Eric, one of the problems of intelligence and the collection of knowledge (by which I mean real knowledge, fact) is that the ability to communicate to the masses -- or even sometimes to individuals -- can be lost.
Here, to make any sense of what you have written, I first need to set aside the reactive "ass-lick" in the headline, I need to know who Sarah Stierch is -- and I don't, though I will look -- and I also need to believe that msmash is Stierch. The first story, itself, looks like simple journalism.
So the next problem is that we accumulate reaction to what we have researched, and, if we are not careful, we will communicate the reaction -- which is about us, not fact in itself -- instead of the facts which others would need to understand the situation. This can be difficult to avoid -- because people will infer reaction from facts reported -- but it is possible.
The second msmash post is just a copy of another article, with cogent editorial commentary.
To provide background:
https://wikipediocracy.com/2014/01/16/f ... rch-story/. Still struggling to understand "ass-lick."
And then Collida herself is reactive. Calling the Stierch wikipedia biography "vanity" seems to be misleading, unless Stierch wrote it, which appears unlikely (though not impossible).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ah_Stierch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)
By the way, COI "editing" is not prohibited by policy, if "editing" has the ordinary meaning of working on a draft or document to improve it. It is publishing those edits on one's own initiative on Wikipedia, using an account, and without disclosure of the COI, that is against policy. I have been paid to edit wikitext for clients. I have never violated COI policies.