What Wikipedia’s Success Reveals About Trust & Are We All Too Fearful?

Summary

---

Something You Should Know – Episode Summary

Podcast: Something You Should Know
Host: Mike Carruthers
Episode: What Wikipedia’s Success Reveals About Trust & Are We All Too Fearful?
Date: November 3, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into two main themes: the underappreciated power of trust, as exemplified by Wikipedia’s enduring success, and the roots and realities of modern fear—why we feel so much of it and how it distorts our view of the world. Host Mike Carruthers speaks with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales to uncover the lessons Wikipedia teaches about trusting strangers to do good, and with journalist Ruth DeFoster, who explores the psychology and culture of fear in society.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Test-Taking Myth (03:17–06:32)

• Debunking Common Advice:
  Mike starts off the episode by challenging the widespread advice, “go with your first answer” on tests, which has been repeated for generations.
  • Research shows people who revisit and change their test answers tend to do better overall.
  • Key insight: People remember feeling worse about switching a right answer to a wrong one (the “first instinct fallacy”) and forget the times changing was beneficial.
• Actionable Tip:
  Mark uncertain answers, return later, and don’t be afraid to change your mind.

---

2. Wikipedia & Lessons On Trust with Jimmy Wales

Trust as Foundation (06:33–08:52)

• Wikipedia as an "Experiment in Trust":

  • Wales illustrates how Wikipedia runs on mutual trust—users trust the site’s accuracy, and Wikipedia trusts its volunteer editors by default.
  • The decline in societal trust is a real problem; fostering a culture of trust is crucial.

• Notable Quote (Jimmy Wales at 07:15):
  “We go into restaurants all the time and people are there with deadly weapons eating next to us and you know, they’re basically trustworthy.”

Transparency & Neutrality (09:25–10:30)

• Building Trust through Transparency:

  • Wikipedia flags contested articles upfront (e.g., “The neutrality of this article has been disputed”)—a practice Wales wishes traditional media would emulate.
  • Neutrality and openness are core to Wikipedia’s credibility.

• Notable Quote (Jimmy Wales at 09:42):
  “Like, how do you build trust when people inherently start off saying, oh, what this is crazy. Like anybody can edit anything. That sounds completely insane. And why would I trust that?”

How Wikipedia Moderation & Community Work (10:43–13:43)

• Openness and Positive Contributions:

  • 99% of Wikipedia is open to editing without an account; most edits are small fixes or fact additions from well-meaning people.
  • Tools notify editors when their watched pages are changed.
  • Admins—elected by the community—can warn, block, or lock pages against abuse.
  • Most vandalism comes from curiosity or disbelief rather than malice; warnings and short blocks are often effective.

• Notable Quote (Jimmy Wales at 11:02):
  “On average, people are doing it. So there's that experience. We have to say, well, actually, it does work.”

• Community & Friendships:
  Editing niches foster friendships; shared interests bring people together, even around obscure topics.

Contrasts With Social Media (13:58–15:34)

• Toxicity Elsewhere:
  Unlike social media, Wikipedia’s system discourages toxic engagement and doesn’t reward bad actors with attention or algorithmic amplification.

Trust, Neutrality, & Donations (19:39–22:31)

• Why People Cooperate:

  • Even on divisive topics, consensus for neutrality is often achieved.
  • Wales uses the example of a Catholic priest and Planned Parenthood activist collaborating on the “abortion” article—both want fair representation of differing viewpoints.

• Financial Independence:
  Wikipedia is a charity, primarily funded by small donors, not governments or billionaires, thus ensuring editorial independence.

• Scope & Scale:
  1.5–2 billion devices access Wikipedia monthly. Content exists in many languages; separate communities maintain their own content.

• Notable Quote (Jimmy Wales at 20:12):
  “You really want to get the whole story. You want neutrality. And that's another big piece of how we think about building trust.”

The Rise of AI & Wikipedia's Future (24:17–26:43)

• Impact of AI:
  Despite the growth of AI search summaries, Wikipedia’s traffic hasn’t notably declined; AI relies on Wikipedia as a source and often cites it.

  • Users still seek out Wikipedia due to its transparency and trustworthiness compared to sometimes inaccurate AI summaries.

• On Academic Use:
  Students beware: teachers also read Wikipedia, so copying won’t fly.

---

3. Fear: What Science, History, and Culture Teach Us – with Ruth DeFoster

What is Fear? (30:18–30:49)

• Innate vs. Learned Fear:
  Humans are born with just two innate fears: loud sounds and falling. All others are learned through experience and culture.

• Notable Quote (Ruth DeFoster at 30:53): “Humans are only born with two innate fears, fear of loud sounds and fear of falling.”

The Problem of Too Little (or Too Much) Fear (31:12–32:40)

• Case Study: Disease Without Fear:
  Patients with Urbach-Wiethe disease can't experience fear; this can put them in real danger, as fear has evolutionary value.

• Notable Moment (32:10): “Once she was held up at gunpoint, and because she can’t feel fear, she just laughed at her attacker.” — Ruth DeFoster

Socially Constructed Fear & The Media (34:13–35:26)

• Rise of Excess Fear:
  Ruth argues that overblown, sensationalized fears are poisoning politics and daily life, amplified by social media “outrage algorithms.”

• Media Diets Skew Perceptions:
  Consuming lots of violent/crime media (true crime, terrorism coverage) increases perceived danger.

• Notable Quote (35:57): “There’s a term... ‘mean world syndrome’... People who have really heavy media diets of violent or frightening media... perceive the world as being considerably more dangerous than it is.”

The Reality of Rare Risks (36:12–38:43)

• Statistical Reality:

  • International terrorism: Risk approaches zero compared to everyday dangers (e.g., lawnmowers).
  • Air travel is far safer than car travel, despite public perception.

