Talk:Stephen Wolfram

UPE

Daveburstein (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2024 (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. Dave Burstein

Hello. I have just tagged this article {{undisclosed paid}}, 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 WP:RS. 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 initially struggled in school
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)

Political views

In an interview with Lex Fridman, in the part 2:45:25 of the video, Wolfram mentioned the danger of giving one AI to decide on everything about society and than in 2:48:42 he said that a "market system based on choice is more liberating than a totalitarian system".

Of course its not a direct indication that he particularly supports free market economy or more specifically free market capitalism, but its possible to state that he supports a market-based system over a centralised system because of the choices it generates under "Political views" title.

--Comrade-yutyo (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "centralised" and "totalitarian" are anywhere near synonyms. We shouldn't interpret primary sources like this. Guettarda (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If his political views are not clear in sources, then it shouldn't be included. The context in which the comments were made is also in a hypothetical scenario and not a crisp articulation of his political views. Montesquieu1789 (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Source for first published writing at 15

As loathe as I am to lend credibility to someone sockfarming WP, a possible source for the citation needed around his first publishing at 15 would be a link to the actual paper he published that includes the date and the name of the journal: https://content.wolfram.com/uploads/sites/34/2020/07/hadronic-electrons.pdf 172.92.181.142 (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps, same paper, but from somewhere that isn't his own website: https://www.publish.csiro.au/ph/pdf/PH750479 172.92.181.142 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2023 (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)