The success of a company depends – to a certain extent – on Google, the reputation of a publicly engaged private person on Wikipedia. The entry on „Gero Jenner“ has been changed several times (see below), with the text on person and life being reduced more and more – now it has disappeared completely. Instead, a new entry titled „Reception“ appears, consisting of four brief lines clearly aimed at discrediting the author. One of my lesser works, „Energiewende“ (Energy Turnaround) leaves an „unpleasant impression”. That may be so, no one is immune to unfavorable reviews. But it is remarkable that no more than this unfavorable criticism by a journalist appears under “Reception”. No mention of the fact that „Die Arbeitslose Gesellschaft” (Society of Unemployed) has received the highest praise from a German economic expert, Bert Rürup: „The most intelligent on the complex of globalization since Robert Reich’s The Work of Nations,“ the reader may learn from the book’s spine. Nor is there any mention of the further fact that Mr. Rürup has even described himself as an advisor to another work of mine published by S. Fischer, „Das Ende des Kapitalimus – Triumph oder Kollaps eines Wirtschaftssystems?“ (The End of Capitalism – Triumph or Collapse of an Economic System?). Obviously, it is of no interest to Wikipedia that one more “economic wise man” (counselor of the German government), Gerhard Scherhorn, wrote the foreword to another book: „Das Pyramidenspiel“ (The Ponzi scheme). So why should he be impressed that an internationally recognized authority such as Herman Daly particularly recommends one of my books, „Yes we can – no we must! Build a better sustainable world“. Unlike criticism, positive opinions apparently carry no weight in the eyes of the person in charge at Wikipedia. First and foremost, it must be considered highly unusual that there is no mention of life or research, but only a negative mention under the heading „reception”. This is an open departure from the usual procedure. One gets the impression that Wikipedia would prefer to delete me completely (as is also evidenced by the warning at the beginning for lack of evidence).
To be sure, the explanation for the forum’s procedure could be quite simple. Perhaps Gero Jenner is an unpleasant person in the first place and his publications are quite insignificant indeed (the major publishers who once published his books would simply have made a mistake – this does, of course, happen). In this case, economic experts like Bert Rürup, Gerhard Scherhorn and the internationally respected Herman Daly would have been wrong.
But this is not the only possible explanation for Wikipedia’s strange procedure. Jenner has become very unpopular with a still very influential man, Professor Bert Rürup, who initially supported him. Furthermore, it was and is certainly not helpful that he heavily criticizes the former godfather of linguistics, Noam Chomsky, in his professional field (not as a political thinker). Thirty years ago, when his books on general linguistics first appeared, this was still considered an unpardonable sacrilege. German linguists at the time saw to it that the reference to Jenner’s linguistic books was erased. There is nothing to be said against objections, of course; they are part of the rules of the game. Wikipedia is supposed to be an independent, democratic forum, where just praise and just condemnation are equally allowed.
The problem is the forum’s dependence on donations, which allows a completely non-transparent and undemocratic influence, i.e. dependence on power. Just as Google can ruin companies, so Wikipedia can ruin private individuals if they do not have powerful advocates, indeed, as you can see, even if these do exist. Intellectual freelancers like Jenner, who have no backing in a university or other organization, are particularly vulnerable.
Which of these two explanations is correct? The first one avoids conspiracy and is therefore preferable. Ninety-five percent of conspiracy theories are propagated by simpletons; they are the fodder and cheap consolation of the downtrodden. However, there still remain five percent. Human malice, the need for revenge, in other words, abuse of power driven by malice, are very real facts indeed. Against such machinations Jenner is condemned to complete impotence, at least until he succeeds with his books in convincing scientists to such an extent that they protest against this discrediting entry and change it.
Until then, I have to be content with my own website. There I make the always awkward, always seemingly self-indulgent and therefore embarrassing attempt of an alternative self-portrayal.
The following paragraph was meant to be inserted under the entry „Gero Jenner“ between the two paragraphs „Life“ (which existed a year ago) and „Publications“.