• Halloween Candy Panic:
  The myth of poisoned Halloween candy almost never happens—fear persists despite strong evidence.

Cycles & Myths of Fear (39:07–41:12)

• Generational Fears:

  • Mass hysteria themes repeat (e.g., Salem witch trials → Satanic Panic → QAnon).
  • Vaccine fears are centuries old, now dangerous for public health due to declining immunization rates.

• Child-Focused Fears:
  Societal fears often focus on children’s safety, frequently leveraged to justify policy or social control.

Toxins, Health Myths, and Overcorrection (42:07–44:39)

• “Toxins” Scam:
  The wellness industry exploits the vague fear of “toxins”—a clinically meaningless term, hyped by unregulated supplement sellers.

• Healthy Caution, Unhealthy Obsession:
  Balancing the natural desire to protect our children with the risk of becoming overly restrictive or developing anxiety disorders.

Stranger Danger & Overprotected Kids (44:39–47:35)

• Safer Than Ever:
  Statistically, violent crime is way down, but overprotection and “stranger danger” fears keep kids indoors—a trend Ruth laments.

  • Example: In the 1970s, kids roamed neighborhoods freely; today, their “domain” is often just the backyard.

• Parenting Trends:
  Shift from “latchkey” hands-off approach to “snowplow parenting” overcorrection; both extremes have downsides.

• Notable Quote (45:23):
  “By almost any metric, we live in an unprecedented era of safety and security... But for those of us who are in the United States and who are in the Western world, we're doing really well.” — Ruth DeFoster

---

4. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |-----------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 07:15 | Jimmy | “We go into restaurants all the time and people are there with deadly weapons … they’re basically trustworthy.” | | 09:42 | Jimmy | “Like, how do you build trust when people inherently start off saying, oh, what this is crazy. Like anybody can edit anything…” | | 11:02 | Jimmy | “On average, people are doing it. So there's that experience. We have to say, well, actually, it does work.” | | 20:12 | Jimmy | “You really want to get the whole story. You want neutrality. And that's another big piece of how we think about building trust.” | | 30:53 | Ruth | “Humans are only born with two innate fears, fear of loud sounds and fear of falling.” | | 32:10 | Ruth | “Once she was held up at gunpoint, and because she can’t feel fear, she just laughed at her attacker.” | | 35:57 | Ruth | “There’s a term...‘mean world syndrome’ … People who have really heavy media diets of violent or frightening media...perceive the world as being considerably more dangerous than it is.” | | 45:23 | Ruth | “By almost any metric, we live in an unprecedented era of safety and security...But for those of us who are in the United States and who are in the Western world, we're doing really well.” |

---

5. Practical Takeaways

• Trust:
  Most people are trustworthy; systems that assume good faith (like Wikipedia) can flourish with openness and transparency.
• Overcoming Fear:
  Examine your fears—are they learned from constant media exposure, myths, or real threats?
• Media Consumption:
  Diversify your information sources and resist sensationalized, negative content that can distort perspective.
• Child Safety:
  Give children more freedom—statistically, the world is safer than ever.

---

6. Timestamps for Main Segments

• Test-taking Myth Debunked: 03:17–06:32
• Interview with Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia and Trust): 06:33–27:34
• Interview with Ruth DeFoster (Fear, Culture, and Media): 29:33–48:08
• Practical Life Advice (“Looking Taller” segment): 48:13–50:19

---

Summary

This episode offers a nuanced look at trust—how Wikipedia has defied skepticism through faith in human decency and transparent safeguards—and uncovers the fog of modern fear, much of it learned and reinforced by media and culture rather than grounded in reality. Carruthers’s conversations with Jimmy Wales and Ruth DeFoster are rich with stories, analogies, and scientific insights, making this a thoughtful exploration of two forces shaping our world: what (and whom) we trust, and what we fear.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey friends, it's Karamo, talk show host.

[B]

Life coach, and your next best friend. You just don't know it yet.

[A]

I'm hosting a new podcast called Started on Brotherhoods. We're going around the world to explore male friendships and all the wins, challenges and bonds that are made in WhatsApp group chats.

[B]

And that's exactly where you can listen.

[A]

To it, right in the app. It's streaming on the official WhatsApp channel. Just open the app and go to the Updates tab to start listening. While you're at it, message your best friend and make sure they listen too.

[B]

I'll see you there Today on something you should know why the most common test taking advice you hear is completely wrong. Then some great insight into trust from the founder of Wikipedia, which runs entirely on trust.

[A]

The lessons that I've learned through Wikipedia. The lessons in my career about trust. Like how do you build trust when people inherently start off saying, oh what, this is crazy. Like anybody can edit anything that sounds completely insane. And why would I trust that?

[B]

Also, clever ways to help you look taller and the fascinating science behind why many things we fear the most we really shouldn't. Air travel, serial killers, even terrorism.

[C]

I mean terrorism, especially international terrorism, is a problem so minuscule that it statistically approaches zero. You are literally more likely to be killed by your lawnmower.

[B]

All this today on something you should know. One thing I've learned about running a business is this. Just because you can run a business doesn't mean you're good at hiring. Hiring is a skill all its own, and if you get it wrong, it costs you time, money and momentum. I've been there. That's why I recommend Indeed because they make the whole process faster, easier, and they deliver better outcomes. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need. Instead of struggling to get your job post noticed, Indeed's sponsored Jobs helps you stand out. So what happens is your listing jumps right to the top of the page for the right candidates. So you reach the people you actually want to reach faster. And the difference is real. According to Indeed data, Sponsored Jobs posted directly on Indeed, you get 45% more applications than non sponsored jobs. I mean, that's huge. And to give you an idea of just how fast it works in the minute I've been talking, 23 hires were made on Indeed. According to Indeed data worldwide. No wonder more than three and a half million employers already use it. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility@ Indeed.com something just go to Indeed.com something right now and support this show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com something terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.

