I actually don't find paid Wikipedia editing inherently troublesome. The process of discussing and editing a Wikipedia page is entirely open. So why should a company not be able to contribute to their page if the community approves of the changes - especially if that company is open about their involvement? Perhaps higher standards of review should be applied, but I see no reason to consider it inherently suspect. And we should all be realistic - you would be hard pressed to find a company, organization, or individual who doesn't try to influence their Wikipedia page if they have the resources to.
Neither does the Wikipedia community on the whole [0]; the problem is when it's undisclosed. If the editor makes clear their conflict-of-interest, the edits should receive extra scrutiny for neutrality and due weight and the end result should be the same: a "warts and all", unbiased article about a notable topic.
Wikipedia's entire ruleset ("neutrality", no paid editing, no original research) winds up excluding anybody from the editing process who actually has knowledge about the subject of the article.
