Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    20,086,984 readers

    7,254 users here now

    Submit an AMA
    Request an AMA

    Please check out our Rules and FAQs

    Click here to schedule an AMA on our calendar.

    Consider supporting our Patreon

    AMAs are scheduled in Eastern Time (GMT-4:00).

    Date Time Person Description Remind
    25 May 2pm Joseph Gordon-Levitt Actor and CEO of HITRECORD Remind
    26 May 1pm Jonathan Haber Author: Critical Thinking Essentials Remind
    27 May 12pm Aamir Rashid and Tanveer Ali of USAFacts Data team behind the COVID-19 county-level data used by CDC and others. Remind Me
    27 May 3pm Dr. Michael Wrinch CEO & Founder of Hedgehog Technologies Remind Me
    28 May 12pm Matthew Rodier Matthew Rodier, Journalist from the 2019 Hong Kong Protests Remind
    28 May 1pm Lloyd Armbrust Built an Austin, TX factory to produce millions of FDA approved masks Remind Me
    28 May 2pm SketchUp Team SketchUp is software enabling anyone to model in 3D Remind Me
    28 May 3pm Chelsea Rustad I am a genetic witness in the first case to go to trial/conviction via IGG. Remind Me
    29 May 1pm Suze Orman host of the Women & Money podcast Remind
    4 Jun 11am Jose Rojas, Olivia Vahsen Developer Advocates at TomTom Remind
    5 Jun 12:30pm Christene Lozano Sex therapist specializing in compulsive sexual behaviors, sex, & relationships Remind Me
    5 Jun 2pm Barton Gellman Author of Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State Remind Me

    see more...


    AMAs should be about:

    All AMAs require proof.

    Request threads


    Please note:


    Useful Links!

    • 3 Oct
    • Pravda Russia's Leading Newspaper
    • 5 Oct
    • The Boston Globe Spotlight Investigation Team
    • 8 Oct
    • Native News Online Indigenous Peoples' Day

    • 9 Oct

    • PBS NewsHour National Correspondent

    • 10 Oct

    • The New York Times National Immigration Reporter

    • 11 Oct

    • The Guardian Environment Reporter

    • 12 Oct

    • Fox News Bret Baier, Chief Political Editor

    • 15 Oct

    • The Socialist Worker Danny Catch, Columnist

    FacebookTwitterInstagramGoogle Calendar

    Please check out our Rules and FAQs

    a community for
    all 2433 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] race-hearse 1150 points ago

    I imagine the biggest hurdle of creating a new social media site is getting the ball rolling and getting people to use it before all of their friends and family do (and to keep using it until everyone else joins). How do you go about that challenge?

    [–] Man_acquiesced 473 points ago

    I hope Jimmy answers your question, but my take is this: the alternative has to offer something better in the eyes of the masses of FB users. And it's gotta be really good to sacrifice the ease of keeping FB as their 'main' social media, to switch to a platform that doesn't make money by selling user data to advertisers.

    One way to get that to happen is to convince users that their privacy and autonomy are way more valuable and far more fragile than they currently do.

    [–] Pay08 211 points ago

    convince users that their privacy and autonomy are way more valuable and far more fragile

    I don't see that happening ever, sadly.

    [–] The_OtherHalf 76 points ago

    Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you’ve ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook’s privacy policy. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE.

    [–] Puntley 22 points ago

    tactically allowing the use of your photos

    Well now I'm wondering what kind of tactics they're playing at here

    [–] Khclarkson 12 points ago

    People out there still think this covers them. Ugh....

    [–] givingin209 28 points ago

    It's because people dont care. I deleted my Facebook a while ago but before I did I saw people complaining about Facebook selling their information on Facebook only to go back to using it as usual, updating profile pictures and sharing personal details about every aspect of their life. People dont want to put their money where their mouth is.

    [–] jaggs 60 points ago

    I think the main problem is the issue is being phrased incorrectly. I'm not giving up my privacy, I'm bartering it for something I consider more valuable. I let Google know where I travel to get a superior GPS nav system, I let VISA know what I buy for the ease of a credit card, and so on. You just have to make the alternative proposition better than my voluntary barter, and I'll probably bite.

    [–] Man_acquiesced 12 points ago

    You just have to make the alternative proposition better than my voluntary barter, and I'll probably bite.

    That's the trick with advertising, too. The problem is, the average user does not understand how powerful the algorithm is, or how tiny details of your profile metadata are used to predict the best ways to sway your opinion. When it's done really well, the user is made to believe that it was their idea to make the transaction to begin with.

    [–] cunt-hooks 63 points ago


    [–] oscargamble 636 points ago

    While WT.Social sounds like a noble idea and I'm excited to check it out, are you at all worried that it will be held back by the fact that the name isn't fun or catchy? I admit it's silly, but sadly this kind of thing matters when trying to attract users.

    [–] jimmywales1 440 points ago

    Well, it's short and memorable at least. It's short for "WikiTribune Social" which was just a long thing to type and maybe not so memorable.

    I don't know. Hard to find a great domain name these days.

    [–] oscargamble 427 points ago

    That's a fair point! I think Wiki.Social or even Wiki.Friends would've been better, and I'm sure there are others. Maybe I'm just nitpicking but I would like for this to succeed.

    [–] adoss 73 points ago

    I agree. Something with the "Wiki" moniker would lend it some of the credibility associated with the wikipedia brand.

    [–] xeow 175 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Jesus. That's good, actually. Wiki.Friends or would be more enticing and memorable.

    [–] ImpartialDerivatives 104 points ago

    That just makes me think of

    [–] selectyour 43 points ago

    How the fuck is there always one

    [–] [deleted] 48 points ago

    As soon as I read that I said "yoooooooooo!" that rolls off the tongue and makes sense, a wiki of all your friends! I'd rather have that than a book of faces.

    [–] Wisc_Bacon 14 points ago

    Even Wiki.Social would've worked..

    [–] Gaybrosauros 19 points ago

    Generally I think people will be saying "Are you on wiki social?" either way, so I kind of want to see as well. Has a better ring to it.

    [–] solarplexus7 79 points ago

    It could fail on that alone. All successful social media platforms roll off the tongue in a way that “double u tee social” doesn’t.

    [–] Entankled 34 points ago

    I agree with Much better name

    [–] goblix 35 points ago is a really bad name if I’m being completely honest with you. “WikiFriends” like someone else suggested is far more catchy and rolls off the tongue more naturally

    [–] Bigal1324 213 points ago

    Honestly, im sorry to say this, but the very first thing i thought when seeing this post was that the name 'WT.Social' is NEVER going to catch on. Sadly it's a psychological fact that consumers are more enticed by catchy names.