[A]

Something you should know Fascinating intel, the.

[B]

World'S top experts and practical advice you can use in your life today. Something you Should Know with Mike Carruthers. You know, my mother was a teacher. First she was a nurse and then she taught nursing for several years. And I remember she used to tell her students and she used to tell me that when you take a test and you're not sure about your answer, go with your first answer. But is that really good advice? That's what we're going to start with today. Hi and welcome to this episode of Something youg Should Know. We've all heard the advice that when you take a multiple choice test and you're not sure, go with your first answer. Teachers, test prep books, my mom have repeated that for generations and it sounds reasonable. After all, your first instinct should be your best, right? Well, no, that turns out to be not true. A large body of research covering seven decades of studies shows that test takers who reconsider and change their answers actually tend to end up with higher overall test scores. Psychologists have looked at thousands of exams from classroom tests, SAT style tests, DMV type quizzes, and over and over again, the same pattern appears. When people actually change an answer, they're far more likely to switch from wrong to right than from right to wrong. So where does this trust your first instinct myth come from and why does it persist? Well, it's because of something called the first instinct fallacy. It's a mental bias we all share. When we change a correct answer to a wrong one, it sticks in our memory. We feel regret and we remember it, but we tend to forget all the times we've changed answers that actually helped us. In other words, we remember the emotional sting of being wrong more vividly than the quiet success of being right. So experts say the best strategy during a multiple choice test is to mark any question you're unsure about, move on, and come back later with a fresh perspective. And that is something you should know. Chances are you've looked up something recently on Wikipedia. We all have. It is the largest collection of knowledge in human history and it is built entirely by volunteers. And when you think about it, it is also one of the great experiments in trust. Users have to trust that Wikipedia is accurate, and Wikipedia has to trust that its editors, who are all volunteers, are acting in good faith. Somehow, against all odds, it works. My guest is Jimmy Wales. He's the founder of Wikipedia and he knows a thing or two about how trust is built and maintained. He's also the author of the Seven Rules of Trust, A Blueprint for Building Things that Last. Hey Jimmy, welcome to Something youg Should Know.

[A]

Hi there. Thanks for having me. It's good to be here.

[B]

So here you've built this thing, Wikipedia, really, entirely on trust. So how do you view trust? What is it about trust that you find so interesting?

[A]

Yeah, well, you just need to look around at the world today. We've seen this really bad decline in trust in institutions, trust in journalism, trust in politics, trust in each other to some extent and it's causing all kinds of problems. People don't know what to believe or who to believe. And, you know, I think we need to get back to a culture where we can trust people.

[B]

And is there evidence though to support that idea that we should be more trusting of people? That people are in fact trustworthy?

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I think we all get this in our day to day lives. You know, a visual or an image that I use to talk about this is, you know, you imagine that you're asked to design a restaurant and you think, okay, right, I'm going to. It's not just designing just how the tablecloths look and things like that. You're going to really go out of the box and say, how would we build a restaurant? And you think, okay, well in my restaurant I'm going to serve steak because I like steak. And everybody's going to have a steak knife. And therefore, because they might stab each other, we better put a cage around every table. But obviously that's ridiculous. We don't live our lives that way. We go into restaurants all the time and people are there with deadly weapons eating next to us and you know, they're basically trustworthy. And you know, we have friends, we have family, we have strangers, we meet in an elevator. And basically almost everybody's decent. Decent human beings are all around us and we know that and we really feel that. And yet somehow when we get out into social media or we're thinking sort of bigger picture, there's this toxicity that's crept in where you can really get the idea. And I'm sure we'll talk more about this. You can get the idea from social media that there's just the general public is just full of crazy, angry people. That's just not really how it is.

[B]

When you first founded Wikipedia several years ago, I remember people saying, well, you can't trust it. Nobody trusts Wikipedia. And yet when people have researched the accuracy of the articles on Wikipedia, it passes with flying colors, even though those articles are edited and written by volunteers. And really, anybody can go in and edit an article on Wikipedia. So how. How have you dealt with that? Explain that.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I. I think a big part of it is this is the lessons that I've learned through Wikipedia, the lessons of my career about trust. Like, how do you build trust when people inherently start off saying, oh, what this is crazy. Like this idea, anybody can edit anything.

[C]

That.

[A]

That sounds completely insane. And why would I trust that? And so you think about, okay, but, you know, we know it's not insane. What are the things we need to do to build trust? And so, like, you know, one of the things that we need to do is around transparency. I mean, you know, you'll often see if you read a lot of Wikipedia entries, you'll see the neutrality of this article has been disputed right at the top of the page. And I always joke, you know, I wish the New York Times would print that sometimes, you know, to sell us, you know, like, we're going to run with this story. But we had a big fight in the newsroom. Like, not everybody's so sure about it, but we feel like it's important to tell. Tell you this reporting, but also that there may be some difficulty around it. I mean, that's great. I would trust them more if they could be a little more transparent about that sort of thing.

[B]

Well, since Wikipedia is trust in action, is it possible to explain how that works? Maybe it's too complicated. Hopefully it's more simple. But can you explain how it works?

[A]

It's both complicated and really simple. I mean, I do think it goes back to, you know, when we look at new edits coming in, even from people who aren't logged in. So you can still edit 99% of Wikipedia without even logging in or having an account and it goes live immediately. I can look at those edits.

[B]

Wait, wait, I can?

