Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales: To scale, find the right values

The very best founders I know are brilliant at building systems. They connect teams, they remove bottlenecks, and they eliminate single points of failure. And yet When it comes to their own wealth. Most are running a disconnected stack. A tax accountant here and a state attorney there, a wealth manager who doesn't talk to either one of them.

Creative planning was built to fix exactly that. One integrated team of tax professionals, state planners, investment specialists, all coordinated by a dedicated wealth manager who sees your full financial picture and keeps every piece working together. Proactive tax efficiency, state strategy, investments all under one roof. Creative planning where wealth works together. Learn more at creative planning dot com slash masters of scale.

Hey folks, Jeff Berman here. I am thrilled to share some of the new names who will be joining us at this year's Masters of Scale summit. This may be our biggest stage yet. Reed Hastings, Meredith Whitaker, Van Jones, Amjad Masad, and more. Will be there with us October 20th through 22nd in San Francisco. If you're building something great, or you want to build something great, We want you there with us too.

Join us at masters of scale dot com slash apply twenty six. That's mastersofscom slash apply. Twenty six. When you're working with teams of volunteers There is no possibility of command and control.

You can't tell people what to do because they will just say Threw you, I'm a volunteer. And so you have to have an approach that says look Here's our values. And frankly, in some cases you have to say, and if you don't agree with these values, then maybe this isn't the right

Place for you. That's Jimmy Wales. Founder of Wikipedia. Famously. Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, but that doesn't mean everyone is suited a task. If you're unwilling or unable to adhere to Wikipedia's core values of openness and neutrality, well

It'll be very nicely. But firmly. Shown the door. But contributors who can get on board with these values will find themselves part of a driven team. and a complex editorial process governed by the rules that uphold the core values.

For novice contributors, it's a frustrating journey to learn the ropes. You can almost imagine it as a number in a Broadway show, the pivotal song in which a disheartened wannabe Wikipedia contributor rails against the hoops hurdles that protect Wikipedia's core values. Maestro, if you please. Tried and I've tried, motivation has died, I cannot publish my article Impossibility is the key

Mm. Consider blasphemy if it's a page about me It's not the wiki way I'm afraid to say You'll be denied! T Bye.

Hey Sun inside. There's a number of ways to write your page and it doesn't have to end in rage. Here's a couple of simple steps to keep in mind. Verify you must clarify as a matter of course from a published source. Well where am I gonna get an article about me from? It is a joyous miracle to have a proof empirical!

What do you mean I can't say what I really think? A multi-faceted perspective balanced views with no invective Cents and dollars please come off it, Wiki P is not for profit, all for one and one for all Come every rider he dec For the truth is that we're hoping for a site that's always open. Values built upon an openness

Neutrality and volunteership too And yes it's free Tear it wake it And that's why I believe product value fit is often more important than product market fit, and finding it may require a pivot or two. You gotta have incredible talent at every position. It's like this huge push. There are fires burning when you're going out. Can you believe it? Such an idiot. And then you go back to this is totally gonna be amazing. There are so many easy ways. So I have no idea what to do. Sorry, we made a mistake. But you have to time it right. Oops. Or do we have a three-bedroom apartment. We haven't made it. Just how you do it.

This Is masters of scale. I'm Reed Hoffman. Co founder of LinkedIn. Partner Greylock.

And your host. And I believe that product value fit is often more important than product market fit. And finding it. may require a pivot or two. Every investor will tell you. It can take time to find the right market for your product.

Best known brands. had to pivot their way toward the customers who embrace them. Plato Started out as a cleaning product.

Bubble wrap. Began as Textured wallpaper. And then there's Viagra. Originally developed.

To treat heart disease. So product market fit is something you have to find. And once discovered. You double down. It's the same with the values.

driving your product development. As human beings, our values guide us in our actions. You might particularly value Honesty or compassion. Or generosity.

When it comes to your product or a brand, its values might include sustainability. Affordability. Or inventiveness. I'd argue That finding the right values to guide how you develop your product.

Is often more important. than finding the right market. If you choose wisely Your values can be the launch ramps. That help you soar.

I wanted to talk to Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, about this because Wikipedia has stuck to its core values of openness, neutrality. And being not for profit. Since its launch in two thousand and one. But Jimmy didn't start with those values. He arrived at them through a process of trial and error on an earlier encyclopedia project that stalled. Once he found the right product value fit.

Wikipedia rapidly scaled. From a niche side project. to one of the most valued treasures on the internet. Wikipedia is now famous. For being volunteer driven.

Non profit and free. And this has caused Some confusion. over who Jimmy is and what drove him to found it. I was in Israel and I was interviewed by someone who didn't speak English, so my friend translated for us and then

the article came out a couple of days later and he translated it back to me and it basically said He used to be a futures and options trader in Chicago, and he felt so guilty that he devoted his life to charity. And I'm like, hold on a second. That was a great job. I loved it. What I want you to notice here is that Wikipedia is not a simple embodiment of O Jimmy's values. While he helped establish them, he didn't initially set out to create something non commercial or volunteer driven.

He set out to create a great free encyclopedia. And everything else followed. But I'm getting ahead of the story. Back in the nineties, when Jimmy was an options trader, he cultivated a passion in his free time. So I was writing my own web browser just as a hobby.

And around that time was when Netscape went public and on day one it was worth something like four point three billion dollars and I said Huh My web browser that I'm writing at home in my spare time is not as good as Netscape one point oh, but it's not four billion dollars worse, right? It was this realization that spurred Jimmy to leave his job as a trader and jump into the then new world. of internet entrepreneurship.

It wasn't much of a product they had at that time. And so that kind of turned my eyes on. I'd been on the internet for many years and found it fascinating and exciting and interesting. And I was like, Hold on Now The market's telling us that there's gonna be a lot of interesting stuff. Jimmy co founded a web directory called Bomus. In nineteen ninety six, it followed the accepted

And easiest. Root of monetization. advertising. And there was a time than during the dot com boom when

There was so much money sloshing around that if you had any size and any traction We were able to sell our ads for ridiculously high prices. Note again how Jimmy had no ideological problem. With making money from bomb us. It was the right thing to do in that market.

For that product. So we made a deal. With NBC. They paid us a really nice price for all our ad inventory and it was fantastic. We were I think about ten percent of their traffic. And then they were losing about a hundred million a quarter. So that train wreck came to an end, and then we were sort of back out on our own right when the dot com crash was going on. Uh and so that was a

Brutal lesson. It wasn't a bad product value fit that brought down the curtains on Bhomas. Just bad timing. So when the company folded Jimmy focused on another side project he'd been tinkering with.

An online encyclopedia, he called New PDF. He hired an editor in chief who suggested the core value new pediat should have. If we weren't even more academic than a traditional encyclopedia, then no one would take us seriously because we're volunteers from the internet. And so that sounds plausible. So we should be quite academic. New Pedia adopted a stringent seven stage review process, and it seemed to be the right set of values.

to adopt for an encyclopedia. But despite having a mailing list of around five thousand people who were already interested in volunteering to write for new pediatria, After two years, they had published a total of Twour articles. It was more of a pamphlet.

than an encyclopedia. And there was something else eating away Jimmy. The problem was it just wasn't fun. Jimmy had a clear idea of what he wanted new Pedia to be. A source of information as trusted and comprehensive as

as a traditional encyclopedia. But he had attached. New Pedia. To the value. Of review based academic rigor.

And it was stifling new pedias most powerful asset. The army of volunteers all eager to contribute. Jimmy hadn't quite made this connection yet. So he did something every early stage founder should do. I sat down.

to say, look, I don't understand why the work is so slow. We've been at this for two years and we've published twenty four articles. And I said, I'm gonna write something and I'm gonna go through all the process. I'm not gonna cut any corners. So I sat down to start doing this. It was like I had a knot in my stomach. Because they were gonna take my

paper and send it to the most prestigious finance professors they could who would give me feedback and notes and review. And it was like back in grad school, which wasn't fun. It seemed like a no brainer. that newpedia should make academic rigor one of its core values. After all. It aspired to be as trusted as a traditional encyclopedia.

But this value was in fact paralyzing. Even to New PD as founder. It was time to ditch this value. That's when I realized like me with all the motivation in the world to make this work, and I'm hitting writer's block because I'm afraid somebody's gonna judge my work and this is a hobby.

