However, it could be that common opinions about authors are not tropes but warranted. In the first decade of my exposure to Stephen Wolfram, I was in awe of his intelligence. Mathematica is a wonderful tool and its step-by-step explanations of proofs are fantastic. I thought his approach to computational systems was mind-blowing.
Then I leaned more. I saw that much of his work was built on the backs of giants. His cellular automota are simplified versions of what Conroy worked on. Don't get me wrong, Wolfram formalized 1D automata in his own works, but it wasn't revolutionary. He didn't "discover" these features; he built upon the works of others.
My biggest critique of Wolfram is that he will come up with SOME new interpretation of a physical or computation phenomenon and claim that it is THE ONE TRUE INTEPERATION of how the world works. He feels like hubris personified.
But to simplify it, I think he is a smart person who often posts self-congratulatory things and I don't thing it's wrong to call him out when his writings are full of fluff.