It is not out of the question that Stephen Wolfram, if it is not he himself, does indeed have some publicists policing his Wikipedia article.<p>Compare the edit statistics of Stephen&#x27;s page:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.wmflabs.org&#x2F;xtools-articleinfo&#x2F;?article=Stephen_Wolfram&amp;project=en.wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.wmflabs.org&#x2F;xtools-articleinfo&#x2F;?article=Stephe...</a><p>...to those of the page of an arguably even more famous research scientist, Terence Tao:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.wmflabs.org&#x2F;xtools-articleinfo&#x2F;?article=Terence_Tao&amp;project=en.wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.wmflabs.org&#x2F;xtools-articleinfo&#x2F;?article=Terenc...</a><p>Notice that, (as might be reasonable to expect of many Wikipedia articles), Terence&#x27;s page experienced rapid growth a few years after it&#x27;s creation, then received sustained updates over time. In contrast, Stephen&#x27;s page does not display this trend at all and is rather bursty.<p>Also notice that whereas the top editors of Tao&#x27;s page are evenly distributed among many users, on Stephen&#x27;s page nearly 10% of the edits and a quarter of the text comes from one editor who happens to have been affiliated with Wolfram Research.<p>Of course this is all anecdotal evidence and eyeball statistics at best.