The way out of this problem? That's when Jimmy's colleagues suggested they try out a wiki based system. A wiki is a system for creating and organizing content that can be edited by anyone. The Wiki concept was developed by Ward Cunningham in 1994. It seemed directly opposed to the values that should be powering an authoritative encyclopedia.

It was like Jimmy was turning his back on the idea of vetted expert writers and rigorous fact checking, and handing the The login details to the proverbial infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters. Or Jimmy Feared. More likely infinite trolls trashing each other's articles.

It would be anarchy, surely. Within two weeks we had more work done than we had in almost two years. Because suddenly we freed the community up. And when Jimmy attempted to write another article It was a revelation.

And so I just wrote one sentence, you know, so and so won the Nobel Prize in Economics and came back two days later and it had grown and grown and grown because everybody was able to chip in in that classic Wikipedia way rather than having to say, Okay, now I've got to go off and do three months of research to be able to write this article. It's a clear example of how pivots can be about values as well as product. You don't need to have them at the very beginning of your journey. But they do have to match your product.

At first Jimmy still had his doubts. About this value of being open. I was panicked that in the middle of the night someone would come in and just trash the whole site because it was wide open to edit and so forth.

And then very quickly I began to realize like no no actually there's a couple of people in Australia and they're on every night and there's a couple of people and suddenly you're like actually this community is forming. That will look after things. The community was drawn by these values and had a vested interest in keeping the project going. And the commitment to that value of extreme openness continues to this day. So most pages in Wikipedia, well over ninety nine percent.

Even to this day. If you're not logged in, you've never been to Wikipedia before, you get there, there's a little button that says edit, you click that, you make a change, you hit save, it goes live immediately, which is completely insane, but completely true, and it actually works for us. Of course. Not everything is perfect. I mean if people's mental model, right, of the success of Wikipedia is and then he installed the script and everything went great, right? Uh not really. Not really. There were a lot of bumps along the way.

But there was a fundamental conviction, particularly after we got more work done in two weeks than in two years, that hey, wait, there's something here. People are passionate. You know, when I would talk to people about the idea and say this should exist, their eyes would light up and go, Yeah, that sounds great. I don't know if this is gonna work, but You go, Jimmy. And this is where I must stress something. Your values can and must be flexible enough to account for outlying cases. As we've seen, one of Wikipedia's core values is openness.

But there are times when holding true to it has been a challenge. I remember when we first started doing what we call semi protection or full protection I remember one admin in particular was like, We shouldn't protect this article. It should be completely open. And so okay, well Go for it, open it up, see what happens. And they spent, you know, the next eight hours reverting vandals who were just coming in and changing it to curse words or nonsense and then reluctantly goes, Okay, yeah, I see the point, right? This isn't helpful. But we try to be as lightweight as possible. Locking articles may seem directly opposed to Wikipedia's open value.

But note. How the decision to lock an article is reached through open dialogue. And the aim is to avoid falling foul of the troll army. While protecting the overall value. Of openness.

And Jimmy is under no illusions about the role this openness has played in Wikipedia success. I'm really proud of certain decisions that we made because we wouldn't be where we are today. Those decisions were all about values. That value of being open to all. was there from the beginning.

But doubling down on it. Lifting the review process and trusting in extreme openness. Send Wikipedia. into overdrive. Two other key decisions about Wikipedia's values.

Compounded this. The first was making neutrality a core value. one thing that I had always said from the original project, which that neutrality's really important. An encyclopedia is not the place to have an agenda. It's a place to lay out all of the facts and let people decide for themselves.

Neutrality. Seems like an obvious value for an encyclopedia to have. But it was not obvious at the time. There was a suggestion early on because in a wiki it's very flexible tool. You can do anything to say, instead of having just one entry about every topic, why don't we have an entry with the left wing perspective, the right wing perspective, the Catholic perspective. Let's accept everything. And I was like

That just sounds like the web, like everybody can write whatever they want anywhere else. Note how this desire to showcase all different points of views. Isn't inherently wrong. But Jimmy could see. How it wasn't compatible with his vision for Wikipedia.

What we should be is that place where We say to all the parties, okay, you've got to sit down and work this out, right? You've got to present in a way that everybody feels this explains the topic. And you can't come down on one side or the other. That actually works pretty well. I mean obviously it's It's noisy behind the scenes at Wikipedia, but in general we do have that. And we certainly have it as a very deeply ingrained spirit in the community.

