THE BIG MIG SHOW
NOVEMBER 07, 2025
EPISODE 697 - 11AM
Larry Sanger is a philosopher, technology innovator, and advocate for unbiased knowledge, holding a Ph.D. in philosophy from Ohio State University. Best known as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he launched the project in 2001 while working for Jimmy Wales' Bomis company, evolving it from the slower Nupedia into a dynamic, crowdsourced encyclopedia.
HELP SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS,
AI Cryptocurrency IRA Platform
Rapidly Accelerating American Retirement Wealth https://BigMigcrypto.com
Genesis Gold Group, Empowering Faith-Driven Stewardship https://thebigmiggold.com https://thebigmigbar.com
Unveiling the Hidden Cause: The Facts About Detoxifying & Alleviating Inflammation
Use Code Big Mig: https://www.mineralking.life
FOLLOW US:
LINKTREE: https://linktr.ee/GeorgeBalloutine
LINKTREE: https://linktr.ee/LanceMigliaccio
RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/TheBigMig
YOUTUBE: https://youtube.com/@bigmigshow
X: https://x.com/TheBigMigShow
TRUTH SOCIAL: https://truthsocial.com/@TheBigMigShow
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/TheBigMigShow
WEBSITE: http://thebigmig.com/
_______________________________________________
SUPPORT US:
00:00:00
All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
00:00:04
Creator with certain unalienable rights.
00:00:08
By Liberty. If liberty means anything at
00:00:15
all, it means right to tell people what they do not want to
00:00:19
hear. Welcome back to the big League
00:00:44
show. Of course, I'm your host, Lance
00:00:46
Miliaccio with my Co host George Ballantine and how we do it on
00:00:49
this show because if liberty means anything at all, it means
00:00:51
the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
00:00:54
And it's always tip of the spear on this show for you guys that
00:00:57
are just joining us for the first time.
00:00:58
First of all, thank you for the hour that you're going to give
00:01:00
us. But our plan is always to
00:01:01
educate and unify the country one episode at a time.
00:01:04
You know, we go out for both sides of the aisle.
00:01:07
You know how we do it with great interviews, lots of different
00:01:09
topics, very Rogan style show. So if you hear for the first
00:01:13
time you, I should be excited. We've got an amazing interview
00:01:16
weekends coming up. We like to kick off Friday
00:01:18
always with with something exciting.
00:01:20
And of course, this is how we do it.
00:01:22
Kill them with the truth and bury them with a smile.
00:01:24
George Ballantine, what's going on bro?
00:01:26
How are you, man? I'm OK, it's Friday, you know,
00:01:29
the weekend's here, but I still got work to do all weekend and
00:01:32
never stops from me. Yeah, that's right.
00:01:35
Bees in the trap. You're working away, man.
00:01:37
It's. Bees in the trap.
00:01:38
Rise and grind, that's how it is, but that's how we do it
00:01:41
every single episode. I don't forget I don't have fame
00:01:43
and fortune like our guest that's coming on, you know?
00:01:45
Yeah, that's right. That's right.
00:01:47
We're still, we're still slaving away.
00:01:48
But of course I'm, I'm excited because I, I love what he did,
00:01:52
especially in the early years. We'll explain in a minute, but I
00:01:54
want to start off by thanking our sponsor.
00:01:56
It's always about diversification for George and
00:01:58
I. You know, we do crypto, we do
00:02:00
gold and silver. We try to diversify because
00:02:02
that's where the safety is. Of course, I'm holding up the
00:02:04
six 62.2g prepper bar, perforated and easily broken
00:02:08
down. Your choice of three different
00:02:10
denominations. Great invention by the guys over
00:02:12
at Genesis Gold Group. They knew you weren't going to
00:02:14
walk around with a pair of tin snips.
00:02:15
You needed to use silver gold as a payment system.
00:02:18
You never know what's going to happen to the US currency, $38
00:02:21
trillion in debt. The great thing is this will fit
00:02:24
neatly in your wallet. It's very thin.
00:02:25
This one's in a plastic case to protect it, but of course you
00:02:28
can take it anywhere with you. Of course, you can stick it in a
00:02:30
sock or a safety deposit box. Your gun safe.
00:02:33
I don't care where you put it, but the point, whether it's for
00:02:35
asset protection, for inflation, economic turmoil,
00:02:37
diversification, or it's very unique utility for barter and
00:02:41
trade, this makes a perfect gift for all those precious metal
00:02:44
lovers out there. There isn't anybody doesn't like
00:02:45
gold and silver and holidays are right around the corner.
00:02:49
You get ahead of the curve. Great stocking stuffer, as
00:02:52
George likes to say. These are exclusively mined and
00:02:54
minted in the US. You don't have to worry about
00:02:56
any counterfeit gold coming out of Genesis Gold.
00:02:58
These guys have been in the business for decades.
00:03:00
So head over to the big megbar.com.
00:03:03
That's right, the big megbar.com and exclusive for you guys.
00:03:06
All caps prepper. PREPPER.
00:03:09
That's PREPPR. 10% off on the silver, 5% off on the gold, the
00:03:13
big megbar.com. Or you can pick up the phone and
00:03:16
dial 888, 5267154888526715 power and George makes it easy.
00:03:22
QR codes right there. You can take a snapshot.
00:03:25
Don't go there now. You don't want to miss a minute
00:03:26
of the show. I'm excited about it, but you
00:03:29
can head over there after the show.
00:03:30
Yep, and break me off a piece of that prepper bar.
00:03:35
Yep, George has got to get the Jingle in.
00:03:36
It's Friday, baby. Jingle away.
00:03:39
All right, You know, So tonight's guest or today's
00:03:43
guest, I should say, Larry Sanger founder.
00:03:46
I, I, I guess Co founder, but I listen to him as founder of
00:03:49
Wikipedia, an amazing product. He's blushing right now
00:03:53
backstage. You know that?
00:03:54
Yeah. You got him blushing.
00:03:56
But he's really an interesting guy, right?
00:03:58
He's a philosopher, technology innovator, advocate for unbiased
00:04:01
knowledge, holds a PhD in philosophy.
00:04:04
So you got to you got to you got to move maneuver around him
00:04:07
carefully because he's probably looking at everybody from a
00:04:09
glass jar. Ohio State University best known
00:04:13
as a Co founder of Wikipedia. He launched the project in 2001
00:04:17
by working with the Jimmy Wales over at Bornus company evolved
00:04:21
from the slower new pedia into a dynamic crowdsourced
00:04:24
encyclopedia. Lifelong true seeker and I guess
00:04:28
who lost and later rediscovered his Christian faith.
00:04:31
So you know, we love that about him.
00:04:32
God country family. Recently joining the Anglican
00:04:35
Church in North America, spent the last two decades critiquing
00:04:39
digital information ecosystems. Since 2020, he has served a full
00:04:43
time president of the Knowledge Standards Foundation.
00:04:46
Really interesting. We're going to get into that
00:04:47
details later in the show. And of course, they promote
00:04:50
higher standards for online knowledge through projects like
00:04:53
the encyclosphere and his Bold 9 thesis on Wikipedia, which I've
00:04:58
got those we're going to discuss.
00:04:59
I'll leave him backstage. He's back there by himself.
00:05:01
We don't want him to get lonely. Let's get him in here.
00:05:03
All right. Welcome to the big, big show,
00:05:05
Mr. Larry Singer. How you doing, Sir?
00:05:08
Doing well. Thanks for having me guys, this
00:05:11
is going to be fun. Oh, it should be.
00:05:13
Man, we're excited you're here, man.
00:05:15
And honestly, I, you know, and I said it to you backstage, I
00:05:18
don't want to gush too much, but I man, when Wikipedia came out,
00:05:22
I just loved it. I, you know, I, I, because I
00:05:25
grew up. I, you know, I'm the age fan.
00:05:27
Girling set Larry's fangirling on your Wikipedia, just so you
00:05:30
know. I got to tell you, my parents
00:05:32
had the Britannica Encyclopedia. We had the whole set.
00:05:36
I used to pour through it as a child.
00:05:38
I loved going through it and learning about the world.
00:05:41
And I was always really enjoyed animals.
00:05:43
I grew up with a lot of animals in my home, so I'd look through
00:05:46
and see all the animals in the world.
00:05:47
It was a big thing. The encyclopedia was a big deal
00:05:49
back then. And with what you did,
00:05:51
everything was at your fingertips you could possibly
00:05:53
want. And that was the incredible part
00:05:56
really, for me, I think that was a spark of genius.
00:05:59
But Larry, let me let me start with this.
00:06:01
We always like to do this. Give me the Cliff notes.
00:06:03
Like, you know, how did you get into that?
00:06:06
I mean, how did it happen? I mean, where, where's the track
00:06:08
to where you started? And then all of a sudden, here
00:06:10
you are and you're doing Wikipedia.
00:06:13
Well, I first like Gone online in 1994, and one of the very
00:06:20
first things I did was to join a discussion group that was run by
00:06:27
Jimmy Wales, as it happens, before he was famous, and it was
00:06:33
about the philosophy of Ayn Rand and I, I was a philosophy grad
00:06:39
student at the time. I wasn't exactly a huge fan of
00:06:45
Ayn Rand, but I agreed with her about a lot of important things,
00:06:48
you know, and so they, they seem like allies to me.
00:06:52
I ended up meeting Jimmy, you know, in face to face in
00:06:58
Chicago. Me and him and another guy sort
00:07:02
of spent a weekend just kicking around when I was on my way
00:07:05
across the country to visit my my uncle.
00:07:10
And so we, we weren't exactly close friends or anything, but
00:07:15
we knew each other. We, we'd actually met each other
00:07:17
face to face a couple of times before.
00:07:21
Basically, he was looking for somebody to start a free
00:07:25
encyclopedia. So Jimmy Wales was the CEO of
00:07:29
Balmes Inc, which was it ran a an old web ring style search
00:07:37
engine. If you remember that from the
00:07:38
1990s. I do, yes.
00:07:42
And and Bahamas was probably the biggest 1.
00:07:45
And so he had a lot of brands in the fire.
00:07:49
One of them was this idea of a free of encyclopedia.
00:07:53
He had already chosen the domain name for it, Newpedia and
00:07:58
Upedia, and then it was going to be run based on open source
00:08:03
software principles. Basically, it's free, but nobody
00:08:09
is paid necessarily to work on it, right?
00:08:11
So it's it's a, a public good that people contribute to.
00:08:16
And that's essentially how open source works.
00:08:19
And what, we're going to take that same principle and apply it
00:08:22
to an encyclopedia. At first, of course, we didn't
00:08:27
know about wikis. So it was my job basically to
00:08:31
start that thing from the ground up, which I did, you know, I, I
00:08:36
one day sat down and I mean, after he had given me the job
00:08:40
and, and started writing out the, the, the rules and, and
00:08:45
procedures and, and consulting with various volunteers and
00:08:50
collecting all the people, which was took a long time.