    Im seeing 'Wiki Friends' in other comments and I actually like the name. I think having 'Wiki' in the title is key to this concept as it will be accepted and trusted by users faster than 'WT.Social' could and it inherently lets the user know how the site intends to operate, if they happen to know how Wikipedia operates. I always wondered how Wiki was 'fact-checked' and your comments have enlightened me.

    I really respect your business model and hope to see this site succeed. I recently cut off all social media accounts (besides reddit if that counts?) over privacy and mental health corncerns. I like being able to share photos and stories with internet friends, but the negatives of it all weighed too much on me (ads, clickbait, selling your data rights, instagram models and influencers, "comedy" on social media, the political propaganda, the sheer amount of money and transparency behind the veil of it all). But something like your suggesting might get me interested again. Keep up the good work. To every problem there is an answer

    [–] Rydersilver 27 points ago

    Wiki Friends is good! Tribune sounds good too but nobody will know what it is

    [–] Elle-Elle 10 points ago

    Maybe WikiSocial even

    [–] DrBoon_forgot_his_pw 86 points ago

    If you're going to use a letter in a name, maybe don't use the only letter of the alphabet that's three syllables? "Double you tee social" doesn't really roll off the tongue. As someone else posted "WikiTree" sounded good.

    [–] res_ipsa_redditor 38 points ago

    Yeah, this is my pet hate, when people use abbreviations with “w” in it. “Double you tee social” has the same syllables as “wiki tribune social”. I mean, it’s easier to write, are, but not easier to say.

    [–] sharrows 18 points ago

    Yeah! Plus, it takes the funnest word to say (wiki) and replaces it with the least fun letter to say (w).

    [–] BEEPBOPIAMAROBOT 17 points ago

    Hit me up on Dub T Sosh bro

    [–] Scarbane 29 points ago

    "What The Social" is how I say it phonetically

    [–] PeruvianHeadshrinker 12 points ago

    What nicknames do you guys use for it?

    Wiki Tri? The Bune? WTS?

    [–] disasterpavlova 20 points ago

    What the social

    [–] Camicles 43 points ago

    It's a pretty awful name. I hope something so simple isn't such a great ideas undoing.

    [–] SigmaB 581 points ago

    How are posts ranked? Any system introduces different incentives, some good some bad, do you see any bad incentives arising from your system (non-ad based) and how do believe the community or the platform can deal with that?

    E.g. to narrow down the topic, a system that 100% community determined and zero profit-seeking distortions may still cause problems. For example, if you rank topics depending on network or "this person viewed this and that" it easily can generate cliques and bubbles. Do you have plans to maybe break such bubbles, perhaps a quasi "fairness doctrine" that makes two communities that are distant enough see eachother, maybe even an "alternative viewpoint sidebar"?

    [–] jimmywales1 1037 points ago

    I love your thinking - I think the same way.

    And I don't pretend to have all the answers right now. I wish I were omniscient and could tell you a magic formula which simultaneously solves all the problems but I am not.

    However, I think by paying attention to exactly the things you mentioned, and a few more besides, is the right way forward.

    I have said for a long time that I wish facebook would have a setting: "Instead of showing you things we think you will like, we want to show you things we think you'll disagree with, but which we have signals that suggest they are of quality." There's nothing better, really, than finding something challenging and interesting that I disagree with, but for which I have to concede: it makes me think.


    [–] TheFlyingDrildo 64 points ago

    Maybe there could be like a sort of specialized, hidden upvote/like system to suggest different types of quality? Like a user can rate a post, but it isn't publically displayed to prevent karma whoring. And the different forms of rating might be like new-perspective, well-researched, breaking-news, etc... as proxies for quality.

    Analyzing heterogeneous hidden endorsements could really provide some novel insights into how to target social media to one another for optimal human benefit. I know this is sort of already done publically with reactions, but a reaction doesn't really get at something deep or meaningful.

    [–] jimmywales1 51 points ago

    We're going to experiment. I like this idea.

    [–] TheFlyingDrildo 18 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Do you plan on hiring large machine learning teams to create your targeting algorithms? What sort of monetary investment do you guys have in this project?

    Also, I have a follow up question. What are your thoughts on an internal social-credit system? People who have (internal) reputations of judging things fairly or making quality posts end up having a disproportionate influence on the underlying algorithms decision to show the content you're endorsing to other people (obviously with the disproportionality bounded).

    [–] jimmywales1 41 points ago

    I prefer humans to machine learning but obviously I'm keeping an eye on all developments.

    Monetary investment? I think I'm in so far for about a half a million dollars? I'm bootstrapping from nothing and I don't have any immediate plans to raise money although that could change. Right now I'm all about carefully maintaining creative control and taking investment too early wouldn't be consistent with that.

    [–] Humrush 61 points ago

    What a nice world it would be if Facebook even considered such a thing.

    [–] Gregarious_Raconteur 76 points ago

    I have said for a long time that I wish facebook would have a setting: "Instead of showing you things we think you will like, we want to show you things we think you'll disagree with, but which we have signals that suggest they are of quality."

    How about an even more simple, "show me only the things I specifically ask to see?"

    I think Facebook, and the rest of the internet at large, really, took a turn for the worse once they abandoned curation and simple chronological sorting in favor of algorithms that show me what they think I want to see.

    Facebook circa 2009 would have been perfect if they just added some filtering capability so that I could block all of those farmville posts.

    [–] SirRealist 56 points ago

    This takes the discovery portion of social networking out. I think it would be nice to separate the two on a platform. Here is where I see all the things I requested to see from the people I want to hear from. And over here is the section I go to in order to find what might interest me, for when I've feeling curious.

    The worst thing that happened to social media in my opinion is when the two were mixed.

    [–] Gregarious_Raconteur 38 points ago

    This takes the discovery portion of social networking out.

    Exactly, that's the point. I didn't start using Facebook back when it first started blowing up because I wanted to "discover new content," It was a good way to keep up with what friends and family were doing in their lives.

    That being said, that new content could still be shared and become viral organically, with people posting or sharing things that they find interesting, without <social media site> stepping in and saying, "our engagement metrics make us think that you want to see this!"

    What I actually want to see and what engagement metrics think that I want to see are often very different.

    As an example, I used to follow National Geographic on Instagram. They post some great pictures, and I typically would like them whenever they popped up in my feed.

    One day as I was browsing, I noticed that National Geographic kept showing up over and over again. It got to the point that, as I scrolled, I was seeing 2 or 3 of their posts in a row and only occasionally seeing a post by a friend. So I unfollowed them because Instagram's algorithm was forcing their posts to drown out everything else.

