Uncorrected Machine Translation by Deepl, February 4, 2021

Aus: Mäckler, Andreas (Hrsg.) Schwarzbuch Wikipedia: Mobbing, Diffamierung und Falschinformation in der Online-Enzyklopädie und was jetzt dagegen getan werden muss. Höhr-Grenzhausen: Zeitgeist 2020, S. 215-235

Wikipedia als Tummelplatz des geistigen Lumpenproletariats

Uncorrected machine translation by DeepL, February 4, 2021

From: Mäckler, Andreas (ed.) Schwarzbuch Wikipedia: Mobbing, Defamation and Mis- information in the Online Encyclopaedia and What Must Be Done About It Now. Höhr- Grenzhausen: Zeitgeist 2020, pp. 215-235

Wikipedia as the playground of the intellectual lumpenproletariat

Dr. rer. nat. habil., Dr. phil. habil. Volkmar Weiss, geneticist and historian 1

Until 1989 I was co-author of an encyclopaedia of genealogy in the GDR. The publishing house had originally approached me to take on the role of editor, but my office, the Central Institute for History of the Academy of Sciences, thought that the experienced family historian Wolfgang Lorenz, then professor of Marxism-Leninism, would be a better solution to give2genealogy, which had been ostracised in the Soviet zone after 1945 as "cultivating bourgeois traditions", a place in socialism. In 1990, the Bibliographical Institute in Leipzig, which was responsible for the encyclopaedia, was caught up in the turmoil of unification and the work could no longer be published. I had written the basic terms and methods of the subject for the book and even received the fee for it, but the text remained lying around. As Wikipedia took shape, I saw the opportunity to bring these contributions to the readers. Since 1990, head of the German Central Office for Genealogy and subordinate to the Saxon Ministry of the Interior, I used my office computer to upload these encyclopaedia texts to Wikipedia at my workplace. The contributions were technically mature, hardly anyone found fault with them, and they are essentially still in the online encyclopaedia today. After this was done silently, I turned to the terms "intelligence" and "inheritance of intelligence" in Wikipedia, which I had written a dissertation and a habilitation on and consequently under- stood a bit more about than genealogy. But this was the beginning of a never-ending trouble. I had been 3a committed Wikipedia author until 2009, when I was finally banned, and thought

1 Abridged and edited version by the author as well as the editor of a text that could be read on the internet since 2009, originally as Google-knol, see: http://webarchiv.wikimannia.org/knol/volkmar-weiss/totalitaetsanspruch- der-gleichheitsideologie-in-der-wikipedia.htm (retrieved 27.11.2018) 2 Weiss, Volkmar: Vorgeschichte und Folgen des arischen Ahnenpasses. On the History of Genealogy in the 20th Century. Neustadt an der Orla: Arnshaugk 2013 3 Compare: Weiss, Volkmar: Der erweiterte SächsArchReport. A documentation by the director of the German Central Office for Genealogy 1990-2007. Neustadt an der Orla: Arnshaugk 2019, therein pp. 260-270 Wikipedia: 1 the project could become something; it did in some areas. I am still amazed at the momentum I had back then, which I would no longer be able to achieve now. Readers will find a great deal of material in the Wikipedia archive on my user page Dr Volkmar Weiss4 , but especially also on permanently deleted or amputated terms such as "he- redity of intelligence"5 , "dysgenics"6 , on which I endeavoured to co-write, more than they need for a critical judgement. The following excerpts are not so much about my factual statements as about the qualifications of the people through whom they were made and the style in which they were muzzled. If someone supported me in the discussions, the user was quickly suspected of being a sock puppet of mine and was banned forever. Peter Mersch, for example, was like that.7 He wrote under his real name and angrily argued that he was Volkmar Weiss. It did him no good, he was banned. Imagine a large hall where the keynote lecture of the annual meeting of a scientific society is being held. It is a warm day and all the doors of the hall are open. The speaker is, as you would expect from a keynote lecture, a recognised expert, in the opinion of many the best in his field, and he naturally refers in his lecture to his own work on the subject. A summary of his contribution would make a first-class Wikipedia article, and in passing the speaker also drops a remark to that effect. An unknown person, masked to boot, appears in one of the open doors and shouts into the hall: "You fraud! You self-promoter! If your wife knew what nonsense you're talking here, she wouldn't let you in the door anymore!" And with that the person disappears again. The speaker and all the audience are astonished at first, and it is agreed dur- ing the break discussion after the lecture that it must have been a completely unqualified and probably somewhat disturbed person, and they do not attach any importance to the incident for the time being. But every time the speaker now wants or is supposed to say something somewhere, similar incidents repeat themselves. And it gets worse and worse. Not only one anonymous person attacks him and slanders him with interjections and page-long texts, there are several. When he wants to take action or at least complain about it, he finds that his com- plaints always end up with a panel of anonymous people with unknown qualifications who are obviously in cahoots with the slanderers. The slander and insinuations can take on absurd dimensions. An example: My father Heinz Weiß, who died in 1945, was born in Zwickau in 1920. How old was he then in 1933? In the blog of the person who has particularly distinguished himself in Wikipedia against the

