Handled correctly this could be a PR benefit for WP. Not long ago I expressed my opinion that our view toward Conflicts of Interest was not a workable one. I'm also of the view that any severe action against editors who are paid to clean up a company's article, will only drive such activities underground. I think that we need to establish a right of defence or rebuttal (or whatever we want to call it). This would allow anyone who is directly affected by the article a place to defend his point of view. This could probably be done in a template that is linked from the page in question. The person or company affected would have the exclusive right to make substantive edits to that template. The result would be a section that is the person's view on the issue; if they want to make a radical departure from the truth that would be their right within that context. If the subject tries to put the same information in the main body of the article that would be subject to the usual meat-grinder rules. I'm sure that we will have a few of our own dinosaurs complaining that they should have the right to edit everything, and that having such pages would be tremendously unwiki, but I think that giving any person the opportunity to defend himself should improve Wikipedia's image as one of fairness. A few simple rules may be necessary for these persons. 1. The writer must be the person himself or have the right to speak on behalf of the person 2. The writer must be registered and properly identified. 3. All that he writes is subject to GFDL 4. The financial arrangements between the writer and the person are not our concern. 5. We reserve the right to limit the length of submissions to prevent long-winded rants.