00:08:54
But to make a Long story short, the project moved very slowly.
00:09:00
Basically, we really wanted it to be a credible encyclopedia if
00:09:04
it was going to be, you know, volunteer written.
00:09:07
And we wanted to make sure that it was rigorously edited.
00:09:11
So we had a seven step process and in the end it was just too
00:09:16
much and people weren't really into it.
00:09:18
So I started looking around for ways of adding new content and
00:09:26
in the end, and that was like the fall of 2000.
00:09:31
In the end, right at I guess it was January 2nd, 2001, a friend
00:09:40
told me about wikis, which are these websites.
00:09:43
Anybody can, anybody who looks at the website can press an edit
00:09:47
button and edit the page that they're looking at, hit save and
00:09:53
the the changes are made. They immediately go live.
00:09:56
It was crazy idea of course, and I, my friend was very good at
00:10:05
explaining why it can work, why it doesn't just result in a lot
00:10:13
of graffiti and, and you know, digital vandalism and stuff like
00:10:17
that. So I immediately thought this is
00:10:20
a way to add large amounts of content to Wikipedia or sorry to
00:10:27
Newpedia, but the, the editors that I had collected for
00:10:32
Newpedia were not into that idea at all.
00:10:37
And so we decided we need to launch it under its own domain
00:10:43
name and a different identity with different, I guess,
00:10:49
leaders, I suppose. Of course I was going to be
00:10:51
leading both of the projects and so I came up with the name
00:10:56
Wikipedia. And so between January 2nd and
00:11:01
January 15, we, we had already submitted the idea a live
00:11:06
website to the New Pedia people. They were not interested into
00:11:11
it, in it. And so, so we, we came up with
00:11:15
that new domain name, launched it January 15, 2001 and it just
00:11:22
took off. We had already collected like
00:11:24
2000 people for New Pedia to work on New Pedia, and in the
00:11:30
next several months it collected many hundreds of articles.
00:11:35
By the end of that year was 20 articles.
00:11:39
And yeah, yeah. I mean, that's it's crazy
00:11:43
because of course new PDA kind of had, you know, more of like I
00:11:47
would consider an ivory tower expert model, right.
00:11:49
And then, you know, Wiki was kind of the Wild West, you know,
00:11:53
did you have a moment? Kind of what I got to ask you,
00:11:56
was it pure optimism or did you secretly bet maybe on chaos
00:12:00
breeding clarity? Did you think that, yeah, this
00:12:03
can work when you got the first sample and you thought, I think
00:12:05
the way the Internet's working, this can really be something?
00:12:09
I was, I was excited about excited about it within the
00:12:12
first couple of weeks, like when people started writing a lot of
00:12:15
articles, even though a lot of the first ones were just like
00:12:19
one or two or three paragraphs, you know, and they weren't
00:12:23
necessarily that meaty. A few people started writing
00:12:25
meaty stuff right away. But it was exciting because
00:12:29
there was a lot more content within a few weeks with
00:12:33
especially within a few months. And there was on after a year
00:12:37
working on Neupedia, but it wasn't as good.
00:12:41
And the plan was that we were going to use Neupedia to edit
00:12:46
the the output of Wikipedia. They were going to, they were
00:12:50
supposed to work in tandem. But in the end, basically Jimmy
00:12:55
Wales, he he's like just disgusted with with new pedia
00:13:01
had no desire to, to support it. I wanted to continue to, to like
00:13:06
support it, but he, he was paying the bills.
00:13:10
So, you know, he, he wouldn't even let me buy it later, like
00:13:16
after a couple of years, he just essentially wanted Newpedia to
00:13:22
die. Wikipedia took on a life of its
00:13:25
own, though. And I was, I was very excited.
00:13:27
I mean, I was amazed at how I. Was shocked at the quality of
00:13:31
the entries, knowing that it was independent journalists and I
00:13:33
guess independent editors you could call it.
00:13:35
I was so impressed. Sometimes you, you would pull
00:13:38
something up and you'd be the detail would be, you know this
00:13:41
long and you'd be like wow. And then and then it would be
00:13:44
hyperlinked and you could find other listings that would really
00:13:47
just clarify it, You know, You know, George, I know we were
00:13:51
talking about the original vision of Wikipedia.
00:13:54
Naming the beast? Is that what we're talking
00:13:56
about? Lance?
00:13:57
Listen, I said you you coined it Wikipedia, right?
00:14:00
This is, and we all know it's a mash up of wiki and
00:14:03
encyclopedia. However, if you would have known
00:14:07
it would have one day eclipsed the brick for the Canon
00:14:10
Britannica Britannica and outlast your like, listen,
00:14:13
you're own involvement. You're not involved with it no
00:14:14
more. I don't know why, but would you
00:14:16
have picked something snappier? I don't know, like know it all
00:14:19
net or truth love. I mean, does the name still
00:14:22
invoke for you about I don't know the project?
00:14:24
So what? Tell us something, Larry.
00:14:28
I don't know. I'm not like a branding expert.
00:14:31
I didn't think that hard about it, to be honest.
00:14:33
I thought, OK, well, it's a wiki and it's an encyclopedia and so
00:14:38
it's a Wikipedia. It was just seemed obvious.
00:14:41
I, we considered some other names, but I, I, I felt like it
00:14:47
was a kind of an unserious side project of new Pedia in the
00:14:56
first couple of months, right. But after that, it was very
00:14:59
clear that it was like taking on a life of its own.
00:15:01
It was going to be something that would succeed potentially
00:15:06
without Neupedia. That was clear by just six
00:15:10
months in. And by the end of the year, it
00:15:12
was very clear that that, you know, this was now the the tale
00:15:16
that was swagging the dog. Yeah.
00:15:18
So, you know, you, you always had that neutral point of view
00:15:22
policy, you know, did you, were you able to embed anything in
00:15:25
there to ensure that maybe it, excuse me, that it didn't
00:15:28
devolve in potentially a digital Tower of Babel?
00:15:32
I mean, 6 English articles so fast.
00:15:35
I mean, it blew up. Yeah.
00:15:41
Originally, I mean, the idea was we wanted there to be kind of
00:15:45
an, A global Tower of Babel. Yes, we we wanted it to be weird
00:15:54
and diverse and extremely global, right?
00:15:59
In a good sense, right where where individual cultures from
00:16:06
around the world and their ideas are actually respected.
00:16:09
I don't really think it works that way anymore.
00:16:13
But nevertheless, that was the, that was the original idea and
00:16:17
the original vision. They, the whole idea was behind
00:16:20
neutrality was to bring people together who have radically
00:16:24
different points of view so that they can all record their
00:16:31
different takes on in in many cases, radically different
00:16:35
takes. And so it wasn't supposed to be
00:16:38
like some average between left and right as if all topics in an
00:16:43
encyclopedia are political. It doesn't work that way when
00:16:46
you're dealing with a general encyclopedia.
00:16:47
There's a lot of non political topics.
00:16:50
But the point is, there's a lot of different perspectives from,
00:16:53
again, all around the world, from different philosophies,
00:16:56
different religions and and so forth.
00:17:00
Making them all work together required neutrality.
00:17:03
That's one of the main reasons why the the policy exists.
00:17:10
You know, so, so I guess my question is, you know, Fast
00:17:14
forward Wikipedia, of course, has gone from kind of a very,
00:17:18
very unique upstart to what I think $185 million endowment
00:17:22
powerhouse. Did your first sense, like when
00:17:25
did your first sense that it was shifting from maybe
00:17:26
collaborative playground, a bureaucratic fortress?
00:17:29
Was there a moment kind of when, I don't know, the, the, maybe
00:17:34
the anonymous admins or the ignore all rules inside joke
00:17:36
turned into kind of a shield for insiders?
00:17:38
Was there a feeling that that was happening?
00:17:42
Yeah. Well, I'll tell you, they lost
00:17:45
the ability to pay me early on because basically they lost a
00:17:49
big contract with, with Google. And, and so there was a time for
00:17:57
a couple of years when essentially there weren't any
00:18:02
administrators and it was essentially leaderless except
00:18:06
for Jimmy Wales who might step in from time to time.
00:18:09
It was a very small project, despite having a lot of articles
00:18:12
and like just growing like gangbusters.
00:18:15
It wasn't until like 2004, 2005 when it really exploded onto the
00:18:20
world scene. And, and like Jimmy Wales and I
00:18:23
were both getting a lot of interviews just trying to
00:18:26
explain what is this thing. But even after that it was still
00:18:31
this very fresh faced new project that was for many years
00:18:41
I would say anti establishment, right.
00:18:45
And the bureaucracy as such didn't really solidify until, I
00:18:53
would say sometime between 2005 and 2010, if we're talking about
00:18:58
the history, if that's, if that's what you're asking, but
00:19:01
that's, that's when it happened. I would say that by about 2010,
00:19:06
I would have described the bias that was evident on Wikipedia as
00:19:11
being similar to that of the BBC or the New York Times.
00:19:14
So basically establishment left or center left anyway.
00:19:20
And I, I would describe, I would have described and did describe
00:19:25
the management, the anonymous management of the the editorial
00:19:31
side of Wikipedia of as being essentially like a bureaucracy.
00:19:39
Whereas in the earliest days I I was very worried that it was
00:19:45
turning into just an absolute free for all anarchy it it
00:19:51
really started to lock down I would say again by about 2010.
00:19:59
Yeah, that was an interesting period because you can start to
00:20:01
see the transition. George, what are we going to
00:20:05
say? I couldn't see you wanted to
00:20:07
say. I can tell George's face.
00:20:08
He's having a thought. So he's going in here.
00:20:10
Larry. I don't know what he's.
00:20:11
Thinking I was, I was. I get I get caught up my
00:20:14
thoughts sometimes, but you know, let's let's go step
00:20:17
further. So well, I'm going to call it
00:20:19
the the bias blind spot, right? So I mean, you've called out
00:20:22
Wikipedia's left-leaning tilt right as a slow poison.
00:20:26
They're blacklist and conservatives while while
00:20:30
cozying up to the globalist, academic, the second and the
00:20:33
progressive. You know their views.
00:20:35
Right, right. When the now you're a
00:20:37
philosopher, right? You took philosophy now with
00:20:40
your philosopher's eye. Is is this inevitable in any
00:20:43
crowdsourced truth machine, or did it stem from failure to
00:20:47
enforce your neutrality manifesto?
00:20:51
It's a good question, basically, yeah.
00:20:55
The way that I described the the perspective that they are
00:20:59
enforcing, sometimes brutally on Wikipedia today, I describe it
00:21:06
as gasp, globalist, academic, secular and progressive.