Genealogy (retrieved 30.6.2004). - Previously published in: Familie und Geschichte 13th ed. (2004), pp. 129- 139. 4 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beiträge/Dr._Volkmar_Weiss&dir=prev&offset=2004070810 0410&limit=500&target=Dr.+Volkmar+Weiss (retrieved 27.11.2018) and https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Dr._Volkmar_Weiss&offset=&limit=500&acti on=history (retrieved 27.11.2018) 5https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Dr._Volkmar_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=31682 171 (retrieved 27.11.2018) 6 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/6._Mai_2006&diff=prev&oldid=166480 46 (retrieved 27.11.2018) 7 In 2018, there is no evidence of a user page for Peter Mersch in Wikipedia, nor of any archiving of his contributions. In Wikipedia, discussions and archive sections are systematically deleted if they contain particularly meaningful references to grievances. Unwanted opinions or statistics that are presented with particular force are deleted immediately and thus their archiving is not even permitted. "This won't even make it into the archives", I read several times as a comment on a deletion. 2 user Dr Volkmar Weiss (born 1944 in Zwickau), one can read: "Worth mentioning from the guild of doctors writing for a wider audience seems to me, for example, Heinz Weiss, co- author of the 'Almanach of the National Socialist Revolution, published in 1933 by Chief President Wilhelm Kube, with the collaboration of Willi Bischoff and Dr Heinz Weiss'. I assume that he is identical with Heinz Weiss, father of Thilo Sarrazin's idea man Volkmar Weiss. Volkmar Weiss wrote about him: 'My father was the full-time bannführer of the Hitler Youth of Zwickau'. One should also know that Zwickau was a playground for eugenic ideas even before the National Socialists came to power (keyword 'Lex Zwickau'). US eugenicists were significantly involved in the creation of the draft law 'Lex Zwickau' (for the introduction of forced sterilisations of allegedly mentally inferior people) - above all Harry Laughlin, later associated with the Pioneer Fund founded by Wicliffe Draper in 1937. ... It is therefore not far-fetched to ask whether Volkmar Weiss' connection to the Pioneer Fund is already second generation. Further, it is quite possible that the mutual appreciation of the writing work of Volkmar Weiss and Thilo Sarrazin already existed with their fathers Heinz Weiss and Hans Christian Sarrazin." 8 Is it even possible, hypocritically pretending to be objective research, to be even more hair-raising, even more slanderous? This and much more can be read unchallenged on the net for years. (Personally, I don't have the time and money to take legal action against this). Every expert, every scientist who writes contributions for today's Wikipedia should be aware that he is entering a lecture hall whose doors are open to the street and that any passer- by can attack him anonymously, can and will also slander him with allegations and insinuations in the case of politically or otherwise controversial topics, without anyone wanting to or being able to effectively stand up for him. At some point he, like me, will be glad when the nightmare of his unrestricted blocking has come to an end. A few years ago I wrote a few factual contributions for Wikipedia under the pseudonym "Meisterhand" (or something like that), all of which were considered good. But a very eager person who writes under the name "Liberal Democrat" (or something like that) found out about it and had "Meisterhand" blocked for "circumventing the block". Some people no- ticed that Meisterhand had only written useful texts, but this did not delay the unrestricted blocking in any way. If someone writes only on innocuous factual issues, he can acquire and retain all user rights forever under a pseudonym, but woe betide him if he turns to a controversial topic! In my experience, the inner circle of authors and administrators of the German- language Wikipedia functions like a closed Jacobin club. They disregard every self-imposed and actually binding rule when it concerns an author who violates the common line of the ideology of equality. The ranks are now so tightly closed that criticism of this club from within Wikipedia is practically no longer possible, and any attempt to do so is immediately punished by blocking or expelling the critic from Wikipedia, even without any regular blocking procedure, as happened to me in 2009. 9

Do marginalised and unemployed people write the German-language Wikipedia?