[A]

Yeah, you can. Right now, you can go to almost any article in Wikipedia, not the most famous ones, obviously, and not ones that have had trouble, but, you know, broadly pick something, you know, unknown. And then when we look at those edits that are coming in, what we find is, although they're not as good of a quality as that of really experienced Wikipedians who've been doing it for years and who understand all of the parameters and so Forth, but they're still on net positive. Like most people, they just come and they. They just maybe fix a spelling error or they add some fact, or they just put a link at the bottom to something they think is important. And on average, people are doing it. So there's that experience. We have to say, well, actually, it does work. So that part's simple. But then the more complicated bit, right? So we have, you know, the regular users of the website have a lot of tools to be able to monitor things. So anything you've edited in the past, you get a notification if you want to when you log in to say, oh, here's the things you're watching and here's something changed so you can keep an eye on it. We have admins who are elected by the community and, you know, they can temporarily block people or they can lock pages if there's a big fight or some kind of problem. And so those are the kinds of things that we do to try to say, okay, right, we are going to deal with that. Less, less than 1% of people who come in and they're, they're being annoying or they're, you know, not doing what they're supposed to. But even there, you know, usually what we do is we see, you know, there's some great stories of Wikipedians, like really great, wonderful people who, they started editing Wikipedia when they were very young by vandalizing a page because they couldn't believe they could do it. And then somebody says to them, hey, you know, like, yeah, don't do that. That's not really what we're doing here. We're trying to make an encyclopedia. And then people are like, oh, okay, right. Well, great. I didn't realize, like, this is actually nice people, and I should be a nice person, too. And so it's. Building that culture is a big part of how it, how it all works. But it's very human. It's. It's really. People get to know each other. There's a lot of friendships. There's a lot of people who are, you know, you. You might edit. Maybe your favorite subject is trains. Because there are, you know, trained people who are obsessed with trains. And they may go and edit, you know, the history of various locomotive engines from the 1930s. And through Wikipedia, they get to meet somebody else who, believe it or not, is interested in the same thing. And so they make friendships. They're like, oh, wow, look, I didn't know anybody was as obsessed with this as I am. So, yeah, great, we can work together.

[B]

So wait a Minute. So somebody goes on Wikipedia and tries to vandalize or tries to screw up an entry, you contact them and go, hey, knocking off. We're trying. All trying to get along here. Did I hear you correctly? You do that?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, hopefully. I mean, you know, it depends on the situation and it's. It's very human. It's admins doing this and they normally will post a warning on the talk page before they block you forever. It sort of depends on what you do. Like, if you've done something minor, you're more likely to get that. If you went around in quick succession, like putting really vile stuff on 10 pages in a row, they're probably just going to block you first and just say, you know, knock it off. Like, that's ridiculous. But usually that first block is just for a short period of time. And you do get a message saying, hey, you've been blocked for 24 hours. You know, knock it off. You can get permanently banned, of course, but by and large, most people, they get blocked once and they're like, all right, well, that wasn't that exciting. So they stop. And I think it's. Love that. I think it's really important to understand, like, one of the problems we have with almost every social media platform these days is that far from getting blocked, if you go on and you start being rude and abusive, you get a lot of attention. You. You either get attention because, well, people can't help but respond back by yelling back at you. And then, you know, that's a waste of everybody's time. But it's very human. But also, maybe the algorithm notices you and says, ah, this person's getting a lot of engagement. There's a lot of, you know, people are staying on the site longer in order to talk to this person. So we're going to show more of their content to more people. And of course, that means toxic content. You know, it just goes viral sometimes and that's not helpful.

[B]

I'm speaking with Jimmy Wales. We're talking about trust. He is the founder of Wikipedia and author of the book the Seven Rules of A Blueprint for Building Things that Last. You know, my mornings used to be a scramble coffee, breakfast, trying to remember what supplements to take. It was a lot to juggle. And now I start every day with a single scoop of AG1. And it's made my morning so much easier and better. In one mix. Here's what I get. I get nutrients from real whole foods, plus prebiotics, probiotics and enzymes that support my digestion. And gut health after just a few weeks. I mean, I can tell it's working. My energy feels steady all day. I don't have to think about juggling five different pills or powders. And what I Love is that AG1 isn't just another supplement. It's a daily microhabit that supports whole body health in one scoop. It's simple, it's consistent, and it fits easily into my routine. One scoop, shake, drink. Done. And I know I've done something good for myself before the day even starts. It's become a small ritual that sets the tone for the entire day. AG1 helps me stay one scoop ahead. Head to drinkag1.comsysk to get a free welcome kit with an AG1 flavor sampler and a bottle of vitamin D3 plus K2 when you first subscribed. That's drinkag1.comsysk with the weather getting colder and the holidays upon us, I just want my wardrobe to be easy. Things that look sharp, feel great and last season after season. Which is exactly what I get from Quince. I reach for my quince cashmere sweaters constantly. They're 100% Mongolian cashmere and somehow they're just 50 bucks. Soft, warm and the kind of everyday luxury that doesn't feel overdone. And their denim is another favorite. Great fit, easy to wear and it holds up beautifully. And if you're looking for a holiday gift to give without the big price tag, guilt, Quince is perfect for that. Those cashmere sweaters I just mentioned, they make great gifts. And their wool coats, you gotta check them out. They're stylish and durable and their quality is top of the line. It's amazing how many people have found Quince and love it. What I love is how Quince works directly with ethical factories and top artisans cutting out the middlemen so you get premium quality at half the cost of other high end brands. It's luxury without the markup, which means you can give something nice this season or keep it for yourself. Give and get timeless holiday staples that last this season with quince. Go to quince.comsysk for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.comSYSK Free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comSYSK so Jimmy, I mean this is a whole business and just listening to you talk it explains why you wrote a book about trust. Because your whole business is built on trusting people. And I can imagine whenever I don't recall when you started Wikipedia, but if you sat around the table with people and said, okay, I got this idea. We're going to start this thing that became Wikipedia, I would imagine everyone would say, well, that is never going to work because people will have agendas and this will not be neutral at all. And this will be. And would just destroy this idea. I don't know how it survived that if it did happen.

