...What the heck is this?
The description is a cute gimmick, but it tells us virtually nothing about what the trope is or what it is used for. I propose a rewrite and move the current to Self Demonstrating.
Fixed the tag.
Yep. Page relies entirely on sinkholes to get the point across. It fails as a trope description. A clearer description makes sense here.
The Laconic doesn't help much either, since Stepford Smiler has many meanings.
In fact, if one visits the discussion page, two people had to go there to find out what it means.
Which, incidentally is basically Path of Inspiration but for corporations: a company that passes itself off as benevolent but isn't.
Description definitely needs help, and it has a bit of a problem with ZC Es.
I don't particularly understand why people "reply by editing" either, but sometimes it does seem more like the natural approach, even if the only reason one would even think of it as an option is because other people do it.
I would probably replace the first two paragraphs with something like this - not this exactly, but something like it:
This corporation has a non-business record that sounds to good to be true - and is too good to be true. They may hide their questionable business practices behind euphemisms like "environmental initiatives" and general We Care advertising campaigns. Often a Mega Corp..
I like it for an actual self-demonstrating article, but it's unnecessary for a straight description. Frankly, I'm not happy I kept the "environmental initiatives" bit.
I kinda like the wording "linguistic impact lesseners", as it's self-demonstrating while still being relatively clear. The context makes it clearer as well.
And I use the edit-to-reply thing when I don't want an answer, like if it would derail (further).