What do you do?

Question: What do you do?

Jimmy Wales: I get on e-mail and talk to people. Well it’s really exciting to bring lots and lots of people together all over the world to create knowledge, share it freely with everybody. There’s a real sense in all of my projects that we’re doing something important. And you see that inspiration in a lot of the people who I work with. And so that brings a lot of fun and joy to the work.  Gee, the struggle. I don’t know. I don’t struggle much. I Just have a lot of fun. Obviously there’s a lot of work to do, and dealing with lots and lots of things going on all the time is a constant struggle. But in general, it’s all fun. So I don’t really perceive it as work even.

So the main catalyst or the origin of the idea for Wikipedia came from watching the growth of the free software movement – open source software, as most people know it. So all together all over the web, people were coming together – programming – and building the new Linux and Apache, ________, Pearl, _______. All this software is really the software the runs the Internet. And it’s all freely licensed, and it’s all written for the most part by volunteers all over the world. And seeing that new mode of protection caused me to believe that gee, you know, this shouldn’t stop with just programming. We could build all kinds of other things.

So the encyclopedia was the first project. And now the rest of the library, and search engine, and everything else – trying to really push that whole idea forward. The Wikimedia Foundation, of course, is the non-profit organization that I founded. It runs Wikipedia and Wiktionary and all the other non-profit sites.

My main focus for where I think we’ll go in the future is focused on the languages of the developing world. So right now we’re really, really strong in all the languages of Europe. We’re strong in Japanese and Chinese. But we’re not so strong in the languages of Africa, the languages of India. But those are all coming, and that’s really an increasing focus of my interest and my work, is to try to see what I can do to help promote and get things going, and get some excitement going in that part of the world.

One of the impacts here is that we have a much higher degree of informal learning than we used to have. That’s not to say that formal learning is declining. It’s just to say that after people are finished their formal education, they have such a greater opportunity for informal education.

Thirty-five years ago, you might read a newspaper story about, I don’t know, Albania. And you might think, “Hmm. Albania. I barely know anything about it, and I don’t know the history. I should go to the library and look that up.” But frankly nobody ever much went to the library to look things up. It’s quite a journey. You have to put aside a lot of your energy to go and do something like that. Whereas now, when somebody wonders about Albania, they just type “Albania” into a search engine and, typically with the Wikipedia article, they get a nice, basic history and background, and they can really dig very deep if they want to; follow the sources and you can really learn a lot. All that kind of learning really helps people to become better citizens, better decision makers in their own lives.

Sometimes it’s political, but sometimes it’s personal decisions that people might make that they can make with a lot more knowledge than they had in the past, simply because it’s so easy to informally get the basic information that you need. None whatsoever. Obviously that’s not to say that the state of the information on the Internet is perfect. It certainly isn’t. There’s a lot of problems. You know reliability, accuracy.

I think people have a lot to learn in terms of figuring out what does make a good source, and how do you know when something is reliable or not. But overall, this instant access to information is almost completely a good thing. I don’t think there’s ever any case – outside of science fiction examples – where you can say people are better off not knowing about the world.

I think there’s a lot of steps that we can take in the Internet community to try to help and ensure the accuracy of the information on the Internet. In community projects like at Wikipedia, or the various projects Wikia sites, the communities tend to have a very conservative and old-fashioned view of what information quality looks like, which sometimes surprises people. They sort of assume it’s going to be some crazy “MySpace” of information or something.  But realistically, a lot of the scholarly standards that you would hope for are exactly what the community settles on. So things like comparing what’s written in an article to what the sources say, and judging the sources by their quality.

Is it a book published by Harvard University Press? Or is it a tabloid magazine? Or is it some random, crazy web page? People really do have a pretty good idea of how to assess the quality of information. And communities are really coming together to think about these things and to start to build better and better quality information resources. So yeah, there’s a lot of work to do.

 

Recorded On: Aug 10, 2007

Wales works on getting Wikipedia to speak more languages.

