Because their CEOs are not messianic figures with a legion of on-line fans who will rush to their defense at the first hint of criticism.

Don't you mean because their stock is not heavily shorted and so not shouting about every misaligned door panel might cost some funds a lot of money?

Edit: looking at the edits, but the person's who has done a lot or most of the recent edits has the word "stonk" in their username.

>legion of on-line fans who will rush to their defense at the first hint of criticism.

Toyota has this. Though to be clear they defend the brand itself. The CEO doesn't have any special personal following like Elon does.

Because it's acknowledged to be a poor idea and poor writing to habitually structure articles this way.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate_a...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Poin...

It's a purely technical issue. Once the criticism section grows, it makes more sense to create a separate article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

In some cases, the Criticism article is longer than the one about the company itself.

Because you are too lazy to start them.

Because it wants to be treated as a tech company