[A]

People do wonder about that, and they say that. I mean, it turns out there are a lot of people in the world who actually are very happy to see ideas presented in a clear and neutral way, even if they agree with one side or the other. They say, well, look, to really be fair, we need to explain very well, like, what's the fight about? What's the argument? My favorite type of example is to imagine a kind and thoughtful Catholic priest and a kind and thoughtful Planned Parenthood activist, and they could work together on the article abortion, as long as they're kind and thoughtful, which is what I specified. Because they'll both say, okay, right? The Catholic priest will say, look, I understand Wikipedia can't say, you know, abortion is a sin. It can't sort of just blindly put for the Catholic Church point of view, but it can say, the Catholic Church point of view is this, and the Pope has said that, and the argument is this, and critics have responded thus and such and so on. And that's really what you want out of an encyclopedia. You really want to get the whole story. You want neutrality. And that's another big piece of how we think about building trust.

[B]

And you make your money from donations, correct? Yes.

[A]

Yeah. So Wikipedia is a charity. The Wikimedia foundation is the charity I set up that owns and operates Wikipedia. And we're funded very, very much by the small donors. So, you know, the people who are giving their 20 bucks once a year, they see the. The notice and they go, oh, yeah, right, Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia. I'm gonna. I'm gonna chip in my 20 bucks. And I think that's really important, that we're not funded by governments. We're not funded by a handful of billionaires because it gives us intellectual independence. We're able to say, the community can say, oh, we can write the truth. We can do what we need to do without worrying about if we're going to offend a donor.

[B]

So, Jimmy, I'm sure everyone listening has heard of Wikipedia, has read articles on Wikipedia, has referenced Wikipedia, but I'm curious exactly how many people actually use Wikipedia.

[A]

So in a Month's time, we see about 2 billion devices access Wikipedia. Now, we don't do a lot of tracking, so we can't link up. If you're on your phone or you're on your laptop, we don't know you're the same person, so we can't really tell. But, you know, 2 billion devices. So lots of people over the course of a month would see Wikipedia from two devices. Some people would see it only from one, some people only have one device. So I'd say probably a billion and a half people every month. Probably.

[B]

That's a lot of people.

[A]

It is a lot of people.

[B]

And so.

[A]

And it's in so many languages as well. You know, we're, we're all around the world and so many countries, so many languages. And that adds a lot of richness to the, to the whole, you know, the whole community.

[B]

And so how does the language thing work? Do all Wikipedia articles, say, start in English and then they get translated, or each language has its own database of articles or what?

[A]

Yeah, well, each language is written separately. So, you know, if you look at Japanese Wikipedia, it's. And who edits it, it's 99% of the people or something like that are, are in Japan and they're Japanese people editing Japanese Wikipedia. And maybe, yeah, sometimes people translate. Actually, I think there's as much translation into English as out of English because, you know, oftentimes people have two languages, and if you have two languages, probably your second language is English because it's the most popular second language in the world. And so maybe you're writing about your, you know, local village in Poland and you think, oh, yeah, well, I've just written this in Polish. I can see they don't have it in English. I'll go and add something there. And, you know, people sometimes are a little shy about that because they know my English isn't so good. But these days, machine translation is getting better. Also, the communities do know each other a bit and they say, oh, yeah, come. Yeah, we're the, we're the English Language Polish Wiki project, and we want to help Polish people sort of share knowledge about Poland, because probably it's people who are, you know, living abroad and are Polish themselves and so on and so forth. So that kind of collaboration happens. But there really are independent communities.

[B]

And are you concerned at all that AI will displace some of the people who use Wikipedia? Rather than look at the Wikipedia article about Paris, I can ask ChatGPT exactly what I want to know about Paris. So maybe I'LL does that concern you?

[A]

Well, it doesn't concern us that much. And at least so far, we haven't seen any really material impact on our traffic from the rise of AI. There was a study showing that, you know how when you, when you search in Google these days, you often get an AI summary at the top, right? And so the study said that for traditional search results, Wikipedia is in the top 10 3% of the time. But in AI summaries, Wikipedia is cited 6% of the time. So we get cited a lot more. We, but people click through a lot less because as you say, maybe they just got the answer they were looking for. You know, you used to type sitting at home, having dinner with your family or friend, and you say, oh, how old is Tom Cruise anyway? I don't know, let's check. And you Google, how old is Tom Cruise? And back in the olden days, 10 years ago, the olden days, Google didn't know. Google had no idea how old Tom Cruise was. They just linked to Wikipedia. Now Google knows, Google just tells you, but it also gives you the source. So you might not click through or you might get tempted to click through. So we haven't seen much impact on our traffic. And then again, there's this question of trust. When we think about what do you trust? I mean, I find those Google AI summaries in particular are often quite confused. I think part of that is because when you're searching, you just type two or three keywords, so it doesn't really know what you're trying to ask. And so sometimes it just answers hilariously.

[B]

Well, I love your story because here's Wikipedia, which is really the foundation of it, is people writing articles and editing articles. It's very not high tech in that regard, like AI is, but yet people love it. I mean, people truly, as evidenced by the numbers you just gave. People still love it and use it. And I know schoolteachers hate it in some ways because they're afraid kids will rip it off and that'll be their essay.

[A]

But I love to go out and talk to young people at schools and so on. And one of the things I always say to young people is you might think you could just copy from Wikipedia, but guess what? Your teachers also read Wikipedia. That isn't going to work.

[B]

Well, this is such an interesting framework to use to talk about trust because here you've got this business that really is built on trust. The foundation of Wikipedia is trust. We've got to trust that it's accurate and you've got to trust. As the founder of Wikipedia, you have to trust that the people editing the articles are being accurate. And it all seems to work. I've been talking with Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia and author of the book the Seven Rules of A Blueprint for Building Things that Last. And there's a link to his book in the show notes. Jimmy, thank you for being here.

[A]

Yeah, thank you.

