Talk:Stephen Wolfram

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis [[Category:Externally peer reviewed articles by Template:Trim]]

Undisclosed paid editing

Hello. I have just tagged this article Template:Tl, because it was very heavily edited by a (highly likely paid) sockfarm that is focused almost exclusively on promoting Stephen Wolfram and his work. Please see this COIN thread (perma) and the related SPI for more information. The article will need a thorough review before the tag is removed. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 15:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, the current text doesn't reflect the uniformly negative reception of Wolfram Physics and A New Kind of Science among the secondary reliable sources. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits requiring particular scrutiny, per the master list: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating:

1. Nationality in infobox edit, looks OK
2. Updated access-date in web reference, looks OK
3. Moved text; text was bad, but moving it not a problem
4. "British" to "British-American"
5. Added 2 references, 1 primary
6. Emphasis on "inaugural Fellow" might be puffery
7. Spammy and trivial, only primary and self-published sources
8. copy edit to the previous addition
9. much new text, very spammy, advertorial in tone
10. changed link target
11. puffing up "influences" list in infobox (what are those even good for anyway?), removed Template:Tq
12. changed link target
13. unsourced change of doctoral advisor
14. another sock adding a source for the previous
15. source for the puffery in "influences" list from edit 11
16. minor tweak in citation metadata
17. upgrading his grandmother from "speaker" to "expert"
18. removal of test edit (thanks)
19. adding empty marketing language
20. hyping the "Wolfram Axiom", blatantly ignoring everyone else's contributions (see Minimal axioms for Boolean algebra)
21. moved some text, hyped his SoundCloud
22. unsourced BLP information about his son, early life and education material rearranged
23. the dreaded "In popular culture" heading
24. trivia
25. addition of self-published source
26. linkfarming
27. more linkfarming
28. added an image from Wolfram's website; claims to be CC, but the original website doesn't say so
29. added his age-7 report card, same copyright concern as previous
30. added paragraph about testifying before a Senate subcommittee; without a secondary source, seems WP:UNDUE
31. added picture from the Senate subcommittee event; image again lifted from Wolfram's website, where no photo credit is given

Whew! XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed "undisclosed paid." Reviewed article, which recorded both exceptional achievements and some criticisms. Backed up with many references. In the absence of direct evidence of paid submission, I deleted it. I'm not qualified to judge the value of Wolfram's contributions but note they have frequently been praised. I've neither met nor have any connection to Wolfram. Daveburstein (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you removed, but that message is still emblazoned on the page. WackyEd (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

They removed Template:Tl from the article, but it was reverted. — W.andrea (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I have yet to review the content of the edits in question, and therefore cannot make a value statement about them, but found it interesting that the person who reverted the tag removal explicitly mentions policing sock farms in their bio (4 years ago) and have persistently edited Wolfram-related pages for many years, particularly targeting perceived promotional content.

I am sure that User:Montesquieu1789 has the best of intentions, but do wonder if there may be a neutrality issue. The user seems very knowledgeable about computer science so I don't doubt their factual contributions are of good quality, but think that if everyone else upthread is fine with it, you could probably remove that tag again. EllieDellie (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Change scientific career fields

Change “computing” to “Computer Science” in the scientific career fields. 79.169.33.125 (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a mistake. His computing is not computer science. I suggest a change here. Soupnero (talk) Soupnero (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Ruthless undermining and bad habits of stealthy recording business partners

Mathematica's Wolfram sued, accused of secretly recording calls

"SWolfram has been sued by a former CEO of one of his companies who alleges he promised a stake in the firm and then reneged."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20141104/NEWS04/141109944/mathematica-s-wolfram-sued-for-allegedly-reneging-on-partnership-promise

He plays many of his business partners and associates against one another. Soupnero (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"before he had earned his undergraduate degree"

It says earlier in the text that he never actually earned an undergraduate degree and left Oxford early:

"by the time he had earned his undergraduate degree, he had published ten such papers"

Is the phrasing just incorrect then? 87.150.85.110 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaps in Wolfram physics

I've noticed that the section on Wolfram's physics project is pretty scant, especially descriptions of its (largely negative) critical reception. I've prepared a revision of the section if any would be interested. Cavanbgon (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)