 So actually, Mark gave me a pretty good introduction because I'm more talking to the users than the developers or consultants right now. And I am also looking for input. But I just wanted to talk a little bit about user pages. But first, just kind of a little number quiz because it's right after lunch. Get us thinking again. So I'll flash a couple numbers and I'm interested to see if everybody kind of knows what they are without googling. So here's a couple numbers. The first one, probably pretty easy, everybody's got it. But what is it? So it shows up in geometry and statistics and probability all the time. Next number, yeah, natural log. Again, probability and math. And the next one, yep. And so it comes up in nature a lot. It's kind of related to the, what's that? Conspiracy theory. Yeah, right. Yeah, so kind of like pretty looking geometry or whatever, conspiracy theories. What is it, the last supper maybe? 42. What was the last number? There you go, yep. So it's from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A lot of people like that. OK, yeah. Anybody else, 150? Yeah, yeah, exactly. So 150 is known as Dunbar's number. So Dunbar, I think it was Robin Dunbar, was a social anthropologist. And he did a lot of studies on kind of primates brains and how socially connected they could be and what kind of social community they could have and follow. So it was also made famous by Malcolm Gladwell, this guy here, in his book, The Tipping Point. And so kind of like Mark talked about, it's the point beyond which members of any social group lose their ability to function effectively in social relationships. And so one of the famous examples that was in The Tipping Point actually was the Gore Company. They made Gore Techs. And through trial and error, they found out that this number kind of meant something to companies. Every time a company would kind of reach or pass that number, they'd have some problems. And they ended up kind of solving that problem by putting a hard cap on 150. Basically, they built new buildings with 150 parking spots. And when that got kind of close, they just said, all right, we're going to split out and make a new building. And here's our new company. But there's these structural differences that start to appear in companies as their employee accounts get bigger and bigger. And this kind of makes a little bit of intuitive sense. At first, maybe you have a couple founders. And then they hire a couple more people. Everybody's pretty tightly integrated. But as it grows, you need to segment off and have departments. And departments maybe don't talk to each other quite as much. With that, you do get specialization. So people are able to go a little bit further. But the interaction between employees kind of stays fixed. And there's another name. This guy, I think, Thomas Allen, came up with this curve. And it was in the 70s. But what he kind of showed is, and me and Cindy actually were just talking about this, but the communication between people kind of drops off exponentially as their distance increases. So the person won cubicle or office away from me, I talk to really frequently. But as it's a couple cubicles away, less and less. And at some point, it drops off till the other building I'm really not talking to anymore. But you might say, well, that was the 70s. It's a long time ago. Did we even have email? Not sure. So maybe technology will solve us. Phones, emails can kind of help us out. But he revisited this. And he actually found in 2006 that instead of these communication techniques improving our communication, really, we still have the same amount of face-to-face communication. And that's what really drove this kind of deeper communication and connection between people. So, and this is kind of his justification for it. So we don't keep separate sets of people. Like, I communicate with this group via email and this group at work via phone and this group versus face-to-face. That might be kind of true outside. We might have different instant messengers that have a different kind of social group or a gaming community. But in the business world, it's not really true. We still usually talk to a certain kind of set of people. So one of the things I was kind of looking at, just because of the name of the conference, was Enterprise Media Wiki is just what the definition of enterprise was and how our business is classified. And that's kind of from the classical sales approach. So a lot of kind of business to business companies, how they classify what size a company is and kind of what relationships they have and how to kind of sell to each type. So unfortunately, I was hoping that there'd be a crossover between kind of the definition for business and enterprise, but unfortunately, that didn't really pan out. It looks like the kind of crossover from business to enterprise in the US is kind of from business to enterprise is above 1,000, right? But this 150 for the Dunbar number is happening and above or in between small and medium businesses. And then looking at it a little bit further, Europe actually completely changes how businesses are kind of classified. So just for reference, they kind of call everything enterprise. So I think it probably serves better for enterprise media Wiki to follow the European definition. But still, in all these cases, this 150 number keeps popping up. It's when companies start redefining themselves and restructuring themselves. So what does that kind of mean for Wikis? Well, what are your guys' thoughts about the differences in general between Wikipedia and an enterprise Wiki? Any thoughts? What's one big difference maybe? There's probably a lot. Maybe just closer. So the answer was Wikipedia is more open and the business Wikis are usually more closed, right? It's kind of our internal knowledge out of business, how we do things internally. And that's probably the biggest difference. But anybody else, yeah? We often found also that there are less issues with vandalism, it's less of a concern because people, generally, edits are attributed to people. Generally, you have to log in with your enterprise in some fashion and so you're not editing anonymously and folks don't wanna lose their jobs. Right, because the edits are being tracked, right? Right, and then it's become part of your reputation. That's where I'm going, yeah, exactly, right. So another point is it's not anonymous, usually, in an enterprise Wiki. But one of the big points I was going for really is also that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, right? If I put something in Wikipedia, it should be cited. It shouldn't have a reference to it. But oftentimes in an enterprise Wiki, that's not always the case. In fact, a lot of times and in my personal history, I've found that a lot of what is in our Wiki represents kind of our communal thought about how our organization works. And so that's kind of an important idea now, right? So Wikipedia edit should provide citations to reliable sources, but our information enterprise maybe is based off of some theme or somebody that said something. So like Cindy's kind of talking about, that's maybe starting to define what a reputation is. So you have ideas and requirements, practices and definitions, and they don't have a exterior citation reference. And also it might not be from a neutral point of view. We might be talking about something with authority. There's some other kind of main differences that you can never, if you wanted to go to Wikipedia and just type in WP colon not, you'll find out kind of one way to define what something is is to define what it shouldn't be or what it isn't. And if you go to Wikipedia, that'll tell you all the things that you should not include in a Wikipedia article. And oftentimes that's what a company Wiki actually is. These definitions, dictionaries, just acronym lists. An article that is solely a collection of links, so you could just have an employee onboarding page that just says here's all the content that you should know as a new employee. Go here, then here, then here, it should take you about a week to trudge to all this content and then you're off and running. And then manual guides and how-tos, all not supposed to be in Wikipedia proper, but a part of a business Wiki. So how do we bring this together? So we've kind of said that there's a problem that companies face when they transition beyond some number. We'll just say it is 150. And that company wikis contain new and unreferenced information and knowledge. So my kind of argument is wikis require social regulation to maintain, enterprise wikis require social regulation to maintain this accuracy, right? Instead of so-called technical safeguards, like a vault where there's a kind of revision control process, ideally we're allowing the community to kind of add content and then regulate it themselves. So how do we resolve this? Well, the United States intelligence community might have an answer and I love their quote. I use it all the time in trying to convince people to use wikis, but they have an internal Wiki called Intellipedia. It serves all the big intelligence community agencies and the ones that I always like to use are the CIA, NSA and NGA. But this quote is beautiful, right? So Intellipedia, it's been written up. It's the Wikipedia on classified networks. With one important difference, it's not anonymous, right? So that's your point, Cindy. We want people to establish a reputation. So if you're good, we want people to know you're good. If you're making contributions, we want that known. If you're an idiot, we want that known too. So that part maybe we don't wanna kind of flaunt from the HR perspective, but the important thing is that one term there that I highlighted is reputation, right? I really think that wikis can help establish reputations within companies and maybe even move toward a meritocracy. So I think following the news of recent, we're starting to see that trust through reputation or even delegated reputation or delegated trust is becoming increasingly important and it's hard to filter through kind of this rubbish of news that we're seeing. So kind of a long quote here, but I really like it. So I'll just kind of read through it, but we are experiencing a fundamental paradigm shift and a relationship to knowledge. From the information age, we are moving toward a reputation age in which information will only have value if it is already filtered, evaluated and commented on by others. So seen in this light, reputation has become a central pillar of collective intelligence today. It is the gatekeeper to knowledge and the keys to the gate are held by others. The way in which the authority of knowledge is now constructed makes us reliant on what are the inevitable bias judgments of other peoples, most of whom we do not know. So yeah, right? So I mean, we can all point to something that's happening in the news right now and say that that's fake news, right? But what's our filter for that, right? So in society, we're having to choose who we think are reputable sources and then listen to that and filter that out. But in companies, right, we probably have a similar filtering where when an edict come from one person, we trust it more than somebody else or when we're discussing something or especially when we're a new employee, you know, we don't know that at all, right? As I come in as a new employee, I don't know this landscape. I can listen to three different people's opinion on how to design a certain part. And you know, if I talked to that same employee a year later, he'd say, yeah, I would have totally ignored those first two guys and that last lady, that was right, right? So, you know, one of the ways that we can start helping out with this social or this trust or reputation is through social regulation. So I think I mentioned it already, but I like to say that Wikis allow companies to lower technical safeguards, the vaulting or controlled revision in place of social regulation. And I don't know. Darren, are you doing a talk on watch analytics at all, or? Briefly. Okay, so some of the guys at NASA put together an extension called Watch Analytics that I think I've found to be just pretty crucial for an enterprise wiki. I used to say, you know, it's okay that everybody has edit access because everybody's watching, right? But