To put it bluntly, this sounds like "the side I like doesn't win when we're being neutral". Sometimes being genuinely neutral will have the effect of helping one side much more than the other. For instance, if evolutionists and creationists try to be neutral the resulting article will be much more supportive of evolution than creation--not for any sinister reason, but simply because *evolutionists have good sources and creationists don't*. A policy which requires good sources will favor the side which has the good sources. If you go into a creation/evolution dispute saying "isn't it unfair that the evolutionists are well-educated and sophisticated, and can easily find sources, while the creationists can't?" you're badly misunderstanding what's going on. It's true that the creationists are less educated, and may have some trouble editing to Wikipedia standards because of that, but the main reason they can't edit well is that the sides don't have equal merit to them, and the side with less merit is going to have more trouble editing. This is true of ethnic disputes as well as creationists.