Maybe this is why I have an aversion to surprises. I also assume that, like Don Corleone, you insist on hearing bad news immediately. In that spirit, I’d like to share with you, dear and faithful reader, that next week’s column of IMHO will be the last. You are reading my 411th column, and my second-last one, just five weeks shy of eight years. After just one more, I will disappear in a puff of smoke.
Last week’s column imagined a world where a new pandemic virus infected everyone and turned them into wonderful human beings, full of kindness, honesty, peace, non-violence and goodwill. Best of all, they all shared a single mind; everyone knew everything, like having a ChatGPT in your head, and no thoughts were secret any more. It was a truly equal world, without crime, wars, or hate. I asked readers if they would choose to get immunised against this virus if a vaccine were available.
Of the many readers who wrote long letters back to me, about nine in 10 said they would get the vaccine. They did not want to become benign, peaceful and loving persons even if that would end every evil on the planet.
Let’s talk about Bombai. Click the QR code above to join my WhatsApp group to share your Bombai stories for my book — and perhaps answer some of my Bombai questions.
I was baffled. So many spend their energy either talking about or fighting for a better city, a better country or a better world — and yet if their wishes came true, they would say, “I was just joking. Please press Rewind and give me the old world back.”
Some of them seemed concerned that if all problems disappeared and humans became wonderful, we wouldn’t have anything left to do. We’d die of boredom.
My column was inspired by a riveting drama series released by Apple TV a few weeks ago, Plur1bus, which explores exactly this scenario, but from the perspective of a small handful of people who are naturally immune to the virus and do not turn into kind and loving people.
All this got me thinking. If we are to live in this messed-up, evil world, we should understand why people fight. The answer, which came quite quickly, is that we fight because we disagree with each other. India and Pakistan have locked horns since Independence because they disagree about borders. Couples fight, sometimes divorce, because they disagree about this or that trivial matter. We have racism and gender inequality because those who believe everyone is equal disagree with those who believe a few are superior.
Can we, can human beings possibly learn to deal intelligently and kindly with disagreement? Wouldn’t that end violence and hate, and give us cooler heads?
The world has one outstanding example of one giant, entirely voluntary organisation that has been dealing successfully with disagreements, arguments, knowledge, misinformation, truth and lies for 24 years. It’s called Wikipedia.
Since it was started in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, Wikipedia, the world’s largest free encyclopaedia, has evolved into a model for human collaboration in search of the truth. The English version has 7.08 million articles, and 15 billion page views every month. Wikipedia’s approach to presenting all kinds of information with rigorous respect and neutrality has made it so powerful that even AI chatbots like ChatGPT are trained using its data. In a world of alternative facts, personal truths, and outright fake news, Wikipedia, with humility, tells us what is most likely to be the truth. With all its imperfections and never-ending self-scrutiny, Wikipedia is so trusted that many politicians want to bring it down, claiming that it is a left-wing liberal tool. Some right-wingers call it Woke-ipedia.
But anyone, regardless of politics, may make an edit on Wikipedia, including you. You will not be the last word; anyone else can correct you, and you can respond. Others can — and will — join the discussion. Your ‘facts’ will be weighed against others’ ‘facts’ by the worldwide community of voluntary editors, who number about 260,000, with about 40,000 in English alone.
Wikipedia operates on the radical premise that people thinking and working together can determine what’s true through reliable sourcing and methodical deliberation.
However, among Wikipedia’s many hundreds of definitions, principles and guidelines, one stands out for me, perhaps because it is most often missing in human interactions: Assume good faith.
This means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to harm you, even when their words or actions sound hurtful or cause harm. If someone adds contentious or even damaging matter about a living person or event, assuming good faith would mean saying, “They probably just don’t understand Wikipedia’s sourcing standards,” and quietly making a correction.
It’s a principle startling in its simplicity: the best way to get closer to the truth and avoid a conflict is to assume the best about the person who disagrees with you.
It has created the world’s most trusted encyclopaedia.
