Okay, let me be clearer. And I'll try to stop swearing, damn it!
MY OWN goal is to help build an unbiased encyclopedia. To a certain extent, that goal coincides with Jimbo's goal. Moreover, that goal is sought be many other signed-in contributors whose work I've come to respect.
The Neutral Point Of View policy is, as I see it, a MEANS toward an end. By requiring disputants to cite sources and attribute points of view to spokesman, we avoid the bias that inevitably mars other encyclopedias.
MS Encarta and E. Britannica have long been unfair to my church, as well as being way to soft on Communism.
The idea that Jimbo and Larry have championed is that on controversial matters, we agree to disagree: A said X about it, while B said Y about it. This lets the reader make up their own mind, based upon whatever criteria they choose.
Neutrality in itself is not a goal I believe in. It's only a shared means to an end. Jimbo is pro-free-markets and anti-Marxist. I doubt that he is personally neutral on these subjects, but I daresay he AGREES that the articles should neither favor nor oppose free markets or Marxism.
Likewise (as a small mind may imitate a greater mind) I favor the Unification Church and oppose homosexuality. Yet I have agreed to write neutrally on both these subjects, and I think I've done well enough on maintain "editorial neutrality" to justify the confidence the community has placed in me. (What confidence? Oh, shut up!)
Let us re-examine our aims; then we can decide on means to achieve the ends.
Ed Poor "My opinion, not my company's"