Except that would violate their policy of presenting information in as neutral manner as possible. It's also hard to see where this would stop: banners for Exxon stating they ruin the environment, a banner on the NSA article stating they violate civil rights?
As long as it is the truth and no relevant facts are left out, it is still neutral.
There is this strange notion in the US today that "neutral" means "doesn't upset or offend anyone". Or that neutral means "both sides get equal weights". If some corporation pays for getting their articles edited, then it is still a neutral fact that that was what they did, even if it upsets someone at the corporation that the truth comes out.
Which means that you don't understand the concept at all. Wikipedia is neutral because it doesn't hold to a particular position. "The NSA violates civil rights" is not a position that Wikipedia holds because it cannot hold a particular position in regards to this organization. Sure, it can state facts, but it will have to source the information that the NSA violates civil rights to a third party.
This is not to say that all sides must be held to have equal weight. Flat earthers should only get a passing mention on the article about the curvature of the earth, though they should be mentioned. Breathinarianism should be barely mentioned in an article on human health.
I've found, when I was working on contentious articles on Wikipedia (all those many years ago now!), that neutrality always highlighted extreme views and held them to the light of day - they seemed, if anything, more bizarre and absurd when presented in a neutral manner. That's really why Scientologists hate Wikipedia, IMO.
You obviously don't understand my comment at all. If Wikipedia has proof then there isn't any longer "a particular position", but a fact that can and should be stated. Wikipedia writes "Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to four government investigations,[citation needed][n 1] the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy". Note the "according to" and "citation needed". But it also writes "On November 24, 1963, Ruby shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald". No "according to" and no citations.
Sure, not terribly interesting, but I got sick of people adding random "facts" without a source so I decided to use a reverse footnoting system to highlight it. Normally you add a citation footnote to clearly show where you got your fact or idea, mine was the opposite - it showed clearly that there was no citation so use the information at your own peril!
I also did it to force the editors to get sources and not just make stuff up. There was also often an issue where the fact was good, but was extraordinary and needed a source to back it up. The tag allowed the good info to stay until a source could be found. Unfortunately, sometimes bad info stays too long but it has the tag so at the very least you know that something is potentially fishy.
It was basically more wildly successful than I ever imagined. I really had no idea I was creating an important bit of Internet popular culture - I was just trying to make Wikipedia more reliable!