that was more or less a statement and I didn't necessarily know that was true. And when we talk about what this graph is, it's not true, as it turns out, just because I say somebody or the community is watching doesn't actually mean they are watching. So what Watch Analytics is a nifty little extension that kind of just demonstrates, you know, so we'll look at it really quick here. So all the orange little dots kind of surrounding here are users and all the blue dots are pages. And so any of these kind of blue dots on the periphery are pages that are only watched by one user. So that's bad. We want more than one reviewer watching each page. And then all of these links are links from the user to a page that they watch that's in their watch list. And if it's gray, which, I mean, it doesn't look quite this bad on my screen but this looks terrible on mine or up here, but here you go. Here's some gray links. If it's gray, that's showing that they've seen the latest revision. If it's red, it's showing that they haven't, right? So this looks like a terrible state of a wiki, but if you don't have this knowledge, you don't know what your wiki looks like right now. So even though this looks bad, it now gives us a metric to start moving forward from. So it also puts up on every page kind of a scrutiny and a reviewer score. So it's kind of showing, how quickly people are coming to watch this page after it's been changed and then how many people are watching it. And then it's got cool colors. So it gives you a little bit of trust if this page is a well-watched and quickly reviewed page. The cool things it does is it shows you who the editors are of the page and then also who's actually seen the most recent version of that page. But as cool as that is, it doesn't necessarily answer the question of if the correct people are actually watching the page, right? So there's really two types of employees that should be watching when pages are changed in an enterprise wiki. One would be the subject matter expert. Maybe he's written most of the content, he knows what it is and someone makes a change and it's just adding a link, right? But they should be able to review it to make sure that it's got integrity. The other is a content consumer that's kind of somewhat reliant on this information to do their job, right? And without kind of capturing who those people are, we could have 15 people that are all content consumers watching the page. They can see the latest edit but they don't know if it's the right edit or not but this might show as a part of the score. That being said, it's still giving us way more visibility than what they previously would have had. Is that my timer? Dang, I need to speed things up. Okay. So at the most basic level, we need to know who everybody is, right? So know just a little bit about the users in our wiki. And I really think the real name for the users is a really good first step. If your wiki user list looks like this, it's a bit harder, right? You might start to figure out that user 09 R Huff is Robert Huff or something down the street or in the next cubicle over but there's a little bit of a kind of a Rosetta stone going on there. It's a little bit harder to figure out who the person is. So instead of real names, often I've seen kind of emails and I think maybe a lot of this is tied to some authentication protocols or LAN IDs but nicknames are another one. So it's a little less than ideal. We're not really establishing reputations as well when we have a bit of a kind of a hard to read name. But just as a silly example, here's like a user page for me. But we can see who the, my title, a photo, which I think is pretty nice, right? It might be kind of silly, but you get to just see who that person is and you see them in the hallway. If it's a big enough company, you can start like making a connection say, hey, I really liked your edit. It's a way to kind of maybe have a bit of an icebreaker. And so we have something else where we also have some contractors, vendors and customers that have user pages that don't necessarily have wiki access and the background changes, the background color changes and does some other stuff but then we can start actually writing stuff about our vendors. This is the contact for this other company. Here's the companies page. Here's some good contact tools. They're always late on delivery, by the way, and they have really bad products, right? But so title, department's another cool thing about having this is I think we tried this at my last company with some limited success, but we started to self-generate an org chart based off of kind of knowing what the department was that the user is in and then what their supervisor was, which we both captured. We also had an automated way that we would send out a birthday wish. So location map is something I've never done but I thought would be kind of cool. But then you can auto-generate contacts, you can do phone lists and email lists pretty easily once you've captured that. And the other thing is you can maybe start to capture expertise, right? What are people good at in a company? And one of them is just are they active wiki editor, right? And so you can track how many counts or how many edits the user's had and then go through some made up list of badges. Ideally you can have some gamification that goes with it. Maybe you give them a gift card when they get to certain levels. But capturing expertise is something again for that new employee in a company is pretty important. Who do I go to to ask for maybe a help on Excel or some other common software programs that are used in a company? So once I start capturing expertise, I can start displaying it on the software page that talks about how to install it or how to use it or some tips and tricks. But then it can also start pointing the other users to who to ask questions. So right now it was just collected and it was self-reported. But in the future, I'm hoping to gather more skills and tools and gather kind of more areas of expertise that we can start demonstrating. But there's some of them. This is kind of what it looks like, but from a visual, this is how we kind of collected