You can't create what can't exist. Neutrality at best is just presenting as many different (credible) views as possible, but usually contains a "straw man" or two.
As Wikipedia defines it, anyway, neutrality is biased towards the current scientific consensus, which cuts down on the fringe content and makes the supporters of things like homeopathy very, very angry: They think neutrality should mean "every position gets taken equally seriously", which is false balance, and go a bit berserk when Wikipedia's rules make the homeopathy article largely anti-homeopathy, by presenting the best current knowledge as fact and presenting homeopathy itself as discredited.
There's no way to have a coherent, readable article which is philosophically neutral. Good thing Wikipedia doesn't try.
This is a very important point. The problem with satisfying people's desires for neutrality is that people have incompatible, often incoherent ideas about what neutrality is supposed to be.
Naturally, some people don't like Wikipedia's version of neutrality, though I happen to think it's quite a good one: neutral in its reflection of what reliable sources say, not substantively neutral on subject matter. So I'm not particularly troubled by the problem as it pertains to WikiTribune.
The fact that some people don't like their notion of neutrality isn't a problem with them in particular, so much as an inevitability that reflects the way people with incompatible opinions will react to any possible version of neutrality. So the question should be which among the notions of neutrality that will inevitably anger some people is the most preferable.
