Talk:Wolfram Research
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wolfram Research article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | ScienceWorld was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 July 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Wolfram Research on 25 July 2017. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Links,, references, advertising?
[edit]The page only has 3 references, and one of those is self published. 3 out of 5 external links lead to the company's own website, and I count at least 3 links in the text to the wolfram website. The presence of this page seems to be part of a carefully crafted promotional exercise. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I’m starting to get that notion too. Some of the paragraphs feel like they were copy-pasted from an ad campaign. Wrgfruit (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Wolframscreenshot.jpg
[edit]
Image:Wolframscreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
How many employees are there in Wolfram Research?
[edit]The box to the right of the main page says 300+, but where does this information come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkirkby (talk • contribs) 10:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Innovation Award
[edit]@Duplo surrogate: My searches for sources e.g. Wolfram "Innovator Award"
on google and google news don't turn anything but press releases, wolfram's website or rehashes of press releases. WP:WEIGHT requires that we summarise subjects in proportion to the coverage they have received in independent coverage. There's nothing to indicate to me that this is an important award and certainly no way enough coverage to merit 80 % of the article being about it. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, moreover there is a lack of sourcing for any of the claims in this section of the article. Support removal Lyndaship (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- How does a press release from independent sources (e.g., institution of award winner, any non-Wolfram affiliated source, etc.) not constitute independent coverage? WP:WEIGHT relates to the subject's coverage. There's actually very little coverage on the "subject" itself (two sentences, actually). The rest is simply those who have won the award, which isn't the subject of the section. I could see shortening the bios that are listed as some of them are rather lengthy. But to remove them all together seems excessive. Duplo surrogate (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- A press release is never an independent source for anything - they are primary sources.
The rest is simply those who have won the award
- quite right - it's absolutely nothing to do with Wolfram at all, so why is it in an encyclopedia article about them? If the award was notable, then it could be a standalone article, but it isn't. SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)- Why should the winners of a non-notable award be included in the article about the business that is known for creating the Wolfram suite of programs? At most the award can be mentioned in the article (if you can find a third-party source) but including all the winners is tantamount to WP:SPAM. I support deleting the list of winners and not mentioning the award at all. SWL36 (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- A press release is never an independent source for anything - they are primary sources.
- How does a press release from independent sources (e.g., institution of award winner, any non-Wolfram affiliated source, etc.) not constitute independent coverage? WP:WEIGHT relates to the subject's coverage. There's actually very little coverage on the "subject" itself (two sentences, actually). The rest is simply those who have won the award, which isn't the subject of the section. I could see shortening the bios that are listed as some of them are rather lengthy. But to remove them all together seems excessive. Duplo surrogate (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
UPE
[edit]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 15:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, I am not affiliated with Wolfram, but I think I have a pretty good knowledge of the company. I find the page correct and informative, containing relevant information. Maybe the information about Science World should be removed completely since that website seems not to have been updated since 2006. I see that there can be problems if someone has been paid to update the page, but the important thing must anyway be that the information is correct without unmotivated hyperbole. According to my opinion, the tagging should be removed. Ingolf Dahl (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- While XOR'easter has done some cleanup already, I disagree that the tag should be removed. An article doesn't have to contain the phrase "BUY IT NOW!!!" to be subtle advertising; undisclosed paid editors (who were almost unquestionably involved here – hence the tag) can also lend undue weight to feature lists and such, or insert wording that appears to be neutral prima facie but actually serves to promote nonetheless. To pick just a single passage (unnecessary promo words in bold, indiscriminate listings that could come straight from a product catalogue in italics):
Mathematica is a modern technical computing system spanning all areas of technical computing — including neural networks, machine learning, image processing, geometry, data science, visualizations, and others. The system is used in many technical, scientific, engineering, mathematical, and computing fields. In addition to the computational abilities of the system, Mathematica includes a unique and powerful notebook interface.
- Most of the article is currently sourced to Wolfram itself (or not sourced at all); even if it's a neutral-sounding re-hash of their press kit, it's still a re-hash of their press kit, and it was still done in large part by undisclosed paid editors, so the tag strikes me as appropriate for the time being. Blablubbs|talk 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- While XOR'easter has done some cleanup already, I disagree that the tag should be removed. An article doesn't have to contain the phrase "BUY IT NOW!!!" to be subtle advertising; undisclosed paid editors (who were almost unquestionably involved here – hence the tag) can also lend undue weight to feature lists and such, or insert wording that appears to be neutral prima facie but actually serves to promote nonetheless. To pick just a single passage (unnecessary promo words in bold, indiscriminate listings that could come straight from a product catalogue in italics):
- Hello, I am not affiliated with Wolfram, but I think I have a pretty good knowledge of the company. I find the page correct and informative, containing relevant information. Maybe the information about Science World should be removed completely since that website seems not to have been updated since 2006. I see that there can be problems if someone has been paid to update the page, but the important thing must anyway be that the information is correct without unmotivated hyperbole. According to my opinion, the tagging should be removed. Ingolf Dahl (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree the tag should stay. You can see on a former employee's resume that is publicly available on a popular job-focused social networking site that one of their duties as an employee was to work on Wikipedia. This has been happening since at least 2016 and probably longer. --Montesquieu1789 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- The little bit about ScienceWorld is one of the better-referenced parts, I think. And we don't remove material about a website just because that website is moribund (we have a whole article on Citizendium, for example). XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree the tag should stay. You can see on a former employee's resume that is publicly available on a popular job-focused social networking site that one of their duties as an employee was to work on Wikipedia. This has been happening since at least 2016 and probably longer. --Montesquieu1789 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Help with sources
[edit]I updated the number of employees to 800. I need help sourcing the template. ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- The government data cited in the CNN article when Wolfram Research applied for a received a PPP loan shows Wolfram Research employs roughly 400 people, not the 800 claimed by Stephen Wolfram. If you are going to update this page, please try to avoid using Wolfram-published blog posts. Montesquieu1789 (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)