00:21:12
So it's just something that came to me.
00:21:14
I was, I was, I was writing the nine theses.
00:21:17
So if you go to larrysanger.org, you go to the top of the the
00:21:22
landing page, there is a link to 9 theses on Wikipedia.
00:21:26
And I developed that in essay 2 and essay 4.
00:21:30
This idea that Wikipedia has a gasp perspective now it's no
00:21:35
longer a, a neutral point of view.
00:21:38
They, they like to think that it is, but it's not.
00:21:42
Yeah. But your question is, were were
00:21:47
they stuck with that? Was it inevitable?
00:21:52
I think it's inevitable only in the sense that the left is
00:21:56
really motivated and practiced at what they do.
00:22:02
And you know, in analysis of of the new left, what they say is.
00:22:15
Well listen, if if bias is human then why pretend encyclopedias
00:22:20
aren't? What's that?
00:22:22
If if bias is human, why pretend encyclopedias aren't?
00:22:28
Well, look, I think that it's possible for really skilled
00:22:33
journalists to write unbiased stuff.
00:22:36
We can all I agree when there's a really good news article or a
00:22:42
really good textbook that just gives an even handed fair
00:22:47
presentation of the issues and allows you to make up your own
00:22:51
mind. It's difficult though, when you
00:22:54
have a completely open project. And what I was about to say is
00:22:59
that the left is making a a, a, a a, what do they call it?
00:23:05
A March through the institutions, right?
00:23:08
And Wikipedia is one of the institutions that they
00:23:10
deliberately have marched through.
00:23:14
It would have required foresight.
00:23:17
We should have thought a lot harder about the fact that they
00:23:20
would do that and taken special care to to just set up processes
00:23:28
and whatever to to keep that from being the case yes yes, I
00:23:33
mean basically, if you didn't have some special way to ensure
00:23:37
that it remain neutral I I I think they'll just keep pushing
00:23:43
and pushing until it reflects the bias that that they want it
00:23:47
to reflect. I'll.
00:23:48
Tell you, I agree with that statement so much.
00:23:50
It rings so true on this show because when we do political
00:23:55
shows, as an example, we're talking about politics.
00:23:57
We always go to after both sides of the aisle.
00:23:59
But it's very clear that the bias machine that's in
00:24:02
mainstream media and the narrative control, even if you
00:24:05
look at some of the funding that got funneled out through USAID
00:24:07
and what they paid for, there was no neutral payments coming
00:24:10
out of USAID when Doge started to discover them.
00:24:13
Everything was left-leaning. Lots of money, millions and
00:24:16
millions of dollars in use. Once the narrative was
00:24:19
determined, whether it's negative about Larry Sanger or
00:24:21
negative about Lance Miniatio George Valentin, that's the
00:24:25
narrative, right? So they propel it.
00:24:26
They created it at the higher levels.
00:24:28
Call it whatever you want, deep state cabal.
00:24:30
I don't care what name you give it because at the end of the
00:24:32
day, I'm not sure that isn't too a nefarious a title, but the
00:24:35
intent is to control the power. So when it comes to narrative or
00:24:39
bias control, they decide that they're going to write a story
00:24:42
about Larry or write a story about Lance and it goes through
00:24:45
everything. So Wikipedia being the go to
00:24:47
source for this entire time period, it makes sense to me
00:24:51
that they they said, OK, hey, while we're doing this, we're
00:24:53
going to write an article particle in the New York Times
00:24:55
and Washington Post and let's make sure we go and have our
00:24:57
approved editor over at Wiki. Go ahead and go in there.
00:25:01
And you know, Hammer Lance Miliotra, let's make sure that
00:25:04
his we put in there a bunch of negative stuff towards the end
00:25:07
of his report. And it's interesting.
00:25:09
You almost wish you could have had somebody.
00:25:11
And again, with the volume that was coming in, you really needed
00:25:14
AI quantum computing. You're almost seem like where it
00:25:16
could have said it could have read it and it could have sent
00:25:19
back just a single rejected update bias and if they wanted
00:25:23
to resubmit, they could. But it's but it's interesting.
00:25:26
You didn't have quantum computing, you didn't have AI.
00:25:29
And you know, you would hope that you always hope for the
00:25:32
best, but expect the worst sometimes when it comes to
00:25:34
media, because we see it, you know, we get we're we're pretty
00:25:37
fortunate. We have a lot of great sources
00:25:39
in Washington, DC and a lot of great sources around the globe.
00:25:42
And we hear about what the actual story is.
00:25:44
And then you kind of see it roll out into the media and you're
00:25:47
like, this isn't even close to what happened.
00:25:49
Kind of like what you saw the BBC do recently with the Trump
00:25:52
video where they edited kind of what you saw with 60 minutes.
00:25:55
And Kamala Harris is an example, you know, or what they did with
00:25:59
Joe Biden, you know, not letting him really go out in public
00:26:01
because he was having a problem, problem with dementia and
00:26:03
Alzheimer's. You know, it's, it's
00:26:05
complicated. The neutrality of reporting has
00:26:08
disappeared. I I feel sometimes you end up
00:26:11
doing like our show, we're very, we're very neutral.
00:26:13
We'll go after everybody. We don't care.
00:26:15
What I want is a great country. I want the greatest country in
00:26:17
the world. So whoever's not doing that
00:26:19
doesn't matter whether it's this administration or a different
00:26:21
one or people that are saying the wrong thing, we'll go after
00:26:24
him and we'll say this isn't right.
00:26:25
I don't agree with it. Do you find yourself knowing?
00:26:29
That you created. Probably 1 of the biggest
00:26:31
cultural icons, especially that period.
00:26:33
And even now you ever find yourself thinking, God, I wish
00:26:36
maybe we could have had AI because you're a technology guy.
00:26:40
Maybe then it could have looked, it could have read the article
00:26:42
when it got submitted and boom, it could have got rejected by
00:26:45
us. And then they would have had to
00:26:46
neutralize all the, you know, they would have just reported
00:26:49
from a neutral position. Do you think AI might have been
00:26:51
an amazing thing had you had that during this period, I mean.
00:26:56
If we had launched when AI was available, then clearly it would
00:27:01
have been, it would have made use of AI from the beginning.
00:27:06
That's clear to me, as long as it were as as AI were advanced
00:27:12
enough at the time. But anyway, that's a that's an
00:27:16
alt history kind of question. It's interesting, I suppose, And
00:27:21
and how now, you know, 25 years on, Grokopedia is going to.
00:27:28
Yeah, yeah. What do you think?
00:27:30
I mean, do you listen? Eli's always got his hand, you
00:27:33
know, I I understand he's even doing something with, you know,
00:27:36
new drugs for diabetes he's doing some research on that now.
00:27:39
This guy always seems to be involved in really interesting
00:27:42
projects, but I think that of course, you know if you read
00:27:45
his. When I first heard about
00:27:47
Gracopedia, I went and read his Wikipedia and I can see why he's
00:27:49
not thrilled about it 'cause it's not very neutral reporting
00:27:52
about him, you know, and you want neutrality.
00:27:55
I want neutrality in the news. I just want to hear it like it
00:27:57
is. I don't want to hear all the
00:27:59
opinions and the rest of it. If I turn on the news, I'm like,
00:28:01
that would be the demise of the. Democratic Party, Lance, you
00:28:04
know that? Well, it'd.
00:28:05
Be the IT would be the demise, I believe, of the rhinos, the
00:28:08
Democratic Party and maybe the people that want things to be a
00:28:11
certain way, which I've never really been good with.
00:28:13
I've never really, I've never liked bullies.
00:28:16
And I often feel like the media is a bully, that they want us,
00:28:19
they try. They want to force fetus.
00:28:20
It's like, you know, I'm a baby strapped in a chair.
00:28:23
And here comes that spoon. Here comes the Choo, Choo.
00:28:25
No, you got to eat those mashed peas.
00:28:27
No, I don't want the mashed peas.
00:28:28
I want the mashed bananas. No, you're going to eat the
00:28:30
mashed peas. All right, listen, you know what
00:28:32
that music means. We're going to take a short
00:28:34
break here on the Big Ming show, and we come back.
00:28:35
We'll be here with Larry Sanger, founder of Wikipedia.
00:28:38
Don't miss a minute. George Valentin, myself, Lance
00:28:41
Bellaccio. You know how we do it on this
00:28:42
show. We're going all in, so stay
00:28:44
tuned. We'll be right back.
00:28:46
Don't go nowhere. Are you ready to stand?
00:29:04
Up for your community and support your local sheriff.
00:29:07
Join the Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers
00:29:10
Association have become a vital member of the Sheriff's Citizens
00:29:14
Posse at CSP oa.org. We empower citizens like you
00:29:19
through weekly webinars, arming you with the knowledge to back
00:29:22
your Constitutional County Sheriff.
00:29:24
Together, we can uphold our Constitution and ensure liberty
00:29:28
and justice for all. Your community needs you now
00:29:31
more than ever. Visit CSP oa.org and join the
00:29:34
Sheriff's citizens posse today. Make a difference.
00:29:37
Stand for freedom. That's CSP oa.org, Your country,
00:29:42
your fight, your future. What if you could predict?
00:29:52
Your financial future And what if you could trade on it?
00:29:56
Introducing Block Trust IRA the future in your hands.
00:30:00
An astonishing 88 millionaires were created last
00:30:03
year from the Bitcoin boom and you can be next.
00:30:07
Block Trust IRA is the only crypto management firm powered
00:30:10
by AI driven strategies, ranked number one in the world by
00:30:14
Bitcoin Magazine. The Block Trust IRA.
00:30:17
Platform is built for everyone, from first time buyers to
00:30:20
seasoned investors. Predictive AI technology that
00:30:24
was once only reserved for insiders and elites is now
00:30:27
available to you. It's time to leave the old buy
00:30:30
and hold strategies behind. Your assets are protected with
00:30:34
military grade security, offline cold storage and $200 million in
00:30:38
insurance. Visit blocktrustira.com to book
00:30:42
your free consultation and ask how to claim up to $2500 in
00:30:45
deposit bonuses today. Bitcoin changed the game.
00:30:49
AI changes the strategy. Hi folks, I'm here.
00:30:52
Today to introduce you to the Prepper Bar from prepperbar.com,
00:30:56
the most unique precious metals product we have seen in a long
00:30:59
time. These 62g bars are perforated
00:31:02
and easily broken down into your choice of three different sizes
00:31:06
to fit a multitude of needs. Whether it be from asset
00:31:09
protection from inflation, economic turmoil, or its unique
00:31:13
utility for barter and trade, the Prepper Bar makes a perfect
00:31:17
gift for all the precious metal lovers out there.
