The research published in this case (the original word2vec paper) is quite literally not what it claims to be. It is factually incorrect. Is that really the responsibility of the individual attempting to reproduce the work to identify and correct?
How wrong should the original work be before it ceases to be a case of 'clean your own pipettes'?
I’d say at the same point that others in the field would generally agree it’s fradulent. I’m not familiar enough with the field of word2vec to say if this is the case or not. But regardless, asking that the implementation be representative of the paper is a lot different than demanding docker containers and install scripts.
Could you PLEASE consider reading the article we're all discussing before you roll into the comments section of an article about it with your strong-but-loosely-held opinions? You're arguing against a point that almost no one is putting forward (that software should be one click).
How wrong should the original work be before it ceases to be a case of 'clean your own pipettes'?