\n<\/p>\n
W<\/span>ikipedia will be 25 years old in January. Jimmy Wales\u2019s daughter will be 25 and three weeks. It\u2019s not a coincidence: on Boxing Day 2000 Wales\u2019s then wife, Christine, gave birth to a baby girl, but it quickly became clear that something wasn\u2019t right. She had breathed in contaminated amniotic fluid, resulting in a life-threatening condition called meconium aspiration syndrome. An experimental treatment was available at the hospital near where they lived in San Diego. Did\u00a0they want to try it?<\/p>\n At the time, Wales was a former trader and internet entrepreneur in his mid-30s. He had co-founded a \u201cguy-oriented search engine\u201d called Bomis, but his real passion was encyclopedias. The money from Bomis had allowed him to found Nupedia, a free online encyclopedia written by experts \u2013 but it was proving slow to get off the ground. The laborious process of peer review meant that it only managed to generate 21 articles in its first year (among them \u201cDonegal fiddle tradition\u201d and \u201cpolymerase chain reaction\u201d).<\/p>\n Suddenly, Wales needed information, and fast. But as he searched for \u201cmeconium\u201d on the wider web, desperate to make a better-informed decision about his daughter\u2019s health, all he found was a mixture of first-hand accounts from strangers he had no way of evaluating and highly technical scientific papers he couldn\u2019t understand. \u201cIt was like sifting through the debris of a bombed-out library,\u201d he remembers. Ultimately, he and his then wife decided to trust the doctors and go with the new treatment. Their baby, Kira, pulled through. But that terrifying scramble made up his mind: Nupedia was never going to work \u2013 it was time for a different approach.<\/p>\n We know the rest of the story: his new project, Wikipedia, founded on the principle that anyone could edit it, grew rapidly. By 2002, there were about 25,000 entries in the English version; by 2006, there were 1m. There are now more than 7m (the digital version of Encyclopedia Britannica has 100,000). Alongside this are 18 foreign-language versions of Wikipedia that have more than 1m articles each, ranging from Arabic to Vietnamese. It has become part of the plumbing of the internet \u2013 perhaps even more essential: Diane von F\u00fcrstenberg once told Wales that \u201cwe all use Wikipedia more often than we pee\u201d.<\/p>\n In an online landscape characterised by doom and division, it stands out: a huge, collective endeavour based on voluntarism and cooperation, with an underlying vision that\u2019s unapologetically utopian \u2013 to build \u201ca world where every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge\u201d. It has weathered teething troubles (such as a \u201cjoke\u201d edit that suggested a loyal aide to Robert F Kennedy was in fact involved in his and his brother\u2019s assassinations) to become a place in which civility and neutrality are the guiding stars, and levels of accuracy match those of academic textbooks.<\/p>\n Wales\u2019s new book, The Seven Rules of Trust, is an attempt to distil the secrets of its success. They include things such as having a strong, clear, positive purpose (the slogan \u201cWikipedia is an encyclopedia\u201d is a surprisingly powerful reminder that keeps editors honest); assuming good faith and being courteous; refraining from taking sides and being radically transparent. It\u2019s a no-nonsense \u201clessons learned\u201d book that might otherwise find itself occupying shelf space next to Steven Bartlett\u2019s Diary of a CEO (subtitle: The 33 Laws of Business and Life) \u2013 but Wikipedia\u2019s ubiquity, and the way it has dramatically bucked the trend of online toxicity \u2013 make it potentially far more significant.<\/p>\n I just like doing interesting things. So I get up and I do the most interesting thing I can think of. And Wikipedia is super interesting \u2026 <\/p>\n I meet Wales at his publishers\u2019 offices near the British Museum in London. It\u2019s a clear autumn morning and we sit in the Duncan Grant-inspired \u201cauthor\u2019s room\u201d amid brightly coloured cushions and murals. He wears a creased pink linen shirt and slurps coffee while we wait for pastries. It\u2019s the second time we\u2019ve met \u2013 the first was at a dinner in July to give journalists a taste of the book, where he showed himself able to hold forth in front of a room of literary editors and reporters in press conference mode. Here he seems a bit more hesitant, chuckling nervously, prone to delivering answers with great big bracketed sections that make us both forget what the question was.