00:31:19
Exclusively made here in the USA and selling out fast.
00:31:23
Available in both gold and silver, these slim prepper bars
00:31:26
fit neatly in your wallet and their utility enables use in any
00:31:30
situation. Forged through rigorous.
00:31:33
Training and honed by the finest instructors on earth, these
00:31:37
canine units serve beside our nation's warriors as they fight
00:31:41
to preserve who we cherish. And these warriors complete.
00:31:46
Their duty, The Warrior Dog Foundation provides them with
00:31:49
the home deserving of the service they've given us all at
00:31:53
our state-of-the-art kennels. They receive rehabilitation and
00:31:56
care suitable for heroes because that's what they are.
00:32:02
Be a part of giving them a future today.
00:32:05
Visit warriordogfoundation.org. All right, welcome back to The
00:32:19
Big. Big show here we host Lance
00:32:21
Migliacho, George Mountain and our guests Wikipedia founder.
00:32:25
I'm not saying Co founder because it made him blush.
00:32:26
I want to make him blush too. Larry Sanger.
00:32:29
But listen, share this live on your social media while we're
00:32:33
live. Help the show grow, help educate
00:32:35
people. Hit the like the follow button
00:32:37
and that red button. The big mafia button, $5 a month
00:32:40
subscription truly helps out with the overhead.
00:32:42
Little things, every little bit helps.
00:32:45
But let me give a shout out to our sponsor, Block trustira.com.
00:32:50
You know, they say while the financial lead have been quietly
00:32:53
building wealth through cryptocurrency, hardworking
00:32:55
Americans have been left behind. And that's why I'm here to tell
00:32:58
you about Block trustira.com. They're bringing access to
00:33:01
cryptocurrency wealth to everyday people.
00:33:03
They're exclusive. Animus AI Trading platform works
00:33:06
24/7 analyzing market data and executing advanced crypto
00:33:11
strategies that go far beyond buy and hold.
00:33:15
Now this is sophisticated tech that was once reserved only for
00:33:18
Wall Street insides, but now it's, it's available to you.
00:33:21
And it's no surprise this system was named #1 crypto technology
00:33:24
Platform by Bitcoin Magazine out of more than 1500 global
00:33:28
competitors. So whether you're a teacher, a
00:33:31
truck driver, small business owner, or retiree like Larry
00:33:35
sitting back watching inflation eat away at your savings, block
00:33:38
trust Iras, Advance Animus AI gives everyday Americans the
00:33:41
same advantages as a financial elite.
00:33:45
Clients are already seeing over 250% returns on their
00:33:48
investments, all with military grade security and up to 200
00:33:51
million in insurance. Your wealth is fully protected.
00:33:54
So don't wait. You can visit Big Make
00:33:56
crypto.com today and see how you can join in this financial
00:34:00
revolution once again. That's big.
00:34:03
Make crypto.com today and guess what, you can get up to $2500 of
00:34:09
free crypto. That's right, 2500.
00:34:12
I got the QR code. Take a screenshot, save your
00:34:14
photo files. Now you all look at Larry Sanger
00:34:19
right there. You would never think he would
00:34:20
be throttled or banned on X. But the man, what is he?
00:34:25
Probably still is we all are. I haven't got my account back.
00:34:28
All our other accounts are are throttled and now he's listen.
00:34:34
I like Elon Musk, he saved helped.
00:34:38
Save free speech. Somewhat, but let's face it,
00:34:41
he's coming out with Grokopedia. But you know, his platform X
00:34:44
still has a ton of problems. Is it truly free speech?
00:34:47
They're still banning accounts or not letting everybody get
00:34:50
their accounts back? And what's your take on
00:34:54
Grokopedia? On Grokopedia.
00:34:59
Well, I can tell you that it's measurably at least as far as
00:35:04
ten articles go. The ten that I looked at
00:35:09
considerably more neutral than than Wikipedia.
00:35:16
It's not a very big sample size, need to look at a lot more
00:35:21
articles. But, and that isn't my opinion,
00:35:25
that's the opinion of ChatGPT. So I basically fed articles on
00:35:30
the same topics from Wikipedia and from Grokopedia, and on
00:35:34
average the Grokopedia articles were slightly biased and on
00:35:41
average the Wikipedia articles were.
00:35:45
More severely. Biased, and I think that's a.
00:35:48
Great way to do it, of course. You know, even AI.
00:35:52
You have to assume that. The person doing the programming
00:35:55
is intelligent as it is. There is the potential for bias.
00:35:59
I'm always concerned. I'm cautiously optimistic.
00:36:01
My problem is I still think there's foxes in the hen house
00:36:04
over at X. I've tried to deal with support
00:36:07
on on what I would consider shadow banning or ghost banning
00:36:11
on the accounts that I have with George.
00:36:13
I think we, like I said, we have about 400 and some followers,
00:36:16
400 and some 1000 followers in the two accounts.
00:36:19
And I don't see the impressions based on what it is.
00:36:21
And of course, we have a naturally syndicated radio show.
00:36:23
We have this show, we have the number one crypto show on
00:36:26
Rumble. So a lot of optics, a lot more
00:36:28
than the average person. So you would think the
00:36:30
combination of promoting our accounts, which we do constantly
00:36:33
on all our media would propel those counts to a really higher
00:36:36
level. I don't see that the suppression
00:36:38
is real and it concerns me with gracopedia.
00:36:41
I'd love to see it completely neutral.
00:36:43
I'd, I'd love to see Wikipedia draw the line and sand and go,
00:36:46
hey, we're going to go through, we're going to have AI analyze
00:36:49
everything in our platform and anything biased is going to be
00:36:52
removed. The editing, the editing will be
00:36:55
removed and it'll become neutral.
00:36:56
It would be great to do that because, you know, Wikipedia is
00:36:59
kind of a standby for me. It always was for years and
00:37:02
years and years. I don't use it a lot now, but
00:37:04
years ago I used it all the time.
00:37:06
I'd like to see us kind of boomerang back to that.
00:37:09
But you you, you kind of have a recommendation that that the 9
00:37:12
thesis is I, I read that about your 9 thesis on Wikipedia and I
00:37:15
want you to take us walk us through this because this seems
00:37:18
to me to be the fix. It seems like it is a solution
00:37:23
if they would, if they would adopt these ideas.
00:37:27
This seems like a really you could turn Wikipedia around
00:37:29
pretty quickly quickly and with AII would have to think the
00:37:32
editing and the and taking the bias out could be, you know,
00:37:36
like that because ChatGPT and other platforms deep sea can
00:37:39
grok. You could use them to really
00:37:41
just edit very quickly if you automated it.
00:37:44
Good point. Right, so the. 9 theses are
00:37:48
basically my big reform proposal for Wikipedia.
00:37:53
Nobody to my knowledge has ever made a a really general
00:37:58
ambitious proposal for improving Wikipedia and I I don't know if
00:38:05
we have time to go through all nine.
00:38:07
We've got time, Larry, for you we got.
00:38:09
Time, my friend. Yeah, enjoy the.
00:38:11
Media. I've got the list there of the 9
00:38:12
if you want to put that up. I'll just give you the
00:38:15
highlights and if you want to like, you know, poke at any of
00:38:18
them, let me know. The first one and this.
00:38:23
By the way, if you want to like follow along, you can go to
00:38:27
larrysanger.org, click on the first big link there and says
00:38:31
special feature of the 9 theses and for each of the 9 theses
00:38:37
there is a separate essay. So the whole thing, if you were
00:38:40
to print it out, would be a short book.
00:38:43
So #1 is end decision making by consensus.
00:38:47
The idea is Wikipedia has this policy that says that the way
00:38:54
that we on Wikipedia decide difficult editorial issues if
00:38:59
people can't resolve something is is through consensus.
00:39:03
But well, what? What if people can't actually
00:39:06
come to a real agreement? And then then it's not really,
00:39:12
you shouldn't call it a consensus, should you?
00:39:14
But they nevertheless do. And and over the years, as
00:39:18
Wikipedia has become more and more gasp in its perspective,
00:39:24
right, it has more and more just left out a lot of of other
00:39:31
people. And and it's just, it just adds
00:39:35
insult to injury to say that it is somehow the community
00:39:39
consensus that only one view holds sway on Wikipedia.
00:39:44
A very good example actually is and this is a good example for
00:39:48
the for the next three points as well is something that, as it
00:39:54
happens, to my surprise, Jimmy Wales pointed out.
00:39:58
So Wikipedia has an article called.
00:40:02
The Gaza genocide, all right, So it Wikipedia in its own voice,
00:40:08
in what is called Wiki voice. In other words, this is what the
00:40:12
article itself claims is that Israel committed.
00:40:19
Committed, perhaps, you know, it isn't now because they're
00:40:22
they've got a ceasefire going, but it committed genocide in
00:40:28
Gaza and and it lists a lot of claims and a lot of sources that
00:40:33
that make this assertion. But the very title itself is
00:40:40
something that is in dispute. And if you're going to talk
00:40:43
about something that is truly neutral, then you have to give
00:40:48
it a word a a a description that the competing sides can actually
00:40:55
agree on. It has to be something given
00:40:58
that that you have to choose some title.
00:41:00
It can't favor one side is the point.
00:41:03
So they say though, that that's the consensus.
00:41:05
It's consensus of all the people that think like them.
00:41:09
All right, all right. That that was that was an
00:41:11
especially tricky. Topic.
00:41:13
Because touchy. Yeah, tricky.
00:41:14
Touchy. Well, it's not really that it's
00:41:16
touchy. I think that, you know, and
00:41:19
Gaza, from what I know, isn't doing it, but the Palestinians
00:41:22
aren't doing it. But, you know, Israel's got a a
00:41:24
very sophisticated advertising, marketing and narrative machine
00:41:30
that they put a lot of money out into the market.
00:41:32
There are a lot of influencers and podcasts, a lot of people
00:41:35
that are posting that are being paid for that because it's a
00:41:38
paid narrative. And, and, and, and I'm not, you
00:41:40
know, I'm actually a Italian Jew.
00:41:42
So my point is, I'm not being anti-Semitic.
00:41:44
My thing is, is that it's really complicated because you deal
00:41:47
with one side that's got this incredible amount of capital
00:41:50
they put into advertising, I'd call it.
00:41:52
And that controls a lot of the narrative.
00:41:54
And then you've got Washington, DC with its own belief system.
00:41:56
So it's complicated. And I'm sure that for them, Wiki
00:42:00
is ripe fruit, right? If you can control the story and
00:42:03
if you can organize, Yeah, you would think so.
00:42:06
So but they're they're not. It's in.
00:42:07
Fact. It's it's extremely biased in
00:42:10
the opposite direction. Yeah, it really is it.
