An online encyclopedia where every person can collaborate: that's idea behind Wikipedia. Users can create, edit and add contributions. Jimmy Wales helped to set up 2001 platform and headed to 2006 Wikimedia Foundation, foundation behind Wikipedia. Today he sits on supervisory board of encyclopedia as Chairman emeritus and has built up a communitybasiertes news portal with WikiTribune. Time Online has met him in Cape Town.
Online Time: HerrWales, with Donald Trump, US has a president who leads people to Twitterbeschimpft and a fight against media. What annoys you most about Trump?
Jimmy Wales: Laughs Oh ever, current presidency... You know, for me, it's essentially attack on facts and truth. This is much more important than jeglichepolitische disagreement. The persistent nonsense just makes me megalomaniac. Of course, I'm not telling anything special, I'm sure VielenLeuten will. But when you come from world of Wikipedia, where we soleidenschaftlich to wrestle facts and try to use as precise as possible seinund qualitative sources – of course we don't get it perfekthin, but we try – n it's horrible to have a To see government, which is doing exactly opposite, namely to create confusion and steal from it.
Online Time: Do you think that verification of information under Trump has gained in importance?
Wales: I thought. We are observing a development that is very happy about dicalibrate, namely real resistance to concept of fake news. Since election, donations for Wikipedia have risen. And not only at Unsmerkt you get effect, number of subscribers of digital New York Times has risen from one million to three million within a few years. That is a good sign, people wollenQualitätsjournalismus, reports based on facts. And y understand that this Clickbaitunsinn is not true in social media. A bit of boulevard doesn't hurt, but if this is only kind of derInformation, that's not enough to understand world.
Online Time: False messages are still distributed through network. BeobachtenSie more attacks on Wikipedia entries, so more attempts to spread false messages?
Wales: Not really. The right fake news institutions have almost no influence on Wikipedia, because Wikipedias put great Wertauf qualitative sources. If a headline like "Pope supports Trump" makes rounds in social networks, n Wikipedias say: "Hm, this is unusual, because pope does not support politicians." They would research DieQuelle and maybe it would be something like Denver Guardian. They would not have heard of source, so y would continue to research and find that cited source does not exist. By way, this is one of ways in which fake news spread: Denver Guardian sounds like a real newspaper, so many people don't check site and share posts just happily.
Online Time: Do you Wiesorgen that such texts are not quoted? Is re a Artschwarze list of Wikipedia publications that are not recognized as VerlässlicheQuelle?
Wales: Yes and no. This is a bit complicated, it's kind of spam filter with URLs that can't be put on Wikipedia. For example, if someone posts thousands of URLs to his stupid, pop-up advertising web site, those URLs come to list and we say that's not a source. I do not know if this is also used for proper fake news pages, probably to a small extent, but mostly it is eineredaktionelle assessment. There was a while ago quite a whirl around Daily Mail in England. There, DieWikipedia community in England has said that Daily Mail is not a reliable source. But re is keinenSoftwareban on Wikipedia. This means that newspaper as a source is not preferred, because people know that it usually brings inflammatory nonsense. Abernatürlich There are cases in which it operates journalism and one would quote Daily Mail.
Online Time: Wiesteht it with a right medium like Breitbart news – is Eineverlässliche source according to Wikipedia?
Wales: That depends. There are situations in which DenenBreitbart has something that no one else has. I myself haven't seen any link zuBreitbart as a source, but that's for sure.Updated Date: 04 August 2018, 12:00