Sticking to this vision of neutrality. Meant not only that each article would be as balanced as possible. It would also short circuit many of the conflicts you could imagine happening among article editors. You could imagine Wikipedia's extreme commitment to neutrality as a value that would hold back its ability to scale. But instead, this has supercharged its growth.

Rather than endless bickering. Editors with differing views can work together. To create articles. Let's take a tough topic, abortion. So you can be a kind and thoughtful Catholic priest and you can be a kind and thoughtful Planned Parenthood activist, and you're actually able to work together on Wikipedia.

keep being kinda thoughtful. Yes. Because you can say, look, we're never it's never gonna take either side of the story, but we can write about this societal debate. in such a way that the Catholic priests will go, Yeah, this presents the question fairly, and the Plan Parenthood Activists can say, this presents the question fairly. And so they actually have a way to work together. Whereas if you said, our goal is to find the ultimate correct truth And it's gonna be one sided at the end of the day, then you really exclude a lot of people. They say, Well, look, I can't participate.

The neutrality value is so deep rooted in Wikipedia that behind the scenes is a parallel universe where flashpoints for arguments are very different. Like I could tell you inside the community, we don't have massive debates about Donald Trump. Not because we all agree about Donald Trump, but because well, it's actually pretty straightforward. You just write history and it's all very straight. We have huge arguments about the names of rivers in Poland or there's a very famous longstanding debate that got kind of ugly is the difference between an M dash and a Dash, you know, in terms of punctuation, right? People have strong feelings about some of these things. These arguments over punctuation and Polish waterways

May seem petty. But I actually think they demonstrate. How values have become entrenched amongst Wikipedia contributors. Another core value that you might think would limit Wikipedia scale is its commitment to to being a non profit.

Wikipedia. Doesn't carry ads. While that is a core value of Wikipedia. It's not a core value.

I'm not ideological about it. I remember early press interviews, people would assume I was some kind of crazy communist. You know, it's like don't you think it's terrible that these people at Google are making so much money? I'm like, No, I think it's a great company. Like that's great, you know, why not? It just doesn't suit what I'm trying to do here. Jimmy was concerned people might not be as willing to contribute freely if Wikipedia were for profit. and taking money from advertisers might murky the waters of its neutrality. I believe your business model drives

Behavior. at organizations. And so if you have a certain set of beliefs and values that are intention with your business model, you've got a real problem and probably the business model's gonna win in the end. You need to be aware of the tension that your lofty values can create with your business. If they are in conflict.

Attention. Can be destabilizing. But for Wikipedia. Its values give it a clear course of action. For example, when the Turkish government deemed certain Wikipedia articles as offensive and blocked the entire site in two thousand seventeen.

So when we were There was no question of like, oh, should we compromise, right? Because not only would we be compromising on some core values of our community, we'd also take a revenue hit. 'Cause the people who donate money to Wikipedia are like, one of the reasons they do. We know this is because we stand for

The internet users. We stand for freedom of knowledge, right? And so if people say, Oh, it's amazing that you guys would take that stand, and I'm like, Yeah, it is amazing. Of course, thank you, thank you, thank you. But of course, like our business model drives us in that direction. Like people would be incredibly disappointed in us. Wikipedia's values are more than lip service. They compel the company. into this virtuous behavior. I think it's really good that our business model drives us to be on the right side of those issues in a really easy and fluid way.

But unlike Wikipedia. Masters of scale. Does accept advertising. Speaking of which When you've built substantial wealth through your business, it's often tied up in a single equity position.

The upside is real, but so is the risk, and knowing when to act isn't always obvious. Creative planning works with business owners to build a strategy around concentrated equity. When to diversify, how to manage tax risk, and how to protect what you've spent years building. Creative planning where wealth works together. Learn more at creative plating dot com slash masters of scale.

Humans will never be more intelligent than AI. There's gonna be two types of companies. Those were great at AI and those that went out of business because they weren't. How do we build a future? That is human centered. I'm Rana El Calyubi. And on my podcast Pioneers of AI, we answer that question and so many more. As an AI scientist, entrepreneur, and investor, I know what it takes to build AI that works for everyone.