00:42:12
That's. Interesting, didn't realize
00:42:14
that. In other words, the Israeli
00:42:15
view. Is simply not represented in
00:42:17
that article at all. Now that's interesting.
00:42:19
Right, isn't it? Because that's like a first
00:42:21
really. I didn't realize that.
00:42:22
I thought you were saying the opposite.
00:42:24
So my correction. So that's interesting that that
00:42:26
somehow that that Gaza article is so one side leaning when we
00:42:31
really know what the real story is about what happened if you
00:42:33
really have the research. And that's interesting to me
00:42:36
because I would think that Israel would be really motivated
00:42:39
about Wiki because it's an open source and they can do a lot of
00:42:42
editing because in normal so cases, that's really what they
00:42:45
do. Because I as an example, as an
00:42:46
influencer as of late that has received quite a bit of money
00:42:50
that's come out kind of behind the scenes.
00:42:52
We've heard about got a lot of money for posting for Israel I I
00:42:56
think Wikipedia. Is to a certain extent kind of a
00:43:00
it's APR and intelligence and journalistic battleground,
00:43:07
right? Yeah, I agree.
00:43:08
So that that. Means that probably there are
00:43:11
players in the background throwing money.
00:43:14
Some of them win and some of them lose, right?
00:43:18
And in this case, you know, whatever money is actually being
00:43:22
spent by Israel, if it very much is being spent on Wikipedia,
00:43:29
seems to well be on the losing side.
00:43:33
But. And now we're actually getting
00:43:36
skipping ahead to another of the 9 theses.
00:43:41
Let's see, the second one is enable competing articles.
00:43:44
So if Wikipedia takes a gasp point of view or gasp
00:43:48
perspective, then shouldn't we allow other perspectives to
00:43:53
present what they regard as neutral position on on the facts
00:44:01
from from their perspective? It almost sounds like a
00:44:04
contradiction. I I agree, but that's simply
00:44:09
applying the same sort of principles Wikipedia itself now
00:44:12
applies to the rest of the world.
00:44:14
Wikipedia now says that the GASP framework, as I call it, is the
00:44:23
neutral point of view. That's what they say, right?
00:44:27
All I'm saying is, well, maybe we should allow to change the
00:44:31
example Hindus to write articles about God and and you know, I
00:44:38
don't know the the, the French and feminists and, you know,
00:44:43
Protestants and and let 1000 flowers bloom.
00:44:48
Now, I'm not saying necessarily that we should have a lot of
00:44:53
biased articles. In fact, this isn't what I
00:44:55
prefer. So let me move on and I'll
00:44:59
explain why I think so. The third of the feces is
00:45:05
abolish source blacklist. So right now if you go to
00:45:10
Wikipedia and you go to the perennial sources page, just
00:45:15
type that in into a search engine, Wikipedia, perennial
00:45:18
sources, you will come to a list of media sources and you'll see
00:45:23
various colours on the page, green and yellow and red, grey
00:45:29
and anything that is not green essentially is being to some
00:45:34
degree or other blacklisted. It is frowned upon as a source
00:45:40
on Wikipedia. Anything that is red or Gray is
00:45:44
basically not allowed on Wikipedia.
00:45:47
Now if you look through the list, you will see that the vast
00:45:52
majority of conservative sources now are blacklisted.
00:45:56
Like you can't use them on Wikipedia.
00:46:00
And that's interesting in itself because of course, yeah.
00:46:04
You know, not so shocking is yeah.
00:46:05
And I agree with you. It's it's like, but it's not
00:46:07
surprising. It's strange because we see that
00:46:10
kind of banning so much. You know which is.
00:46:14
Awful, right? Because that, you know, those
00:46:16
sources not being neutral really limits the the viability of
00:46:21
Wikipedia. It really hurts the product
00:46:22
because you just want to go there just like you would
00:46:25
Britannica. If you read Britannica, it
00:46:27
wasn't biased, it just gave you information.
00:46:29
So you're like, oh, OK, great, now I understand how blood works
00:46:32
or how the the body works or how the bowel system works or what
00:46:36
this animal is. It was very simple and right to
00:46:38
the point you can find the source of the information.
00:46:40
So when you think of Wikipedia, that's what you're really want,
00:46:44
right? 100% So the the proposal is
00:46:49
simply that they rethink and renegotiate their policies on
00:46:55
sourcing and they should get rid of that perennial sources page
00:46:59
entirely and they should allow articles from conservative
00:47:06
sources. Now who's responsible for that?
00:47:08
Larry, how do you think that came about?
00:47:10
Was it the community or their specific individuals that have
00:47:13
decided this is how we're going to do it?
00:47:14
And that's all there is to it. It's the community.
00:47:19
That's certainly what they will tell you and from the outside,
00:47:22
just looking at what's going on on the website, it certainly
00:47:25
looks like it's just a community decision.
00:47:28
So they've got a, what they call a reliable sources notice board
00:47:33
and somebody will, you know, say, just to take a, a random
00:47:38
example, the the Federalist and there will be a discussion of
00:47:43
the Federalist on the reliable sources notice board.
00:47:47
And they will open different people will say, OK, this, this
00:47:51
is the level of approval that I think that the Federalist should
00:47:56
have on this type of topic. And it turns out that one is is
00:48:02
basically banned. So yeah, it's The thing is, most
00:48:09
of the people who are contributing to Wikipedia do so
00:48:13
using anonymous accounts. You can't tell how many are
00:48:21
being controlled by the same people or by the same group.
00:48:24
You can't tell who is paid, who's working for for some well
00:48:29
paid operation. There are some accounts that are
00:48:32
clearly doing their work full time.
00:48:35
Some of them I'm sure are are simply, you know, public
00:48:40
spirited retirees and things like that.
00:48:43
People who just have a lot of time on their hand.
00:48:45
Are you able to if you were to all right?
00:48:48
Let's let me go like this. I'm going to call it the Larry
00:48:51
Singer come back. If you were able to go back in
00:48:53
there, you able to root out these people like who may be
00:48:57
contributing or is it or is it truly totally anonymous?
00:49:00
Like is there anybody from the old guard there?
00:49:03
Anybody can go in there, I mean. Basically, you don't even have
00:49:07
to make an account, right? If your IP address has been
00:49:11
blocked by Wikipedia, then you won't won't be able to to.
00:49:16
There's ways around that, yeah. Of course there are, yeah.
00:49:21
Although it's, it's sometimes it's kind of hard to get around
00:49:24
them like that, that they have VPN blockers as well.
00:49:29
So anyway, so the point is then that basically we need to.
00:49:40
Open up. The the number and type of
00:49:44
sources that are permitted. I'm not saying that, you know,
00:49:47
we need to start counting the National Enquirer as a reliable
00:49:54
source or anything like that. That's not the point.
00:49:57
It's just, you know, I think Fox News and the New York Post, if
00:50:04
they can serve as source, sources of factual claims,
00:50:07
perhaps the claims, especially if they are disputed or they're
00:50:12
the only source, then they should be, you know, that the
00:50:18
claims should be attributed to Fox or to the Post, Right.
00:50:23
All right, So that enough on that number 5, revive the
00:50:27
original neutrality policy. So I don't really know if I need
00:50:31
to go into this in a lot of detail because this summarizes
00:50:36
the first 3 to a great extent. But there's yeah.
00:50:42
And and it really does get into a lot of inside baseball.
00:50:45
I will say this. There's a lot of really good
00:50:48
examples of extreme bias on Wikipedia, and maybe the best
00:50:56
way to to understand what's going on with #4 is to just give
00:51:01
an example. Like, OK, one of my favorite
00:51:06
examples is an article called Yahweh.
00:51:09
So that's the name of my God. That's the name of the Christian
00:51:13
God used to be called Jehovah. A lot of people still call him
00:51:18
Jehovah. What's the name now again?
00:51:20
What is it? Yahweh.
00:51:21
Yahweh. It's.
00:51:23
It's no, no Yahweh, yes, Jesus, I mean.
00:51:26
They say in the Bible Yahweh is Jesus Christ's name, but OK,
00:51:30
well, well, basically. Yahweh is the name of the
00:51:34
Trinity. It's what I would say and so
00:51:37
anyway. But if you go and look at the
00:51:41
article about Yahweh on Wikipedia and then this is a
00:51:46
page that is titled that the that the entire title is simply
00:51:51
Yahweh. That's what it's called.
00:51:53
Then you will see an article that says Yahweh was the God of
00:51:58
the ancient kingdoms of Judea and and Samaria, the head of a
00:52:07
polytheistic pantheon, a God of War and weather.
00:52:13
It's like, what the hell? Yeah, that's what I that's.
00:52:17
What I was thinking, I was like, well, that's an interesting
00:52:19
start. Maybe it improves as you get
00:52:21
through the rest of it. But The thing is.
00:52:25
What it's trying to do is explain a secular theory of the
00:52:30
origin of the built of Yahweh, as they call it, right?
00:52:37
And of course they're not going to say, well, God revealed
00:52:41
himself. He said I am that I am or you
00:52:45
can refer to me as Yahweh right? And they're not going to say
00:52:51
that they'll they what they ought to do and I don't know if
00:52:54
they do any. I pulled it up on the page you
00:52:56
want. Any particular?
00:52:58
You want me to pull to on here? I'm sorry, I'll have Yahweh on
00:53:02
Wikipedia. I pulled it up.
00:53:03
For. Everybody to see what we were
00:53:05
talking about. Yeah, so.
00:53:09
You know, they, they are not going to present the, the
00:53:14
Bible's account as as fact stating now that I understand,
00:53:19
right, because it's supposed to be a neutral article and not
00:53:23
everybody believes that. Of course, a lot of people do
00:53:26
think that they, the belief in Yahweh had a naturalistic
00:53:32
origin. In other words, you know, it,
00:53:35
it's just sort of psychological historical processes and it
00:53:40
didn't come from God himself. Fine, but at least they should
00:53:46
share the view of the actual Christians and Jews whose God
00:53:53
Yahweh is. But they don't.
00:53:55
They don't do that. Yeah, you would think.
00:53:58
And you would think the historical.
00:53:59
Premise they'd kind of maybe even historically go through
00:54:02
where the first time Yahweh appears in any kind of writings
00:54:05
or words the first time. And you would think historically
00:54:07
they'd come down and kind of say, well here's where the
00:54:09
judeo-christian beliefs came in here's where the Jewish beliefs
00:54:13
came in. Yeah, you you would think that,
00:54:14
but the way that was described, it almost sounded like the Hindu
00:54:17
God of War in a way. It kind of it kind of made me
00:54:21
you. Know I was thinking wow that's.
00:54:22
Pretty brutal right out of the cage.
00:54:25
It's it's all speculative too you.
