Neutrality is a false goal and just prevents egregious sorts of editorializing and extremism of certain types. Wikipedia's systematic bias is supported by a fe

Neutrality is a false goal and just prevents egregious sorts of editorializing and extremism of certain types. Wikipedia's systematic bias is supported by a few methods: meticulous curation of its pool of "reliable sources" and rejection of any pool of sources which disagrees with existing zeitgeists, as well as the ability of an established user base to form and enforce consensus and then give marching orders to the rest, on pain of bannination. It's somewhat peculiar, if you are able to consider extremists utterly dispassionately, that Wikipedians support and encourage extremists who support certain ideologies, we may assign algebraic monikers such as G, B, P, or L. But Wikipedians also frown upon extremist ideologies that are opposed to their zeitgeist, such as naturopaths, Christians, Nazis/white supremacists, or nationalists of any sort who aren't from the US or British Empire. So neutrality on Wikipedia just means that they will support the same extremist ideologies propounded by their list of sources, and supported by the major contributors to articles, policies, and consensus. And that they will tone down the language so that it is dispassionate and "encyclopedic" unless an article is explicitly denouncing an extremist ideology they don't like, and in those cases they explicitly waive their policies on phrasing and words to avoid. It is unsurprising when you consider the ideology which launched Wikipedia in the context of F/OSS. F/OSS and GNU are explicitly extremist--perhaps we can consider them lawful good extremist ideologies--but if you've paid attention to anything written by rms, Cory Doctorow, esr, or other F/OSS proponents, you can't deny that they've gone to extremes to keep software (and other stuff) free and open.