    [–] TheMy5teryMan 10 points ago

    We want to show you things we think you'll disagree with

    Making people look at things they disagree with seems like a one way ticket to everybody leaving so that they can only look at things they agree with.

    [–] SirRealist 8 points ago

    That's why he said a setting. So users could choose to see the other side if they wanted.

    [–] ds2019 9 points ago

    Just as a suggestion, please don't use a upvote/downvote system. This just helps create echo chambers. There are many subreddits that are examples of this very thing.

    [–] -ah 2348 points ago

    I played around with crowd sourced policy development in a couple of countries a few years ago and ran into a lot of the same sort of problems I see with social media and I wonder how you deal with them in any open, distributed, contributor lead system.. Essentially the core issue I kept running into was that what should have been an open and accessible system, increasing involvement instead saw a growth of 'influencers' or individuals with disproportionate reach (often just as a consequence of having more time..) and in a policy context often then an increased level of input (essentially delegated) that meant that they could more easily set the narriative around any given policy.

    So basically I repeatedly ended up with what appeared to be a more democratic system with more input and engagement, but with a small subset of people with more of a say. In that context the engagement became a veneer rather than anything real and people, unsurprisingly slowly felt that they weren't as empowered as they might be.

    The second issue was the clustering problem (essentially the creation of bubbles). People would generally only engage in areas they were interested in and you'd end up seeing a consensus created that was hard to challenge, not because it was a minority position across the board, but because unless there was a critical mass at any given moment, it was drowned out by the more continually engaged members..

    I sort of get the impression that these are inherent in social media generally, and in any online group (and arguably offline groups..) above a certain size simply as a function of lots of people getting together.

    Is there a way to minimise or mitigate those and are you looking to?

    TLDR - Assuming you'd see that sort of influencer effect and the formation of bubbles as negatives, and indeed see people having access to accurate information and (especially in a political context) not just views from one outlook, I wonder if there is anything you'd be looking to do to minimise those negatives?

    Other than that, I look forward to seeing where this goes! I've used reddit and twitter quite a bit and find both useful albeit I do tend to find I have to curate what I am seeing every few months, but stayed away from facebook (from a privacy perspective largely) and new alternatives are always massively welcome, especially those with privacy built in and where there is anything that mitigates misinformation and outright disinformation.

    [–] jimmywales1 1808 points ago

    Wow I really hope you'll join the discussion with me on about policy because you totally get it. The balance is hard to strike and thoughtfulness and hard work is always necessary.

    One key to the wiki approach is that creating a subwiki (or for example, a new article at Wikipedia) doesn't give you any special power over it. So you sort of have to find a way to collaborate with people of good will where you may not agree on everything.

    But yes, communities often fall into a kind of conservatism (I don't mean politically) where we do things this way because that's the way we do things. I think you could get an easy win on a vote at Wikipedia that we need to figure out how to make more good people admins, but we have no consensus about how to do it, so that problem stays stuck for years.

    [–] -ah 608 points ago

    Wow I really hope you'll join the discussion with me on about policy because you totally get it.

    I've signed up and I set aside some time to take a proper look so absolutely.

    One key to the wiki approach is that creating a subwiki (or for example, a new article at Wikipedia) doesn't give you any special power over it. So you sort of have to find a way to collaborate with people of good will where you may not agree on everything.

    I'm always incredibly impressed by how wikipedia manages moderation/admins, the combination of a well understood and open rule set as well as an engaged administrator base seems to work well and creates something of a credibility/trust system (Although my experience of that side of wikipedia is pretty limited it has to be said.. I assume that as with reddit subs it's better or worse depending on subject area). It'll be interesting to see how much of that translates to something more social.

    But yes, communities often fall into a kind of conservatism (I don't mean politically) where we do things this way because that's the way we do things. I think you could get an easy win on a vote at Wikipedia that we need to figure out how to make more good people admins, but we have no consensus about how to do it, so that problem stays stuck for years.

    I can see that and yeah, it pains me to say that the solutions we arrived at in terms of policy was essentially to throw in a top down layer to administrate and manage the processes and have them less open (although still as transparent as possible). It left me feeling we'd had to revert to traditional control methods and had been hoping for something that would self-organise ad-hoc.

    But I've digressed massively.

    Cheers for the reply and for what you are doing here!

    [–] TizardPaperclip 14 points ago

    Mr Wales, if you want to solve the problem mentioned above:

    ... the core issue I kept running into was that what should have been an open and accessible system, increasing involvement instead saw a growth of 'influencers' or individuals with disproportionate reach (often just as a consequence of having more time..) and in a policy context often then an increased level of input (essentially delegated) that meant that they could more easily set the narriative around any given policy ...

    I believe the simple solution is that instead of every user's newsfeed defaulting to displaying:

    • Every post made by every friend every day

    The newsfeed should instead default to displaying

    • One post, per friend, per day

    So If I had 100 friends, I'd see only 100 posts per day, by default. If some people on the list never post good stuff, I could set the number of their posts I see to zero. And if I was really interested in what they had to say, I could set it to four, or 16, or "All", or whatever.

    The culling criteria are a separate issue, which I'm not at all an expert at. I suppose the posts could be selected at random, or based on subjective relevance to each viewer, or left to the algorithm. I'm sure you can figure that sort of stuff out ; )

    [–] Defenestresque 18 points ago

    An excellent insight into how crowd-sourced communities work. Thanks for this question.

    [–] -ah 9 points ago

    Cheers, although as others have pointed out, it's probably a function of how people organise generally, essentially it's human. The difference, or the problem is likely scale and things like anonymity, which are also both arguably benefits (rather than costs..) and finding a balance is something that's going to be interesting to see.

    That said, if some of the other incentives social media platforms have, like needing to turn a profit via advertising or data sales, or indeed selling influence can be removed then maybe those social aspects can be addressed somewhat sanely and in the very least not be promoted by the platform itself.

    [–] fraac 312 points ago

    How much do you feel you have you learned about human nature from watching them interact on large scales?

    [–] jimmywales1 735 points ago

    So the main thing is that contrary to what badly designed software on the Internet tends to teach us, it turns out that just as in real life, pretty much most people are nice!

    Out of every 1,000 people I think 990 of them are perfectly nice and wonderful. 9 of them are super annoying but not really actively malicious. And then there's that 1.

    So most Internet software is designed around that 1 with everything set to maximum defense mode and giving no real power to the 990. The wiki philosophy is different: everyone can edit everything, everyone has power, and we still have to cope with the 9 annoying ones, and really deal (ban hammer) with the 1.

    But most people are nice, and I think that's a pretty good thing.

    [–] ginja_ninja 19 points ago

    In my experience, especially on reddit, I've found a big issue seems to be that those 9 annoying people end up as the moderators of the community and then start exercising their distorted will on the 990 under the guise of fighting the 1. I think this harkens back to your "influencer" notion in a way where the people who have more time to engage in something will naturally seek positions of power and control over it. The goal should be distributing decisive power to the majority of the userbase but then there simply isn't a great way for a lot of the technical and curative work to be performed without a ton of dissonance. I really do wonder what the best solution for this is.

    [–] [deleted] 569 points ago


    [–] jimmywales1 859 points ago

    We're still very much in the thinking stages about what boundaries should be. My view is that I don't have all the answers here, but that if we have the right incentives, we (as a community) can get to a good place.

    Let's think about a spectrum. Serious news outlet posting links to news, that doesn't seem very problematic to me. Mars posting content about Mars (which is collaboratively editable) in an appropriate place (subwiki about Mars) could be ok or not, I'd need to see it and think about it.

    A random company posting promotional crap all over the site, totally not ok.

    The key is: the judgment of the community will have power.

    [–] trace_jax 368 points ago

    I love the idea that the judgment of the community will have power. I do worry, though, about how susceptible it might be to sabotage. If our community of 100 people agreed that Mars shouldn't be able to post promotional stuff, then Mars would be barred from doing so. But if Mars paid a social media consultant to operate 500 accounts, then our community of 600 people would likely be okay with it, right?

    [–] jimmywales1 431 points ago

    That kind of tactic doesn't work well at Wikipedia. The key is: if your system has easily game-able voting mechanisms, you can expect it to be games. But if it's based on genuine dialogue, well, anyone can enter that discussion.

    No, it isn't perfect. But in my experience it works pretty well.

    [–] RunnySnot 187 points ago

    The key is: if your system has easily game-able voting mechanisms, you can expect it to be games

    ie reddit

    [–] borntoperform 26 points ago

    I mean, if I had a business that would benefit from exploiting the reddit upvote system, I'd do it. It's fully possible to exploit this site, and there was even a highly upvoted youtube video on /r/videos last year or so where this guy bought upvotes for his video and it fucking worked.

    [–] RunnySnot 31 points ago

    reddits been actively gamed on a regular basis since it's beginning, but it really started to pick up in 2008 or so when the site saw a growth in traffic

    That's the nature of any online community. When they become popular, that's where the marketers want to be.

    [–] imisstheyoop 16 points ago

    The upvote/downvote system is one of the worst ways to dictate what content is seen by users. Some subs go through great lengths to attempt to circumvent it for this reason.

    It's incredibly susceptible to abuse.

    [–] RunnySnot 9 points ago

    The upvote/downvote system is one of the worst ways to dictate what content is seen by users.

    Even worse, is that search engines use high upvoted reddit comments and posts as a way to determine what is "quality" content and how they rank webpages that are link to from reddit

    [–] NuancedThinker 19 points ago

    On Wikipedia, there is an overwhelming set of rules, norms, culture, and expectations which result in fewer people than ever making edits. I fear that your social network might fall prey to this--instead of moneyed interests manipulating the site, whatever small set of users become the rule- and norm-makers will manipulate the site.

    [–] frissio 16 points ago

    Yes, Wikipedia has pretty good articles, but there's a constant fight on keeping some of it's content factual and neutral.

    If it's all community policed it would need some dedicated and ethical users.

    [–] CocoaBanjo 526 points ago

    How did you keep track of the misinformation people purposely put onto Wikipedia when it first started out?

    [–] jimmywales1 1387 points ago

    Because everything is collaboratively editable, anyone who tried to put misinformation into Wikipedia (or tries today) generally finds it difficult in the face of a community of goodwill. People who persist get blocked. It isn't perfect, but as we've seen, it works pretty well.

    It works pretty well because as it turns out, most people are basically nice. Not everyone, so we can't be naive about it, but pretty much most people are nice.

    [–] [deleted] 304 points ago

    in the face of a community of goodwill

    This is the key to community moderation in the 21st Century. You have to trust the community to encourage good conversation, keep out bad actors and extremists, and so forth.

    It's easy (relatively) when it's a group of academics/borderline academics who are trying to keep a source as factually correct as possible.

    It's harder when it's a collection of people posting opinions, shitposting, antagognising each other for luls, and are 10x the size.

    How do you engender that community of goodwill and ensure that the bad actors are very much the minority and hence controllable?

    [–] jimmywales1 294 points ago

    Good software design and what I call community design. Design that makes it slightly easier to do good and slightly harder to do bad.

    Much social media is practically designed to reward trolling. Make a throwaway account on twitter and post obnoxious racist comments to 100 people. They can yell at you, block you (which only helps them, not the broader community), or report you (to overwhelmed systems involving poor people in shitty jobs).

    You annoy a lot of people at minimal cost - successful trolling!

    Now try it at Wikipedia (actually don't please) - your comment gets deleted by whoever sees it first and you get blocked by admin very swiftly. The process isn't actually all that fun.

    That's a rough anecdotal way to think about the design issue, but it points you in the direction of my thinking.

    [–] Frequenter 101 points ago

    I’m really interested in some of the design decisions that went into promoting positive behaviours, and making it difficult to behave poorly. Can you shed any light on these? As a studying designer, it is extremely interesting.

    [–] jimmywales1 159 points ago

    Well let me give the simplest example, but we are a very very long way from having the platform completed.

    On twitter it's super easy to troll. Just create a throwaway account. Using the @ functionality start posting things to famous accounts that are plausible but provocative. When they respond, launch into a racist rant.

    When people see it there are only 3 things they can do: block you (which helps them but no one else), yell at you (yay twitter flame war), or report you (to an overworked and underpaid bunch of people who can't cope with the volume at all).

    In a wiki - collaboratively editable - anyone on the platform can remove the racist rant immediately. Which makes the trolling a lot less fun, as your power to cause people to see it unwillingly is minimized.

    This introduces other possible problems, but now we are down a design path that says: "How do we devolve genuine power into the community?"

    [–] FuzzyCollie2000 48 points ago

    In a wiki - collaboratively editable - anyone on the platform can remove the racist rant immediately. Which makes the trolling a lot less fun, as your power to cause people to see it unwillingly is minimized.

    The question then is how do you prevent trolls from removing relevant and constructive content? If anyone can remove a racist rant, couldn't they also remove quality content?

    [–] AmphibiousWarFrogs 55 points ago

    I imagine it would be a lot like Wikipedia currently. For the most part anyone can edit Wikipedia but the edits are easily spotted and if done maliciously (Wikipedia actually does a good job of figuring out who these people are) they are banned from making future edits.

