Joseph Reagle: "Is Wikipedia Neutral?"
(Dave Winer in the audience again; later learned so was David Weinberger.)
I'd like to thank the volunteers because it is not clear why people would volunteer for so much hard work with little tangible reward.
Based the beginning of this investigation on a change in belief that the concept "neutral" was an unfortunate coinage. Objective bias. Articles considered without bias if they describe the debate, rather than present one side.
McArthur (1986): Dogma, rationalism, neutrality & fairness,
The "it" protocol: figure out who is "it" (talking in reference to "it" in tag, "Eenie, meenie, miney, moe, etc.")
Take-away: participants follow a collection of rules under some sort of authority, which creates some level of accountability.
Friedman & Nissenbaum (1996): Bias in technological systems: pre-exiting, technical, & emergent bias
Policy neutrality in technical standards (based on experience working at the W3C, where emphasis of standards was on "mechanism not policy"). Realize that an impartiality may lead to an objectionable result. The goal of neutrality should be accomplished with the least onerous implimentation of proposed rules.
By being neutral, one can be a bridge to all sides.
Achieving fairness requires the keys of Objective, neutral, & transparency. A sensitivity to minority positions, impartiality & plurality, extend good-faith, a commitment to the least onerous mechanism.
Concludes with admitting he likes "neutral" better than "unbiased"