Based on what I've seen on those Talk pages...that's a battle I can't personally even imagine having the energy for. There are a number of people who contribute in a manner that seems helpful to us, while still being fair and adhering to WP policies and guidelines. There are also a couple of people who seem to react to anything and everything that comes to light which is favorable to us by trying to diminish relevance as much as is possible within the policies and guidelines. Some people go clearly beyond the policies--on both sides. But their efforts rarely stand, and in some cases they are banned.
The Talk page on Simon Wessely is an interesting read, although many CFS/ME--related pages are. On some there are relentless efforts to trumpet the perceived efficacy of CBT & GET. On the Talk page for the main entry for CFS, in the archives, not long after the WPI XMRV study was published, there was a heated discussion over whether or not XMRV should even be mentioned in the CFS article--at all. An editor or two who don't seem involved much in CFS articles were vehemently against it, but it was put to a vote and the reference was retained. The page for WPI is similarly very heated.
I would caution that reading this stuff can be aggravating, and for many patients should probably be avoided. I can't say this is a great source of information. It is a good way to get a grasp on how people seek to minimize our illness on an ongoing basis, their tactics, their attitudes, their methods for following the letter of policy, for what certainly seems to be an underlying agenda.
That said, although some posters on this board have certainly had their share of negative experiences, as time moves on, we do seem to have decent representation, in spite of patients and advocates having been banned as editors (I am curious if some of the CFS-patient editors are on this site, although it may be best if they are not identifiable, in the interest of avoiding perceived bias). If you're going to edit? Be careful, and do read some of these pages if you're not acquainted with WP policy, because if there's something that seems like it should obviously be part of an article, or if something seems distorted, overstated, or under-represented, chances are it's that way because little that could be interpreted as being in violation of WP policy is allowed to stay. The Wesselys and Reeves have done a lot of damage and have much 'data' on their side to support their cruel garbage. I'm not sure an edit war could make us any less popular than we seem to be there, so what the heck...but it could be an ambitious undertaking. Proceed with caution.