Now the german wikipedia has an entry about Klaus Kleinfeld the Siemens CEO. Turns out that Siemens employees changed passages which could be seen as cirtisizm of their boss. News covery in Heise Newsticker and Spiegel Online.
Interesting is that changes of the entry and posts in the discussions are done by the wikipedia user Siemens_AG which, according to its own description, is the account used by the Siemens public relation branch.
This means that, for one, Siemens is doing this in the open. This is good thinking. It shows respect to wikipedia and its processes. Nowwhere in the wikipedia documentation I found a statement that corporate users are discouraged.
But far more important: it means that Mr Kleinfeld is rewriting his own wikipedia entry. That he never typed a letter is irrelevant. The changes were made by Siemens AG and he is the CEO. That makes them his changes. This really smells.
Siemens claims that the original article was not neutral, even hostile. Now, how neutral and objective can Mr Kleinfeld write about himself? Or how neutral can an employee of Mr Kleinfeld report on facts? Siemens own arguments work against them.
In hindsight, it would have been much smarter for Siemens to engage (not hire) someone with credibility to publish a revised version of the entry. Get two journalists from opposing camps to agree on a wikipedia article (stating facts, not opinions) and give that article to the wikipedians for further discussion. That certainly would have changed some passages without Siemens getting into the line of fire.
Taking a few steps back, this shows how important and alive wikipedia is. Controversy about entries shows that people care. That is good. Open discussion and peer reviews are what gives the best results, may the way be actually a little bumpy.
Technorati Tags: controversy, siemens, wikipedia