I'm all for a more accurate Wikipedia, especially now that it appears to be the primary source for a few billion student papers each year. But determining what constitutes a neutral point of view for all of humanity? Good luck with that.

As the Wikipedia self-referentially notes:

Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies, and target its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process. Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy are also an issue. Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information, though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.

I removed the six footnotes from that blurb, but if you absolutely must know the sources .

In their own way, the Wikipedians are as as the group they just banned. And if you don't believe that, ask AndroidCat, GoodDamon, FloNight, BravehartBear, and all the other Wiki high priests who weighed in on on whether to ban the L. Rons.