My daughter, Kira, arrived less than a month before Wikipedia’s debut, and these two occurrences are intertwined. Kira suffered a severe illness at birth, having inhaled tainted amniotic fluid. The standard approach for meconium aspiration syndrome traditionally involved providing infants with fundamental support and hoping for recovery. However, in our city of San Diego, a physician had devised an innovative therapy: the baby’s respiration is paused, her blood is circulated through a machine for oxygenation, her lungs are filled four times with a unique protein-based solution, and subsequently, the blood is returned to her small, delicate body. Kira’s mother and I faced a rapid decision regarding this treatment for our child.

We were entirely uninformed about these matters. Questions arose: What is meconium? What constitutes meconium aspiration syndrome? What are its risks? While the medical professionals tried their utmost to clarify, I couldn’t make such a pivotal life decision without more data. I turned to the internet, searching for answers, but only discovered fragmented bits of data. Some originated from anonymous individuals, leaving me unable to ascertain its trustworthiness. Other details appeared in scholarly articles, seeming much more credible, yet I lacked the expertise to quickly comprehend them. There was no middle ground between these two types of sources. The experience was agonizing. The crucial information I sought likely existed, but finding it felt like sifting through a demolished library. And our decision couldn’t wait.

Even though we felt completely uninformed, Kira’s mother and I approved the procedure.

The treatment was successful. Kira lived and flourished; we were fortunate. Concurrently, I was still endeavoring to launch Nupedia, the precursor to Wikipedia. Nupedia, an online encyclopedia, also depended on volunteers, similar to Wikipedia, but their commonalities ceased there. It mandated volunteers to submit a resume and adhere to a seven-step submission protocol. I quickly realized it would likely never gain momentum. Kira’s critical birth experience profoundly motivated me. This initiative transcended being merely a theoretical good concept. The internet couldn’t solely comprise content by anonymous individuals of unverified credibility, juxtaposed with scientific papers incomprehensible to the general public. A trustworthy online encyclopedia, accessible and understandable to all, was essential. Upon returning home with Kira, I abandoned Nupedia and initiated Wikipedia.

And, you know, concerned parents today won’t face a similar situation because Wikipedia features excellent articles on , , , , and a wide variety of other medical subjects. Anyone worldwide with a stable connection can access all that information for free, instantly, anywhere.

Certainly, Wikipedia is not the definitive authority on health issues or any other topic. Like all human endeavors, Wikipedia possesses imperfections and shortcomings. This reality is best understood by the nearly , who actively seek out these defects and tirelessly strive for improvement. Nevertheless, for straightforward facts—such as “What is Tom Cruise’s age?”—Wikipedia excels. Moreover, as an initial resource for more complex topics, providing guidance, leading to credible sources, and facilitating further research, Wikipedia proves invaluable across virtually every domain, from the mundane to the deeply significant. 

Over slightly more than two decades, Wikipedia has evolved from a seemingly absurd concept destined to fail into a globally relied-upon information resource.

Long before Wikipedia grew into the most extensive compendium of knowledge globally, and prior to its establishment as the largest encyclopedia in existence, it first needed to conquer its primary hurdle: enabling internet strangers to communicate and collaborate effectively. To achieve this, these strangers had to cultivate mutual trust. They had to believe that others would not act abusively or discourteously towards them. They had to be confident that their contributions wouldn’t be altered or removed without careful thought or justification. They needed to trust that others would genuinely heed their input and seriously consider it. They also had to trust that, even if disagreements arose and their perspectives weren’t adopted, they would still receive fair treatment. Only once this confidence among volunteers was solidified—only with internal trust—could Wikipedia truly commence operations.

A defining characteristic of an outstanding public utility—such as electricity, potable water, plumbing, and waste disposal—is its constant use by people without conscious thought. Did you utilize electricity today? Undoubtedly. Yet, if you reside in a nation where power supply is a given, you likely didn’t ponder, “I hope the electricity functions.” You didn’t consider electricity whatsoever. Your focus was on light, leading you to activate a switch. Only on those infrequent instances when operating the switch yields no result does electricity even enter your thoughts. 

To not ponder something upon which one depends profoundly represents the pinnacle of trust. Globally, Wikipedia has attained this degree of confidence among an enormous populace, registering nearly 10,000 page views per second. And, I must state, this signifies the realization of my deeply personal aspiration.

This essay originates from , published with permission from Crown Currency, an imprint of The Crown Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.