I agree that true neutrality is likely impossible. For starters, Wikipedia is only as biased as its sources and like you said "media and academic scholarship".

I agree that true neutrality is likely impossible. For starters, Wikipedia is only as biased as its sources and like you said "media and academic scholarship". It's this attribute that lets us readily say that vaccines don't cause autism, but that will also prevent it from assimilating new breakthroughs or ideas until they are readily accepted. (In other words, Wikipedia is not The Truth) FUTON bias is a problem in a lot of areas [0] but there are tons of articles that use offline sources. As for your last point, you might find this essay [1] interesting in that we often assume too much to be a given, and Wikipedia definitely suffers from an anglophone bias, but that's why multilingual editors are important to bring those sources to the fore. Fringe theories [2] are an interesting subject that I think should be discussed more, but I do find the current approach sensible. Thanks for the interesting counterpoints. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUTON_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUTON_bias [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories