I can think of very few jobs less neutral than Atlantic Council and U.S. Department of State. You don’t get invited to those boards without prior connections to some of the least neutral people on the planet.
Is neutrality essential to your moral philosophy? Please define neutrality.
Do you think it should be essential to someone who works at Wikipedia? Even after they leave? Why exactly? Make the argument if you want to persuade. I think I speak for a lot of people in saying that such a claim is overly strict.
Have you reviewed various forms of moral relativism recently? If not, I think the ideas will be fruitful.
There is an idea that I’ve stolen from Robert Kane (a philosopher) that I want to share any chance I get: a quest for knowledge means starting with an open mind — but it does not mean stopping there. Neutrality can help you weigh ideas more objectively. But the process of weighing them will show that some ideas are better than others. Therefore, neutrality as an end state of knowledge or ethics is not a wise goal. Foolish neutrality is unethical.
The State Department is maximally non-neutral, they are explicitly looking after American foreign policy interests. That is their raison d'etre. It simply is not possible to be less neutral than the State Department. They're as not-neutral as the US military.
Those corporations are not exactly shining examples of neutrality, but by simple virtue of being multinationals which do business in many countries, cooperating with and abiding by the laws of many governments, they are more neutral than the State Department itself. They are not explicitly and overtly set up to serve a single particular government, although there is good and ample reason to believe they covertly do so. I don't think anybody believes these corporations are strictly neutral, but to claim they're less neutral than the State Department is quite absurd.
Sometimes the most effective heads of large organizations are effective because of their connections, especially when many of the issues they will deal with involve countries threatening the organization with censorship, control, and takedown issues.
Wikipedia has a much more admirable history in this regard than the major for profit online companies.
