I wonder, if there were any studies, of what impact Wikipedia entries have on the real life events.
For example, it is known that some companies hire payed editors to improve their wikipedia entries, but how it reflects on their performance in a real life.
Or let's say a politician hired somebody to improve his wikipedia entry. Would it somehow change his results in the next elections?

These hypotheses would be impossible to prove out without a rigorous control/test experiment. And even so, because Wikipedia would be just one small component of a politician's or a corporation's communication portfolio, it would be next to impossible to tease out the effect that Wikipedia had, that was not influenced by other factors in the portfolio.

Here's something I find amusing, though...

When Bell Pottinger was discovered to be manipulating clients' entries on Wikipedia, its parent company's stock (Chime Communications) was trading at about 180. In the following week, the stock dropped to about 165. However, since then, the stock took a dizzying climb up to about 250, before settling out at about 220 now. So, one might conclude that if you do "wrong" by Wikipedia, it's great for your market capitalization!

An interesting observation.

As a general rule and in many different circumstances, all publicity is good.

Even a bad one?

Very often, yes. Not always, but surprisingly often.

In this case I am going to be just fine.