00:54:27
Know this is just this is just some theory.
00:54:29
They have no great evidence for this.
00:54:32
The the biggest source of their evidence for this is actually
00:54:37
from the Bible itself. And of course, they have to
00:54:41
simply ignore a lot of the evidence that is in the Bible in
00:54:44
order to come up with this theory.
00:54:46
But we're the point point is not really about what what these
00:54:49
secular scholars think about Yahweh.
00:54:51
The point is, is that Wikipedia restricts its discussion of
00:54:59
Yahweh to that gasp point of view, globalist, academic,
00:55:04
secular and progressive. So in this on this page, it's
00:55:08
the academic and secular perspective that holds sway.
00:55:14
And and so they're not even going to report about the, I
00:55:21
don't know, the sorts of views that are taught at seminaries or
00:55:28
that are taught in religions and not just, you know, obviously
00:55:33
it's not just Christianity, it's also Judaism.
00:55:36
So anyway, so I just want to point to them out.
00:55:40
So when you. Just do whatever Google search
00:55:43
right and you put the name Yahweh.
00:55:45
Wikipedia has competition now because your first things coming
00:55:48
up is AI and and it gives you actually what?
00:55:51
You're talking about. That, you know, the meaning,
00:55:53
where it came from and stuff. And then if you go down a little
00:55:55
bit, there's Wikipedia. Oops.
00:55:57
But you can even do a deeper dive into AI mode.
00:56:00
So I mean, Wikipedia's got some competition now with AI.
00:56:04
They're going to have to clean up their act over there.
00:56:06
Maybe that's right. Can I ask you this, Larry?
00:56:10
Do you know? Because I don't.
00:56:11
I didn't look this. Up I don't know is the traffic
00:56:13
down on Wikipedia since the advent of AI being used by the
00:56:17
public, there was a news report. About a month ago, as I recall,
00:56:23
where they said that that was observed for the first time.
00:56:29
It wasn't down by much, but it, it, it had dropped a bit.
00:56:35
That is certainly what I would expect too.
00:56:39
They're, they're going to be people who who just find,
00:56:44
they'll just continue doing what they have always done and
00:56:46
they'll continue to use Wikipedia.
00:56:49
Sure. But but yeah, I mean, a lot of
00:56:54
people are as soon as as soon as I turn people on to AI, you
00:56:59
know, they they're like using it from then from that point
00:57:03
forward because it's just so easy.
00:57:05
Except for my wife. My wife just just got into it.
00:57:08
She isn't, you know something. There is a stubbornness when it
00:57:11
comes. To the use of it because I've
00:57:12
recommended some people I just don't want to bother with it,
00:57:15
but it is incredible that you can ask it, you know, what
00:57:18
should my caloric intake be? You know, hey, I've got diabetes
00:57:21
and I want a solution or hey, you know, I just got sued and I,
00:57:25
I want I here's the document. Can you tell me, you know, is
00:57:28
this a legitimate concern I should have do it?
00:57:30
Can I handle this on my own? I mean, you know, people are
00:57:33
doing it for medical, they're doing it for legal, they're
00:57:35
doing it for their personal life.
00:57:36
And of course, if I was going to source some information
00:57:39
nowadays, I would just dump it into AI because it would give me
00:57:41
more of what I wanted. Let's go to number six here.
00:57:45
I want to talk about this, reveal who the Wikipedia leaders
00:57:48
are, right? So.
00:57:52
I I collected what I thought were the most powerful people by
00:58:01
role on Wikipedia. So three different groups.
00:58:05
When you add up those people, there are 62 of them.
00:58:09
Of those, 6285% are anonymous and they go by account names
00:58:16
that I can't remember very many of the names, but they they
00:58:21
sound silly. The usernames it sound like old
00:58:26
chat room handles from the 1990s, which is what they're
00:58:30
based on right? And and yet these are some of
00:58:34
the most powerful accounts in media period.
00:58:38
Wow. No, think about it.
00:58:40
We're talking. About.
00:58:41
What, which is the like, the single most powerful media
00:58:48
source of its kind? It's more powerful than any
00:58:51
single newspaper. It's probably not more powerful
00:58:56
than than Google or X or or Facebook, but it's in it.
00:59:02
It's at that level, right? Wikipedia forms opinions.
00:59:06
It's sort of sets the standards of what is supposed to be true
00:59:13
for a lot of people. It's used by Siri, it's used by
00:59:17
AI, it's used to train AI, and people continue to to consult it
00:59:24
directly. And yet 85% of the most powerful
00:59:29
people who consult Wikipedia or who depend on Wikipedia for
00:59:33
their information are anonymous. Now, you might think this
00:59:37
doesn't matter. These are just like they're,
00:59:40
they're, they're hobbyists. They're, you know, college
00:59:44
students, grad students, retirees.
00:59:46
This is what I used to think, you know, and it was probably
00:59:49
true back in like 2004 or something like that.
00:59:54
I don't think it's true anymore because there's way too much at
00:59:57
stake, right? So, you know, I have been,
01:00:04
they've gotten mad at me on Wikipedia itself.
01:00:08
They, they've, they've pushed back hard on #6 but I say those
01:00:15
the people who occupy the positions in the power 62, they
01:00:19
shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous.
01:00:21
They should go by their real names and then they should be
01:00:24
indemnified by the Wikimedia Foundation.
01:00:27
So they if they're sued, then then they don't have to like
01:00:31
lose their the all powerful ghost author.
01:00:34
Is dangerous, right? Because this is what we're
01:00:36
talking about. Because if we gave them ratings,
01:00:38
we took those people and we said, OK, here's all the ghost
01:00:41
authors and the rating is biased 5 stars, biased 4 stars.
01:00:46
If they had that kind of a rating, it would discredit what
01:00:49
they're writing. But right now they're just, you
01:00:50
know that they're the, they're the all powerful demigods of
01:00:53
Wikipedia, right? Yes, yes.
01:00:56
And I'm not saying that. Other Wikipedia's are not also
01:01:00
anonymous. They are, and the other
01:01:03
Wikipedians are are just as anonymous as the leaders.
01:01:07
But the point is, you would think that the people at the top
01:01:10
of the heap would be more responsible.
01:01:12
They would more be more accountable.
01:01:13
They would be the adults in the room.
01:01:15
But they're not. Yeah.
01:01:18
And and but then you have to wonder.
01:01:20
Maybe it's you. Know without, without inferring
01:01:24
too much or maybe maybe they're paid guns for hire, you know,
01:01:27
you know, maybe that's why they want to stay anonymous, because
01:01:30
I see stuff sometimes. If you look around, if you, if
01:01:33
you look at Wikipedia, I've looked at it years ago.
01:01:34
I don't know if it's still true. You used to be able to hire
01:01:36
Wikipedia editors on Fiverr and indeed and they would author,
01:01:41
you know, whatever needed to be submitted.
01:01:43
Now you could probably use AI now you could probably do it on
01:01:45
ChatGPT and get a better article.
01:01:47
But the point was you can hire them and they would craft an
01:01:49
article, they would submit it and then it would be approved or
01:01:52
not approved, whatever it was, and they would edit till it got
01:01:54
approved, you know. So the question is, are some of
01:01:57
those guys guns for hire? What are you, What are your
01:02:00
internal thoughts? Do you think that's true?
01:02:02
I think that considering that. Wikipedia itself has caught
01:02:08
many, many rank and file editors in the act of paid editing.
01:02:15
Considering that one can prove that the the PR firms that are
01:02:23
editing Wikipedia are bringing in millions and millions of
01:02:26
dollars a year. Who knows how much it might be,
01:02:29
you know, in the hundreds of 1.
01:02:31
It's a it's a lot of money. This is this is what the people
01:02:35
who have looked into it. That's it.
01:02:36
Larry, we're going to form APR firm you.
01:02:38
Myself and George, we're going to start doing it.
01:02:40
We'll, we'll be raking it in, man.
01:02:43
Larry, is there any chance of you going?
01:02:44
Let's do it. Is there any chance of you going
01:02:46
back in there and cleaning Wikipedia up like what's what
01:02:49
I'm trying to do? I mean, that's that's the whole
01:02:52
point. I mean, you're like, OK, I'm
01:02:53
going to say it right. You're you're one of the.
01:02:55
You're the Co founder, right? So why can't you?
01:02:57
What's like are you not allowed? Oh, they don't like me there,
01:03:00
for one thing. Well, we don't like them, do
01:03:02
you? You got back up.
01:03:03
Where, where? Where are they based out?
01:03:05
Do they have offices? No, it doesn't matter where
01:03:08
their. Offices are, yeah.
01:03:09
Well, it does if we go there. We're talking about.
01:03:13
The offices of the Wikimedia Foundation and those would be in
01:03:16
San Francisco, but the, the, the Wikimedia Foundation is not in
01:03:22
control of, or at least they say they're not in control of what's
01:03:27
going on on Wikipedia. It's just like any sort of
01:03:31
journalistic enterprise, right? They're supposed to be this,
01:03:34
this wall between the the owners and The Newsroom, right?
01:03:40
So in the same way, there is a big wall between the platform
01:03:47
owners of the Wikimedia Foundation on the one hand and
01:03:50
the just the the rank and file editors who are supposed to not
01:03:57
be paid. So if I were to have some
01:04:01
position at the Wikimedia Foundation, that wouldn't give
01:04:05
me any more authority over Wikipedia itself.
01:04:09
The only way that I could get any sort of official authority
01:04:14
over Wikipedia would be as if I were to be made into an
01:04:21
administrator. And then after I am an
01:04:24
administrator, they can add other sorts of of rights in the
01:04:28
system. Has anybody?
01:04:30
Has anybody ever hacked Wikipedia?
01:04:33
Hacked. Yeah.
01:04:34
Has it ever? Been hacked?
01:04:39
Not to my knowledge. Maybe it's about.
01:04:41
Maybe it's time that it does get.
01:04:43
Hacked. That's what we need.
01:04:44
We hack it. We write a.
01:04:46
Chat ChatGPT, we don't have anything.
01:04:48
I don't know what you're. Talking about No, no, no.
01:04:51
I'm. Just saying, here's my.
01:04:52
Here's my idea. You hack it, you write this.
01:04:54
Chat, chat, ChatGPT bot, and you have it run.
01:04:57
Just set it loose. You block all other editors,
01:05:00
right? You block especially the top.
01:05:02
And then we just let the chat bot cut through and rewrite all
01:05:04
of Wikipedia into a neutral format.
01:05:06
That's it. Overnight.
01:05:07
The point is, it's not a an. Institutional secret that the
01:05:12
Wikimedia Foundation serves servers are are holding like the
01:05:16
identities of all the people they don't know they don't know
01:05:19
and and if you no, I mean. If you have the IPS and stuff,
01:05:25
you can find them. I can find them.