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m a little bit too shy to do interviews, even though I do,\u201d he tells me, about the process of talking to people about Seven Rules. Traces of his native Alabama have mostly disappeared from his accent after years of living in London, and there\u2019s even the occasional English glottal stop. He moved here in 2012 to be with Kate Garvey, a former aide to Tony Blair, whom he met at the World Economic Forum in Davos. They are married and have two daughters together. \u201cIt\u2019s a funny thing when I say that I\u2019m shy to people, because they\u2019re like, \u2018Oh, you do a lot of public speaking\u2019, but yeah, that\u2019s not the same thing.\u201d You wouldn\u2019t call him socially awkward, exactly, but neither does he present as completely Ted Talk ready. Instead, he\u2019s ordinary, approachable, with none of the bombast of some of his internet mogul peers.<\/p>\n Wales turns 60 next year. His direct contemporaries include PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. All of them have had profound influence on our lives, but only one of them has failed to become a billionaire.<\/p>\n <\/span> Photograph: P\u00e5l Hansen\/The Guardian<\/p>\n There\u2019s an easy story to tell about this; that as \u201cthe good guy of the internet\u201d Wales used his entrepreneurial skills in the service of a higher calling. What does he make of that kind of talk? \u201cI don\u2019t know. I mean, it\u2019s embarrassing,\u201d he laughs. Is there a part of him that likes the epithet, though? \u201cOf course, no, it\u2019s great. I\u00a0mean, I\u2019m very proud of Wikipedia.\u201d But the idea that he renounced astronomical amounts of money in order to make the world a better place is wide of the mark. \u201cI\u00a0don\u2019t see it like that. Early in my career, in the career of Wikipedia, a lot of journalists were asking that question, thinking I was going to be some kind of communist because, like, why would you be doing this thing as a nonprofit? But I\u2019m not. I\u2019m actually quite in favour of business and capitalism and all that.\u201d (He\u2019s currently president of Fandom, an ad-funded entertainment site that hosts user-edited pages, owned by private equity firm TPG Capital). \u201cI just like doing interesting things. So I get up and I just do the most interesting thing I can think of. And Wikipedia is super interesting \u2026 I go and I visit with Wikipedians all around the world and go to schools and things like that. I meet prime ministers.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAnd actually, on the money front,\u201d he continues, \u201cI live here in London. How many bankers in the City make far more money than I ever will? Loads of them. How many of their lives are dramatically less interesting than mine? I would say almost all of them.\u201d<\/p>\n B<\/span>ack in 2006, comedian Stephen Colbert did a bit about Wikipedia, saying it was the harbinger of a distorted form of reality called \u201cWikiality\u201d (\u201cif enough other users agree \u2026 it becomes true\u201d), and encouraging viewers of The Colbert Report to introduce edits containing bogus stats about elephants. It almost collapsed the site. Fast forward to 2025 and it seems that Wikipedia might be the antidote to \u201calternative facts\u201d, with lessons not just for the web, but for society more broadly.<\/p>\n Not everyone is convinced. On the day I meet Wales, Musk suggests to his 228 million followers on X that \u201cWikipedia should be called Wokipedia (or Dickipedia \ud83d\ude02)\u201d. It\u2019s the latest salvo in Musk\u2019s rolling campaign to discredit the nonprofit site and generate interest in his own \u201cGrokipedia\u201d project, a plan for an AI-based encyclopedia that will be \u201ca massive improvement over Wikipedia\u201d and \u201ca necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the universe\u201d.<\/p>\n Musk\u2019s hostility aside, does Wales see artificial intelligence in general as a threat? If people are increasingly relying on AI summaries, might Wikipedia\u2019s dominance turn out to have been a blip? \u201cI don\u2019t think so,\u201d he says, \u201cbut, I mean, that\u2019s obviously on a lot of people\u2019s minds these days.