>In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is considered fine in courts.

In theory (though tbf not in reality) everyone has the right to an attorney. AFAIK there is no corresponding right to a paid Wikipedia editor.

>> Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period.

>I guess you didn't read the article? The paid influence was disclosed.

“But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

Wikipedia articles with significant edits from paid PR hacks need a big red warning sticker.