Skip to content

The Pedia Effect & The Pedia Credibility Algorithm

“Any process that can be cod­i­fied — that can be turned into an algo­rithm, becomes the basis of a ser­vice that can be deliv­ered, with­out friction.”
Bill Janeway, War­burg Pin­cus, Sep­tem­ber 24, 2014 on Bloomberg Sur­veil­lance.

The Pedia Credibility Algo­rithm THVI  +  PON   AAM  +  ITPHA

Truth­ful High-Value Infor­ma­tion deliv­ered at the con­sumer’s Point Of Need Across All Markets by an Inde­pen­dent Third-Party Higher Author­ity
(Max­i­mum Credibility)

3 val­ues in the Credibility Opti­miza­tion Algo­rithm are givens: 

Truth­ful High-Value Infor­ma­tion -
Truth­ful infor­ma­tion con­sumers use to make their buy­ing deci­sions includ­ing: spec­i­fi­ca­tions, reviews, com­par­isons, rat­ings, etc.
Point Of Need -
The point when con­sumers are seek­ing such infor­ma­tion.
Across All Markets
The con­ve­nience of pro­vid­ing truth­ful high-value infor­ma­tion on all the prod­ucts and ser­vices con­sumers want in one location.

“Pedia” is the final “value” in the algorithm:

Inde­pen­dent Third-Party Higher Author­ity

The “Pedia Effect” — Inde­pen­dent Third-Party Higher Author­ity Perception
The “Pedia Effect” is the result of the Pedia Credibility Algo­rithm (PCA), derived from the term “(encyclo)Pedia” that has long-been the most widely used and time-proven infor­ma­tion brand to organ­i­cally gen­er­ate the high­est “inde­pen­dent third-party, higher author­ity” (ITPHA) per­cep­tion in con­sumers’ minds both off and online. The per­cep­tion is so pow­er­ful that even when con­sumers are told specif­i­cally (by Wikipedia itself and oth­ers) that the infor­ma­tion is not cred­i­ble, con­sumers don’t care and still seek the infor­ma­tion in droves. Why? (Try plac­ing a notice on your web­site telling users not to con­sider your infor­ma­tion to be reli­able and have every school and col­lege tell their stu­dents the same thing and see if you get 4.3 bil­lion vis­its per month!)

Why is the Pedia ITPHA per­cep­tion so powerful?
The “Pedia Effect” is the result of a potent com­bi­na­tion of behav­ioral cog­ni­tive heuris­tics and biases all work­ing in tan­dem to influ­ence con­sumer per­cep­tion. These cog­ni­tive heuris­tics and biases are: the “rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ness heuris­tic,” the “avail­abil­ity heuris­tic,” the “fram­ing bias, and the “con­fir­ma­tion bias.” The first “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.,” the sec­ond “I’ve seen ducks in a lot of places,” the third, “It says it’s a duck,” and finally “I knew it was a duck all along.” Just swap “Pedia” for “ducks.” When these four cog­ni­tive heuris­tics and biases all tell us that some­thing is an “inde­pen­dent third-party, higher author­ity ency­clo­pe­dia” — we believe the per­cep­tion. And when that per­cep­tion is ful­filled — we become believ­ers — because we lit­er­ally can’t help it.

The “Pedia Effect” helped Wikipedia to become mas­sively pop­u­lar and author­i­ta­tive with­out adver­tis­ing, with­out being con­sid­ered reli­able, and despite being con­structed by “a bunch of nobod­ies” for aca­d­e­mic, non-com­mer­cial pur­poses. And it works for all the other “Pedias” as well, from the first online ency­clo­pe­dia, to the finan­cial ency­clo­pe­dias, to the tech ency­clo­pe­dias, etc., ad infini­tum.) The “for­mula” is the same for all “Pedias” — “com­pre­hen­sive ever­green con­tent + adver­tis­ing (and trans­ac­tions for the com­mer­cial ver­sions) or dona­tions (for the non-profits).”

This same “Pedia Effect” enables a “bunch of pow­er­ful some­bod­ies” (mar­keters), with adver­tis­ing and credibility, to build indi­vid­ual “com­mer­cial Wikipedias” that pro­vide con­sumers with “every­thing they want to know about every­thing they want to buy” in con­ve­nient com­pany “ency­clo­Pe­dias” using the same “pedia” infor­ma­tion brand that gen­er­ates the Inde­pen­dent Third-Party Higher Author­ity per­cep­tion, tax­on­omy, and ful­fill­ment in con­sumers’ minds. By sim­ply cre­at­ing com­pre­hen­sive com­pany “(encyclo)Pedias” and includ­ing the “pedia” suf­fix or “ency­clo­pe­dia” in the title or name.

Truth­ful High-Value Informa­tion “Pedias” are cre­ated by mar­keters on their com­pany web­sites con­tain­ing com­pre­hen­sive infor­ma­tion about their com­pany, prod­ucts, and ser­vices. Whether it’s the tra­di­tional word of mouth from a friend, an expert review, or infor­ma­tion from a cred­i­ble source con­sumers believe, the most pow­er­ful mar­ket­ing is always Truth­ful High-Value Infor­ma­tion deliv­ered at the con­sumer’s Point Of Need by a per­ceived Inde­pen­dent Third-Party Higher Author­ity that con­sumers believe and remem­ber. And this is exactly what the “Pedia Effect” deliv­ers.

The “Pedia Effect” cre­ates Pedia plat­forms that come in two fla­vors, “indi­vid­ual” and “net­work.” Mar­keters may cre­ate as many indi­vid­ual Pedia plat­forms on their web­sites as they desire. Mar­keters have the option to par­tic­i­pate in the “net­work” edi­tion at any time with the sim­ple addi­tion of a few lines of code to con­nect their indi­vid­ual Pedia platform(s) to the cen­tral Pedi­aNet­work® plat­form under 100% con­trol of the mar­keter. Such an aggre­gated Pedi­aNet­work® of indi­vid­ual mar­keter “ency­clo­Pe­dias” would cre­ate a con­sumer PON mar­ket­ing plat­form more pow­er­ful than any POI adver­tis­ing plat­form in history.

Note — The “Pedia Effect” and the “Pedia Credibility Algo­rithm” (PCA) can be used interchangeably.


  • The most pow­er­ful mar­ket­ing is high-value infor­ma­tion deliv­ered at the con­sumer’s point-of-need.

    The Atlantic, June 13, 2014 - “Think about how much you can learn about prod­ucts today before see­ing an ad. Com­ments, user reviews, friends’ opin­ions, price-com­par­i­son tools: These things aren’t adver­tis­ing (although they’re just as ubiq­ui­tous). In fact, they’re much more pow­er­ful than adver­tis­ing because we con­sider them infor­ma­tion rather than mar­ket­ing. The dif­fer­ence is enor­mous: We seek infor­ma­tion, so we’re more likely to trust it; mar­ket­ing seeks us, so we’re more likely to dis­trust it.

  • “Ency­clo­pe­dia” is the most pow­er­ful and proven con­sumer infor­ma­tion brand to organ­i­cally gen­er­ate the per­cep­tion of “inde­pen­dent third-party, higher author­ity credibility” in con­sumers’ minds, e.g. Wikipedia, Investo­pe­dia, Soft­pe­dia, energy-pedia, Future­pe­dia, Sumo­pe­dia, Webo­pe­dia and over 60,000 ency­clo­pe­dias at Ama­zon.

    Obvi­ously own­ers of the var­i­ous “pedias” were inten­tion­ally using the credibility asso­ci­ated with an “ency­clo­pe­dia.” And the over­whelm­ing num­bers of “ency­clo­pe­dias” tes­tify to the suc­cess of the “pedia” brand in ful­fill­ing the expec­ta­tions of both the own­ers and their cus­tomers. How­ever most do not give much thought to the “why it works” and the rela­tion to “behav­ioral cog­ni­tive heuris­tics and biases.”

    In gen­er­at­ing the “inde­pen­dent third-party, higher author­ity” per­cep­tion in con­sumers’ minds, the “pedia” infor­ma­tion brand trig­gers 4 behav­ioral cog­ni­tive heuris­tics and biases that work together — the “rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ness heuris­tic,” the “avail­abil­ity heuris­tic,” the “fram­ing bias” and the “con­fir­ma­tion bias.”

    The “rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ness heuris­tic” is the “looks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck — so it must be a duck,” the “avail­abil­ity heuris­tic” is “I’ve seen ducks at the park,” the “fram­ing bias” is “It says it’s a duck,” and then the “con­fir­ma­tion bias” kicks in with “I knew it was a duck all along.” (“pedia” is the “duck”)

    Indi­vid­u­ally these cog­ni­tive heuris­tics and biases are per­sua­sive — but together they are extremely pow­er­ful and very dif­fi­cult to over­come, because they are all exam­ples of “Sys­tem 1” vs “Sys­tem 2” thinking.