01:05:29
They they there is a role in the Wikipedia system called the
01:05:34
check user is the people who can look up the IP address, the
01:05:38
Internet Protocol address. OK, you can use that and and
01:05:42
that'll give you a clue, but it's only a clue and it isn't
01:05:47
going to, you know, disclose where the people are.
01:05:50
You know, that's not going to solve anything like doing what
01:05:54
you're talking about doxing. That's with no, I don't want to
01:05:57
dox anybody. No, I'm not looking to.
01:05:58
Dox anybody? I'm not calling.
01:06:00
You're already accused. No, he's looking for neutral
01:06:03
reporting is what Jordan hopes to dox everybody.
01:06:09
No, no, no, I don't. I don't.
01:06:10
First of all, I don't. I don't.
01:06:11
Believe in doxing Larry no. So what I would like to do is
01:06:16
get in there, blocked all those people from being able to enter
01:06:19
your information and go like Lance's route.
01:06:21
Make a ChatGPT bot and fix it all up.
01:06:25
Yeah, make it neutral. I don't want to dox any.
01:06:27
But here's the idea you. Had #7 you talk about?
01:06:29
Let the public rate the articles, Larry.
01:06:32
And that seems to be a great idea.
01:06:33
To me, that seems like an amazing opportunity because
01:06:36
people can say, oh, this article is garbage, or I like it, or I
01:06:39
think it's accurate or I think it's completely inaccurate.
01:06:41
Yeah. Well, in order for that to
01:06:43
happen. Right.
01:06:45
There would have to be some means of adopting really radical
01:06:52
changes in the Wikipedia system, and I don't see that happening.
01:06:58
Like thesis #9 is adopt A legislative process.
01:07:03
Wikipedia lacks any method of major reform.
01:07:09
It needs something like a constitutional convention, which
01:07:12
it has never had. It has nothing remotely
01:07:16
resembling an editorial assembly.
01:07:18
It just doesn't exist. So it it at a certain level of
01:07:23
description, it, it, it remains a total anarchy, right.
01:07:28
So if you say, OK, let's just like en masse rewrite a bunch of
01:07:37
articles using AI, the, the rank and file editors would be up in
01:07:41
arms. They'd like read the same, OK,
01:07:44
we're going to fork. We're going to like make the,
01:07:46
the pure Wikipedia. And they're, you know, there's
01:07:49
always that sort of threat hanging over their heads.
01:07:53
Well, the the editor overlords, you know.
01:07:55
What and and I have to say, this ultimate power corrupts, right?
01:07:59
So the fact that these overlords can go in there and, and, and a
01:08:03
whim, you know, take any, you know, article they want to take
01:08:08
and they can, they can modify it probably very simply, you know,
01:08:11
and, and of course put any tilt they want on.
01:08:13
Nobody wants to give up that kind of power.
01:08:15
Cause Wikipedia is a tremendous amount of power.
01:08:18
Cause of course it's, you know, usually in the top of all the
01:08:21
search engines when you look, if you type something in, you want
01:08:23
information, Wikipedia being one of the top one, it'll definitely
01:08:26
be on the front page, that's for sure.
01:08:28
So, yeah, I, you know, but it's, I guess, you know, is that what
01:08:31
the fear is? Are the overlogs so convinced
01:08:34
that they've got to, you know, keep the things?
01:08:35
Because my opinion is Wikipedia's in a tough moment in
01:08:39
their own way, not because of Grokapedia and not because of
01:08:42
competitors, because they're, they're, they're, they're losing
01:08:45
the plot right now. There's a, a massive amount of
01:08:48
change on the Internet, especially when it comes to AI.
01:08:50
Like George said, Google's got it.
01:08:52
The first thing, if you type something in and you want some
01:08:54
information about, you know, you know, an echidna or some kind of
01:08:59
an animal, the first thing that comes up is Google's listing
01:09:03
about what they think an echidna is or what they think Bitcoin is
01:09:06
or whatever you're researching. So it would seem to me that if,
01:09:10
if Wikipedia wanted to stay at the forefront and, and if they
01:09:14
wanted to be the, the, you know, the entity they've always been,
01:09:17
that they have to embrace the change.
01:09:19
And I don't feel like they're doing that.
01:09:21
Do you? Absolutely not.
01:09:24
There's been a lot of resistance to the use of AI.
01:09:28
There's been a lot of resistance to reform generally, although I
01:09:32
will say that there have been there has been a lot of support
01:09:37
for my for my 9 theses. So maybe there is some hope.
01:09:45
I think there are a lot of people in Wikipedia who, who can
01:09:52
see the writing on the wall and that that you're describing.
01:09:56
And I know exactly what you're talking about.
01:09:59
Anybody, especially who's been using a lot of AI, who has
01:10:03
basically looked at Trump's, you know, Trump's election really is
01:10:10
a, a turning point, a, a pivot point, along with, with the
01:10:15
change of ownership of, of X. Now, you know, Facebook and and,
01:10:20
and YouTube have to compete with XX, you know, for, for all of
01:10:26
its ongoing problems, is I think a, a, a a little bit more open
01:10:33
and respectful of free speech that that pressures the other of
01:10:39
the big guys. And that that basically means
01:10:43
that basically the, the big tech corporations are realizing.
01:10:49
I think that the executives must have realized if a few years
01:10:55
ago, perhaps even that they're no longer in control of the of
01:11:01
the narratives because people just aren't buying it.
01:11:04
They're going to vote with their feet.
01:11:05
They're going to they're going to object there.
01:11:08
There was a real wrenching time, you know, it is a, it's an
01:11:12
epiphany moment. Kind of it's a tipping point
01:11:14
because you're right, there is no doubt that of course, whether
01:11:17
it's alt media or whether it's, you know, Project Colossus, when
01:11:21
you start looking at the potential for information that
01:11:24
sits outside the scope in the, in the original, in the original
01:11:28
years, Wikipedia was that source, right?
01:11:30
They were kind of the rogue, right?
01:11:32
Because up until then it was a printed encyclopedia.
01:11:34
If you wanted it, you could search stuff, but there really
01:11:36
wasn't that source like what you created.
01:11:39
And I agree with you. I think, I think it is.
01:11:41
I think it is a tipping point. People are when I talk to people
01:11:44
and, and we, you know, we stay relatively neutral.
01:11:46
We've had liberals and conservatives on the show.
01:11:51
People are frustrated and frustration always causes change
01:11:55
because people want a solution. To me, I'd love to see Wikipedia
01:11:59
embrace, you know, embrace the suck, embrace the change and say
01:12:03
we're going to make this move. I don't want to run out of time
01:12:05
with you. And I want to make sure we talk
01:12:07
about this. So I'm going to switch gears a
01:12:08
little bit. You know, you as president of
01:12:10
the the Knowledge Standards Foundation, you, you know,
01:12:13
you're forging, I think alternatives like encyclosphere,
01:12:16
I mean, 69 books on a thumb drive.
01:12:19
I don't know if I have that right.
01:12:20
I hope I do. You know, you know, you know,
01:12:23
you see it. I can see in you that you
01:12:25
recognize that Wikipedia could be could turn into and I'm going
01:12:30
to use a, you know, kind of a a comparison that may not be fair,
01:12:33
but maybe is it the next Myspace?
01:12:35
Because even maybe what you're doing with encyclosphere is a
01:12:38
real competitor. Where do you think this is all
01:12:41
going looking ahead? You know, where where is this
01:12:44
all head right now? What's your what are your
01:12:45
thoughts? So.
01:12:49
To sort. To sum up, essentially I.
01:12:52
Think encyclopedias are going to continue to be needed because
01:12:58
the people who make it their business to, you know, research
01:13:02
and know things, the experts of the world are going to continue
01:13:07
to want to record the best of their knowledge in
01:13:12
encyclopedias. And even if those don't exist in
01:13:17
general encyclopedias like Wikipedia or Britannica, they're
01:13:20
still going to be a lot of subjects encyclopedias.
01:13:25
Now, you might say, what? Why am I talking about that?
01:13:27
Well, there's a reason those sorts of encyclopedia entries,
01:13:33
they represent the best of our research on various topics.
01:13:41
They, they are summaries. And what a general encyclopedia
01:13:46
will try to do is to give a, a simplified version of that sort
01:13:53
of take. So the Stanford Encyclopedia
01:13:57
philosophy is like the best in encyclopedia philosophy.
01:14:01
The people who are writing the philosophy articles for
01:14:04
Wikipedia will look at the Stanford Encyclopedia philosophy
01:14:07
articles, right? But there's they serve as a kind
01:14:11
of reference. You see what I'm saying as as OK
01:14:14
now when it comes to AI, right? The AI does not generate
01:14:19
knowledge on its own. All it does is aggregate
01:14:23
knowledge in various not terribly creative ways.
01:14:27
Now it it, it aggregates it, and the ways in which it aggregates
01:14:32
it are very new and interesting. It can draw inferences a lot of
01:14:38
a lot of times the inferences that it draws are, are crap.
01:14:41
Sometimes they're interesting, right?
01:14:43
But for the most part, it, you know, any interest drawing
01:14:47
itself is so complicated, it requires a human being to do it.
01:14:51
What is my point? My point is that we're always
01:14:53
going to need people summarizing the best of our knowledge.
01:14:57
That's called an encyclopedia, and it is going to require a
01:15:00
human being to do it right. OK, so we're going to have to
01:15:05
keep writing encyclopedias even if the human beings aren't
01:15:09
directly consulting them. My guess is in 10 years people
01:15:15
will not be looking up things on Wikipedia very much.
01:15:19
It will be asking AI interfaces, and the AI interfaces will be
01:15:25
quoting Wikipedia. Maybe, but if they're better,
01:15:29
they will be quoting Wikipedia's sources or they'll be quoting
01:15:33
more reliable encyclopedias. Now as as far as the
01:15:38
encyclosphere goes, we, we're actually, we want to collect all
01:15:44
of the free encyclopedias online.
01:15:47
Ultimately we'd like to have all of the encyclopedias period, but
01:15:51
that's probably going to have to be a for profit venture and we
01:15:57
are running a non profit venture right now.
01:15:59
We've got over 60 of them and this can be used as a training
01:16:05
material for AI and I, I, we are now actually looking for
01:16:14
funding. We've got some people who are
01:16:15
interested in in continuing to support our work, and it's not
01:16:22
cheap, unfortunately, that the sorts of things that you have to
01:16:25
do to aggregate all the world's encyclopedias in one place under
01:16:29
a single unified encyclopedia format, the ZWI.
01:16:36
That means zipped Wiki, the ZWI file format for putting all of
01:16:41
the encyclopedia articles in the world in this format.