8 https://guttmensch.blogspot.com/2013/06/drei-generationen-sarrazin-zeitzeugen.html (retrieved 27.11.2018) 9 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&page=Benutzer%3ADr._Volkmar_Weiss&type=bl ock (retrieved 27.11.2018) 3 The criticism of Wikipedia voiced by various people had already led to an internal discussion in 2009 that captures part of the problem. We therefore let some Wiki pedia authors themselves have their say in quotes: "Many of our most intensely committed employees are socially worse off. I consider this circumstance and the accompanying compensatory motivation to not only engage here in Wikipedia, but also to show off with a display of power, to be very unfavourable for our climate. How could this be remedied? Well, I am thinking of a confidential office with a postal address to which administrators would be required to send a certificate of study or a current proof of employment. All the unemployed would be forcibly de-administered. A blanket - regulation without regard to the person seems to be the fairest. The de-administration is - reversible upon presentation of appropriate proof. The climate would change dramatically -- Sunflowers 18:21, 16 Jul. 2009 (CEST)". "I would like to emphasise the aspect of my proposal that unemployed admins may also need to be protected from themselves - apart from the damage they do to other users with their compensatory behaviour. They invest hours and hours in this encyclopaedia and neglect their own lives. ... On the other hand, of course, no one here wants someone to take their own life because they are now declassified in Wikipedia and can no longer punish other users as they used to and instead of changing their personal situation, wage proxy wars. Respect from the community and the social inner world of Wikipedia have presumably become very essen- tial social contacts for some, which cannot simply be replaced by participation in other forums. ... Many probably also hope to get a job through Wikipedia, and who wants to predict what will happen if this 'last hope' is taken away from them. ... -- Sunflowers 20:20, 16 Jul. 2009 (CEST)" "They need paid work, not this. There was not a syllable in the proposal to exclude them from the project, only to take away the extended rights. ... Ultimately for the good of all and also for the best for the encyclopaedic result. The working climate here is characterised by the rods and knuts, the imaginary phallen of the admins.-- Sunflowers 20:46, 16 Jul. 2009 (CEST)" "Unemployed administrator, we beseech thee / Desist from thy tyranny. / Let thy ac- count be praised, / Let it not bring thee thy daily bread, / Nor bring thee joy / To punish thy subjects. / Behold us peaceful ones here, / Our childish discussions. / Send us thy son, / That we too may one day punish like thee. / For thine is the blocking, the vandalism report and the arbitration. And if you call wife and child your own: Be good to them, and rather punish us / That you also do no evil to yourself. Amen -- Sunflowers 00:22, 17 Jul. 2009 (CEST)"

What is it all about? We have several groups here for which the term "lumpenproletariat" fits well. How is it that some users, according to their own words, spend up to 70 hours or more a week on Wikipedia, including chat? We have, for example:

 Retired Wikipedians: a lifetime of work, family, children grown up. For the most part, I find them to be content and friendly.

On the other hand, we also have groups that I experience far less positively. We have bred a special group of nerds.

4  Students who spend more time on Wikipedia than they do in and for school. Some of them can forget about the numerus clausus after the Abitur.  Students for whom the BAföG office will probably draw the line at some point. With the effort they put into Wikipedia, they could also have completed their studies.  Unsuccessful self-employed, especially lawyers, engineers, insurance consultants. There is a lack of clients. Also a typical group with a precarious future.  Unemployed academics who can show a few articles in Wikipedia, but not even their own publications. There was no concept for the time after graduation. The word "unemployed" should not be used because they have never had a job.

And what does that mean, apart from the economic and social problems?

 One must first ask oneself whether such users are really doing themselves any good with their commitment. Without a doubt, they are useful idiots for the Wikipedia project.  Professionals in full employment cannot compete with the others. We are moving in a "dictatorship of the time rich".  If there is criticism of the project somewhere, some people immediately go crazy with hatred and aggression because they consider their activity on Wikipedia to be the only meaning of their lives and thus feel that their personal existence is being called into question.

What can be done?

 Why not create counselling for Wikipedians who have failed in life?  Other social groups should be targeted as new users. The current conditions and climate make it absolutely unattractive for new users to enter.

"I think Sonnenblumen has shown the courage to address a difficult and controversial issue. That went as far as the vandalism report against him. ... Best regards, Simplicius 15:37, 18 Jul. 2009 (CEST)" "Full agreement with Sunflowers. When I look at how much is fabricated, speculated and written here by the uneducated and semi-educated without a scientific education or with an aborted one, the matter is hopeless. Originally, Wikipedia was a project of computer-savvy young men without dogmatism. The rabble has long since stormed Wikipedia and contributes its point of view. As a full-time working person, I have little time to fix the very worst unreferenced POV. But even if my new job took less of my time, I wouldn't be able to compete with full-time wikifants. Greetings, Bertram (-- Nonbertramoide Bertrameske 11:12, 19 Jul. 2009 (CEST)" "I am very glad that Sonnenblumen had the courage to raise this issue here. Courage is needed, I suppose. ... But the basic problem is that Wikipedia is increasingly dominated by people who increasingly live in a Wikipedia sub-universe. If you look at the edit lists of some people, they haven't seen the sun for weeks. And those who sit longer at the keyboard are better able to assert their opinions. ... They live in their Wikipedia world, beating their brains out with abbreviations that no outsider understands, and don't even realise that the world outside