\u201d It would be ironic, given that the site\u2019s free licensing model means it can be used by anyone for anything \u2013 including as training data for large language models. \u201cThere are definitely threats to the web, but they\u2019re not necessarily coming from AI,\u201d he says. \u201cI think the bigger threat is the rise of authoritarianism, governments, regulations, which make it harder to have a truly open global web where people are free to share ideas.\u201d It\u2019s true that Wikipedia is blocked in China, and faces sporadic censorship in Russia and elsewhere. Wales\u2019s stance on this is not to give an inch \u2013 he has said: \u201cWe have a very firm policy, never breached, to never cooperate with government censorship in any region of the world.\u201d<\/p>\n Elon and I have been friendly. Even now, he\u2019s much nicer to me in private than you might think <\/p>\n What about his billionaire peers? Do they have any influence? Musk messaged him the morning after the 2024 US presidential election, not to crow over Donald Trump\u2019s victory, but to complain about a Wikipedia article in which a friend of his was described as \u201cfar right\u201d. When Wales checked, it had already been changed, and he judged that it was a reasonable call, though he won\u2019t tell me whose page it was. \u201cI mean, the circumstances were a little surprising, but it\u2019s, you know, completely legitimate.\u201d He says people are always messaging him saying they\u2019ve seen something on a page that doesn\u2019t look right. Wales will take a look, but he doesn\u2019t hand out favours: changes have to conform to the usual rules about fairness and proper sourcing.<\/p>\n Does he still regard Musk, the world\u2019s richest man, as a friend? \u201cFriends is probably a little strong. I mean, not, not that \u2013\u201d he sputters, editing himself in real time. \u201cI\u00a0want to be careful how I say that, only because I\u2019ve met him maybe five or six times, so that I would be overstating to say friends. We\u2019ve been friendly, and even now he\u2019s much nicer to me in private than you might think. I mean, he\u2019s got a big public persona, and that\u2019s a little bit different from the private Elon, who I think is more thoughtful.\u201d It\u2019s a weird strategy, isn\u2019t it, to be so aggressive in public, if that\u2019s not what you\u2019re actually like? \u201cI don\u2019t know. It\u2019s a good question. I have this general rule of, like, I can\u2019t speculate about what goes on in Elon Musk\u2019s head. I have no idea \u2013 I\u2019m as at a loss as anybody.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk\u2019s attacks are rooted in a belief that Wikipedia has an in-built leftwing bias. In this, he joins the likes of Tucker Carlson, who recently said: \u201cIt\u2019s an emergency, in my opinion, that Wikipedia is completely dishonest.\u201d There\u2019s a sense that Maga has Wikipedia in its sights.<\/p>\n Wales is frustrated by this, but isn\u2019t going to get drawn into a slanging match. \u201cIt\u2019s annoying, but one of the things that I\u2019ve said to [Musk] is if you really want to help, the right way is not to misstate the facts,\u201d he says firmly. \u201cSaying that Wikipedia has been taken over by \u2018woke\u2019 activists is just false. But if you think Wikipedia has some bias in it \u2013 and, of course, that\u2019s always something we have to think about and grapple with \u2013 then going around saying it has been taken over by \u2018crazed trans Hamas supporters\u2019, or whatever you think, is doing two things. One, it\u2019s telling kind and thoughtful conservatives that Wikipedia is not the place for you, and that\u2019s a shame. And it\u2019s also telling [activists], here\u2019s your new home, which means we have to deal with them. We want to communicate to everybody that Wikipedia is not a very comfortable place for extremists. If you want to rant about things and you want to be super biased, then go on, write your own blog. What we\u2019re looking for is kind and thoughtful people who care more about getting it right and being calm and factual.\u201d<\/p>\n Seven Rules is particularly strong on the importance of not taking sides, arguing that if people believe an institution isn\u2019t neutral, trust evaporates. Crucially, that happens even if it\u2019s biased in your favour. Wales cites work by Cory Clark at the University of Pennsylvania that looked at how people responded to political stands taken by all sorts of organisations, from newspapers to dental clinics to sports leagues. \u201cWhen people thought a group was politicised against their own political position, they trusted the group less. No surprise there. But when people thought the group had taken sides and was politically aligned with them \u2026 they still trusted them less.