Every week I sit down with the pioneers shaping our future. and we take you behind the scenes of the AI that's transforming our lives. Find pioneers of AI wherever you tune in. Hey listeners, Bob here. If you listen to Rapid Response on Masters of Scale, you may be missing half the show. Because every Friday we release a second rapid response exclusively in the rapid response feed. The guests and topics are just as compelling and timely from Ford CEO to NASA's administrator to the lessons from The Devil Wears Prada.

It takes about 10 seconds to find, just search rapid response wherever you listen to podcasts and hit follow to make sure you never miss an episode. I hope to see you there. Before the break, we heard how Wikipedia went from being a source you don't cite to one of the few trusted places on the internet. And this was largely due to the values Jimmy settled on. to govern how Wikipedia worked.

Things could have been very different if Jimmy had got those values wrong. Jimmy gives journalism as an extreme example of what can happen when your values don't align with your business model. So I I've been saying that the advertising only business model for journalism is really problematic because the incentives aren't aligned right for the readers It's all about the inflammatory story and so on and so forth. But it is a problem because it over

emphasizes time on site. as the key metric. One of the problems is That environment Does tend to emphasize content that is engaging in a very simple and I would say reptilian brain type of way. It's like what gets me to click.

Jimmy isn't saying that advertising is incompatible with journalism. Carrying ads supported the newspaper industry for decades. Sure, it was a model that didn't always sit easily with the journalistic values of truth and holding power to account. But by and large it worked. And it created a thriving news industry.

However When newspapers went digital, suddenly there was no physical limit on the amount of content they could carry. But at the same time Competition for readers became virtually limitless. As well.

The tension. between the business model and the values became too big. There was a quality online magazine. That ran a short little editorial saying.

Okay, we're just putting our hands up that something's broken with our business model. We published a story A senior journalist took three weeks. Doing the story. investigating leads.

Publish the story. We're proud of it. It moved the needle. We got a lot of traffic. We're really happy. Nothing super famous, but it was like a meaningful piece of journalism. The same day we published basically a Listicle, meaning one of these silly kind of list articles by a funny millennial intern in the office. Got just as much traffic, made just as much money. And so they were saying look, we don't want to do that. We don't want to become a content farm.

Right. We want to do the journalism, but This business model doesn't work for us, right? The news industry is still struggling to find a business model that fits its values. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. You can retool your values without giving up on your ideals.

This is what Jimmy has been doing with his for profit company WikiA. Also known as fandom, which is started in two thousand and four. When he was trying to navigate the unfamiliar of Silicon Valley VCs, he asked me for advice. I'd been a futures of trader, knew very little about Silicon Valley, certainly very little about Angel investing and term sheets.

So someone uh mutual friend introduced us and we had breakfast and then I mean I'm just gonna brag on you here, so you'll have to edit this out, but but I do tell people I'm like it was actually hugely important to me because I remember a phone call where you had reviewed a term sheet and I was like, Yeah, Reed, I'm really concerned about this provision. And you're like That's completely standard. You're not gonna talk them out of it. That's just the way it is. There's nothing actually wrong with it and here's why. And then you pointed out something I hadn't even noticed in like this one, they're trying to screw you. Just tell them to pull that out. They will definitely pull that out because they're just having a you know having a laugh there. Jimmy landed the funding for Wiki.

It's powered by the same open source wiki system that Wikipedia uses. And its content is also created by volunteers. However. It makes money from ads and paid for content. So the idea of WikiA the original sort of

We're building the rest of the library. So if you go into a traditional library and you look for the encyclopedia, it's a set of books. twenty six. volumes and then there's everything else that you could do. And the idea is let's be broader. Let's say what else do people want to do?

It soon became clear what people wanted. The area where it really works is fandom. And there's lots of different fandoms out there. There's one example Jimmy gives to illustrate the fandom phenomena. Mana mana.

Mm. No. I said Phenomena.

Uh Yeah. So we have a wiki about the Muppets. And I haven't looked recently, but it's well over twenty thousand articles.

And I asked the guy the founder. who went on to work for us later, now works at the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyway, I said, well Gosh, you must be running out of things to write about. And he's like, oh no, we're just getting started. 20,000 articles about the Muppets. Pretty much any popular franchise you can think of in any medium. Has a fandom page.

Minecraft. James Bond. Leg ups. Game of Thrones.

The Simpsons. Even one for this podcast. That's right. Masters of scale. Has its own fandom wiki.