Related Articles

Major study: Drug overdoses over a 38-year period reveal hidden trends

It's just the current cycle that involves opiates, but methamphetamine, cocaine, and others have caused the trajectory of overdoses to head the same direction

From the study: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/eaau1184
popular
  • It appears that overdoses are increasing exponentially, no matter the drug itself
  • If the study bears out, it means that even reducing opiates will not slow the trajectory.
  • The causes of these trends remain obscure, but near the end of the write-up about the study, a hint might be apparent
Keep reading Show less

How a huge, underwater wall could save melting Antarctic glaciers

Scientists think constructing a miles-long wall along an ice shelf in Antarctica could help protect the world's largest glacier from melting.

Image: NASA
Surprising Science
  • Rising ocean levels are a serious threat to coastal regions around the globe.
  • Scientists have proposed large-scale geoengineering projects that would prevent ice shelves from melting.
  • The most successful solution proposed would be a miles-long, incredibly tall underwater wall at the edge of the ice shelves.

The world's oceans will rise significantly over the next century if the massive ice shelves connected to Antarctica begin to fail as a result of global warming.

To prevent or hold off such a catastrophe, a team of scientists recently proposed a radical plan: build underwater walls that would either support the ice or protect it from warm waters.

In a paper published in The Cryosphere, Michael Wolovick and John Moore from Princeton and the Beijing Normal University, respectively, outlined several "targeted geoengineering" solutions that could help prevent the melting of western Antarctica's Florida-sized Thwaites Glacier, whose melting waters are projected to be the largest source of sea-level rise in the foreseeable future.

An "unthinkable" engineering project

"If [glacial geoengineering] works there then we would expect it to work on less challenging glaciers as well," the authors wrote in the study.

One approach involves using sand or gravel to build artificial mounds on the seafloor that would help support the glacier and hopefully allow it to regrow. In another strategy, an underwater wall would be built to prevent warm waters from eating away at the glacier's base.

The most effective design, according to the team's computer simulations, would be a miles-long and very tall wall, or "artificial sill," that serves as a "continuous barrier" across the length of the glacier, providing it both physical support and protection from warm waters. Although the study authors suggested this option is currently beyond any engineering feat humans have attempted, it was shown to be the most effective solution in preventing the glacier from collapsing.

Source: Wolovick et al.

An example of the proposed geoengineering project. By blocking off the warm water that would otherwise eat away at the glacier's base, further sea level rise might be preventable.

But other, more feasible options could also be effective. For example, building a smaller wall that blocks about 50% of warm water from reaching the glacier would have about a 70% chance of preventing a runaway collapse, while constructing a series of isolated, 1,000-foot-tall columns on the seafloor as supports had about a 30% chance of success.

Still, the authors note that the frigid waters of the Antarctica present unprecedently challenging conditions for such an ambitious geoengineering project. They were also sure to caution that their encouraging results shouldn't be seen as reasons to neglect other measures that would cut global emissions or otherwise combat climate change.

"There are dishonest elements of society that will try to use our research to argue against the necessity of emissions' reductions. Our research does not in any way support that interpretation," they wrote.

"The more carbon we emit, the less likely it becomes that the ice sheets will survive in the long term at anything close to their present volume."

A 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine illustrates the potentially devastating effects of ice-shelf melting in western Antarctica.

"As the oceans and atmosphere warm, melting of ice shelves in key areas around the edges of the Antarctic ice sheet could trigger a runaway collapse process known as Marine Ice Sheet Instability. If this were to occur, the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) could potentially contribute 2 to 4 meters (6.5 to 13 feet) of global sea level rise within just a few centuries."

Why the worst part about climate change isn't rising temperatures

The world's getting hotter, and it's getting more volatile. We need to start thinking about how climate change encourages conflict.

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Climate change is usually discussed in terms of how it impacts the weather, but this fails to emphasize how climate change is a "threat multiplier."
  • As a threat multiplier, climate change makes already dangerous social and political situations even worse.
  • Not only do we have to work to minimize the impact of climate change on our environment, but we also have to deal with how it affects human issues today.

Human beings are great at responding to imminent and visible threats. Climate change, while dire, is almost entirely the opposite: it's slow, it's pervasive, it's vague, and it's invisible. Researchers and policymakers have been trying to package climate change in a way that conveys its severity. Usually, they do so by talking about its immediate effects: rising temperature, rising sea levels, and increasingly dangerous weather.