[B]

Starting something new like a podcast or a side hustle or your first business can feel overwhelming. You have to wear every hat. Creator, accountant, marketer, customer service. It's a lot. That's why I really like Shopify. It's the partner that helps you do all of it without needing to be an expert at everything. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world, powering 10% of all US E commerce. And that's from big names like Mattel and Gymshark to entrepreneurs who are just getting started. You can design a beautiful online store in minutes with hundreds of their ready to go templates that fit your brand perfectly and there's no coding required. Shopify's built in AI tools even help you write product descriptions and create headlines, enhance product photos. And when you're ready to get the word out, Shopify makes marketing simple. You can run email and social media campaigns right where your customers are. And behind it all, Shopify is your commerce expert, handling payments, inventory, shipping, returns and analytics so you can focus on your ideas instead of your to do list. Turn your big business idea into With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com sysk go to shopify.com sysk shopify.com sysk.

[C]

Every holiday shopper's got a list. But Ross shoppers? You've got a mission. Like a gift run that turns into a disco. Snow globe, throw pillows and PJs for the whole family, dog included. At Ross Holiday magic isn't about spending more. It's about giving more for less. Ross, work your magic.

[B]

What are you afraid of? These days it feels like fear is everywhere. In the news, on social media, in the way we talk about the world we're told to be afraid of crime, disease, politics, technology, even each other. But is the world really more dangerous than it used to be? Or have we simply learned to feel more afraid? And what would happen if we could ease some of that fear and see things more clearly? My guest, Ruth Defoster, is an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, and she's author of the book the Fear How Science, History, and Culture Shape Our Fears and How to Get Unstuck. Hi, Ruth. Welcome to Something youg Should Know.

[C]

Hi. Thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to be here.

[B]

So what exactly is fear? Everyone's experienced fear. But does science have some sort of definition or explanation as to what happens when we're fearful?

[C]

Not really. I think fear is a social construct to a large degree. And so for that reason, it's kind of hard to nail down a precise definition. But it is interesting to look to the difference of the fears that we are born with versus the fears that we develop over the course of our lives.

[B]

And the fears that we're born with are which.

[C]

Yeah, it may surprise you. It surprised me to learn that humans are only born with two innate fears, fear of loud sounds and fear of falling. So that kind of makes sense on an evolutionary level, because, you know, falling can harm or kill you, and loud noises can predict danger. But those innate fears are really embedded in our biology as a means to protect us. And interesting. If you look to either people or certain types of animals who are unable to feel fear, we can see how that is really harmful to those people and to those animals. So, for example, people who suffer from Urbach Witta disease, which renders humans incapable of feeling fear. And one of the most famous patients with this disease is called sm. She's a married mother of three. She's been unable to feel fear for three decades, and researchers and scientists have tried almost everything to make her feel feared. They've put tarantulas on her. They've taken her to haunted houses. They've shown her horror movies. They've even briefly suffocated her with carbon dioxide, all in the name of science. But she cannot feel fear because of this disease. And while this might sound like an evolutionary boon, actually, her lack of a fear response has put her in danger many times throughout her life. So, for example, once she was held up at gunpoint, and because she can't feel fear, she just laughed at her attacker.

[B]

Oh, my God.

[C]

And so, yeah, so fear exists on a continuum. If you have too little fear caused by diseases like Urbagvita disease, or there are some prey animals, like mice. If they have toxoplasmosis, they completely lose their ability to fear predators. And obviously, that can be deadly. But we also argue that all consuming fear can be debilitating as well. And so we try to strike the right balance, recognizing and identifying legitimate fears while demystifying the fears that have been overblown or sensationalized you would think that.

[B]

Those creatures who have no fear, evolution would have taken care of them, because how could they survive very long if they have fear of nothing?

[C]

And it does. Yeah. So what we're kind of talking about there is rodents. So certain rodents, if they're exposed to toxoplasmosis, they lose the ability to fear predators.

[A]

And.

[C]

And this is also the reason why women are asked not to change litter boxes during pregnancy. It's to avoid being exposed to that same disease.

[B]

If you're one of those people who doesn't have fear, what do you have? In other words, when you are confronted with a fearful situation, in most people's eyes, is there a different reaction or is there no reaction?

[C]

Interestingly, in the scientific literature around the patient SM who I mentioned before, if you look to the data and the write up of all the studies that have been done around her and her experiences, they draw a distinction between what they call fear and panic. So she does occasionally panic. She does occasionally experience like that kind of pressing concern. But the scientists who have been studying this disease have made a distinction between momentary panic and that sort of deep seated psychological fear that most human beings are capable of experiencing.

[B]

And all the other fears are all basically learned fears. We learn to be afraid of things.

[C]

Correct. Every other fear that we have is something that we learn. It is not innate. It is socially constructed by our lived experiences.

[B]

And my sense is that we live in a more fearful world today than in the past. Certainly more fearful than my childhood.

[C]

Yeah, I would agree with that. I think we're already kind of seeing the ways in which the overblown sensational fears have really poisoned our political and cultural discourse. From the really cruel and toxic way that we talk about immigration to the way that we glamorize and sensationalize serial killers and murderers in the true crime pop culture community. And I mean, I hate to say it realistically, I don't see this changing anytime soon because the system, the algorithmic system, especially on social media, is really stacked against any kind of large scale change. And that's because most of our news and information now is drawn from the algorithmic wild west of social media. And companies that own social media platforms like ByteDance, which owns TikTok and Meta, which owns Instagram, they know that outrage is one of the best mechanisms for continued engagement on these platforms. And thus these sites devolve very quickly into rage, bait, and incentivize negativity. And I think you can really see this in the current tenor of political discourse, in this country civil discourse is truly becoming a thing of the past. And that is largely because of cultural fears.

