Does wikipedia really always has a neutral point of view?

somtimes I honestly see it in a more liberal standpoint.

No, most media is biased to some extent, and wikipedia is no exception. The better the editors/users, the less likely it will be biased.

It tries.

And fails, for the most part.

Anyone can edit it, so it's hard to keep it all neutral.

depends on who is doing the editing

For the most part i find wilki to be on the level...
I notice if there is something blatenly wrong its ,corrected fast
like any web site you haved to be on guard

No, if you look at the global warming article it says nothing about the politics of it. Politicians, mainly liberals would easily be willing to charge a tax for some reason for like a carbon off set tax or somthing like that. Global warming may be an envimental issue if you buy in to the propaganda of it but you can not deny it is a politcal issue too. The article does not say anything about the politics of it.

Well I don't think that making it neutral is the work of Wikipedia admins. But it is the duty of the editor. That depends on the editor. In some cases, that thing can be neutral to you but not to the editor, or it is neutral to editor but not to you. So this depends on both reader and editor.

I think only certain moderators can edit wikipedia to make it realible. In the future I am hoping that only adminstrators or moderators can edit wikipedia.

It would literally be impossible to have a completely neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Everyone has some kind of bias, and it may not even be intentional, but it's still there.

No, because people like me edit it. :)

no!

In my experiences wikipedia has done a fairly good job of keeping its information expansive, neat, and neutral. So I can not knock it from personal experience, but with that being said it still IS edited by everyone and anyone so to claim that wikipedia is ALWAYS neutral would be highly unlikely. I'm sure plenty of people could present examples of the bias scattered through it's virtual pages.

Since Wikipedia's a website which gives information to the whole world, almost all of it's articles are neutral to give the reader the opportunity to make their decision without being bias, but since the public can change articles, sometimes its harder said that done!

most times

Wikipedia follows NPOV for the most part, but some articles are controlled by people who hold a particular point of view.

For example, the article on Intelligent Design tends to be biased against it (I don't actually think that any of the theories of our origins are scientifically accurate, but it isn't fair to whitewash Evolution and attack Intelligent Design and Creation). There is also the same bias on Global Warming. Generally, science articles tend to be biased toward the liberal viewpoint.

However, most of the political articles are mostly fair (some groups do bias articles though, such as the Objectivists on articles related to Objectivism, Neo-Conservatives on the Sean Hannity article, and liberals on the Cindy Sheehan article).

If a Wikipedia article is biased, it isn't because Wikipedia is biased (Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, is actually an Objectivist and presumably a socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-war Republican), but because that particular article is most frequently edited by people who are biased.

Sometimes

It trys to.