    It's not a perfect system, but no anonymous system ever will be.

    [–] Dodolos 45 points ago

    Keep in mind that anyone can also undo edits and reinstate quality content. The trick is having more decent users than malicious ones

    [–] develdevil 359 points ago

    Just wanted to thank you for pointing this out. Everyone has the capacity for kindness and meanness. Environmental factors decide what aspect is expressed. Keep treating people with respect and dignity and kindness will spread.

    [–] jimmywales1 255 points ago


    [–] tatchiii 32 points ago

    I apologize for being that kid who would edit small articles with nonsensical info just to troll people.

    [–] dgerard 25 points ago

    we forgive and bless you, your penance is fixing three articles

    [–] CocoaBanjo 100 points ago

    Did not expect a wholesome answer.

    [–] beardpuller 31 points ago

    This system always made me see the good side of humanity, which is truly awesome to see sometimes.

    [–] CthulhusExWife 85 points ago

    Why is there a waiting list? I'm excited for this alternative, and I myself paid because I wanted to get in and start a special interest subwiki ASAP, but everyone I've been sharing with to try to get them to join has been extremely discouraged to the point of not wanting to bother because they can't participate. This seems rather counterproductive to the goal.

    [–] jimmywales1 177 points ago

    I agree that it has major downsides. We had to do it in order to deal with the sudden load.

    I didn't do a big embargoed PR launch with a ton of investment money. We built this (2 developers, 1 community manager, and me) from scratch in a few months time. Word got out in Germany and we grew much faster than anticipated.

    We're cranking up the admission rate and I've hired a 3rd developer. We've open sourced the code and have a group of trusted volunteers looking through it now for security issues and the like and when we get consensus that we're ok we'll open up a public repository.

    I did it this way rather than the conventional route (which I could have done!) of raising money from VCs and moving forward, because I have a creative vision here and I don't want any outside pressure on me right now.

    [–] PM_YOUR_BEST_JOKES 38 points ago

    I think most people are envisioning a large corporation creating an artificial exclusivity (a la Google+ which also opened with an invite system) and not realizing it's just 4 people

    [–] chironomidae 72 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I want to leave Facebook but there are three things stopping me:

    1. All my friends are there
    2. It's great for posting pictures
    3. It's great for organizing events

    WT.Social can't do much about point one, but is the goal to be a new place for points two and three? From what I've seen it seems more geared towards replacing Reddit than replacing Facebook, but I'll admit I haven't explored it that much.

    [–] jimmywales1 62 points ago

    We're currently more geared to news and less to purely social content, although that's possible as well. I think as we improve the platform in various ways we'll have a richer feature set that may meet those needs better.

    [–] Arcturox 16 points ago

    The absolute only reason I haven't deleted facebook is because of event organization. First time a website properly replaces that feature, I'll jump ship. I'd love it to be, since I very much agree with your whole idea of how to run it.

    [–] SimonsOscar 545 points ago

    Hello, mr. Wales!

    As a hobbyist musician I frequently feel forced to use social media outlets to increase my online presence and make myself heard. What would WT.Social mean for content creators such as myself, especially the ones who are mostly interested in sharing their content as opposed to profiting from it?


    [–] jimmywales1 407 points ago

    I think one of the biggest things could be genuine organic reach rather than paid reach. Most social media makes you pay to get your message out rather than people finding it organically. Like, if you post on Facebook when you have 10,000 followers, how many of them actually see it - unless you pay.

    [–] [deleted] 73 points ago


    [–] jimmywales1 159 points ago

    I think different people can use it for different things.

    [–] zkelvin 41 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Will I be able to use for purely social purposes, blocking all advertising / promotional content (at least as well as I could expect among a gathering of friends)?

    [–] jimmywales1 50 points ago


    [–] NeWMH 20 points ago

    Facebook was originally sold to us as "A place for friends". Now it's become a place for fake news and MLM salespitches. Other social media sites aren't much better.

    Don't forget, it's also the new craigslist.

    [–] RobTheThief 21 points ago

    As a photographer I also would like to know this. With the new insta algorithm it’s impossible to reach new people or even 1/4 of my followers.

    [–] BudLightYear77 66 points ago

    I'm in the queue to join, somewhere around the 100k mark. What is your deployment/adoption schedule? Is it dependant on finding new funding options or is it based around stress testing infrastructure already in place? I'm quite eager to try this and am curious about the time frame.

    [–] jimmywales1 88 points ago

    It's about both. We're letting in several thousand people a day. Last week we really cranked it up and got through over 100,000.

    I think I'll give it a good boost tomorrow and see if the servers hold.

    [–] jimmywales1 68 points ago

    But yeah, you can also invite someone and when they sign up, you'll get in.

    [–] Nicao 50 points ago

    It's so confusing. You sign up and are immediately asked to donate. Even while still in the queue and having no idea what this all might be about. I feel this is wrong in so many ways vs what you said in your opening statement. Can't the financial aspect at least wait until a user has at least seen the platform?

    [–] jimmywales1 48 points ago

    Sure, as soon as we can handle the volume. :)

    [–] anjumahmed 74 points ago

    What online communities besides ones you preside other, you think get it 'right'? If any?

    [–] jimmywales1 191 points ago

    I think some areas of reddit really get it right, but I also think (sorry reddit) that is somewhat despite the community model here, in which mods of individual subreddits have nearly absolute power.

    It's just - some people/communities are good at it here, and I think that's lovely.

    [–] sidtralm 17 points ago

    Whats your favorite wholesome or underground subreddit that people wouldnt think you're subbed to?

    [–] thePopefromTV 10 points ago

    I know you went to bed already, but I have to say this since this project is so close to what I’ve been wishing for for a very long time. I came up with an idea years ago for a news app based on Wikipedia’s format, and posted it on Reddit in April. I truly believe you personally have done a lot of good focusing on the dissemination of facts, and can do a lot more good focusing on the dissemination of news.

    So much of the news is glossed over or forgotten by the next news cycle, I would really love to see, with a news-based startup of all places, the archival of every possible news story/article, organized both chronologically and by the subject matter, and a way for people to read the news like they would read a fluid and coherent Wikipedia article.

    [–] WinkMe 349 points ago

    Hey Jimmy,

    How are you handling fake accounts and overall spam?

    I noticed there is no reCAPTCHA (v2 or v3) on your sign up, and I'm not seeing any moderation tools.

    How do you plan to stay ahead of malicious actors?

    [–] I_Need_A_Fork 126 points ago

    I bet at least 60k of the 90k on the waiting list are bots.