[B]

So one of the things that seems pretty apparent and pretty universal is the more you're exposed to something fearful, even though you're not in harm's way, the more fearful you become of it. As you just said, if you listen to a lot of true crime podcasts, or watch a lot of scary movies or read about serial killers, you think those are a bigger deal in life than they probably are.

[C]

Yeah, that's exactly right. And there's actually a term in the literature for this. There's a gentleman named George Gerbner, and he coined the term mean world syndrome. And this is basically. It's a cognitive bias where people who have especially who have really heavy media diets of violent or frightening media, they go on to then perceive the world as being considerably more dangerous than it is. And we can certainly see this in my area of expertise, which is media coverage of terrorism. I mean, terrorism, especially international terrorism, is a problem so minuscule that it statistically approaches zero. You are literally more likely to be killed by your lawnmower than an international terrorist. But the degree of concern and cultural fear and pop culture that we've built up around this sort of trendy cultural fear of international terrorism is truly overblown relative to the actual risk that it poses. And I would argue that's largely a function of our media diets and the pop culture that we consume, which is, especially in the post September 11 years, has been really focused on this looming external threat of international terror.

[B]

Well, the example that's often cited, especially after 9 11, is air travel versus car travel. Air travel took a real dip and people were driving in their cars. And you're much more likely to die in a car crash than you are on an airplane. But you're much more likely to survive a car crash than you are to survive an airplane crash.

[C]

Yes, and I think there's also something to be said psychologically for the locus of control in a car. You feel more in control, even if that control or that feeling of control is misplaced in an airplane. Right. You're in a metal tube with dozens of other people, and you're just sitting there. So I think that there's probably psychologically something going on with, like, the ability to sort of have personal agency in that situation. But, yeah, you're right, it is considerably more dangerous to travel by car than it is to travel by plane.

[B]

One fear that comes up every year is this idea that you have to screen your Kids Halloween candy because someone may have put a razor blade in it or poison in it. And yet when you look at the facts, when you search for this, it pretty much never, ever happens. There have been a couple of incidents. They've been more pranks than there were deliberate attempts to kill people. And there was that one case of the father who actually did kill his son by poisoning his Halloween candy back in the 70s. But in terms of the neighbor waking up one morning and deciding to poison all the neighborhood kids with their Halloween candy, it just never happened.

[C]

No. I mean, compared to other cultural trendy fears that focus on children, like, for example, like fears of child abuse or like qanon or the satanic panic, those fears at least have a kernel of truth. I mean, childhood sex abuse absolutely is a real problem, but it is not committed by strangers. It is almost always committed by people who are in the child's life. So that almost makes like a little bit of intuitive sense, but this one is truly perplexing.

[B]

You said a moment ago that some of these fears kind of recycle generation to generation. What's an example of that?

[C]

Yeah, so going back to. It's easy to look at dramatic historical examples of mass hysteria like the Salem witch trials as something that we've evolved from, but we really, really haven't. I mean, in some ways, we certainly have evolved since the 17th century. But the echoes of that mass hysteria still trickle down into the present. It trickles into the satanic panic. There are still Americans in jail today on trumped up charges of satanic rituals in American preschool. And many of the court cases that accompany the panic of the 1980s, they bear a striking similarity to the sensational trials of the Salem era. And that's just one example. In the 19th century, there were several cyclical fears of being buried alive. That was really interesting. So there were all of this pop culture and novels and plays about this fear of being buried alive, and then that faded away. And then today we have more cyclical fears of things like serial killers. But another fear that's been cyclical that I think is really, really harmful is fear of vaccination. That's not new. That goes back hundreds of years. There have been concerns about the safety of vaccination, or as it was initially called, variolation when it first came out. But from a public health perspective, rising childhood fears of vaccination have been absolutely catastrophic in the 21st century. My youngest two children are in middle school, and they have already lived through three local measles outbreaks, including one that is spreading right now. And that's not a sentence that I should be uttering in the 21st century because we have the medical technology, we have the scientific consensus to enact an effective childhood vaccination program. But instead, many Americans are afraid of vaccination. They don't plan to fully vaccinate their children. And now we have a 20 point gap between the amount of vaccination that we need for herd immunity against measles and the number of Americans who are actually planning on fully vaccinating their children, which is only about 3/4.

[B]

The idea of being afraid often seems to be focused around children. That I'm not afraid for me, I'm afraid for my kids. Does that kind of run through history? It's not me. We have to save the kids.

[C]

Yeah. That's been a really common through line throughout history. And that's also often a common sense scapegoat when folks are trying to trample free speech. Right. It's about protecting the children. It's not about trampling free speech. There's, of course, a natural fear that every society has for their young. And we found that almost all of the cultural fears that have sort of evolved in the early years, they are often based around trying to protect and serve the most vulnerable among us. But we do have to be really careful of not then using that as a rhetorical or political cudgel to silence independent thought.

[B]

One word that gets people's attention that people are afraid of is toxic or toxins. And you hear this a lot with supplements and things. They'll get rid of the toxins in your body, and nobody wants toxins, and yet nobody's really sure what it means. Because when you ask people, well, what toxins does it get rid of? They don't really know.

[C]

Yeah, that's. My co author, Tasha did a lot of work around over the counter drugs and supplements for that reason. And you're right, that word toxin is a frequently touted marketing term, but it really is almost meaningless, sort of in the clinical literature, the way that it's being used by vitamin and supplement industries, especially because you already have systems in your body, your kidney, your liver that will filter out toxins from your body. And any product that is claiming that you need it to flush toxins is. It's not true. But what we have in the United States is a uniquely unregulated vitamin and supplement industry. They can claim almost anything they want without legal repercussions. And so when it comes to vitamins and supplements, you need to Be really careful. And you need to consult with a medical doctor before you add anything to your regimen.

[B]

Another thing people have learned to become afraid of, scared of are toxins in, like, cleaning supplies, household products, that kind of thing. And you know, so we're told, you gotta get rid of all that and bring in all natural, organic, whatever, because those other products under your sink are dangerous.