it at first. Just visually now you can start looking at stuff. And so E was, they were an expert. C meant they're a competent and T meant they needed training. And so it's pretty discreet. Eventually you might move to like a one through 10 scale or something and maybe eventually there'll be some testing that comes through and it's not self-reported. But at least for now, kind of going from the bottom up, it's giving other users an easy access to find out who the person is that's a knowledge expert, who I can go to to go find something about this program that I don't know about. But the other is kind of trying to find gaps in knowledge. And so from a managerial perspective, where do I have something that only one person knows it and when they leave the company, they retire or whatever, we're kind of hoes. So this is a classic Dilbert and I don't know if Scott Adams really meant this, but I kind of read into this a little bit differently too in that this really does represent the worst case. This guy kind of is being kept around because he's the only person that knows this. One piece of information, right? And if he just died, well, that would be pretty bad. That'd be a bad case scenario, right? But the company would move on and they would train some more people on some replacement and they would kind of go forth and be a better company. But the worst would be, one person tells one other person and now that person's the kind of knowledge keeper and continues on not doing a lot other than just being the one person that can do this one job. So anyway, once you start finding out where your gaps in knowledge are in a company, ideally the management can start saying, hey, this is important. We do want to fill some of these gaps in and we might incentivize correctly to train somebody up in this skill or in this software. Yeah, so one of the things we're trying to say now is in the Dilbert example, his direct supervisor kept them around because he did know that he was the person that knew this one critical piece of information. But does the rest of your company know that you're that knowledge guru? Maybe not, right? And does someone way high up in management know? So you're probably way better off kind of demonstrating your knowledge to as many people as possible so you can establish yourself as a knowledge leader. So this is just a quick quote. I won't read it, but it's from one of my old work colleagues and he was a R&D engineer that when I came in, he was my mentor and I learned a lot from this guy. But recently I was asking him just actually if the Wiki I started that they're still using, still used visual editor and the answer was no. But one of the comments that he had was just basically saying that before the Wiki he didn't have a reputation outside of the engineering group. Everybody in engineering knew he was the guru. He was engineering really to the company. But outside of that people in the shop, people on sales didn't really understand that. They didn't directly interface with him so they didn't know that he was the guy that was really critical to the company. So it took me a while to get him to start making edits. I might talk about that later. But once he grabbed onto it he ended up being a prolific editor. So at some level we need companies to change their culture. This is another quote from that same page on Intellipedia. But ideally we can start having management support the idea that knowledge, capture and curation is a good thing and it should be kind of written into their performance plan. Their raises can be built into it as well. But once you start doing that it's ripe for attacks and manipulation. Someone says your job is to create 10 pages every year and do these many edits and then you just see someone create just rubbish. So the tracker looks good but they're not really doing the company a benefit. One thing I think is pretty awesome is we're already starting to move toward this idea. I think and everybody here is kind of on board with it probably that capturing and curating knowledge is an important aspect of companies going into the future and even moving toward an easy search is something that the newer employees coming into a company they just expect. These younger kids coming out of college just expect to be able to Google things and they come in and they're being told this information is in this shelf over here and you gotta go ask that person there and even that takes a while to learn. So I think we can do quite a bit better. So what about going beyond trust? So I really think user pages are kind of a crucial first step if you haven't done it already and I don't think it's gonna go away and I think self reported expertise is a decent way to start. But there's a lot of data that we're capturing right now and extensions are adding to that. So what else can we do? So in coming into this conference I actually did a little bit of brief research and this is kind of what I found. So Avogado was an early social networking site and it was a way for programmers to share information with each other and it had a way to kind of filter out fake news where at first there was only four people that were kind of rated as like the top masters, right? And then they could delve out and delegate their trust to others that they saw doing well and by doing that that person's kind of trust level rose up in the community. And actually I found at first looking at Wikipedia's inter-wiki link map and so it's there from the very first edit by Tim Starling, I didn't know what it was, looked it up and then was kind of blown away by how powerful I think this could be. But it uses an algorithm similar to PageRank but the general idea is a page and Google's original paper was good when other pages linked to it and it was better if the page it linked to it was a better page but then it's kind of like this circular reference. How do you actually do that? Well they do this kind of series of matrices and versions where they kind of give every page they've crawled through the same score like 0.5 and then after a few iterations of that it kind of stabilizes out and then you start getting something like this. So