\u201d<\/p>\n He brings up his own example: \u201cI remember during the first Trump administration reading a hard news story in the Washington Post, which was doing great reporting, and I loved this story. But at the end, I\u2019m like: \u2018That was a rant against Donald Trump, and they interpreted every piece of evidence in the most negative possible way.\u2019\u201d This annoyed him even though he was on the \u201cside\u201d of the reporter (earlier, Wales tells me: \u201cI really can\u2019t bear Donald Trump, he\u2019s just appalling.\u201d). \u201cDo I feel like I\u2019ve gotten the full picture to make up my own mind, or do I feel like I\u2019ve been fed something that I probably already agree with? I think that\u2019s problematic.\u201d<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/p>\n Sign up to Inside Saturday<\/span><\/p>\n The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend.<\/p>\n Privacy Notice: <\/strong>Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.<\/span><\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n <\/span>\u2018I literally work every day in an office in my basement. And that\u2019s my happy place.\u2019 Wales in 2005 in his office in St Petersburg, Florida.<\/span> Photograph: Gary Bogdon\/The New York Times\/eyevine<\/p>\n At the same time, neutrality and civility has its limits, doesn\u2019t it? I mention a clever op-ed by Larry David that made this point, called My Dinner With Adolf, in which the comedian imagines breaking bread with the worst man in history. He ends with the line: \u201cI must say, mein F\u00fchrer, I\u2019m so thankful I came. Although we disagree on many issues, it doesn\u2019t mean that we have to hate each other.\u201d What does Wales think about the risk that, in giving a fair hearing to all sides, you can fail in the moral duty to call out real wickedness?<\/p>\n \u201cSo I think we can make a distinction here between what I ought to do, what you ought to do, versus what an encyclopedia<\/em> ought to do,\u201d he says. \u201cHitler is always a terrible example, but it actually is a great example in this case: it\u2019s like, the Hitler entry doesn\u2019t have to be a rant against Hitler. You just write down what he did, and it\u2019s a damning indictment right there \u2026 you don\u2019t need to add \u2018PS, he\u2019s a horrible person\u2019. You just say: \u2018These are the facts, draw your own conclusions.\u2019\u201d In Seven Rules, he quotes a Ukrainian Wikipedia editor who puts his personal feeling to one side to maintain the policy of strict neutrality: \u201cThe neutral facts are still on the side of Ukraine, right?\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019m not gonna go into space with my rocket. I like it here on Earth. There\u2019s oxygen <\/p>\n This separation of fact and sentiment seems pretty unusual nowadays. It\u2019s no great mystery why: in the book, Wales talks about \u201can entire class of \u2018content creators\u2019 who have effectively been trained by social media algorithms to play up outrage, fear, and hate at every opportunity\u201d. Part of the reason this has happened is because of the lack of guiding principles among web 2.0\u2019s major players. \u201cUnlike Wikipedia, social media platforms have no purpose beyond selling eyeballs to advertisers, so there was nothing steering the development of norms toward civility and constructive conversation,\u201d he writes.<\/p>\n Is that inevitable, given the profit motive? Or, to put it another way: did money make the web go bad, spawning everything from democracy-destroying deepfakes to AI slop? No, says Wales. For him, the real poison is a lack of ethics. And that\u2019s the result of poor commercial instincts, rather than commerce itself. \u201cI\u2019ve said this to people at Facebook: if the public becomes convinced that you\u2019re destroying western civilisation, you\u2019ve got a big business problem. And I think that\u2019s proving to be true, as they\u2019re in decline.