[C]

And again, that goes back to fears for children, right? I mean, this goes back to the idea that we are somehow unwittingly exposing our kids to something that might be harmful to them. And I think that that inclination is well placed. You know, there's nothing wrong with wanting to care for your children, to create a safe and welcoming environment for them. But when it can become all consuming to the degree that, for example, orthorexia is an eating disorder that consumes some people who are so obsessed with only eating healthy that it actually becomes a problem for them, it becomes very limiting and it actually becomes like a clinical disease. And so there's always just this middle ground to be had between trying to do what's right and what's thoughtful and what's environmentally conscious, but not letting it become so all consuming that it actually becomes like a clinical psychological problem.

[B]

If you're old enough to remember, you can feel today, you can just feel it in the air. There is a societal fear that didn't used to be that is this fear of like stranger danger, that your kids are just walking, potential victims of kidnappers, that you've got to keep your eye on them. You can't let them go out by themselves. And yet the evidence is, as I understand it, that we live in a time now that is safer than ever and that those things are even less likely to happen today than before. But boy, the pressure to keep your eye on your kids because you just never know what could happen is pretty strong.

[C]

Yeah, that is absolutely true. By almost any metric, we live in an unprecedented era of safety and security. Asterisk, if you're in the United States, that's not true for everyone. But for those of us who are in the United States and who are in the Western world, we're doing really well. Teen pregnancy is plummeting in the United States. Violent crime is down. Serial killers are significantly less active than they were in the 1970s and the 1980s. I mean, across almost every metric, we're doing better.

[B]

And yet this idea that kids can't go outside and play by themselves because it's so dangerous is very prevalent and it can't be good for Kids, I.

[C]

Would imagine it's not good for children actually to not have unsupervised play. There's an interesting study that was a longitudinal study. It looked at children in the 1970s versus children in the 2000s, and it was looking at the. The amount of space that those children had to roam unsupervised in the 1970s. That was basically like half of their town. They could just come back on your bike when it's dinner time. By the 2000s, it was their backyard. That's it. And so it's more. We're keeping kids on a shorter and shorter leash, but ironically, the world is a safer place for them than it's ever been before. So I think it's really important to give kids a little bit of space to go and explore. I let my kids explore my neighborhood and, you know, come back. I know where they, you know, generally where they are, and they come back at dinner and they're fine. It's good for them.

[B]

And so where did that come from? Where did a fear based on absolutely incorrect facts take such hold?

[C]

Well, I think this might come back to just trends in parenting. So a lot of the sort of latchkey kids of the Gen X generation, they attributed a lot of their sort of concerns and problems with adult in adulthood to the fact that they felt that they had been neglected as children. And I think that they've often sort of overcorrected toward what's called snowplow parenting. So from the latchkey generation, which was much more hands off, they sort of overcorrected to try to clear every obstacle out of their kid's way. And that has its own, you know, that has its own pitfalls. So again, it just comes down to, like, striking that happy middle balance.

[B]

Well, I think it's great to have these conversations because it kind of prompts you to think about your own fears and what are you afraid of, and should you really be that afraid of this? And I appreciate the conversation. Ruth Defoster has been my guest. She's an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, and she's author of the book the Fear How Science, History, and Culture Shape Our Fears and How to Get Unstuck. And there's a link to that book at Amazon in the show notes. Ruth, thanks so much. I appreciate you being here.

[C]

Thanks. Bye.

[B]

A lot of men wish they could be taller, but unfortunately, there's not much you can do about that. However, there are some things you can do to make yourself look taller or at least not look shorter. First of all, don't wear short sleeve shirts because much of what you wear creates an optical illusion. And one of the weirder ones is that short sleeves make your arms look shorter. And if your arms look shorter, so will the rest of you. Keep accessories simple. In order to appear taller, you want the eyes of whoever's looking at you to sweep upward. The more someone's eyes sweep upward, the taller they'll register whatever it is they're looking at, including you. To maintain that upward sweep, avoid anything that will draw their attention below your chest. Steer clear of flashy shoes, flashy watches, and big belt buckles. Make sure your shirt doesn't go lower than your hip bone. If you're short and wearing a button down shirt, you should be tucking it in most of the time. But if you absolutely have to untuck it or you're wearing a shirt designed to be worn untucked like a T shirt, just make sure the hem of the shirt doesn't go past your hip bone. Anything longer than that can. That swallows you up and makes your legs look stubby. And you'll want to wear your pants at your natural waistline in order to maximize your leg line. The appearance of longer legs is a major factor in looking taller, and that is something you should know. You might be surprised to know how much ratings and reviews help this podcast. Well, they help every podcast, but mostly I'm concerned about the ratings and reviews for this podcast. Which is why I'm asking you to please, on whatever platform you're listening on, to leave a rating and review. Hopefully it's five stars. I'm micahruthers. Thanks for listening today to something you should know. And Doug Here we have the Limu.

[C]

Emu in its natural habitat, helping people.

[A]

Customize their car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual.

[C]

Fascinating.

[A]

It's accompanied by his natural ally, Doug Limu.

[C]

Is that guy with the binoculars watching us?

[A]

Cut the camera. They see us.

[B]

Only pay for what you [e-mail] Liberty Liberty Liberty Liberty Savings Variant underwritten by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company affiliates. Excludes Massachusetts.

[A]

It's okay not to be perfect with finances. Experian is your big financial friend and here to help.

[C]

Did you know you can get matched.

[A]

With credit cards on the app? Some cards are labeled no Ding decline, which means if you're not approved, they won't hurt your credit scores. Download the Experian app for free today. Applying for no Ding decline cards won't hurt your credit scores if you aren't initially approved. Initial approval will result in a hard inquiry which may impact your credit scores.

[C]

Experian.