These things are bad, make no mistake about it. But the thing that makes climate change truly dire isn't that Cape Cod will be underwater next century, that polar bears will go extinct, or that we'll have to invent new categories for future hurricanes. It's the thousands of ancillary effects — the indirect pressure that climate change puts on every person on the planet.

How a drought in the Middle East contributed to extremism in Europe

(DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images)

Nigel Farage in front of a billboard that leverages the immigration crisis to support Brexit.

Because climate change is too big for the mind to grasp, we'll have to use a case study to talk about this. The Syrian civil war is a horrific tangle of senseless violence, but there are some primary causes we can point to. There is the longstanding conflicts between different religious sects in that country. Additionally, the Arab Spring swept Syria up in a wave of resistance against authoritarian leaders in the Middle East — unfortunately, Syrian protests were brutally squashed by Bashar Al-Assad. These, and many other factors, contributed to the start of the Syrian civil war.

One of these other factors was drought. In fact, the drought in that region — it started in 2006 — has been described as the "worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilization began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago." Because of this drought, many rural Syrians could no longer support themselves. Between 2006 and 2009, an estimated 1.5 million Syrians — many of them agricultural workers and farmers — moved into the country's major cities. With this sudden mixing of different social groups in a country where classes and religious sects were already at odds with one another, tensions rose, and the increased economic instability encouraged chaos. Again, the drought didn't cause the civil war — but it sure as hell helped it along.

The ensuing flood of refugees to Europe is already a well-known story. The immigration crisis was used as a talking point in the Brexit movement to encourage Britain to leave the EU. Authoritarian or extreme-right governments and political parties have sprung up in France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia, and other European countries, all of which have capitalized on fears of the immigration crisis.

Why climate change is a "threat multiplier"

This is why both NATO and the Pentagon have labeled climate change as a "threat multiplier." On its own, climate change doesn't cause these issues — rather, it exacerbates underlying problems in societies around the world. Think of having a heated discussion inside a slowly heating-up car.

Climate change is often discussed in terms of its domino effect: for example, higher temperatures around the world melt the icecaps, releasing methane stored in the polar ice that contributes to the rise in temperature, which both reduces available land for agriculture due to drought and makes parts of the ocean uninhabitable for different animal species, wreaking havoc on the food chain, and ultimately making food more scarce.

Maybe we should start to consider climate change's domino effect in more human and political terms. That is, in terms of the dominoes of sociopolitical events spurred on by climate change and the missing resources it gobbles up.

What the future may hold

(NASA via Getty Images)

Increasingly severe weather events will make it more difficult for nations to avoid conflict.

Part of why this is difficult to see is because climate change does not affect all countries proportionally — at least, not in a direct sense. Germanwatch, a German NGO, releases a climate change index every year to analyze exactly how badly different countries have been affected by climate change. The top five most at-risk countries are Haiti, Zimbabwe, Fiji, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Notice that many of these places are islands, which are at the greatest risk for major storms and rising sea levels. Some island nations are even expected to literally disappear — the leaders of these nations are actively making plans to move their citizens to other countries.

But Germanwatch's climate change index is based on weather events. It does not account for the political and social instability that will likely result. The U.S. and many parts of Europe are relatively low on the index, but that is precisely why these countries will most likely need to deal with the human cost of climate change. Refugees won't go from the frying pan into the fire: they'll go to the closest, safest place available.

Many people's instinctive response to floods of immigrants is to simply make borders more restrictive. This makes sense — a nation's first duty is to its own citizens, after all. Unfortunately, people who support stronger immigration policies tend to have right-wing authoritarian tendencies. This isn't always the case, of course, but anecdotally, we can look at the governments in Europe that have stricter immigration policies. Hungary, for example, has extremely strict policies against Muslim immigrants. It's also rapidly turning into a dictatorship. The country has cracked down on media organizations and NGOs, eroded its judicial system's independence, illegalized homelessness, and banned gender studies courses.

Climate change and its sociopolitical effects, such as refugee migration, aren't some poorer country's problem. It's everyone's problem. Whether it's our food, our homes, or our rights, climate change will exact a toll on every nation on Earth. Stopping climate change, or at least reducing its impact, is vitally important. Equally important is contending with the multifaceted threats its going to throw our way.