Jimmy Wales

Well, there's definitely some really charged ones.

Like Alt-Right, I think is quite a complicated and tough label.

I mean, it's not a completely meaningless label, but boy, I think you really have to pause before you actually put that label on someone.

Partly because now you're putting them in a group of people, some of whom are quite, you wouldn't want to be grouped with.

So it's, yeah.

Yeah, so I don't think so.

Not broadly.

And, you know, I think you can always point to specific entries and talk about specific biases, but that's part of the process of Wikipedia.

Anyone can come and challenge and to go on about that, but...

You know, I see fairly often on Twitter, you know, some, you know, sort of quite extreme accusations of bias.

And I think, you know, actually, I just, I don't see it.

I don't buy that.

And if you ask people for an example, they normally struggle.

And depending on who they are and what it's about.

So it's certainly true that some people who have quite fringe viewpoints, and who knows, the full...

rush of history in 500 years, they might be considered to be path-breaking geniuses, but at the moment, quite fringe views, and they're just unhappy that Wikipedia doesn't report on their fringe views as being mainstream.

And that, by the way, goes across all kinds of fields.

I mean, I was once accosted on the street

outside the TED conference in Vancouver by a guy who's a homeopath who was very upset that Wikipedia's entry on homeopathy basically says it's pseudoscience.

And he felt that was biased, and I said, well, I can't really help you because, you know, we cite good quality sources to talk about the scientific status, and it's not very good.