\u201d Other than that, he\u2019s a \u201cpathological optimist\u201d and still feels pretty good about the internet in general. \u201cGoogle search, the internet as a whole \u2013 like, it\u2019s amazing, you know? So we can sometimes get a little jaded and forget that, and just say: Oh, people are being really mean on Twitter. Yeah, that\u2019s true. So my recommendation is just don\u2019t go to Twitter any more.\u201d<\/p>\n W<\/span>ales enjoyed a modest but comfortable childhood in Huntsville, Alabama, the son of a grocery store manager and a schoolteacher. He spent \u201ccountless hours\u201d reading The World Book Encyclopedia his mother had bought from a door-to-door salesman, eagerly awaiting the updates that arrived by post once a year. When he became a trader in Chicago in the 90s, he \u201cloved it\u201d because \u201cit was very mathematical\u201d. He maintains he doesn\u2019t really envy the digital tycoons whose fortunes have far eclipsed his own. \u201cI\u2019m just a geek. I literally work every day in an office in my basement, right? And that\u2019s my happy place. I\u2019ve got my two computers, and I\u2019ve got my treadmill. I\u2019m not gonna go into space with my rocket. I like it here on Earth. There\u2019s oxygen.\u201d<\/p>\n And while Wikipedia isn\u2019t Wales\u2019s cash cow, it still needs to make money. Regular users will be familiar with banners (sometimes emblazoned with Wales\u2019s face) soliciting funds. Where do all those donations go? \u201cOur finances are super transparent, so you can just go and look. They go to programmers, bandwidth, hardware, the tech side of things. There\u2019s accounting, finance, legal, PR, and then we make grants.\u201d<\/p>\n In late 2024, using the slogan \u201cStop donating to Wokepedia\u201d, various rightwing accounts (including Musk\u2019s) shared graphs purporting to show that Wikipedia\u2019s parent foundation spent \u201c$50m of their total $177m budget on diversity, equity, and inclusion\u201d. Were they referring to some of that grant money? He starts his answer with the weary \u201cYeahhh\u201d of someone who\u2019s had to patiently explain a position many times, before setting out what he sees as the bigger picture: \u201cFor a lot of people and a lot of companies, DEI is, sadly, just a tack-on, right? It\u2019s like, \u2018Oh, we need to do this thing to not look horrible\u2019, and that\u2019s unfortunate \u2026 for us, Wikipedia is completely global. It\u2019s a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet in their own language. So diversity, equity and inclusion are fundamental to the mission. We actually care about people who are native speakers of Swahili being active in Wikipedia, because that\u2019s our goal: an encyclopedia for everyone. It isn\u2019t \u2018woke nonsense\u2019. It is all about the\u00a0mission.<\/p>\n \u201cThe grants were basically outreach to groups to say: can we bring in more women editors? Can we bring in more African American editors, people who have different knowledge bases? It was 100% all related to improving Wikipedia.\u201d He sees the criticisms as \u201ccompletely invalid\u201d and again makes the point that the online right\u2019s scorched-earth approach to its perceived enemies makes addressing any real issues all the more difficult. \u201cYou know, I think there\u2019s a legitimate question \u2013 we should ask ourselves this for every grant we make. Does it work? Should we do more funding like this, or less funding like this? One of the things that I always encourage in my role on the board is pilot projects, and being experimental.\u201d He worries that this important culture of trial and error is under threat. \u201cThroughout the whole NGO sector, throughout corporate funding of things, there\u2019s a chilling effect going on, where work that would be perfectly sensible and valid, companies are shying away from it because they don\u2019t want to be tarred as \u2018go woke, go broke\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/span> Photograph: P\u00e5l Hansen\/The Guardian<\/p>\n In some ways, Wikipedia has been the canary in the coalmine for many of today\u2019s hot-button issues \u2013 rows over diversity, the use of language, concerns about anonymity, trolling and misinformation. During the pandemic, when quackery and conspiracism were rife, a group of editors made it their mission to police medical misinformation on the site. Crucially, they tried to maintain everyone\u2019s trust while doing so, citing evidence and recording every twist and turn of the debate in the editors\u2019 \u201ctalk\u201d pages, which are preserved for ever. At the time, Wales said: \u201cI think a lot of organisations can help with misinformation by simply being more transparent, more open \u2026 Just saying, \u2018Well, I\u2019m a reporter from the BBC, and I\u2019m telling you this\u2019, that isn\u2019t enough to prove it to people any more \u2026 you actually have to show your work, you have to explain how you came to some conclusion.