You can look for any slightly controversial company and find that their wiki pages skimp on the details of such controversies and minimize them as mostly resolved
I did some work [0] at the Stanford Internet Observatory that somewhat supports OP's claim. We found that while Wikipedia is generally very good at maintaining neutrality, some bad edits slip through the cracks.
Some people believe "Neutral Point of View" means you are supposed to write articles about serial killers in such a way that reading them would have no impact on your willingness to let them marry your son.
That's not what it means though. It just means that you write a statement in such a way that everyone agrees it is true.
"the sky is green" , is obviously not likely to be accepted by many people.
'In his science fiction story foobarbaz written in 2002, John Smith asked: What if people said "The Sky Is Green"?'
In this case, we can agree that the story is written, we can look it up in the library. (I made up the title in this case).
NPOV and consensus intersect here: Consensus is reached when no-one disagrees, and NPOV is defined as a point of view that no one could possibly disagree with.