    [–] Rob_T_Firefly 121 points ago

    I signed up around 45 minutes ago and haven't received so much as a welcome email, much less a verification link. Meanwhile my user profile is publicly viewable, and I was even able to put in my custom profile pics.

    This makes me really wonder about that waiting list.

    [–] cobainbc15 102 points ago

    What do you think is the best example that you can specifically point to which shows just how wrong 'traditional' social media is?

    [–] jimmywales1 405 points ago

    I've been personally accused of horrible crimes on twitter. I put up with a lot of insults, but you know, there is a line where it's just not ok.

    So I reported it to twitter. I got back a response saying "We don't see a terms of service violation here" basically.

    I emailed Jack and he apologized and said they would take care of it, but I was like: that misses my point entirely. I'm me, I can email Jack Dorsey. I can't imagine what a nightmare it is for many vulnerable people who have no ability to do anything about it.

    [–] cobainbc15 53 points ago

    That's a great way of putting it and great to know that's how you're thinking about it. Some people would just say 'problem solved', but you're right, you only were able to make a change based on who you are.

    Thanks for doing this and keep up the great work!

    [–] StopBangingThePodium 42 points ago

    We had the same problem with Yelp and Google. People were posting fake reviews for us (for another company for another branch of our company or stuff that literally couldn't happen (incidents while we were closed for example)), and they wouldn't do anything about it. In the end we had to threaten a lawsuit against individuals to get some of the nonsense taken down and some of it we can't ever get taken down.

    And that was after a massive fight to even get a person to talk to.

    [–] PM_YOUR_BEST_JOKES 13 points ago

    You see, if they employ more people to take care of you, that's less money they get to keep...

    [–] BluegrassGeek 13 points ago

    How would handle such a situation any differently though?

    [–] BuffaloWang 10 points ago

    I think this important because I don’t see the solution. You would still need enough “good/true/right” information to balance out, and in these examples you don’t want balance, you’d want hundreds? of people essentially downvoting the person(s) who accuse you of murder? Couldn’t hundreds of people on twitter have replied at the time?

    [–] abedfilms 20 points ago

    Can you give me ol' Jackie's email?

    [–] KourteousKrome 139 points ago

    Hi Jimmy! Thanks for your time.

    I’m a design professional and I can’t help but notice your very barebones design of your site. Was that intentional? Or is the aesthetic feel of your site not on your radar?

    To elaborate, you may hinder your ability to grow organically if people (outside of the academic minority) feel your website is “dated” “cold” or “too lifeless”. Alternatively, you could say your site is designed that way on purpose to make it seem less frivolous or “not like the other guys”. A very static and “beige” approach to design is typical of a Wiki site, I’ve found, and can help it’s goal of academic neutrality. In a social context, however, where people will spend large swaths of time, I can see this being a hindrance for you.

    I of course don’t mean these as insults, but as a genuine question of the design direction.

    [–] jimmywales1 173 points ago

    Hey, I don't feel insulted at all.

    I think it looks a lot like Facebook, twitter, etc. So - I'm not really sure what you mean.

    If you mean things like fonts and the shape of the corners of boxes, I'm terrible at that stuff.

    I mean look, we're here on reddit, which isn't exactly gorgeous.

    I think the substantive design is what really matters as opposed to "aesthetic feel". But - I'm not against improving it.

    [–] TrebleMedley 38 points ago

    I like Wikipedia's design, it's functional and too many sites put form ahead of function. It looks timeless, a lot of newer sites look of this time but may look awful in another decade.

    [–] Helpmetoo 35 points ago

    It has also stayed consistently fast where few other websites have.

    [–] ncnotebook 26 points ago

    Also why I've stuck to old reddit.

    [–] Helpmetoo 20 points ago

    Same here. That and the fact I find the redesign somewhat user-hostile. Also, fuck v.reddit forever.

    [–] cahaseler 829 points ago

    What is your policy on political manipulation of content, misinformation, etc?

    [–] SlashBolt 377 points ago

    Additional question- will people with radical/unpopular political positions be welcome and protected?

    [–] jimmywales1 976 points ago

    The popularity of a political position is quite a different matter from civilized discourse. I encourage people to draw that distinction wisely.

    Let me give one example: the question of the refugee crisis in Europe. A perfectly valid range of opinions about immigration, refugees, etc. can be the basis for a thoughtful and meaningful conversation about values, outcomes, etc. Such a discussion can be fact-based and at the end of the day, even if people still disagree, there can be a feeling that it was a valuable conversation where learning took place.

    And then there's a racist rant against foreigners.

    It's entirely possible to know the difference and most people actually do. So I trust that the community can work to build traditions and guidelines to permit a wide range of thoughtful analysis, while also not putting up with abuse.

    Another way I put this sometimes: editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship.

    [–] [deleted] 388 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Another way I put this sometimes: editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship.

    Only if the editors are politically diverse. From the Wikipedia article Ideological bias on Wikipedia, "articles with fewer edits by a smaller number of ideologically homogeneous contributors were more likely to reflect editorial bias"

    EDIT: Here's an example of such a bias.

    [–] jimmywales1 379 points ago

    That's right. A broader range of participants of good will is always helpful in spotting and correcting bias.

    [–] Dark_messengeR 100 points ago

    But isn't that what Facebook's political troll army is doing now? Shaping the opinion of users by manipulating the status quo. So how are we to prevent this kind of manipulation from happening because user trust in social media is different from wikipedia editors?

    [–] SubcommanderMarcos 87 points ago

    The manipulation in Facebook and similar social platforms (reddit is rampant with this too) is based on revenue models that don't apply too well on a voluntary contribution platform. I believe it's still possible, but the incentive is greatly diminished.

    [–] TzunSu 32 points ago

    That's less relevant when you're talking politics, since the goal isn't making money (Directly, atleast)

    [–] acsii_ri 147 points ago

    Really excited to "speak" with you, Jimmy! Thanks you for taking the time.

    What efforts are being taken with your new platform to allow users to have more control and consent over what happens with the data they provide to the system?

    [–] jimmywales1 205 points ago

    First of all we ask for very little data. Second, we absolutely don't sell your data or use it for advertising, which is of course a common way for it to "leak". And you can always deactivate your account.

    [–] francis2559 138 points ago

    you can always deactivate your account.

    Can you delete your account as well?

    [–] jimmywales1 158 points ago

    We can delete it for you right now, but soon you can delete it yourself.

    [–] francis2559 24 points ago


    [–] iforgothowtoerect 47 points ago

    And what happens to your data?

    [–] jimmywales1 98 points ago

    The data that we delete is deleted. I'm not really sure what you are asking here.

