> Is it just that there is some cachet (whether SEO or just general prestige) to having a Wikipedia article, while there isn't the same cachet to having an article on a music-scene wiki?
Yes. And that's exactly what's going on in the ICD case (assuming that TFA is honest). You've got a company trying to (ab)use Wikipedia for free PR, straightforwardly violating the very straightforward policies about autobiography, getting treated more-charitably than they deserve, and then resorting to legal threats when they don't get their way. What else can you say, except that Wikipedia has influence and people want to manipulate that influence for themselves?
Yes. And that's exactly what's going on in the ICD case (assuming that TFA is honest). You've got a company trying to (ab)use Wikipedia for free PR, straightforwardly violating the very straightforward policies about autobiography, getting treated more-charitably than they deserve, and then resorting to legal threats when they don't get their way. What else can you say, except that Wikipedia has influence and people want to manipulate that influence for themselves?