5 then also uncritically believes what is being fabricated in the process. The fatal thing is that the Wikipedia nerds with an infinite amount of time are confronted with the 'serious' journalists who have less and less time. I can understand (from my own experience) if instead of doing research for an article, you simply copy from Wikipedia. And so the information Spiegel Online copies from Wikipedia is then saved on Wikipedia as a source reference. And so I vac- illate between the attitude: 'You can do whatever you want on Wikipedia'. And: 'It can't be that information that a nerd from another field with red eyes has sucked out of his fingers at half past two in the morning is used as the sole source by the majority of Germans'. Because actually (I can't find the source right now) more Germans trust Wikipedia than the Brock- haus. Edit restriction? I find it highly disturbing when someone has more than 500 edits per month. None of them can be well-founded any more. But how do you enforce a restriction and send the nerds for a walk? If you're not on the road all day in Wikipedia and at home in all the user rooms, you don't have a chance to do that anyway. Well, and having this important discussion on a page that balances on the edge of deletion is probably for the cat anyway. -- Pippo-b 17:54, 19 Jul. 2009 (CEST)" 10

The problem with Wikipedia is the absurdly disproportionate influence of the "time-owners"

Wikipedia needs authors who understand something about the subject they write about. This does not necessarily have to be based on academic degrees. But people who work professionally on the subject naturally only have time for Wikipedia now and then. But it is precisely these genuine authors who are reviled as people with "few edits". The quality of their edits does not count. The expert, e.g. a master mechanic with 30 years of professional experience, who writes an article about an automatic transmission on the side, has to be humiliated like a schoolboy and have his good work shot down by a clueless, arrogant, permanent student, who is "ennobled" here with thousands of (often pointless) edits and of course has admin status. But a professional doesn't need that. Result: He stays away or doesn't come at all and is lost to Wikipedia. Another problem is the hunt for positions in the association by people who unfortu- nately cannot find a job on the serious labour market. Young and professionally inexperienced ex-students with the meaningless title "management consultant" want to be supported by donations, including a luxury limousine for "official journeys". But they don't actually do their job, which is to solve the problems mentioned above. Wikipedia destroys this as well.

Approaches

"The problem can only be solved if: A. the electoral structure of the 'functionaries' is fundamentally reorganised.

10 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Simplicius/Diderot- Club_II&curid=4336672&diff=62358766&oldid=62355731#Volle_Zustimmung_zu_Sonnenblumen (retrieved 27.11.2018)

6  Administrators have to be subject-related outside of real vandalism control (nonsense sedits) - even the most qualified Egyptologist will kindly refrain from commenting on molecular biology.  Admins have to prove their qualifications, in real life, according to education and professional and life experience. Even clever and well-intentioned pupils or students are overwhelmed with the control of such a broadly effective and factually enormously in- fluential mass medium.  Admins must also be available and responsible with their real names. This does not have to be published on the web, but the association must know it and disclose it to those actually affected. Those who shy away from appearing without a hood (as in the clan) may become authors, but they cannot perform any administrative function here.

B. the association gets a board of directors/management that acknowledges responsibility and the design of Wikipedia and does not foolishly deny in court that the association and the encyclopaedia legally belong together. ... This right board would have to initiate appropriate changes to the administrative structure in order to make Wikipedia attractive to the competent and qualified professionals as authors in their field. It is the responsibility of the admin to protect these professionals and their work from the profile-neurotic, underexposed permanent writers, not the other way around. This does not exclude the cooperation of the broad, on the contrary. Much can, and much must, be done by the many hard-working helpers 'around', gladly pupils, students, the unemployed, whoever can really contribute something at their place. But one thing is clear: the comrades-in-arms cannot replace the core of 'qualitative achievers' as the backbone of the author's team. The first thing to do is to replace the board/management in Berlin with seasoned - personalities who know their trade. ... If, instead of insight and cooperation, the current functionaries resist, who will investigate whether the self-service with donations could be a crimi- nal breach of trust? Whether it could be tax evasion in view of the association's tax-exempt non-profit status? Whether the authors are not being cheated out of their contractual non- profit purpose when their work is misused for personal gain and can claim damages (author's fee) against those responsible? And whether the board of directors could not therefore also be forcibly sent into the desert? Whoever wants to tackle all this SERIOUSLY, because they consider Wikipedia to be something right and important in terms of the idea, and whoever can demonstrate the professional competence required here and the will to cooperate constructively, may contact me (in real life!) - but please only with a clear name. I assume that everyone here knows who and what I am and how it works .... I wonder if anyone will get back to me. --91.60.112.47 15:24, 20 Jul. 2009 (CEST)" "And that is precisely why there are laws. At least in a democracy ... There are not only organs of law and order, but also precise regulations on how they should and may proceed. And authorities that in turn control the organs of law and order. How stupid do you have to be to set up such a complicated system when it would be quite simple to give the police all the rights they need? They could simply hang every murderer, child molester or otherwise gener- ally unpopular person from the cochones! Or right-wingers, or left-wingers, or the guy next door to the woman. What are these democrats thinking about? Here in Wikipedia, this is ex-