this is kind of a version of a global trust network. There's also trustlet and they actually use some of the data from Obligato to predict whether whether one user should trust another user and Casper Soren was I think pretty heavily involved in media wiki development a while ago. I've seen his name pop up a lot but I found his name along with this new research on wikis. There's also wiki trust. It was a plug-in to kind of help with vandalism and the idea was it would kind of search through and try to figure out who the author was when the specific word was changed and then kind of provide a color representation of the trust of the accuracy of whether that word should be kind of scrutinized a little bit more. The one kind of, so what it looked like is or what it used as far as how important the page was is it just said well how long is the page and how many views has it had and that kind of gave the page a ranking and then it would say how persistent is this author's words on this page and other pages and by doing that it was able to come up with this way to kind of come up with a level of trust for this author's next edits. And then there's one, there was a full paper done by a German wiki where they added some gamifications, a gamification and so I don't speak a German but as far as I know the little bubble things over there mean like very good, good, okay and not so good down below. So every editor could comment on the accuracy of the edits, they could score it and provide a comment and then you could see what other editors saw, how stale the page was versus other people editing it and then you could even the very bottom link there I think was like all reviews or something and it showed an anonymized version of what everybody else thought about the edits on that page. So the results from this little study were pretty positive, it increased the participation in edits and reviews and this is all through a survey that they did but they kind of determined that the quality of the wiki content increased as well. And so I just wanted to extend it just briefly to ourselves, right? Could we have a wiki reputation system for this group and beyond, right? So Lex has famously come up with the trusted web of colleagues which was an idea to kind of do the same thing but that could be a place where talking to Brian's last talk you could have this curated list of secure extensions, right? So someone in that group has audited it and said this extension is good and it's this kind of delegated trust where I can't look at that extension and determine if it's good but maybe Greg did and I trust Greg so I can install that extension. So why do we need trust? An open wiki is a better wiki, we need to prove that people are reviewing edits and the correct people are reviewing those edits. So that's it, any questions? Oh, Mike. I'll make one comment and then ask a couple of questions. So your Dilbert comic about the one person that knows this useful information and you have this bus number of one and so if this person gets run over by a bus then you've lost that information for good and that kind of stuff drives me nuts when people do that at work, we see it all the time in our organizations unfortunately and I just think that it's important for us to explain the importance of sharing the information in wikis and it's not the information that makes you important, it's being able to put that information to use. So every person is gonna have different skills as far as applying that information. So your use of watch analytics, obviously that excites me. How much does your management use that to kind of, I mean you sort of alluded to the fact that you could use that in performance reviews, do you guys actually do that? We're starting to, yeah. So only recently has management decided to start attaching just edits and page creation to performance reviews but I've been struggling to say hey this, it doesn't matter if you just create a page and it's rubbish and then also if our entire wiki has a bunch of stale edits, it doesn't help as well and so eventually now they're starting to say yeah this actually does make sense and I didn't show it, maybe you'll show it on your talk but there's a whole series of tables where I can see everybody's, every user's watch list and I can see how well they're doing. And so I can start giving that to management and saying hey here's how well, as a department here's how well everybody's doing into that. So they are asking right now if we can separate that out somehow. Like if I can create lists that are just for this group for one manager but they want to start using it. It's not built in yet but we're moving toward it. Yeah I think filtering is something, filtering by group or by user group is something that James has on his radar for that. For some new revisions. What about like the user feedback? Do you, in our groups we tend to see some people that are very active at doing their opinion reviews and then there's those that just blatantly mock the number and just ignore it and some of those are our managers. What's your experience with that? Yeah I have the same experience. The one benefit is there's increased adoption so throughout time there's some people that have resistance at first and then they for whatever reason we break down that stickiness and then they start adopting. But yeah there's certainly others that just will probably never ever do it and that's okay but the majority is moving that way. So my question is that your metrics are both basically are mostly activity based. How many people came in and changed? Do you have any metrics or just a way to capture change? So let's say that someone in wrote this great wiki page and many people visited it and within the company a process changed. And that process actually led to improvements like there was less cycle time, maybe there were hard savings, maybe there were soft savings which actually feed into hard savings. Have you thought of a way of capturing that? I have no idea about capturing it as far as like a strict metric but I have some kind of anecdotal stories that I could talk about and actually there is another talk I had that there's