PR also makes it into Wikipedia through sanctioned channels -- namely mass media citations which are considered "reliable sources", even though the content of t

PR also makes it into Wikipedia through sanctioned channels -- namely mass media citations which are considered "reliable sources", even though the content of the citation comes from a press release or helpful PR person. It it were just that then Wikipedia would be fine. I mean, this is how the trade press has operated since time immemorial. Companies issue press releases, and the trade journals publish stuff. But Wikipedia has a serious problem with "competing interests". One high-profile occasion was when a Wikipedia admin with much clout was employed by some New Religious Movement and then proceeded to edit in favour of his employer. Another was when a BP representative edited the article on his own company. Also: Gibraltarpedia and Monmouthpedia. On all three occasions a substantial fraction of Wikipedia editors found nothing wrong with this. Science found out why you can't have this when medical researchers were funded by the tobacco industry and proceeded to publish their findings without being open where they got their money from. Wikipedia needs to wake up, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.