7 actly how it is fabricated. Here there is a police force that is allowed to do all this. Virtually, of course. With everything else that goes with it: censorship (EOD, deletion, version deletion), imprisonment (blocking), death penalty (infinit) as well as torture (admin candidacy, deletion hell, blocking check, VM). And there is silent resistance and active resistance, which is clear- ly in the minority. Of course, non-violent resistance is punished with the Infinit. So whoever thinks they can't make comparisons with a state system... I can. What is happening now would be comparable to Republikflucht, or 'politically motivated refugee migration'. The conditions are intolerable. Many even leave once they have been unfairly barred. ... -- Widescreen 22:43, 22 Jul. 2009 (CEST)" 11 However, these expressions of opinion only capture one side of the Wikipedia problem. The second side is that a decisive majority of time-rich authors and time-rich administrators of the German-language Wikipedia represent an ideology corresponding to their own social situation, which aims at the negation and destruction of the bourgeois meritocracy.

Albert Klempner alias Schnelle Feder and his world

The following correspondence took place a decade ago. But nothing has changed for the better in Wikipedia since then. Nevertheless, I want to disguise the person's real name and pseudonym, which is no secret anyway, because readers should realise that it is not really about this person or a particular person, but about the moral of the story. Even now, in 2019, there is no sign that the voices of those who do what really matters in Wikipedia would carry any weight, namely to put the terms coined by Schnelle Feder in Wikipedia, whose content is aimed at the negation and destruction of the bourgeois democrat- ic meritocracy, to the test. Instead, the ranks of the class warriors have closed around Klemp- ner. The terms he coined are regarded as sacred cows and criticism of their formulations is muzzled. What is the basis for my assessment? On 1 May 2009, I addressed the following en- quiry to Prof. (let's call him) Erdmann, Executive Director of a university institute for sociology in the most industrialised federal state in the westernmost part of Germany, about a doctoral student at his institute: Dear Professor Erdmann: With Bourdieu's "racism of the intelligentsia" as his intellectual backbone, "Schnelle Feder" writes on: elite, sociology of the elite, educational poverty, educational participation, educational paradox, intelligence, IQ, equality of opportunity, social origin, The Bell Curve, working class, PISA study, triple oppression, discrimination, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, classism, racism, dysgenics, social moblity, Volks-Uni, etc. etc.., and almost always he pushes through the completely one-sided formulations, definitions and justifications that I still re- member from the time before 1960, when a dogmatic ideology held sole sway in the GDR. I know what I'm talking about. I passed all my exams in Marxism-Leninism with an A, worked as a non-party member in the GDR for ten years with the leading research groups in - empirical social research on secret topics and later habilitated on social history. A man with such primitive views as "Schnelle Feder" could not have stayed in any social science research institute in the GDR after 1970.