a couple of those in it that I could explore a little bit more. So is capturing that with stories then? Is that a way, I mean I'm just curious. It's how I use, so every time there's something that's good that happens, I just note it and then every time someone says here's why I'm not gonna do it, I just try to use one of these good stories and say well these guys did it because of this and here's why it worked well. And my last company I was very aware of a lot of the issues that different departments had. Like I knew how much cost and scrap the shop had, right? And I could actually go and tell them like well you spent $2 million doing this and you could be doing it better if you were actually up to date, right? So I don't know how to capture it like as a really defined something other than just stories. If you find it out, I'd love to know. And then my next question is just the rankings. You know, would I get five stars or three stars? Do you use that in your wiki? I haven't, no, so all I use right now is kind of just total edits that a user does and then Watch Analytics has a whole series of metrics about how quickly the user comes back and views the page in their watch list after a change has been made. So that's all I've used. Everything else that I showed was just stuff that I've researched in the last week that I've found other people have used. And I have all the white papers that they've done if anybody's interested. Thanks. So since you use Watch Analytics, do you display the page score to all users? Is that used as part of your validation of how good a page is based on how often it's, how many people are reviewing it and how quickly it's reviewed? We, it's on there, but yeah, it's not being used as like an official something yet, but that's where I want to go. I mean, looking at just that map, right, right now you just be embarrassed by it, but it at least shows us that right now we're not doing well and that we can get better. And then kind of a side question, just on the user pages themselves, do you find, are you just using those pages as information on that person versus a working space for them? So, I mean, I think a lot of us are comfortable using actual user pages on the Wiki is kind of for our own work and stuff, but a lot of newer users are not as comfortable with going to that like different namespace and stuff. And so we have a few that will put stuff on their specific user pages versus just having as info on a person. Yeah, I mean, like for all user pages they get the silly little info box banner thing, but then I also just made a to-do-and-notes thing because you have to kind of tell people that, hey, everybody else gets to see this. And a lot of people, there's two things that people didn't seem to understand about it. One, everybody else got to see it and a lot of people were thinking that this is the same notes that everybody else, if they clicked on it, would be editing. But yeah, people are starting to use it to kind of collect notes and actually they're using discussion pages now to talk to each other. Actually, leveraging off of that, I've got to guess two comments. Just about every Wiki that I built prior to last July, so Wiki's in an enterprise setting. We, depending upon the content in that Wiki, we would design the user pages to reflect content. So we would put queries there. If there were pages, let's say there was a Wiki that had meeting notes and you would tag in a meeting who was present in that meeting. Then on the user's user page, you would have a query that would show what are all of the, and maybe using header tabs, a tab for meetings, what are all the meetings this person attended, what are all the notes that they edited, what are all the, and so you use the user page as a way to get even more information about that user and that would help also in the reputation building. And so if somebody wanted to use a page as a scratch pad as a place to gather their own notes for themselves, often they would do it in a subpage of their user page, but the user page itself was something we on just about every Wiki had a template called user, and so the user page would just have brace, brace, user, brace, brace, and the user template would do all the queries and generate all of the information that would populate what was in that user page. The other thing, the other comment is you mentioned something really important also about using the user's real name. And so what we typically did since we used the enterprise authentication system to use whatever the corporate user name for logging into the Wiki, that often was not reflective of the person's real name. So we used the display title, magic word to set for everybody's user page the title that was displayed for it to be their real name. So you'd see their real name showing up at the top, but also if you used the display title extension, then anywhere a link to that user page occurred, so for example, on somebody's user page it would list all the meetings they attended and all of the other attendees. Those other attendees would be listed as links to their user pages, but the link text that would show up would be that person's real name, not their user name. And so what you do is you start seeing in the familiar form people's real names showing up across the Wiki, and that also helps in reputation building. Awesome, two quick things. I have used an extension called show real name or show real usernames, and I did like it, it didn't do a couple things I was hoping it would do, but the other comment is, is that open source? Can I grab your, yeah, I would love that, yeah. It's even been integrated more into. Yeah, semantic media Wiki actually. Yeah, well, yes. So display title, the display title magic word is built into media Wiki, and yes, it's integrated completely in media Wiki core. Semantic media Wiki, if you're using it in queries, query results that any page that has a display title set, the link text will be the display title that's set, and then if you use the display title extension, anywhere else that you have a link to page that has the display title set, that link text will be the set display title. Thank you.