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.