11 ibid. 8 But "Schnelle Feder" has a problem: his pseudonymous contributions and his enor- mous destructive energy do not earn him any kudos, not even among his fellow thinkers, - unless he links them to a clear name. Now, for a few months, an "Albert Klempner" has been literally mirroring the Wikipe- dia contributions of "Schnelle Feder" on Google-Knol. In this case, too, Albert Klempner is by far the most active German-language author of all, and he immediately established his air supremacy here as well. .... "Schnelle Feder" is also active in Wikiversity, the Anarchopedia, and Work- ingClassStudents. On the latter, he writes about himself: "I failed my A-levels ... I wrote my master's thesis in sociology on studying working-class children and I'm writing my doctoral thesis on the topic of class struggle." Such statements (which suggest an estimated IQ of between 110 and 115) are also made by an Albert Klempner about himself in various places, such as on google-knol, in the blogspot Klassenkampf and at the AstA of your university. On Xing it says "Alber Klempner, University of So-and-So, Sociology, PhD". Since an Albert Klempner has also been announcing a thin book on "class struggle" for two years now, which is to be published this month by Unruhe-Verlag, I assumed that the defence of the dissertation had taken place or was imminent. To my surprise, however, I learned from staff at your institute, your secretariat and then as official information from the doctoral examination office of your university that a doctoral candidate Albert Klempner was unknown. My curiosity as to which professor as supervisor and which examiners might have blatantly disregarded minimum academic standards thus came to nothing. The person Albert Klempner does exist: The AStA of your university shows him with a photo as "Referent für finanziell und benachteiligte Studierende" from 2003 to about 2006. A photo on the Attac Campus page shows him on 24.11.2008 with Torsten Faber, his successor in this "department". Since I can at least imagine that an emeritus professor of your institute is supervising a doctoral student Albert Klempner (without this being immediately known to your secretariat), now my questions to you as Executive Director: 1. are you aware of anything like this? 2. did an Albert Klempner write a master's thesis at your institute. When? On which topic? Albert Klempner's favourite book, to which he refers many times, is "Uni-Bluff". To what extent is his self-image a bluff? What does the man live on, one wonders, since his ac- tivities are a full-time occupation. Spreading simple-minded and radical opinions under pseudonyms on the internet is not a punishable offence, but posing as a doctoral student or doctor of a particular institute is damaging to the reputation of the institute in question. You will therefore certainly go public with a statement setting the record straight. Furthermore, it should and should make you think why an extreme character like Klempner finds it opportune to pose as a sociologist of your institute of all places. My enquir- ies were directly triggered by reading a news item about a colleague who had to give a trial lecture in your city a few months ago and was approached by the "sociology department together with anti-fascist action groups observed by the NRW Office for the Protection of the Constitution" in a way that was completely inappropriate and slanderous to the matter.

9 We should be aware that this question of mine here and your reaction and response to it cannot be and cannot remain a personal matter, but will reach a wide public. That the case of Albert Klempner alias "Schnelle Feder" is also a precedent for the baleful possibilities of the new media Wikipedia and Google-Knol as a stomping ground for an academic lumpenproletariat must be discussed elsewhere and is not the subject of this letter here; likewise the far too little resistance in the matter against such goings-on. For the case of Albert Klempner is only the tip of an iceberg. Far too few in the old federal states understand or want to admit that when such spirit is combined with power, then [totalitarian] regimes ... are the inevitable result. With kind regards Dr. rer. nat. habil. Dr. phil. habil. Volkmar Weiss

