Jump to content

Talk:Kevin Warwick

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mysekurity (talk | contribs) at 06:04, 11 June 2014 (→‎This article reads like a press release: cite bombing?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Unmarked wp "lock" protected ... unwikilink Daniela Cerqui.

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

Misleading association wit MIT

"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

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]