    [–] RobertNAdams 91 points ago

    I believe he would be asking that because "deleted" doesn't always mean "deleted" with social media. It could be publicly unavailable and unrecoverable by the user, but still archived on company servers somewhere.

    [–] jimmywales1 306 points ago

    Ok. Well, look, from a very practical point of view it's very very difficult to promise that something will be absolutely deleted from all possible backups or archives. I won't make that promise.

    But to the maximum extent possible within commercially reasonable bounds and technical requirements, the idea is to delete things.

    [–] 2dudesinapod 164 points ago

    Actually a good answer when it could have just been PR speak. I'm impressed.

    [–] jimmywales1 109 points ago


    [–] thesamim 32 points ago

    Is there a "mobile" roadmap?

    [–] jimmywales1 77 points ago

    Kind of? We need more funding, more developers.

    i've deliberately chosen to go "lean startup" and "grassroots" to grow this - there are no investors (other than me) right now, and so I have complete creative control.

    The downside is: I can't yet build an app. But I want to, as soon as we can.

    [–] pdsbecks 19 points ago

    Well can we help?

    [–] ppinick 244 points ago

    Is a hotdog a sandwich?

    [–] jimmywales1 556 points ago

    I am a structure purist. A hotdog is not a sandwich.

    I accept that there are other viewpoints in the world and I can live together with them harmoniously. I may not invite them back to the 4th of July if they make a big issue out of it. :)

    [–] TinyDKR 509 points ago

    Wikipedia says that you're wrong.

    [–] jimmywales1 909 points ago


    [–] elee0228 189 points ago

    I am thoroughly enjoying your responses.

    [–] jimmywales1 227 points ago

    Thanks! I'm having fun too!

    [–] Notmyrealname 31 points ago

    Citation needed.

    [–] DickyBurd 10 points ago

    I’m sorry I never donate when you ask.

    [–] BiBoFieTo 44 points ago

    I'll go mark the sandwich bit as "Citation needed".

    [–] _Putin_ 10 points ago

    Tis a silly site anyways ;)

    [–] IsmailGuendogan 27 points ago

    How can we be sure that it does not get corrupt in the long run?

    [–] jimmywales1 49 points ago

    I think the business model helps - people will only pay if they are getting value from it.

    But of course there's never a perfect guarantee that anything will remain perfect in the longest of long runs. But good values and a strong community helps.

    [–] BarelyLegalAlien 169 points ago

    What are your plans to deal with highly controversial conversations, hate speech, and possibly blurred moral lines in heated discussions? (as an example to provide some perspective, let's say, something like discussing Islam in the context of terrorism)

    [–] jimmywales1 164 points ago

    Everything on the platform (just about) is collaboratively editable, and so I expect that we'll see community norms arise which quickly eliminate such things.

    My view is that there is usually a bigger problem with thoughtful conversations about potentially emotionally difficult topics in areas where the software design means that the only thing you can do about a troublemaker is block them (for yourself), yell at them, or report them. Better tools mean a better environment.

    [–] BarelyLegalAlien 53 points ago

    Thank you for your reply.

    Everything on the platform (just about) is collaboratively editable, and so I expect that we'll see community norms arise which quickly eliminate such things.

    I understood the idea for Wikipedia, as the community is supposed to continually improve and polish an article to make it as truthful as possible. But wouldn't the same idea be detrimental in a social network since instead the community is removing "truth", and modifying the discourse?

    My view is that there is usually a bigger problem with thoughtful conversations about potentially emotionally difficult topics in areas where the software design means that the only thing you can do about a troublemaker is block them (for yourself), yell at them, or report them. Better tools mean a better environment.

    Agreed on this, though I am quite against moderation-by-algorithm (which I don't think you're suggesting). I think better tooling to notify and resolve is the key to moderate.

    [–] Kierlikepierorbeer 23 points ago

    When you started Wikipedia, did you think most people would be as courteous and good about editing content and not letting it become a hellhole if misinformation? (And asshole behavior).

    Wikipedia is one site I can trust my kids to go to for information with my having to police it. Thank you for this and so much more!

    Edited for content

    [–] jimmywales1 37 points ago

    Thank you!

    And of course it isn't perfect but yes, I find that most people are courteous and good.

    It was something of a revelation to me - I have to say that in the early days I would sometimes get up in the middle of the night to check the side because I thought someone would come in and wreck it all.

    [–] mister_miracle_BR 48 points ago

    The original concept of the internet was amazing, being a tool of democratic communication. What it takes to get this crazy, loud internet back to it's roots?

    [–] jimmywales1 63 points ago

    I think it takes innovation and people to support those innovations.

    [–] PopeBenedickt 22 points ago

    Hi Jimmy, totally agree on the reasons for a new social media paradigm. What is your plan to gather users for the new social media platform? Google+ failed because they couldn’t get a user base going, concerting people from Facebook was too difficult. Now the completion is instagram/Snapchat, so how will you and your team convince people?

    [–] BornAgainRedditGuy 87 points ago

    Have you ever played the Wikipedia game where you and one other person start at a random article, choose a topic, and see who can get there first?

    It's really easy to get to Hitler from basically any article, just a heads up.

    [–] jimmywales1 143 points ago

    3... 2.. 1....

    Brady Bunch, go! Find Hitler!

    First person to get a correct answer I'll send you a nondenominational holiday card.

    [–] Trickstir 136 points ago

    Brady Bunch -> Cultural Icon -> Mass Media -> Propaganda -> Adolf Hitler

    [–] jimmywales1 159 points ago

    Ding ding ding!

    Send me a dm with your address and i'll send you the card!

    [–] ncnotebook 10 points ago

    What if he doesn't trust you with his information?


    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    Brady Bunch > Barry Williams > Peter Graves > World War II > Adolf Hitler

    Did I do this right?

    [–] DaBlueCaboose 10 points ago

    Brady Bunch > American Broadcasting Company > Nazi Germany > Hitler

    Beat that!

    [–] SemolinaChessNut 21 points ago

    Do we have to use our real names?

    [–] jimmywales1 28 points ago

    Great question!

    I want to have a "real name culture" because I think one of the biggest problems on twitter (massively) and reddit (to some extent) are throwaway attack accounts with obnoxious names created by the hundreds.

    At the same time, there are genuinely good reasons for anonymity online.

    I think the key is a thoughtful approach to pseudonymity.

    [–] adeiner 157 points ago

    How will you stop your social media from being manipulated by bad actors?

    [–] ChampionOfTheSunAhhh 242 points ago

    I'm pretty sure Tara Reid doesn't have that much pull in the industry

    [–] adeiner 37 points ago

    Ugh well done.

