Remarkable People Behind the Podcast: The Power of Information

Foreign. Hello everybody, it's Guy Kawasaki and welcome to our usual Wednesday morning live show. You may notice that what's behind me and stuff is different. Also I'm not using my usual DSLR and I'm not using my usual microphone because yesterday I drove from Seattle to the Menlo park area and I usually live in Santa Cruz and I just did not have the energy to make the last one hour so so I stopped in our house in the Menlo park area and I only have a laptop. So this is how most people get on virtually. This is a laptop using the built in mic and I don't even have my makeup on. Although I read an article yesterday that makeup has so much of the makeup has, I don't know, fluorine or something. It is cancer causing so maybe that's a good thing. So anyway you don't care about my makeup and all that. So first thing is if you want to join my text ohana831-609-0628 and then we will be in a chat series. The way it works is it's only for U.S. and Canadian numbers, sorry and I send out group text. If you respond it's point to point. If I respond to you it's point to point. So it starts off one to many and goes one to one after that. 831-609-0628 Today's exciting remarkable people guest is Catherine Marr. Catherine is the former CEO and head honcho of Wikimedia. Wikimedia for those of you who don't understand the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia and it took me two years to figure that out, Wikimedia foundation is sort of the holding organization for the 13 Wikipedia and Wikimedia properties. So Wikipedia is prop part of Wikimedia, as is Wiki Travel and Wiki Dictionary and Wiki Wikimedia Commons which is where you can get pictures. All those Wikipedia and Wikimedia properties are part of the Wikimedia foundation and Catherine Marr was in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation. In other words, she was the boss of the whole thing basically. And so the icebreaker question is of course, you know, where do you go for information if somebody mentions some treaty or some person or whatever? Of course I don't know about you, but my rote reaction is to type it into Google and then usually the top search is Wikipedia and I just read the Wikipedia entry. So icebreaker, where do you go? Do you have some special path other than what I just described, which is Google first couple searches is usually Wikipedia. And I read the Wikipedia entry. Now the interview starts off with me asking the question, question that I ask anybody from Wikipedia or Wikimedia, which is, I have had this conversation with about 4 of my kids, teachers and in these teacher conferences I ask them, so do you allow kids to cite Wikipedia or use even Wikipedia? And they often say no. And I ask them why? And they say it's because Wikipedia allows anybody to edit anything. And so that's the first question, the first issue that I address with Catherine. And I just happen to believe that it is insane to tell kids not to use Wikipedia even as a citation, but at least as a source. So a lot of my use of Wikipedia is I read the Wikipedia entry and then I look at the footnote and the footnotes take you to the source and, and the source is even better. So Wikipedia by definition means that you have to source a legitimate journalistic site. You can't just make stuff up out of the air. And so if you read an article about a person and then you see the citation, you click on the citation and you go to the actual source and there you read, you know, the source document, which is very interesting path. And I just happen to think that all things consider Wikipedia may be the finest source of information information on the web. And you know, we've had some social media posts about this episode already and some people vehemently disagree with me because, you know, somebody worked for a company and said, well, they, they couldn't, there was nothing to source about some incorrect information about the company. So the company's Wikipedia site was wrong for a long time because there was nothing to source to cite. Yeah, you know, I kind of understand that problem. I also can tell you that for my own Wikipedia entry, I would like to add details, but there's no source. So I know stuff about me that's not in my Wikipedia entry, but there's no journalistic source that says the same thing. So I can't make the edit. It's just a bad idea to edit your own Wikipedia entry anyway. But you know, for me, when I'm dealing with teachers, it's like, so you're telling me that my kids cannot use Wikipedia, but they can cite Fox, they can cite, you know, a hardcore right wing whatever website that, you know, you consider journalistic and you can't cite Wikipedia. That makes no sense to me. And also you should know that when there is a controversial topic such as Planned Parenthood or, you know, Ted Cruz, it's it's, it's, it's, it's almost semantic. Yes. Literally anybody can edit anything, but you know, kind of anybody can drive a car as long as you get a license. And so Wikipedia, you got to know what you're doing before you can edit. You can't just go edit willy nilly. And for, for controversial topics, there are a lot of people who are watching controversial topics and making sure that, you know, you don't go to the Planned Parenthood entry and say Planned Parenthood sells baby parts. That, that would just not happen. So anyway, I just missed that comment. Jeff so. Love today's podcast. What a high level discussion about high Wikimedia Wikipedia. Thanks. Yeah, Wally, thank you. I'm glad you like it. I, I really, I was upon the board of trustees for a week, for week even I get confused for Wikimedia for a couple years and it was a most interesting experience. You know, some of the chall that we faced were that the, the, the editing environment has been hostile to women. So that is one big issue is fixing that. And just the editing process just technically wasn't the most user friendly thing. So that's being fixed. And but you know, you gotta love the fact that there are, I don't know, 250, 000 active editors who just care enough to make information free to spend all their time doing that. That's a great thing. So anyway, so you got any questions or comments, but if you wanted to go get the inside story of Wikimedia Wikipedia, I mean this is the episode to listen to. Teachers definitely should be teaching it, using it as a resource rather than demonizing as being an open edit. I absolutely agree. And the footnotes of Wikipedia are worth their price in gold. Is that the right saying, worth their weight in gold or price in gold? They might be worth their weight in lithium or whatever's in a catalytic converter. Olaf Critical thinking skills are so much more important today. And allowing students to apply that by using Wikipedia properly can be the right way to train that. Amen. Olaf I completely and utterly agree. One of the past guests on Remarkable People was Sam Weinberg. He's a professor of history at Stanford. So if you want another take on the quality of Wikipedia and how to do research and what to believe on the Internet, go back into the past episodes and listen to Sam Weinberg. And he thinks, and I agree, that one of the things that we should teach kids is Internet literacy. So from the time you give them a phone, they should understand that everything on the Internet is not true. In fact most of it is not true. And how to use the Internet properly. And the gist of what he says is that rather than going vertically in a site, you should go horizontally. So let's say that you have a citation from a site, you go to that site and most people's reaction is you go to the homepage, you read the about and everybody's about says, you know, we're highly qualified, professional, passionate, honest, wonderful people. And that could be like, you know, the American Nazi party. And so he says rather than going vertically in a site, what you should do is go horizontal in a site. So you go to a website, you know, you look at the about if you have to, maybe you get the executive director's name, then you enter that into Google and then you go and you read what Wikipedia says about that site or Wikipedia says about that person and you may find that that person entry is tied to a lot of controversy. You know, case in point, there, there's this controversy about the $15 an hour minimum wage. And so there's some organization, you know, some good sounding American, you know, American, American something, you know, support for small business or something that sounds like something that's really good. And basically they've taken this stance against the $15 an hour minimum wage. But if you did a little bit of horizontal if investigation, if you, if you googled the executive director's name, you'd find out that, you know, he has been affiliated with a lot of hardcore right wing stuff. If you also entered the address of this association, it's identical to a PR agency that is a right wing p. An agency for right wing organizations. So you know, you quickly go from, huh, this is a legitimate sounding organization that says we shouldn't pay the minimum wage because it'll increase unemployment because companies will not be able to pay the minimum wage. So they'll lay people off. You know, that's the surface treatment. But if you really read deeply, you'd see that basically it's a lobbyist organization. So I don't know how we got down that hole. But anyway, that, that's about using Wikipedia as a resource to check out the sources. Have you ever edited Wikipedia? So hold up. Yeah, send me comments. Have you ever edited Wikipedia? That's an interesting test. There are lots of people who do that and I have to say I admire people who do that because they're doing it unselfishly. Dan Bronson Many businesses don't realize the benefit of being listed in Wikipedia. That is certainly true. That Is a complicated issue though, because, you know, many companies kind of decide that, oh, we got to get a Wikipedia listing, so let's go write ours up. And then what you quickly find out is that one of the rules of Wikipedia is, you know, no conflict of interest. So that's why I can't edit my own Wikipedia entry. And you know, the CEO of a company usually, or anybody working for the company can't or shouldn't edit their own Wikipedia entry. So then a lot of companies hire these so called Wikipedia experts and so these consulting firms, you know, tell the story that yeah, they'll get you on Wikipedia. I gotta say I frown upon that practice. Now the flip side of that is, you know, a lot of people say, well, you know, Wikipedia is so political that if people don't like your company, you can't get an entry just because they don't like you, not because it's not a legitimate company. So that's the flip side of, you know, using a consultant or writing your own entry. It's just like medical studies look to see who funded it to decide if you trust the study rather than just believing in bindling. I would say that's. Yeah, that's a pretty good assumption. Any other thoughts about the legitimacy of Wikipedia? It's a fascinating interview. Just. And I gotta tell you, so I was on the board of trustees, so I worked, you know, directly with Catherine and her predecessor, Lila Tritikov. And I gotta say, I think that's one of the hardest jobs in technology because you have these Wikipedians who are members of the editing community. You have the actual end users, arguably all of humanity. You have the people who are the entries or you know, the company entries, you know, the people who were, are the people in Wikipedia who are mentioned and stuff. And then you have the donors and then you have all the people who are anti Wikipedia because you know, you don't say what they want to hear and it's a very complicated. And you're dependent on donations as opposed to selling stuff. So man, I could not do that job. There's no friggin way I could do that job. So what were your very first impressions of Wikipedia? I, I have to tell you that my very first impressions were very positive. I just think the breadth of the subjects and just, you know, boiling it all down to one or two pages for any subject is very useful. And, and then having the citations in the bottom where I can go dig deeper. I gotta say I trust Wikipedia implicitly. I have no problem trusting Wikipedia. Can't say it about every other site. But yeah, isn't the default repository for Google search Isn't it the default repository for Google search answers? People are lazy to double check. I don't, I don't, you know, I don't know if it's the default repository. It depends on how you define default. I mean, are you saying that someone at Google has decided, well, the Wikipedia entry will always be the number one or two result? I don't, I don't know if that decision has been made. It, it could, I don't know. I, I, I. But in the spirit that you're asking the question, I think that yes, it is the default explanation for most things, for most searches and I don't think that's necessarily bad because there is such an active community to avoid, you know, some blatant conflicts of interest and blatant errors. So I'm all thumbs up on Wikipedia, man. It's may not be perfect, but it's better than anything else we got. Certainly better than, you know, an Encyclopedia Britannica that was Last updated in 1975. So LinkedIn user, you have to start somewhere. Wiki might not be perfect, but it help you on your journey for searching deeper on the topic. Amen. I completely and utterly agree. So by the way, I need to mention that this live stream is coming to you on, let's see, LinkedIn. I shouldn't memorize this faster. Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. And what makes that possible is Restream. Restream is the sponsor of this live interview every Wednesday at 10. And you should know that you can stream live in high definition audio and high definition video on Restream. And it handles 30 platforms. Wrap your mind around that. I only use four or five. There's 26 more. I don't know what those other 26 are, I can't imagine. But anyway, you could be on 30 platforms at ones high definition audio and video. How can it get much better than that. What would you recommend to businesses that would like to be listed on Wikipedia? Well, Dan, I can give you the smart ass answer. And the smart ass answer is make great products. So if you make great products and you become a popular product, popular service, popular company, I think just organically somebody will put you on Wikipedia. Now let's take an extreme case. Let's say it's I don't know, you know the Guy Kawasaki Marketing Agency, right? So Guy Kawasaki starts a marketing and advertising and social media agency. And I say, well, for credibility I want people to go to Wikipedia and be able to find Guy Kawasaki Marketing Agency. So I need a Wikipedia entry. Well, I think that is total because the Guy Kawasaki Marketing Agency until it's, you know, a multi billion dollar successful agency, not clear to me it merits being on Wikipedia. So you know, like a one person, two person consulting firm. Now certainly Bain should be, and BCG should be, and McKinsey should be, but Guy Kawasaki Marketing Consulting be on Wikipedia. Like that's the test, right? So what would you cite? There's been no stories about Guy Kawasaki's marketing agency. I. So then you think, oh, but I'm gonna, you know, I gotta fake it till I make it. So I gotta get a Wikipedia entry. So I'll write it and then that's where you start getting in trouble. And then you figure out, oh, I can't write it, they caught me. So I'll hire this agency who says they can get me on Wikipedia and they'll fake it and they'll get busted. So I guess the long and the short of it all is that. You should make a great company and it'll get on Wikipedia. So I never, I don't even know if this is true, but I don't know if there is a word about the Remarkable People podcast on Wikipedia. So now I could make the case. Well, that