The first definition of neutrality is, put plainly, trying to be as open as can be. Diverse with all opinions, no matter if you agree with them or not. DebatesAreGood? and are supposed to happen. This neutrality promotes freedom for all to have their opinions and welcomes everyone regardless of doctrines. This is what I believe to be good, and in the spirit of TheWikiWay. It does WelcomeNewcomers? and helps them, trying to be as easy and accessible for everyone as possible. Trying to work with each other in a community, is the first definition of neutrality, as in NetNeutrality?.
The second definition is trying to achieve "no point of view", which is, in my opinion, impossible. Information isn't supposed to take sides, I agree with that point of the SecondDefinitionOfNeutrality?, but it is necessary to promote a multi-point-of-view for a truly open medium. To me it is better to have all points of view and for you to include your views than to try to not have any point of view at all. That's flawed, in my opinion. --JonasDaltonRand
Neutrality is a big concept. Switzerland is neutral, for instance, but that is about power. Are you really discussing NeutralPointOfView? -- SunirShah
By neutrality I do mean NeutralPointOfView. --JonasDaltonRand
I think there are more than two definitions. While I like WikiPedia, it would be weird to redefine words according to their local jargon. In Austria, neutrality being part of our national identity, neutrality means not to take side and participate in armed conflicts. The "impossibility of neutrality" seems to refer to the problem of objectivity (reality, truth) which is maybe one of the big problems (in our jargon a "mega thread") of philosophy - reinventing the wheel by restarting (renaming) won't help. WikiPedia neutrality probably aims at something similar to Austrian neutrality, to find a text that is socially accepted by all conflicting parties involved. It's about peaceful solutions, to avoid the old wiki problem of EditWar. -- HelmutLeitner