Which anyone can edit. You can find it at master the scale dot fandom dot com Please help us build it. But Keep the geeky infighting to a minimum.

It may come in handy for me making future episodes of Masters of Scale. We saw an interview with one of the head writers of Lost. So you remember the TV show Lost, it was super complicated. And he said, Yeah, we actually rely on LostPedia, which is our wiki about loss, as our continuity guide. Because the fans are obsessed about those kinds of things.

But it wasn't clear if changing the values for fandom would work. One of the things we weren't sure about because people said, Well, maybe the only reason Wikipedia works is that it's a charity. When Jimmy started Wikipedia, doing it as a non profit was a gamble. But now

People saw this non profit status as being a core value of anything. with a wiki prefix. And I said, Well look. People go on YouTube, right? People do these things. And by the way, it it would be very difficult to get charitable status for the Muppet Wiki, right? It's like the government's not gonna consider that to be really a charitable project. And so

It turns out though that one of the remarkable similarities is the Wikipedians do think maybe in a more global sense of like I'm doing this because it contributes to education in the world and I'm helping Jimmy took the DNA of the Wikipedia values and changed them just enough to fit the fandom model. Without losing the magic. That made Wikipedia a success.

And so what we see uh Fandom is a lot of people who have what I would call a community motivation. Right. So it isn't quite charitable, but it's also like People who are passionate about this thing that I'm passionate about. I'm evangelizing that thing and I'm actually making their experience better.

Fandom is an example of how you can thoughtfully update your values to fit a new product. And now. Jimmy is trying to do the same. with a social network, WT social. Which he launched in October two thousand nineteen.

So it's a social network where Almost every post is collaboratively editable, which is a bit crazy, but I like crazy. There's no advertising and no paywall. So I've been joking a series of bad business decisions, but that's how I've been my career so far. Like Wikipedia.

WT Social is entirely donor supported. Look, if you believe that something's broken in the world and you think you would like to have a social network that optimizes what is shown to you not based on how long you That is a time saver, not a time waster. Then you might want to chip in and invite your friends, right?

The idea seems just as crazy as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I said, let's make it like a wiki where for every comment anybody can Hide it. Right. And anybody can unhide it, right?

And there was some That's crazy to me. Like aren't people just gonna fight about it all the time? I'm like Let's try. Let's see. And it turns out Generally speaking, people are hiding spammy comments and they're not touching other people's sort of normal comments, even if they disagree with them. And so that obviously we haven't had a huge flame or yet to see does it

create a problem, but so far it's been nice, yeah. It's not just the relative lack of flame wars that makes Wikipedia fandom. And WT social, so special. You know, if you just spent eight hours playing Grand Theft Auto, you might go to bed thinking, Ha, just wasted A lot of time today. You spend eight hours working on Wikipedia, you might think waste a lot of time today, but at least the world's a little bit better than it was.

They just do it because they're helpful people and they're passionate about this thing. So there are a lot of similarities, even if the motivations are somehow slightly different. And this is where keying into the correct value fit for your product can have a truly outsize effect. If those values fill your users with so much passion that they will then dedicate time and energy. To helping in its success. I'm Reed Hoffman.

Thank you for listening. Masters of Scale is a white water original. The show is recorded remotely with Sanitized Audio Gear. Our executive producers are June Cohen and Darren Treff. Our supervising producer is Jay Punjabi. Our producers are Chris McLeod, Adam Skuse, Jenny Cataldo, Jordan McCloud.

Catherine Clark Gray. Halibondi. Christiana Gonzalez and Ben Manila. Our editor at large is Bob Safian. Original music and sound design by Ryan Holliday.

And Daniel Nissenba. Audio editing. by Keith J. Nelson. Mixing and mastering. by Brian Pugh.

Special thanks. Precie Elisa Schreiber. David Sanford. Say it Sapia. Adam Heiner, Emily McManus.

Kelsey Capitano Tim Cronin Sarah Sandman. Charlie Menessis and Colin Howard. Visit. MastertheScale.com

to find the transcript for this episode. And be sure. Or email newsletter.

What you see above is a preview of the first minutes. One unlock costs 3 credits and covers this episode forever: full segment and word-level timestamps on this page, plus .txt, .srt, .vtt and word-level JSON downloads, as many times as you like.