\u201d I wonder if British politics could benefit from a similar approach. It\u2019s an area where Wales has more than a few connections \u2013 in the run-up to the 2015 election, he was in talks to advise Ed Miliband on digital strategy; Garvey\u2019s connections meant that Tony and Cherie Blair attended their wedding, where Alastair Campbell played the bagpipes; Alexis Kirschbaum, the editorial director who shepherded Seven Rules through to publication, is married to former culture secretary James Purnell.<\/p>\n \u201cFor a government that actually has a massive majority,\u201d he says of Keir Starmer\u2019s administration, \u201cthey seem very timid and lacking in pursuing bigger ideas, and I think that is part of the problem \u2026 I would rather see them taking some bold actions that I disagree with than just sort of dithering around and not getting anything done. Be more clear about what it is that you are going to accomplish, and then actually do it.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s tempting to ask what the nerd in the basement is doing offering advice to an elected government. But the improbability of what he\u2019s achieved \u2013 an information-sharing platform based on cooperation in an era of profound polarisation \u2013 may mean that he\u2019s worth listening to. Does he feel as if he\u2019s in \u201clegacy mode\u201d now, passing on what he\u2019s learned to the world? \u201cI mean, in part yes, in part hopefully no. I remember there was a Wired magazine story probably 15 years ago that said something like: \u2018He doesn\u2019t need to do anything else.\u2019 Well, hold on! I\u2019m still very active.\u201d Is it annoying to always be \u201cthe Wikipedia guy\u201d? \u201cIt\u2019s not a bad guy to be, so it\u2019s OK,\u201d he chuckles. \u201cIn 100 years\u2019 time, when people look back on this era, they\u2019re going to look at the Wikipedia community and say, \u2018Well, that was actually quite a crazy time, and there was a little oasis of nice people doing something good.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n And then there\u2019s family \u2013 his daughters Ada and Jemima, with Garvey, and, of course, Kira. How is she doing, a quarter of a century later? \u201cKira is fantastic. She\u2019s turned out great. She\u2019s into airplanes. She came to visit, and I got her a pilot lesson, you know, just a trial lesson, for fun. She loved it.\u201d And she never says: \u2018Dad, why didn\u2019t you monetise your massive website?\u2019 \u201cNo, no, no,\u201d he laughs. \u201cShe\u2019s like me. She\u2019s a super geek.\u201d<\/p>\n The Seven Rules of Trust: Why It Is Today\u2019s Most Essential Superpower is published by Bloomsbury on 28 October (\u00a322). To support the Guardian, buy your copy for \u00a319.80 from guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Wikipedia will be 25 years old in January. Jimmy Wales\u2019s daughter will be 25 and three weeks. It\u2019s not a coincidence: on Boxing Day 2000 Wales\u2019s then wife, Christine, gave birth to a baby girl, but it quickly became clear that something wasn\u2019t right. She had breathed in contaminated amniotic fluid, resulting in a life-threatening<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":30925,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52],"tags":[14681,6073,13436,235,2275,364,812,445,123,18078],"class_list":{"0":"post-30924","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-technology","8":"tag-baron","9":"tag-communist","10":"tag-decent","11":"tag-jimmy","12":"tag-nonprofit","13":"tag-people","14":"tag-tech","15":"tag-thought","16":"tag-wales","17":"tag-wikipedias"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30924","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=30924"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30924\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/30925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=30924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=30924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=30924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}