ahead of the interview because Wikipedia sort of
seems and look, it's had its challenges, it's had its controversies,
but for things that are online, m it's kind of
a weird utopia in.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
The sense that it's kind of remarkable.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
It's really remarkable. I mean, we know anonymous people online
oftentimes are full of bitrial and hate. We can see
that even when people use their names on social media platforms.
We lock our doors when we leave the house. Why
does trust work on Wikipedia? But kind of seems like
nowhere else right now?
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Yeah, I mean I think for me, you know, one
of the seven rules of trust that is most meaningful
in that regard is purpose. Like Wikipedia has a very
simple purpose, which is to build an encyclopedia, and we
make all our decisions around that and the rules about
participation and so forth. And that's very different from social media,
where there isn't a clear purpose other than free speech
(01:55):
and openness. And therefore that tux city really creeps in
quite a lot. In social media. You know, people say
outrageous things because they get rewarded for it. They get
more followers, they get more engagement, and they algorithms love that.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
You talk about clickbait all the time.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Clickbait all the time. And you know that's very different
from the world of Wikipedia, where I mean, thank goodness,
our headlines are so boring. There's no clickbait. You know,
it's like the erical on Thomas Jefferson's called Thomas Jefferson,
you know, but it does what it says on the
ten you know, that's that's a very British expression off ray.
But but yeah, I mean I do think that that
(02:33):
having a simple purpose is a part of what keeps
us focused and keeps our community focused.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
How do you describe facts? How do you determine facts?
Speaker 4 (02:41):
And I am amazed in I mean, I've been doing
this a few years and I felt like when I
started it was very clear fact versus ficion in terms
of reporting and doing stories, and I feel like there's
a lot of gray area and I just feel like
a fact is a fact. So how you guys determine
what's a fact?
Speaker 1 (03:00):
An entry?
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Yeah, I mean we're we're really old fashioned, Like what
we look for are reliable sources. So we want, you know,
sort of academic research or quality newspapers, quality magazines, quality books.
Really old fashioned and you know, uh, the the idea
that we should treat you know, the New England Journal
(03:21):
of Medicine as the same as social media influence. Our
line is obviously just wrong. Like you, you really want
facts and that's what people want from Wikipedia they don't
want sources matters. Sources really matter, Like having a good
quality source is what it's all about.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
But why don't sources matter to everybody?
Speaker 4 (03:40):
And other people will say, Okay, I believe this source
is reliable, so like you know what I mean, Like
we're living in like different worlds.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
I think, I think, and I think that's a huge problem.
I mean, I do think, you know, it's really important.
I mean one of the problems that we've seen is
that a lot of them, in response to the changing
and very difficult financial model for journalism, they've chased after
a really partisan audiences and so you know, sometimes you
read something and you're like, yeah, that was that was interesting,
(04:14):
that was good, but I'm not sure I got both
sides of the story there. I live in the UK
and we have a just an example, two quality newspapers,
the Guardian and the Telegraph, left leaning, right leaning. They're
both great newspapers. But I often read one and I'm like, oh,
but and then I go read the other and I'm like, yeah,
you probably should have been somewhere in the middle both
of you, and it would have been I think a
(04:36):
better story had you said, well, you know, we got
one side of the story, but we actually had to
go out and find somebody to tell us a little
bit out the other side. You know, you can't be
too like the moon is made of rocks or is
it cheese? Who knows? I don't mean that, but I
mean seriously hopefully geez. But but you know, like seriously
thinking about like who are we talking to and are
(04:56):
we are we getting to the bottom of.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
This with media trust in media here in the United
States declining and having declined over the last few years.
In your view, is there something that we can do better,
that the media can do better, that it can borrow
from what has worked at Wikipedia, what has worked with
the trust, the methods of trust that you've studied, that
can make us build trust again with our audiences.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Yeah, I mean, well, the good news is that the
financial press, like Bloomberg, is still among the most trusted.
And I think that's because by the mandate of what
you're trying to do informing business people and investors, you
kind of have to be like ruthlessly objective. You're not
chasing after partisan audiences and things like that.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
But I do think we do up data.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Big data. Data is important. Transparency, I think, you know, realistically.
You know, one of the things that Wikipedia does that's
kind of odd is we'll have a you know, at
the top of a page, the neutrality of this article
has been disputed.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
And we've all seen it.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Yeah, we've all seen it. And I always say, you know,
I kind of wish sometimes the New York Times would
put a banner up just saying, you know, we had
a big fight in the newsroom. We weren't quite sure,
so like this but yeah, yeah, but here's a little
bit of their inside thinking, like we did want to
report this, We're not sure we've got the full story yet,
because that pretending to be perfection all the time. People
(06:11):
see through that and they know, of course, and I
think they're willing to say, yeah, like, actually, journalism is
quite hard, you know, so a little more transparency is
always good.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Do you get pressure a lot from companies, politicians, individuals
to like change an entry?
Speaker 3 (06:26):
No, not really, I mean people, you know, I meet
a lot of people, and people often are like, well,
you know, my wikiped the entry, what about this? What
about that? Much like yeah, send us an email, like
you know, we'll have somebody look at that. That's all
fine in general.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
No, and actually we're but you really just say, just
send in an email and then I'm not going to
do anything about it.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Kind of yeah, okay, but no. Sometimes people have a
legitimate point. They're like, oh, well, you know I did
this thing and it was in the press, and you know,
it's like, okay, well maybe we just overlooked it, and
that's that's great, But you know, they at a deeper level.
One of the things that's really important is, you know,
we aren't funded by governments, we aren't funded by sort
of major donors. We're funded by people giving their twenty
(07:04):
dollars and that makes a big difference for our intellectual independence.
We're not worried like if we've got something negative about whatever,
then we might lose our donation.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
How is how is the fundraising going? Because I feel
like I've gotten a lot of messages from you throughout
the year. Throughout the year, from Jimmy Wills ye on Wikipedia,
we've all seen it.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Is it going okay? Is funding going okay?
Speaker 3 (07:25):
It's okay. Yeah, we've we've been you know, we're stable.
We're very cautious with money, so we always try to
build our reserves and so on, and then you know. Recently,
I don't know, Elon tweeted defund Wikipedia. I think we
were at five million dollars that day.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
So you can text us on, I know you guys
have been in touch you and say, tweet about us
again to the.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
End of the year. Well you have. That's to raise money.
Hosts And Creators
Tim Stenovec
Carol Massar
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.