Jump to content

Talk:Kevin Warwick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Unmarked wp "lock" protected ... unwikilink Daniela Cerqui. 99.190.86.115 (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading association wit MIT

[edit]

"He was presented with the 'Future of Health Technology Award' in Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Upon googling the "Future of Health Technology Award", I found that the top result was this webpage, which has no mention of MIT at all (or Kevin Warwick, for the matter). Even if Warwick received the award at MIT, it is misleading to insert the name of such a prestigious institution even if the preposition is "in" and not "by". 74.66.91.49 (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This should be revised and the connection to MIT removed. He is well known for writing over hyped press releases about once per annum which end up being nothing more than smoke. Feel free to add something if you can find a verifiable source. --Mysekurity 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a press release

[edit]

This article needs a strong "criticism" section and a mention of the lack of support from his scientific peers in the lead section. [1]. Warwick's press is notable, sure. But he's also known for over inflating his qualifications and the importance of his research (see: cyborg, chatbot, almost all his robots). His qualifications are puffed up and their connections to notable universities are tenuous at best (The Coventry link, for instance, is a search page returning 462 results, none of them relevant. Searching for Kevin Warwick returns 2 results, none relating to him). This article smacks of NPOV and a huge rewrite is in order. Mysekurity 19:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see the problem with his actions. But you've also added sources "critical" of him that don't mention him at all (as far as I can see). Cite-bombing does not solve the problem. Critical sources (as currently provided) appear to be non-scientific ones at best. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I removed two sources that don't mention him at all and added one... pointing to an article at the Register about his lack of support from scientific peers. I haven't been editing in a while so I've missed a lot of the policy changes, but I'd really like to make this article not be yet another shill for a guy who needs no more press. --Mysekurity 06:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Register is hardly one's first call for judging mainstream scientific opinion, nor indeed as a solid source on a WP:BLP. I don't have an objection to the toned-down addition to the lead, however, though others might. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

[edit]

I have tried to provide some balance to the opening criticism statement. The citations previously given, which have been retained, contain both criticism and support. However the present criticism section certainly does not seem neutral. The first two lines are not represented by the citations given and a lot of the words used appear misplaced, e.g. there is no mention of ‘scientific rigour’ in the citations. I tried the Coventry link given above and it appears to return results relating directly to Kevin Warwick. One of the posts has, it seems, been there since December 2013. Perhaps this was overlooked. In fact searching for “Kevin Warwick” on the Coventry University site returns, as the top link, a biography which itself supports several entries on the page. The latter part of the section, referring to the Turing test, is better supported but should this be in the Turing test section of the page? --DanversCarew (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed-first two lines of criticism section were POV and covered in the opening criticism lines anyway. Retained Turing criticism though. Lesgriffin (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article still sounds *very* positive, and more seems like promoting Warwick than being of a critical evaluation of him. I am an AI researcher myself, closely familiar with much of leading AI research world-wide, and I had never heard about Warwick or his work before (and having recently read about, I can now certainly understand why.) The article paints a completely inappropriate picture of Warwick that has nothing to do with the reality of his accomplishments. He seems to have lots of acceptance from UK academic and non-academic circles, but this is disproportional to his actual achievements in AI or in computer science. The article desperately needs to be fixed to clear this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.179.227 (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statements appear to be factual and (now) pretty balanced in terms of criticism and support. There appear to be three sections - Artificial Intelligence, Turing test and Criticism - which are relevant to your field. Perhaps these should be slimmed down to more appropriately reflect the contributions made? Maybe all put into one section. Other sections have little to do with Artificial Intelligence though. What do others think? Lesgriffin (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, "balanced" in the sense of an equal amount of praise and criticism is not the same as "balanced" in the sense of WP:DUE. From what I've seen, Warwick is only regarded as an expert in his field by people not in his field. Augurar (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly right, Agurar. The man is a tireless self-promoter with no real achievements, but he is very crafty at exploiting the UK academic system which for some reason will give miles of leeway to someone who is seen as "doing so much for promoting the public perception of science" when in truth he is only doing it harm.137.205.183.70 (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

As several other editors have noted above, this article needs to be rewritten with a less promotional tone, and more note made of Warwick's criticism. Given that his specialty is exaggerating his accomplishments to the media, it is a bit difficult to find news sources that don't just republish his headline-friendly claims. However, the following citations may be helpful.

Augurar (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the previous comments, which also seem to contain a POV (as with some earlier comments here) with regard to Warwick exaggerating his accomplishments. Where is the evidence for this? Again the Register is given as some sort of accurate reporting source along with others such as Techdirt. At present the article already carries an overly critical view, some of which (to do with the Turing test) leaves a lot to be desired concerning its accuracy about the test. GillSanderson (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the previous editor. The only story line to do with Warwick exaggerating his accomplishments appears to come from The Register (without evidence) and this has been repeated - as in the Techdirt article. Other statements above - "He is well known for writing over hyped press releases ..". Where is the evidence that he has ever written a press release? "he's also known for over inflating his qualifications". Is he? Where is the evidence for this? "His qualifications are puffed up and their connections to notable universities are tenuous at best (The Coventry link, for instance, is a search page returning 462 results, none of them relevant)". Again, where is the evidence? It appears that ALL his qualifications are genuine. Indeed there are references on the page to all the honorary Degrees he claims. As another editor has reported above, The Coventry link in fact points directly to Kevin Warwick, as does a search on the Coventry University website, giving confirmation of various awards. In the criticism section most of the criticism is directed towards the Turing test itself and perhaps would be best suited in that section. However the criticism statement at the top of the page would fit better in a later criticism section, it is not usual to have such a statement early on a page. Joseperez22 (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the two previous editors and completely disagree that more note should be made of Warwick's criticism, quite the converse in fact. The criticism in the opening section should be moved to the Criticism section, which is usual. Several of the citations above are not at all critical of Warwick - has the editor actually read them? The page does need freshening up though. Wikipedia must be written from a NPOV with verifiability. I am afraid that stating "his specialty is exaggerating his accomplishments to the media" without evidence (as other editors have pointed out) is not a NPOV. I plan to rework the page to take account of this. Smoperator (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had an attempt at reworking the page, trying to take into account the different viewpoints. The Criticism section is now quite substantial and somewhat more accurate with regard to the Turing test. Only openly verifiable awards are now shown.Smoperator (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be reasonably well balanced now. There is quite a large section on criticism. I propose to remove the neutrality banner if everyone is happy with thatJoseperez22 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the page is OK and that the banner should be removed LucretiaTox (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the banner should now be removed GillSanderson (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As there appears to be general support and the banner was originally posted along with a non-NPOV, the neutrality banner has been removed following the revision of the page over 1 month ago Joseperez22 (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kevin Warwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin Warwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kevin Warwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kevin Warwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kevin Warwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry – maybe stubify?

[edit]

Just wanted to let this page know that per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradka, the users Bradka, GillSanderson, and DanversCarew are CU-confirmed to be socks of each other. (As an SPI clerk, looking at their contrib histories more closely than earlier, I would have made a finding that they were connected even without CU confirmation.) Essentially every edit made by each of those three is either promotional of Kevin Warwick or minor edits on other pages running interference. I intend on looking fairly carefully at the edits to this page directly that those editors have made and perhaps stubifying to start over – some other editors to this page also seem like SPAs. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given The Register's coverage at [2], I think increased scrutiny for this article is even more justified. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Warwick&oldid=1195555575"