more attention needs to be lent to dealing with controversial articles on the RIAA, the trans continental partnership, and the nature of large entities that can afford to muddle their tracks. For example, how many edits to the Coca Cola wiki article have been made and by whom? What edits get made to pages on the gulf oil disaster and on Time Warners article
And you don't think pages like Barack Obama or George W. Bush are immune to these problems by political fanatics either? What about the religious fanatics that get into edit wars over theology, or the Wikipedia pages on Scientology? Frankly what I see for from these shills working for advertising agencies is trivial compared to the huge damage that a well invested fanatic on many other topics can do to Wikipedia articles, most of them not getting any sort of pay for their activities.
It also isn't the famous articles that are the real concern though. It is the articles that have perhaps two or three active editors that have ever worked on that article and then the article is hijacked to support a strong point of view. It might get caught if it is on somebody's active page watch list or somebody aggressively looking at recent changes, but mostly it will slip through the cracks and become mostly permanent to Wikipedia. This includes some rather substantive articles I might add, but by its nature is usually non-controversial (hence why so few people are bothering to edit it too).