In response to my letter, I received from Erdmann's deputy, Prof. Dr. (let's call him) Guthold, that "Mr. Klempner had taken his Master's exams in sociology with him three or four years ago". "He had also expressed the intention of doing a doctorate at that time." There was no mention of a critical assessment of Klempner's work. Nor did I expect one. Such a prolific and aggressive type as Klempner, with far-reaching connections to the local Antifa milieu, could cause a lot of trouble for the institute's management. The reason, however, is primarily one of content: Klempner's statements largely coin- cide with those of his directors. Klempner's views are in the wake of the mainstream of Ger- man and Western sociology. Professor Guthold is undoubtedly a university teacher of merit and certainly also a doctoral supervisor many times over. This is the common term for a man who has supervised a dissertation that has been successfully defended. For, as is well known, one becomes father and mother at the moment when a common child is born alive. In the language of German lawyers, what is the designation of the two until birth? The pregnant woman and her impreg- nator. So if the Magister and would-be doctor plumber publicly refers to Professor Guthold as his "Doktorvater", then something can be wrong with that, and Guthold should defend himself against such prenatal appropriation. Medically, there are even cases of imaginary pregnancy in psychiatry. In purely quantitative terms, Albert Klempner has put the material for at least three dissertations on paper or on the internet in recent years. His interpretations and statistics, on which he bases himself, are - viewed from only one side - not always wrong. But he completely lacks the ability to understand counter-arguments and complex statistics in a factually correct way, to mentally grasp multi-layered interpretations and to refute them within his means. Instead, his drive is to suppress any viewpoint or statistical finding that is incompre- hensible to him or differs from his opinion, including eliminating the authors of such contributions in Wikipedia. He supposedly fights against discrimination, but is himself a radical discriminator of everything that goes beyond his narrow horizon. It is clear to me that this attack on Schnelle Feder reinforces the aura of the class fight- er who stands out from the crowd, which already exists in his imagination anyway, but per- haps also triggers somewhat more critical reading of all the texts he has written and content- related headwinds from third parties. Just take a look at the terms in the German Wikipedia that were initiated by Schnelle Feder or that were particularly strongly influenced by him in terms of content and compare them with the English Wikipedia. Then it will become clear 10 what ideological mischief an individual has caused here. The terms in the German Wikipedia initiated by Schnelle Feder or strongly influenced by him, such as "Arbeiterkinder", "Bild- ungsbenachteiligung", "Bildungsbenachteiligung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland", "Bild- ungsarmut", "Bildungsparadox", "Theorie sozialer Schließung", "Bildungsschance" and many more do not even have an equivalent in the English Wikipedia or anywhere else in the world and are spawns of a Jacobin egalitarianism that is hatefully directed against all achievers. It will take a whole working group to bring this back down to earth if Wikipedia does not want to lead itself ad absurdum through such excesses. The English-language Wikipedia is no stranger to the problems of the German-language Wikipedia, but the political complexity of - the English-speaking world has so far prevented such one-sidedness. If you want to know what the current left-wing extremist position is on a certain term, you only have to read Schnelle Feder. For me, dealing with him has always been interesting. Personally, one could almost feel sorry for him, because what does the man do for a living? The doctoral candidate gives 1963 as his year of birth. He must therefore be one of the count- less graduates of history, German studies, sociology, psychology, politics, etc., who have actually studied nothing more than unemployment and whose intellectual abilities are rather in the lower half of the mass A-levels (i.e. below IQ 115) and form something like an academic lumpenproletariat. A user remarked in Wikipedia at Albert Klempner: "I know that you are identical with [[User:Fast Feather]]. You discuss in some discussions with both your accounts at the same time. I don't think that's okay. … . Double accounts should be banned, but at least they should be openly stated on the user page, so that the cards are played with an open hand and everyone knows where they stand. Greetings and no hard feelings-- [[User:Weltenbummlerin|Weltenbummlerin]] 21:12, 9 May 2009 (CEST)" In any other case, such behaviour would have led to the user Albert Klempner alias Schnelle Feder being banned. In Wikipedia, however, Klempner's friends cause such an entry not only to be deleted, but also the version history to be manipulated in minutes in such a way that such an entry is electronically "vaporised" and thus its existence can no longer be proven (unless, as in this case, someone happens to have copied it in time). In a flash, the pages of Klempner alias Schnelle Feder are then "protected" against critical third-party entries. In the German Wikipedia, this effectiveness even surpasses the thought police in Orwell's 1984. An internal censorship system set up only in the German Wikipedia stabilises this dominance of opinion, with which a minority manipulates the interpretation of terms. It can be assumed that Schnelle Feder was or is active in Wikipedia not only as Albert Klempner, but also under other names. For example, a user named "Jan Eissfeldt" was quick as a flash to undo deletions of contributions in which Schnelle Feder was in charge, and an administrator is just as quick to protect the user pages of Klempner and Schnelle Feder against uncomfortable criticism. The anonymous and pseudonymous writing options of Wikipedia invite such behaviour, but Schnelle Feder claims not to use such practices. This is obviously a lie. See, for example, Weltenbummlerin's contribution of 9 May 2009 above. While social scientists in the GDR from 1970 onwards became increasingly thoughtful on the basis of statistics whose figures contradicted the prevailing ideology and corrected or even fundamentally changed their points of view, this ability and will for critical and self- critical reflection is completely lacking in Klempner. Instead, with the help of his comrades-

11 in-arms, he does everything in his power to suppress statistics and opinions that deviate from his prejudices. By exposing him, Fast Feather has 12become a "public figure" who is used by the quality media as a guarantor when they want to take down a person from the actual or supposed right-wing political spectrum. If it were not for Klempner's ability to research, some- times profoundly and originally, and his unrestrained tendency to make unsubstantiated com- binations and insinuations, he could have achieved a lot in life. For even the nonsensical text about my father Heinz Weiß quoted earlier contains the correct research result, well docu- mented by Klempner, that Thilo Sarrazin made far more use of Volkmar Weissen's Die IQ- Falle: Intelligenz, Sozialstruktur und Politik (The IQ Trap: Intelligence, Social Structure and Politics, 2000) in Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany is Abolishing Itself, 2010) than he was ever prepared to admit. 13 The Department of Student Research of the Central Institute for Youth Research of the GDR also conducted IQ tests on students. The mean IQ of the students for Marxism-Leninism was 115 and thus a full standard deviation (i.e. 15 IQ points) below the mean of the students of the natural sciences. The mean value of sociologists in Germany today is probably at a similar level to that of Marxist-Leninists, so that there are also a considerable number of students and doctoral students in this discipline whose mean IQ is below that of Albert Klempner. - If today more than 30% of a cohort pass the Abitur, then the mean IQ of German Abitur graduates cannot be above 115. So if someone has an estimated IQ of 110 to 115, he is in good company, and I can't find anything dishonourable in such an estimate - unless you think all people are the same, like Albert Klempner.14 If Turkey's mean IQ is given as 87 15, then this is nothing other than the results tested there by Turkey itself and published by government agencies. The campaign launched by Hürriyet against me in 2005 collapsed when the journalists of serious Turkish and German newspapers realised the real facts. The publication of such a PISA or IQ average has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, unless one is of the opinion, like Albert Klempner, that every IQ test is an expression of the "racism of intelligence" and that every figure about it must be suppressed. In the German Wikipedia world, the mere publication of a table of IQ averages16 is enough to label someone a "person of racism". The Wikipedia entry on my person is observed by 140 people 17, of whom at least 100 are more or less politically left-wing and far-left. The entry is in many ways a slander. If you trust common sense, you learn to live with it. After all, the one-sided presentation is only likely to arouse the curiosity of critical people who want to

