"

 Question 

Sarah, there is something that I've wondered about for a long time that is related to COI editing.  One need look no further than my user page where I quote Chris Hedges: ""They control our systems of information."" and add: Surely no one could be so naive as to believe that corporations do not have an interest in turning our encyclopedia into a corporate-approved encyclopedia.  At a certain point one must admit that to not fight the creep of corporate control into our articles really does make us appear to be a bunch of easily-led, lame-brained, losers just willing to go along with the flow rather than to tackle the problem and try to come up with some sort of strategy.  What, if anything, is presently being done?  I'm aware that a few years ago an editor asked for some sort of outside check to ""prove"" that he had no COI related to the articles he edits, and I've heard of this incident dozens of times since, where it is raised as absolute evidence of a lack of conflict of interest.  Many times I've wondered how Wikipedia went about finding this so-called proof. If I put myself in a position in which I was editing for pay but denied it, how could it be proven that I was?  I mention this because the first thing you know all a paid editor need do is have WP give him/her the WP Stamp of Approval and from then on that editor is home free to do as they please.  They can now proudly display their badge of approval and anyone who questions them is now seen as a disgruntled editor in need of a reality check.    "