&gt;I think you might be misunderstanding how wikipedia works.<p>I don&#x27;t think so.<p>&gt;It most certainly should NOT fairly represent minority viewpoints of editors. There are quite a lot of editors who believe in weird conspiracy theories, but that doesn&#x27;t mean they should be given prominence in the article.<p>The problem with only accepting &quot;reliable sources&quot; is that that leads, essentially, to only parroting what is frequently heard in the mainstream media. The articles are thus only &quot;fair&quot; if you consider the conventional treatment of the topic at hand &quot;fair&quot;. If you believe this, most likely you are just terrible at detecting bias and should avoid editing WP anyway because you can&#x27;t spot NPOV violations to save your life. I think it&#x27;s a mistake to claim mainstream publications are de-facto sources of truth and&#x2F;or that they should always be favored over other sources.<p>Perhaps the most egregious demonstrations of the absurdity of WP&#x27;s source policies are that Wikipedia will often reject primary sources because a) they aren&#x27;t published by a mainstream outlet or b) they believe the primary source is &quot;too biased&quot; to comment on an issue involving itself.<p>The reality, however, is that no matter how right you may be, even <i>if</i> you have prominent mainstream sources to overcome the site&#x27;s contrived reliability test, which is in fact often the case, it really comes down to which camp has more time to edit war (admins included here). This is how we get badly biased articles on even slightly controversial subjects; WP is not really self-policing, it&#x27;s just mob territory. Of course, if we believe that the relevant mob&#x27;s opinion always comports with reality, there is no problem. I believe that believing this, about almost anything, is naive.<p>&gt;I&#x27;ve never seen any kind of PR company on wikipedia, although I don&#x27;t tend to edit company articles.<p>A single Google search will bring you face-to-face with the evidence. While a lot of people seem to state that it&#x27;s important to &quot;not edit the article directly&quot; but rather suggest changes on the Talk pages, it&#x27;s safe to say that even among the people who repeat this mantra, it&#x27;s frequently ignored. Like SEO, no matter what you say about how you use it, you have no option here but to compete or die. You&#x27;ll also find results in Google&#x27;s Top 10 that ignore this rule and offer to either help you edit your WP page yourself or take money for editing and monitoring it for you. WP is a staple of online &quot;reputation management&quot;, which is something every company does, whether they acknowledge it or not.