12 http://de.wikimannia.org/Andreas_Kemper_(Sociologist) (retrieved 27/11/2018): '1963, German permanent doctor of sociology, Wikipedia manipulator, denunciator and profeminist'. 13 Kemper, Andreas: "Die deutschsprachigen Quellen Sarrazins", in: Haller, M. and M. Niggeschmidt (eds.): Der Mythos vom Niedergang der Intelligenz. From Galton to Sarrazin. The thought patterns and thought errors of eugenics. Wiesbaden: Springer VS 2012, pp. 49-67. 14 Weiss, Volkmar: The intelligentsia and its enemies. The Rise and Decline of Industrial Society. Graz: Ares 2012; table p. 291: "The educational expansion and educational devaluation in Germany from 1960-20003 and the mean IQ of high school graduates". 15 http://www.v-weiss.de/pisa2009.html (retrieved 27.11.2018) 16 Weiss, Volkmar: The IQ gene - denied since 2015. A groundbreaking discovery and its enemies. Graz: Ares 2017; Table pp. 86-88: PISA results (mean 500, variance 100) of mathematical understanding from 2000 to 2015 ... as well as the conversion of the 2015 PISA scores to the IQ scale (mean 100, variance 15) in comparison to the results of intelligence tests in the 20th century; values of 76 countries. 17 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volkmar_Weiss&action=info (retrieved 27.11.2018) 12 know what lies behind it. My works published after 2009, including half a dozen books and my magnum opus The Intelligence and Its Enemies (2012) have so far just made it into the bibliography. People who probably or maybe not even have a single publication worth mentioning decide pseudonymously in Wikipedia what is and what may be, what is criticism and reception of a work. Since I have published over 200 works, both social and natural science, the opinion-dominating gossip scientists are completely overwhelmed with the natural science ones. Once they have broken the baton over someone, it is then only a matter of portraying them all round as insignificant or going astray. The main actor against me between 2006 and my blocking in 2009 was "Schnelle Feder ". To this day, anyone who tries to properly edit the one-sidedly distorted Wikipedia entry on "Volkmar Weiss", which has remained essentially unchanged since 2009, is threat- ened with unlimited blocking. Or even to discuss it. Since even contributions to discussions are undone or permanently deleted within seconds, even two hours after midnight, "Volkmar Weiss" (as well as other entries) must be constantly monitored by a whole host of people or groups of people who write together under a pseudonym. Who are they? Who pays them? From which funding pots are they financed and by whom? For otherwise this surveillance of the "truth" cannot be maintained with this intensity. For years I have worked at least one full day every week in one of the large academic libraries in Leipzig. In one of them I always see the same user sitting at the same computer with internet connection on any given day of the week. The man, about 40 years old and out- wardly inconspicuous, is always one of the first readers to arrive at the library in the morning and leaves in the late afternoon. He spends the whole day reading on the internet or writing texts himself, and has a few borrowed books next to him, which he uses as a basis or from which he quotes. What is he working on? Who pays him? A glance over his shoulder shows that it is political books and forums where he reads and writes. When I ask the library staff about him, they know immediately: he is unemployed and has some behavioural problems, he has already been banned from the library, but they can't get rid of him. When I imagine a pseudonymous Wikipedia prolific writer with dubious manners, this is the man I have in mind. If Wikipedia wants to get out of its mess, it should learn from how good printed encyclopaedias were once produced: With experts (administrators) who stand for their subject with their profession and name, supported in each case by staffs who collaborate under their name or pseudonym, whereby the administrator must know the clear name and profession. Mem- bership of a staff must be earned, which should also be possible pseudonymously or initially anonymously. It would be wrong to exclude the army of the nameless from participation alto- gether, because, for example, with a local or regional reference, they can make contributions that, after confirmatory examination, bring more than the old encyclopaedias had to offer. For political or otherwise particularly controversial fields, there should be administrators of dif- ferent opinions who also give space to other or minority opinions in the encyclopaedia. The administrators who bear responsibility must be paid for it. Those who hope that a recovery of Wikipedia could be achieved solely through a change in the political climate in society, or would be the consequence of such a change, are mistaken. A change of polarity would only change the polarity of the grievances. Wikipedia is funded by donations. Donors should be clear about what they are donat- ing for and to whom. 13