The definitions of neutrality given by Philip Sandifer, Ian Woolard, David Gerard, and Marc Riddell are categorized under definition 1 of neutrality: http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DefinitionsOfNeutrality, which Wikipedia should be based on. That is, expressing all points of view and allowing you to add your own. Unfortunately, the neutrality described by Wily D and Steve Summit is prevalent in Wikipedia, and is categorized under definition 2. That neutrality only exists in the minds of some people with the point of view that such a thing exists as no point of view.
WJhonson@aol.com says:
In a message dated 4/13/2008 10:00:04 A.M. Pacific >Daylight Time, joeyyuan@cox.net writes:
Wikipedia has a big flaw: neutrality. The core principle of >writing from a "neutral" point of view is contradictory: it has a point of >view in itself, and the point of view is supposedly against points of >view.
----------------------
If you hate bigots are you a bigot? Or are you a meta->bigot? "You're a hater, because you hate haters!"
Essentially the same logic applies to your above >statement. "Neutral point-of-view" is not a point-of-view, it is the >absence of any point-of-view.
It is only your point of view that it exists. It is my point of view that it does not.