Main topics of Research
A stay in Japan lasting more than three years sparked Jenner’s interest in economic issues. With three books on this topic, he gained significant attention not only among the general public but also among experts. „Die Arbeitslose Gesellschaft” (The Society of Unemployed) and „Das Ende des Kapitalismus – Triumph oder Kollaps eines Wirtschaftssystems” (The End of Capitalism – Triumph or Collapse of an Economic System) were strongly supported by Bert Rürup, a former German „Wise Man,“ with the latter book even receiving his „expert advice“ (as Mr. Rürup claims). „Das Pyramidenspiel” (The Ponzi Scheme) was published with the foreword of another renowned economic expert, Gerhard Scherhorn. While the first two works address the dangers and opportunities of globalization, the latter delves into the unintended but continuous redistribution from bottom to top through interest and dividends. His most recent publication on the political and ecological future of the globe, „Yes, we can – no we must,“ was recommended by Herman Daly, Senior Economist at the World Bank and recipient of the Alternative Nobel Prize. Jenner has always grounded his thoughts on politics and economics in a fundamentally philosophical frame. This explains why he considers his more strictly philosophical works, such as „Creative Reason“ to be the most important.
Professors Karl Acham (Sociology), Michael Kilian (Constitutional Judge, Lawyer), Rolf Kreibich (Physicist, Sociologist, and long-time University President), and Ernst-Ulrich von Weizsäcker (Environmental Scientist, Politician) advocated for this addition. However, the endorsement of these gentlemen was unsuccessful, as I had to report in an email to them on March 3, 2022:
„At the moment, there are indeed bigger problems. But the process at Wikipedia has paradigmatic significance, and it has taken on Kafkaesque traits. First and foremost, I must thank you. You attempted to persuade Wikipedia (Mr. Rapp) on my behalf. Professor Acham did this in a particularly gracious, though of course very exaggerated, manner:
„Jenner’s discussions of fundamental political, ecological, socio-economic, and cultural questions, prompted by current events but never limited to them, are among the most stimulating contributions to clear and well-formulated historical sociology currently available in the German-speaking world“ (Karl Acham).
Attempts to include this assessment in the text for „Main Topics of Research“ were shot down. Why? One must know that for ten years until 2017 there was a passage between „Life“ and „Writings“ (stored by me and certainly also by Wikipedia), which was three times longer than the now proposed paragraph „Main Topics of Research“. In other words, for ten years nobody at Wikipedia had taken offense at this. There was also no warning bar above the text, as there is now, stating that evidence is lacking and that the entry could therefore be deleted at any time. That so far this has not happened is probably only due to the fact that Wikipedia’s would then violate its own statute, because a non-fiction author who has at least four works published by renowned publishing houses has a right to appear on Wikipedia (in my case, this is a total of six books published by S. Fischer, Propyläen and Signum, but even more if you add the small Metropolis (the books published by myself on Amazon do not count for Wikipedia).
Mr. Rapp of Wikipedia, Munich, is a kind person who dedicates his free time to a good cause and evidently struggled to explain all these inconsistencies. I did provide evidence for every single sentence in the „Life“ and “The Main Topics of Research“ sections. Thus they comply with the statutory requirements. Books are considered public evidence, but it remains a secret only Wikipedia can explain why the content is not, for example the fact that Prof. Scherhorn wrote a foreword for one of my books. This is dismissed as a „private“ circumstance that cannot be considered as an evidence. Similarly, in the „Life“ section, the evidence provided by the German DAAD, the Studienstiftung, the Ecole Franchise d’Extreme Orient, etc., is not counted as public evidence; instead, these certifications are also considered “private”. I wonder how the life stories of other individuals on Wikipedia can be substantiated at all. Perhaps divine intervention is required.
Mr. Rapp, as he informed me on March 3, 2022, eventually posted the „Main Topics of Research“ paragraph on the net, only to inform me an hour later that one of his colleagues promptly deleted the text. There is a straightforward explanation for this otherwise entirely incomprehensible contradiction. Unfortunately, I have a powerful adversary outside of Wikipedia who has also prevented me from publishing more books with S. Fischer. If this suspicion is correct, the question should be asked whether Wikipedia can truly be considered the objective and independent authority it claims to be. And even more serious, whether it is not abusing its power? When someone like Jenner stands outside supporting organizations, both objectivity and independence no longer seem to apply. So it remains true: The success of a company depends – to a certain extent – on Google, the reputation of a publicly engaged private person on Wikipedia, where, in complete intransparency, power may call the shots lead to what must be called a targeted killing of reputation.
„Die Arbeitslose Gesellschaft“ is out of print, I republished it under a different title on Amazon.