Glad to see that there's renewed attention to this issue (it's been oft-discussed, certainly) and there are some creative solutions emerging from all sides (somewhat unique this time around).
The core philosophical issue isn't *so* much about whether/if an ethical PR practitioner operating above-board is editing an entry. What's at issue is the question of whether a preferable condition for an entry is 1) objectively inaccurate, though untouched by a PR person, or 2) objectively accurate, with the help of a PR person. Almost everyone seems to agree that an accurate entry is in the public interest. Some of us are working together to help PR do the right thing by the Wikipedia community, especially considering that guidance is at times contradictory.
I've been strongly encouraged by the participation of a few Wikipedians who want to explore that "middle way." There are also great contributions from those who have looked at the intersection of PR and online communities for quite a long time.
Less encouraged at the level of agency participation, though they'll most certainly benefit from the outcome of these efforts. As the twist on the old saw goes, the early bird sometimes get the worm, but the second mouse always gets the cheese.