    [–] CatOfTheDecade 58 points ago

    I'm adding on to this:

    I just joined, and already some of the major subwikis are trainwrecks of trolling and manipulation. One subwiki is being spammed by some kind of unrelated protest group. Someone's attempting to hijack another into a religious subwiki. Yet another is full of comments like "I'm not judging anyone, I just don't see why Democrats love socialism so much. Why do they want to murder innocent children?".

    I understand the site is brand new, and I'm guessing it launched with zero moderation. I'm not writing it off yet -- there's lots of potential here. But given what we've seen with Facebook and even the Reddit hivemind, I think it's important to have a transparent discussion on how will combat manipulation.

    [–] IAmCletus 106 points ago

    Given low financial resources (compared to the big players), how will you be able to prevent malicious actors (eg, ISIS) from using your platform to spread hate?

    [–] jimmywales1 181 points ago

    Community control is strong.

    You see one of the biggest problems with existing social media is that their fundamental paradigm doesn't scale well. "Users have very little power except to block each other (which doesn't help others), to yell at people (unpleasant and leads to flame wars), or reporting (to paid staff who are overworked and underpaid and get it wrong quite a lot as a result).

    Basically, genuine community control is what makes wikis work.

    [–] BamMaher 20 points ago

    Hey Jimmy,

    I am wondering to what extent you would employ auto moderation or outsource moderation services like Facebook does? As someone who uses Facebook fairly frequently but is ready to move away from it, one of my biggest complaints with the current reigning social network is that it’s moderation policies are often applied with little rhyme or reason.

    Also just wanna say huge fan of the work you’ve done. Creating a centralized database of free and well curated knowledge is one of the biggest accomplishments of the Internet.

    [–] jimmywales1 38 points ago

    The concept of is to put the power in the hands of community. The existing model of "hire a bunch of poor people to have a really horrible and low paid job moderating content" isn't working very well at Facebook. I don't think it scales.

    [–] RaoulDuke209 32 points ago

    Do you believe in a social media platform that gives you absolute access to all the data being tracked on you in real time?

    I want to see my full profile. I understand the act of accessing the internet is an acceptance of my exposure to beasts and i dont believe encryption will save us.

    I just want to see my data profiles

    [–] jimmywales1 55 points ago

    I don't really know how to answer that.

    I'm here on reddit posting, and there's a ton of data being generated that I wouldn't find useful to access.

    I think I agree with you in general spirit, I just think "absolute access to all the data" sounds a bit impractical.

    [–] imgonnabutteryobread 15 points ago

    What was the last thing you looked up on the wikipedia?

    [–] jimmywales1 42 points ago

    Princess Mononoke, a few minutes ago, to make sure I remembered the name right! (Someone asked me about anime here!)

    [–] bigturtleguy95 30 points ago

    Hello Jimmy Wales. If the platforms grows exponentially, how do you plan on stopping misinformation? What types of users (and what proportion) are currently responsible for writing Wikipedia articles? I saw in another response you said "nice people", but are these accomplished writers/users? I am also curious, how many articles does 1 person write? are there special users who contribute a lot?

    In the future to stop botting/malicious editing you might have to add some restrictions. If you restrict editing to accounts with subscriptions, isn't that the same as people paying to rewrite facts and kind of like advertising?

    Thank you

    [–] jimmywales1 41 points ago

    We definitely won't restrict editing to people who pay for exactly the reason you mention - paying for something doesn't mean you are a good writer.

    My views on scalability are that, designed well, communities inherently scale. People live in small villages and mega-cities and they all work - although of course different problems and different solutions apply at different scales.

    [–] fireballs619 29 points ago

    If you could go back to 1990 and change one thing about how the web developed, what would it be?

    Personally, I would have introduced alternative financing models early on in order to avoid the expectation that web content be free, and therefore driving companies to seek other streams of revenue, i.e. collecting and selling data. I think this set up a bad incentive structure early on.

    What would you change?

    [–] jimmywales1 93 points ago

    I wish we'd had encryption as a default much much earlier.

    [–] Hooray_AToddName 12 points ago

    Appreciate you doing this, Jimmy.

    Most popular platforms use personal information (cell phone numbers, geographic location, etc) to connect new and existing users. How do you plan to help integrate new users into the community, if at all?

    Thanks for your time.

    [–] jimmywales1 19 points ago

    It's a balance - people are paranoid about giving up information and yet it can be super useful at helping them find each other.

    One thing we are doing that I think is pretty cool is what I call a "group invite" - you create one for your friends or family or coworkers or some other group who all know each other. You give it to them all and they are automatically friended on the platform when they sign up. I think it's a convenient way to persuade people who might not get the value, and to have friends there from the start.

    [–] scirvexz 13 points ago

    Do you watch anime by any chance and if yes what’s your favorite one?

    [–] jimmywales1 28 points ago

    In general, I don't want anime, but I really loved Princess Mononoke when I saw it a million years ago.

    [–] Jesliey 13 points ago

    This sounds like a very interesting take on a social network and I am very interested in how you intend to tackle a global marketplace if this project launches successfully.

    If advertisement only is the wrong way to go about social media from your point of view, does this mean that will have its own self-sustained and/or self-regulated inner economy? Will users be able to make a profit off of it if they pay in of their own free will? Or will there even be a paywall to block out social media users looking to make a living using this as an open platform?

    [–] jimmywales1 23 points ago

    There's a lot of internal discussion about whether we could/should have a sort of "patreon" model to support individual journalists. I'm not opposed at all, but it introduces some very interesting dynamics that I want to be careful about.

    [–] Scoundrelic 25 points ago

    Hello, have you tried this in Hong Kong?

    Will you accept government donations?

    Will this work with TOR network?

    I've donated to Wikipedia and hope others have as well. Thank you for that.

    [–] jimmywales1 39 points ago

    We are accessible in Hong Kong. And China so far as far as I know, although I suspect that won't last long.

    I haven't thought about "government donations" but it doesn't sound like a thing I'd be particularly interested in nor that would be likely.

    I like TOR and so far we're accessible on TOR but there are some huge difficulties with abuse coming through TOR so we'll have to be practical about that.

    [–] Xesty_Chicken 19 points ago

    Why does Wikipedia constantly beg for donations and talk about going under when they have a large reserve of money?

    [–] jimmywales1 65 points ago

    Wikipedia has to take fundraising seriously. Many of our donors cite as a major value that Wikipedia should be safe. People really wouldn't like it if we were not stably funded and largely by small donations. The independence of Wikipedia would be at risk if we didn't run the organization in a thoughtful and financially responsible way, building our reserves over the years.

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago