In this interview, Larry Sanger outlines the key distinctions between Everipedia and Wikipedia, emphasizing Everipedia's modern, mobile-friendly design, WYSIWYG editing, and an open‑topic policy that aims to host millions of articles. He explains that Everipedia is the first encyclopedia built on a blockchain, allowing contributors to earn tokens and gain co‑ownership of the network—features Wikipedia does not offer. The conversation then shifts to a broader discussion of Web 2.0 versus Web 3.0, where Sanger argues that while Web 2.0 focused on social interaction, Web 3.0 is defined by the interplay of technology and society, especially the tension between centralization (large corporate platforms, data control) and decentralization (personal cloud servers, blockchain, Tor). He highlights regulatory pressures, the potential clash between libertarian/blockchain advocates and government oversight, and the emerging role of stablecoins and institutional blockchain use. When asked about the future, Sanger suggests a hybrid model may emerge but remains uncertain, noting resistance to regulation and the fluid nature of the technology. He concludes by announcing an imminent Everipedia relaunch, positioning the platform as a highly usable dApp that could compete with traditional web applications while retaining blockchain benefits.
Chapters
TranscriptAuto-generated · 13 min
So here we are with Larry Sanger. Am I saying it right? Yep. From Everipedia. And what I'm interested in, and possibly our viewers too, is that what's the main difference between Everipedia and Wikipedia?
There's several differences. First of all, it has a more modern design sensibility, so it looks better on your phone. It is— we're also doing a massive relaunch, rewriting the site from the ground up. So it's already WYSIWYG, and it has been for the last 3 or 4 years. What you see is what you get, in other words, what that means. But it's going to be even easier. It's going to be as easy to edit as it is to edit a Medium blog or a WordPress blog in the new redesign of WordPress. But that's all just the superficial appearance and ease of use, which is important, right? We think actually especially important for a competitive blockchain app, a dApp. But we also, we are the encyclopedia of everything. That's why it's called Everipedia, so we have no restrictions on the topics.
Wikipedia has.
Of course, yes. I mean, Wikipedia does not allow articles on non-notable subjects. Yeah, yeah, so if you're not notable, you can't have an article. So, right, and we actually prefer it that way. It makes it more open, and we are more relaxed. Not that we have lower standards or anything, we don't actually, but we want to cast the net much more widely. We think there could be hundreds of millions of articles rather than 5 million articles or whatever. Okay, the big difference though, as of about 18 months ago, is that we are moving on to the blockchain and we in fact already have So now we're not only the Encyclopedia of Everything, we're also the Blockchain Encyclopedia. We're the first encyclopedia to be edited via a blockchain, the first wiki to be edited via a blockchain with a blockchain backend. And that is going to make a huge number of differences. The users will be able to compensate themselves essentially by interacting with our smart contracts. for their work and also work their way into co-ownership of the network, essentially. Something that Wikipedia doesn't permit. The value that they create just sort of goes into the ether. So, right, there's a lot of other reasons actually, but those are the main ones.
Yeah, that sounded quite a clear difference. They are very clear differences and I I think that's kind of got— that you answered quite well to what I was looking for. So thanks for that. And the other thing, I was listening to your speech yesterday at the conference main hall. And you told about Web 2.0 versus Web 3.0. And you said that 2.0 was more of the human side. So what brings— what more brings Web 3.0, or what is the main ingredient in 3.0 if in 2.0 it was the social and human side?
Right. Well, I guess what I was saying is that if you're going to use the version numbers for the entire internet and Web 2.0 is basically about the the way that the internet changes society or shapes society, that Web 3.0 would be as well. Because I mean, there's been all kinds of technological changes that have happened between, you know, the beginning of Web 2.0, which would be like 2006 or something like that, and today, you know, the advent of smartphones, for example, and And various other things. Okay. And the rise of ubiquitous AI and so forth. And some people, you know, might point to those sorts of things as being markers of the next development of the internet. But no, I think it should be about technology or about the interaction of technology and society. And here's the— thing that we're facing right now. There are forces of centralization and decentralization, both extremely powerful and with lots of vocal advocates, and sometimes the same people are advocates, and yet they seem to be contradictory. So on one hand, there are giant networks that many of us use and even depend on, professionally and the giant corporations behind them that are trying to mold the user behavior in ways that suit them, not necessarily the users. So our behavior is being, you could say, centralized by them. And also ownership or control, to a certain extent, of our data is It's in their hands, again centralized. And if Mark Zuckerberg gets his way and there are big corporate controls over social media, I actually think that is going to help further consolidate the power of the social media giants. It's not going to break them up. He doesn't want that, right? It's going to actually create some sort of sensible controls. Okay, that's all on the one side. And on the other side— oh, and by the way, those sensible controls will be controls that smaller new competitors might not be able to satisfy. And that's part of the difficulty. And I think that's actually part of the reason why Mark Zuckerberg is actually in favor of being regulated. Okay, on the other hand, there's blockchain. There is the proliferation of really easy-to-use and install personal cloud servers like one that I put in my home. This allows me to control my own data, to run my own apps. When I access apps on my phone here, I am tapping into something that is very like a cloud, but it actually lives at home in my office, right? Yeah. Okay, so I control my own data and that decentralizes the data, takes it out of the public cloud, right? There's also similar sorts of things in the blockchain world and the Tor network that are decentralizing data, allowing us to take back ownership. Well, if it's decentralized and we actually have ownership, what does that mean? It means that it can't be regulated, right? So if you're up in arms about disinformation, if you want to call it that, or hate speech or whatever online, you can't be in favor of these other things too. It's one or the other. Yeah. Either you're in favor of blockchain and digital independence on the one hand, or you're in favor of centralization and control. You can't have it both ways.
So it's about kind of like freedom and control on the other hand that are the main facing powers.
Yes, exactly.
Yeah. So do you have any views on the future? What's coming up regarding— is it going to be a hybrid model? You said that it's kind of impossible. But is there any chance that it could be a merging somehow of these 2?
You know, in my speech I didn't want to speculate, and okay, so you're asking me to speculate. And okay, it's, it's, I don't know actually. Uh, so on the one hand, I actually think there's, there's going to be Furious resistance on the part of libertarians online and the blockchain community to any really aggressive, destructive attempts at regulation of blockchain, right? So even if they— so for example, if they require, if they, you know, the United States, for example, or the EU outlaws all blockchain technology that doesn't have user accounts with— that are identified in some sort of real-world terms according to some sort of standards, that actually would, in the opinion of many, ruin blockchain. It would just absolutely change the nature of the thing. And yet if it's going to be regulated, it pretty much has— that has to be the case. That's going to be one of the big questions, but it's difficult to imagine that every single country in the world will prevent that from happening. On the other hand, the institutional involvement is going to be of that sort, it seems to me. Like if If banks or central banks or whatever start using blockchain technology to create stablecoins, like, that's actually one thing that our company Everipedia is doing. A group within the company, actually independent of the encyclopedia, is creating software for central banks, which are very interested in releasing their own stablecoins. Yeah, but okay, is it really going to be a blockchain? We'll see. It depends on what the requirements are. So the technology is very fluid. This is why it's so difficult to make predictions. I think it probably will end up being some sort of hybrid, but exactly what it would look like and whether it will actually allow the dreams that we have for blockchain to actually come into— come to fruition seems unlikely to me, I guess. I'm not saying that I don't think those dreams are not going to come into fruition, because after all, people might have said that about the internet in general, right? And yet the glories of the internet are before us right now. So—
So it's unclear, but there's some some guidelines in a way to be seen, or like guideline is maybe not the word, but some steps which are to be taken in a way, both sides, on both sides, like the regulators and, and the freedomers. But yeah, so, um, I think this is it for it now. You were very, very informative. with your answers, and I hope our viewers got something new to think about regarding blockchains and free information. Anything to say in the end?
Well, please be on the lookout for our launch, which should be happening within the next few weeks. Yeah, we're testing right now. Pretty heavily, and our functionality is very mature. And now we just need to work out some of the last little kinks, and it's going to be pretty neat. We're going to be one of the most usable dApps in the world. We hope to be leaders in basically showing the way to make a viable consumer app that actually goes head-to-head with existing technology that just has the added bonus of being a blockchain app.