would really increase my credibility for the podcast. I should write an entry. Except there's nothing to cite because it's never been covered. Now it could be as part of Guy Kawasaki's Wikipedia entry, but again, there may be nothing to cite to put it on Guy Kawasaki's Wikipedia entry. So I mean, I don't lay awake at night thinking about it. And I don't think it's going to make or break your company. So I mean, of all the things you got to worry about, I would say that getting your company on Wikipedia should not be in the top 25. Just God damn it, just make a great product or service. Everything else will work out. What else? Is Wikipedia demonizing the school system because it's anti theoretical approach to the monopoly that big publishing companies have there? Where does this root rejection come from? I don't think it's because of the monopoly that big publishing companies have there. Because that would imply that. I don't know. You're probably referring to McGraw Hill, right? So you're pro. So you. That would imply that McGraw Hill has such power that they can control the minds of elementary school teachers. I find that hard to believe. I find that hard to believe. I think the explanation is much simpler and the explanation is that teachers have Quote, heard that anybody can edit anything. So they don't want to tell Johnny and Susie, well, go use Wikipedia as an information source because they're afraid that Johnny and Susie, doing their research about, I don't know, World War II, are going to find out that somebody wrote that World War II. Well, here's a better example. So let's say, you know, you're giving the assignment of who first walked on the moon. And a teacher says, well, you can't cite Wikipedia, Johnny and Susie, because anybody can edit anything. And so you might find out via Wikipedia that that was all faked and that we have never been to the moon and it was all done, you know, in a Hollywood set. And so. Or you might say if you, let's say you got a, you got an assignment about, you know, what is the circumference of the earth. And the teacher tells you, you can't use Wikipedia because some flat earther may have gone on to Wikipedia and entered that the world is a cube and so there is no circumference. I don't know, this is like getting a little ridiculous. So I think that just got into people's brains early on that anybody can edit anything. And so it's full of wrong stuff. I just don't think that's true anymore. So what else do you think that anyone can't. Controversial. This I know is not true. Anyone cannot edit anything. And Catherine Marr addresses this topic about how topics that are controversial are very much watched. And you have to really be kind of a proven editor to touch some of those things. Now anybody can become a proven editor, but you know, Trixie and Biff are not going to go and say Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood sells baby parts. And it is not going to happen on Wikipedia, I guarantee you that. So what else? So I have to cut it short today because believe it or not, I'm doing a conference for Facebook tomorrow about the current and future of AR and qr and we have a rehearsal soon so I gotta go rehearse that. So. So Jeff put the slide up about how I'll be on Facebook at 11:30 Pacific tomorrow talking about, ah, the future of augmented reality. Yeah. So especially as a marketing tool. So that'll be on Facebook tomorrow at 11am and don't forget that this live stream was brought to you by Restream where you can have high definition audio and video on up to 30 platforms. Life is good. Don't forget to read the. Not read. Listen. Oh, listen to the Remarkable People podcast this week. It is CATHERINE Marr Former Head honcho of Wikimedia Wikimedia is the thing that owns all of Wikipedia. And one last thing, so I have to tell you, we have, I have really made a commitment to transcription. So I hope you are reading the transcriptions of these current episodes as they come out because you have no idea how much work it is to make these transcriptions come out good. So I want you to tell all your deaf friends that if you want high quality transcriptions of high quality interviews of Remarkable People, remarkablepeople.com is the place. And those prescript, those prescriptions, those transcriptions appear@remarkable people.com underneath the the audio link. And they also are on Simplecast. So yeah, and I'm going back through the archives and, and we're transcribing every episode to what I consider first class results because after I interviewed Martin Lindstrom and Haben Girma, who you'll get to soon, she's a deafblind woman who graduated from Harvard Law School. I feel a moral obligation to have great transcripts, even though that many people may not listen to them, but read them. But I think I have a moral obligation to make that available to all the deaf people and then a lot of people who can hear like to read it as they listen to the podcast. And by the way, if you look, if you read a transcript and you find an error in the transcript, let me know. We will definitely edit that. So my email is Guy Kawasaki Gmail. Just send me an email and we'll fix it. So remarkablepeople.com restream a sponsor, Catherine Marr released this morning, former head honcho of Wikimedia. And that's it. See you later next week. Bye.