Let's not confuse goal with method (or ends with means): I don't agree that the goal is "a great, neutral encyclopedia". Rather, the goal is a "a great, free encyclopedia" and the METHOD OF PRODUCTION is: * to let anyone, anytime, edit any article; and, * not to take sides on controversial issues Either of these primary methods can be set aside, if it interferes with the GOAL. We restrict some contributors (via bans) or some articles (via 'protection'). And as consensus develops on shared values we might even set aside the restriction on taking sides. For example, regarding [[terrorism]] the consensus is that it is "bad" (in an absolute moral sense) to shoot children in the back as they run away from gunmen who have taken over their school. Of course, we don't say, "Those evil men murdered the children", because a matter of policy we are writing the [[Beslan school massacre]] article with NPOV. But if no one raised a significant objection, we *could* call it evil. Our official mandate from Jimbo is the philosophy of WikiLove: i.e., consideration for others. In our dealings with one another on this mailing list, it's mandatory: be nice, or be elsewhere (violators have been exiled). This dovetails with the Unification Church idea of "living for the sake of others"; it's also consistent with the church's official definition of Good as "benefiting others" and Evil as "taking advantage of another for one's own benefit". It's possible that Wikipedia could one day adopt an absolute value perspective based on these ideas -- and STILL be "a great, free encyclopedia".