01:16:45
Wikipedia. We have to get you connected
01:16:47
with Elon Musk. I bet he'd be.
01:16:49
Excited about the thought of this.
01:16:51
I don't know whether it fits, but I could see what you're
01:16:54
recommending. I could see him having great
01:16:56
interest in that. You know what, I'm going to take
01:16:57
short form contact and when I. Put it on next.
01:16:59
I'm going to tag you, Larry. I'm going to tag him, too.
01:17:02
Let's see if we can get it done. Yeah, it'd be great to connect
01:17:04
the two of you because I think. That you could have maybe
01:17:08
Grocopedia could be the answer. I mean, maybe it could.
01:17:10
And maybe with what you're doing in an encyclosphere, maybe you
01:17:13
could find the funding with Elon Musk.
01:17:15
And my hope would be that you could create something
01:17:18
incredible, the new age of you know, what Wikipedia, what it
01:17:23
what was and what it should be moving forward.
01:17:26
So he he has actually been. Sharing the 9 theses he actually
01:17:35
he announced Grocopedia the day after the 9 theses came out.
01:17:40
Now I'm I was, I was not working with him and not only that, but
01:17:45
he, he made the announcement as a comment on a post about the
01:17:50
the sit down that I did with Tucker about the 9 theses.
01:17:57
So, so basically he, he and A and a lot of, let's just say a
01:18:05
lot of Grokopedia fans, whether human or otherwise, have piled
01:18:11
on my threads about the 9 theses promoting Grokopedia.
01:18:16
So I think we're we're on Elon's radar or yeah.
01:18:23
And that could be amazing. I think that could be amazing.
01:18:27
I mean. Assuming you're, you would be
01:18:29
excited about that and and he he has said.
01:18:33
That Grocopedia itself is going to be open source and and you
01:18:37
know, I have tweeted to him and I think he's aware that we are
01:18:41
going to make ZWI files out of the Grocopedia articles and add
01:18:46
it to the encyclosphere. So I mean, which is great
01:18:49
because then there's the whole thing is going to be incredible
01:18:52
synergy there, that's for sure. I can see an amazing.
01:18:55
Amazing, amazing future for a cyclosphere.
01:18:58
I'd love to see that connection. I don't know.
01:19:00
Well, George, like he said, he'll do some short form.
01:19:02
We'll try to make it happen. I know some people that are
01:19:04
friendly with Elon. Maybe I can give that a little
01:19:06
nudge behind the scenes for you. Because of course, what an what
01:19:09
an incredible source of capital. It would allow you to have the
01:19:12
power to do exactly what you want and you wouldn't be you
01:19:14
wouldn't be worried about the editor overlords, you know, any
01:19:17
longer. You know what, hold on.
01:19:19
I got a question because you brought up capital and you.
01:19:20
Said Wikipedia has an endowment. How come sometimes then when I
01:19:24
when I go into Wikipedia to have their looking for money like
01:19:28
donations or whatever? Well.
01:19:33
What they will tell you, especially what what Jimbo said
01:19:36
for many years, is that most of their fund funding comes from
01:19:40
small donors, like people giving from one to 10 or $20.
01:19:45
Is that true? I don't think that's true
01:19:47
anymore. I I.
01:19:50
I'm not. Sure, though.
01:19:52
So I, I, I can't say for sure, but I, I can say that they do
01:19:59
receive a lot of institutional funds at this point.
01:20:03
They have received a lot of money from Google.
01:20:09
Got you. And yeah, no surprise there with
01:20:12
Google. They love to.
01:20:13
Control the media, that's for sure.
01:20:14
That's that's all about the controlled, very powerful group.
01:20:20
Well, listen, Larry. I know we're out of time today,
01:20:22
but before we cut, we break off here, you know, I call this the
01:20:25
shameless plug. Let's mention your social media,
01:20:28
let's mention any of your websites, anything that people
01:20:31
can do to support you. Maybe the people that watch the
01:20:33
show that would be interested in getting involved and helping you
01:20:35
fund some of this stuff. Give it the give it the go, man.
01:20:38
The shameless plug. Go for it.
01:20:40
All right? I'm at Larry.
01:20:42
Sanger.org, that's my well, other people have a sub stack.
01:20:46
I've got an old fashioned blog. I own it, damn it.
01:20:50
And if you go to the front page of larrysanger.org, then at the
01:20:56
top there is the 9 theses. I encourage you to read that and
01:21:02
follow up on it. If you've got a Wikipedia
01:21:05
article, what I want you to do is to go to Wikipedia, and
01:21:09
especially if you have been left out just for the next couple of
01:21:14
months, I want you to get involved and and let them sweat
01:21:19
a little bit. Show our numbers there.
01:21:22
I think there are not that many people at work on Wikipedia any
01:21:26
given month. If we simply get a few 100
01:21:28
people, we can actually change the way that it works.
01:21:33
So this is a hypothesis of mine and I'm testing it.
01:21:36
So that's why I'm taking taking the time to tell people to do
01:21:39
that on XI am L Sanger and I'm I'm also a a an advisor to bit
01:21:49
shoot. It's OK.
01:21:52
It's a Rumble competitor, but we were there before Rumble, so.
01:21:55
OK, yeah. And it's.
01:21:58
Yeah, yeah. And, and so I, I post my videos
01:22:02
there first when I do post videos.
01:22:05
And yeah, I guess that'll probably do it.
01:22:09
Well, we appreciate. First of all, thank you so very.
01:22:10
Much for taking the time out of your life to share it with our
01:22:13
audience. We appreciate we're going to
01:22:15
make short form and long form. If you want the notifications
01:22:18
follow, follow us back and you'll see when we're posting
01:22:20
and putting up the short form content.
01:22:22
Feel free if you want to scrape this interview and use it on
01:22:25
your own platforms or anything you want to do.
01:22:27
We want you to do that. Take it, share it foreign wide
01:22:30
George can put it in a drop box for you or anything else if
01:22:33
you'd like to use it. So we really appreciate you and
01:22:35
for anybody out in the audience, really take the live link,
01:22:38
repost this interview. Great stuff.
01:22:39
Maybe dump it into Elon Musk feed over on X.
01:22:42
Let's give him a little nudge nudge.
01:22:44
Maybe we can make something happen here for Larry.
01:22:47
I'd like to see a neutral editorial, new version of
01:22:52
Wikipedia. Maybe it is Grokapedia.
01:22:54
I don't know. At the end of the day, if you
01:22:56
like the show, don't forget the thumbs up, share, comment,
01:22:59
subscribe. If you can do the paid
01:23:01
subscription, it's 5 bucks a month.
01:23:02
It's nothing if you can do Rumble Premium.
01:23:04
Listen, these guys are the true free speech platform.
01:23:07
We've been here. They take care of us.
01:23:10
You can find us here on Rumble and locals.
01:23:12
And of course, don't forget to follow L Sanger, G Valentine,
01:23:15
Lance from the outer and the big big show on X.
01:23:17
You can also find us on Gab Getter Pickaxe, true social.
01:23:22
You can follow us over there also.
01:23:24
So George last words. My brother just thought us out
01:23:27
if the people if the people on Wikipedia see this show.
01:23:31
They're going to put a negative article about me.
01:23:32
Look, he wants a hack Wikipedia. Well, exactly I.
01:23:37
Wouldn't put nothing negative about me, I'm just saying.
01:23:40
But anyway. Yeah, it's Friday.
01:23:42
Have a good weekend. I got.
01:23:44
Friends, Larry. Trust me.
01:23:45
All right. Have a good.
01:23:48
Have a good weekend, stay blessed.
01:23:50
Stay healthy. I might have.
01:23:52
I might. I might have.
01:23:53
I might. Have I might I might have to let
01:23:54
it see it. Got it.
01:24:05
Are you ready to stand up for your?
01:24:07
Community and support your local sheriff.
01:24:10
Join the Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers
01:24:13
Association and become a vital member of the Sheriff's Citizens
01:24:17
Posse at CSP oa.org. We empower citizens like you
01:24:22
through weekly webinars, arming you with the knowledge to back
01:24:25
your Constitutional County Sheriff.
01:24:27
Together, we can uphold our Constitution and ensure liberty
01:24:31
and justice for all. Your community needs you now
01:24:34
more than ever. Visit CSP oa.org and join the
01:24:38
Sheriff's citizens posse today. Make a difference.
01:24:40
Stand for freedom. That's CSP oa.org, Your country,
01:24:45
your fight, your future. What if you could predict your
01:24:51
financial future? And what if you could trade on
01:24:54
it? Introducing block trust IRA the
01:24:57
future in your hands. An astonishing 88
01:25:00
millionaires were created last year from the Bitcoin boom and
01:25:04
you be next. Block Trust IRA is the only
01:25:07
crypto management firm powered by AI driven strategies, ranked
01:25:11
number one in the world by Bitcoin magazine, the Block
01:25:15
Trust IRA. Platform is built for everyone.
01:25:17
From first time buyers to seasoned investors, predictive
01:25:22
AI technology that was once only reserved for insiders and elites
01:25:26
is now available to you. It's time to leave the old buy
01:25:29
and hold strategies behind. Your assets are protected with
01:25:32
military grade security, offline cold storage and $200 million in
01:25:37
insurance. Visit blocktrustira.com to book
01:25:40
your free consultation and ask how to claim up to $2500 in
01:25:44
deposit bonuses today. Bitcoin changed the game.
01:25:48
AI changes the strategy. Hi folks.
01:25:51
I'm here today to introduce. You to the Prepper Bar from
01:25:53
prepperbar.com, the most unique precious metals product we have
01:25:57
seen in a long time. These 62g bars are perforated
01:26:01
and easily broken down into your choice of three different sizes
01:26:05
to fit a multitude of needs. Whether it be from asset
01:26:08
protection from inflation, economic turmoil, or its unique
01:26:12
utility for barter and trade, the Prepper Bar makes a perfect
01:26:15
gift for all the precious metal lovers out there.
01:26:18
Exclusively made here in the USA and selling out fast.
01:26:21
Available in both gold and silver, these slim prepper bars
01:26:25
fit neatly in your wallet and their utility enables use in any
01:26:29
situation. Forged through rigorous.
01:26:32
Training and honed. By the finest instructors on
01:26:35
earth, these canine units serve. Beside our nation.
01:26:38
'S warriors as they fight to preserve, who will be cherish
01:26:43
when these warriors complete? Their duty?
01:26:45
The Warrior Dog Foundation provides them with the home
01:26:48
deserving of the service they've given us all at our
01:26:51
state-of-the-art kennels. They receive rehabilitation and
01:26:55
care suitable for heroes because that's what they are.
01:27:01
Be a part of giving them a future today.
01:27:04
Visit warriordogfoundation.org.