Well, we have changed here from "employee of X can't talk about X on Wikipedia" to "company that edits Wikipedia for money", which is different thing.
>>> Otherwise, why would you pay the company?
I can name a bunch of reasons. To deliver correct information and ensure it is correct. To weed out mistakes and misinformation that may hurt clients of a company. To make people more likely to consume products by making them familiar with true variety and features of the said products. There are a lot of reasons to put absolutely true information out there, and there are a lot of companies that make money on doing exactly that. Of course, there are also those who put out false and misleading information for money. But presenting it as if any information that somebody paid for disseminating must be false is not correct.
And again, I see no reason why random person can just come in and edit anything, but random company can not. If I were Wikipedia, I'd rather do the opposite - make companies that are interested in providing input into certain pages identify their official representative, clearly mark it as such (maybe even charge for the privilege of having "verified account" or something) and engage them in the process. Of course, if the said rep seems to be bending the truth, it would be at his own peril - imagine how embarrassing it would be for a company to have their official verified rep banned from Wikipedia? So the incentive to cooperate would be on both sides.
>>> Otherwise, why would you pay the company?
I can name a bunch of reasons. To deliver correct information and ensure it is correct. To weed out mistakes and misinformation that may hurt clients of a company. To make people more likely to consume products by making them familiar with true variety and features of the said products. There are a lot of reasons to put absolutely true information out there, and there are a lot of companies that make money on doing exactly that. Of course, there are also those who put out false and misleading information for money. But presenting it as if any information that somebody paid for disseminating must be false is not correct.
And again, I see no reason why random person can just come in and edit anything, but random company can not. If I were Wikipedia, I'd rather do the opposite - make companies that are interested in providing input into certain pages identify their official representative, clearly mark it as such (maybe even charge for the privilege of having "verified account" or something) and engage them in the process. Of course, if the said rep seems to be bending the truth, it would be at his own peril - imagine how embarrassing it would be for a company to have their official verified rep banned from Wikipedia? So the incentive to cooperate would be on both sides.