"The Future" with Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia

Wow. I haven't posted in a really long time, namely because I've been so busy work on Zero Day Exploits.  Here is something I've been meaning to post for awhile. I had wanted to embed the audio file into the post but couldn't find the means to do so since the file is so big, so it's available at this link.

On Thursday, April 8th, the New Museum hosted the second lecture in their Visionaries series which featured Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. The audio recording is above and I highly recommend you listen to it. He’s a fascinating guy, and while the lecture itself touched on some ideas that you probably have already encountered (such as culture itself getting smarter) he touches on some other concepts such as the neutrality of Wikipedia, issues of free speech in China and the personal responsibility of other internet organizations. Things got especially interesting during the Q&A. The recording runs about an hour and ten minutes but it’s worth a listen. Please keep in mind that this is my first recording, so hopefully as I continue to record similar events the quality will improve.


The lecture itself got me thinking a lot about how the internet can function as an expression of bohemian and liberal ideas, and how the prevalence of these ideas in cultural phenomenon’s will effect the future. Granted, Wales himself is a liberal and I myself lean that way, but it still is interesting to note that the leaders of many of these new companies seem to be liberal leaning themselves (consider the Buddhist nature of Steve Jobs and his $1 per year salary).

In 2006, Time Magazine listed the person of the year as “you,” and the success of websites like Facebook, Youtube, Wikipedia, and Twitter have all been based on the willingness of the public to participate in these projects. Because the internet is available worldwide, and most places (besides countries like China) are able to have access to the same information, these websites transcend cultural boundaries and often a specific agenda. Wales stresses the idea that most Wikipedia entries try and feature an argument from both sides, employing the phrase “critics say” and presenting a viewpoint without an overriding agenda (although this apparently is not valid, leading to the creation of Conservapedia, which includes a page on how Wikipedia does indeed push a liberal agenda).

This led me back to a conversation I had recently with my friend Neight, who told me about an article he read explaining how Conservatives are much easier to mobilize because they are often so black-and white. They have the same viewpoints on the issues whereas there are many different kinds of liberals, and it is hard to get them to agree on a certain perspective. (note- these are obviously generalizations. I know that there are conservatives who do not function only in certain terms, or who might be fiscally conservative but socially liberal in some respects– my parents for one–however, this idea does have some validity to it). Liberals are less likely to be of the same religion, and are certainly less focused on tradition than conservatives.

But it does strike me that perhaps this system of overlying principles might be outdated. When our world is changing as rapidly as it is, and previous systems are proving to be faulty (re: the economy….), it is more likely for a liberal to be ready to embrace change than a conservative (how else did Obama get elected?). This also relates to the noticeably older demographic which makes up the conservative party. In trying to “get hip” they are missing the point- it’s not about the image (although I have to say, Obama’s coolness definitely worked for him) but about your willingness to keep an open mind and embrace what is to come. This is not to say that all conservative ideas themselves need to be cast aside, but that they need to reevaluate what really matters.

Another feature of this new technology is the idea that so much of it is open source, able to be manipulated by the masses and open to contribution from almost every level. The ones Wales says he blocks are those he considers “crazy,” or those who push their agenda at every opportunity (see: radical conservatives). He emphasizes the idea that every person has value, something to share, a contribution to make this world. He opened his lecture by describing Wikipedia as “the sum of all human knowledge.” Lofty, outrageous, but what a goal. And if everyone did take it upon themselves to contribute something they know a lot about, couldn’t that be possible?

Again, all of this relates to bohemianism (or at least, Wales point of view emphasizes this), the ideas of both equality and the ability of great things that can come from everyone making a contribution and working together. Optimistic, sure, but with all of the fear-mongering out there (see, the media, everyone you talk to) couldn’t we use a bit of optimism?

To me I think that part of the reason a lot of bohemian projects failed, besides the ability of certain drugs mixed with certain personalities to corrupt good intentions, is that it doesn’t always have a proper place in the way our society functions. I need to brush up on my economic history but to my understanding, some sort of economic system/hierarchy has existed ever since we have had organized civilizations. Yet here are these groundbreaking websites who have made a huge impact on the way we live today that are only just now finding a way to make money with what they do. Most people now are finding it near impossible to gauge where the money will come from when so much of the youth has found ways around it: through things like couch surfing, craigslist, ride share programs, and downloading movies and music, and getting the news/information from free internet sources, it seems near impossible to continue living the way we have, based on an economic system of consumerism, when the consumers might be slowly dying out.

Another final thought: Wales also emphasized the idea of openness and honesty, of having a moral code even while conducting business. He mentions that Wikipedia reveals their business strategy through a page on their website, a method of transparency that Obama so emphasized in campaign (that seems to have barely materialized, perhaps in part due to the unwillingness of the rest of the administration to participate, although that could also just be giving Obama credit where it isn’t due. I’ll admit, his charm and enthusiasm made me forget that whole thing about lying politicians…) That also reminded me of this website I’m currently fascinated by, WikiLeaks (not affiliated). I feel like almost every week I come across an article about another outrageous story they have broken, yet it is also almost completely serviced by those who volunteer their time to revealing the truth.


So wtf am I trying to say with all of these paragraphs of nonsense? First of all, I have a lot to learn about politics, the economy, basically how the world works in general. I have yet to fully formulate my opinions on many political matters, mostly because I feel uninformed. But I do want to point out how much Wales’ ideas remind me of a bohemian stance: that humans have the capability to create something fantastic, outside of economic gain, in an open, honest, and balanced manner, for the greater good. Now, that’s saying a lot about Wikipedia, and giving him a lot of credit for what he has done. But when you think about how many people access the site each and every day, and how much basic knowledge is accessible at the fingertips of anyone with computer access (which in and of itself is becoming more prevalent among all economic levels), it’s staggering how quickly this became a reality and what an effect is has had on society.

(Note: I have equated bohemianism with liberalism for my argument but I am well aware of the differences, and that to be liberal can still mean being involved in the type of system that someone with an actual bohemian philosophy would rebel against. But for the sake of comparison, many liberals have ideas about freedom and equality that are equitable).