I've been thinking about it, and well, I guess a lot of it depends on what you consider 'neutral'. For instance, newspapers try to give equal time to each side of a story ... but when it's a couple nut-jobs against a well-established scientific theory that's stood for hundreds of years, I really don't think it's worth being 'neutral'.

Now, sometimes, that one outlyer has good points, and it's worth mentioning ... if the community doesn't like the response, they'll vote the person down ... but in my opinion, much of what makes a good question is 'did you answer the question?'.

Take for instance the question, 'What are some of the benefits of electric stoves versus gas stoves?'. yossarian's answer, although top rated, completely did not answer the question, and gave the exact opposite of what was asked for. All his answer really showed is that they're different, and that trying to cook on an electric stove exatly as you would a gas stove will lead to problems. I'm going to vote this sort of answer down.

Likewise, if someone asks a queston like 'how can I make (something) more juicy', and someone goes off about how you shouldn't be eating that, because it's bad for you, I'm going to do the same. If someone asks about reducing fat, answering that not all fats are bad belongs in a comment, not an answer. (in that case, it wasn't preachy enough for me to down-vote, and I probably wasn't in a bad mood when I saw it, which may affect how likely I am to down-vote things).

...

I'd say there's no real reason to need a neutral point of view on things ... if you're getting into medical/nutrition territory, it's probably worth adding a disclaimer, but there's lots of different 'healthful' (god, I hate that word) lifestyles that include lots of meat (eg, Atkins), lots of oil (many mediteranean lifestyles), msg, salt, etc. The important thing is not to overdo anything.

I've been thinking about it, and well, I guess a lot of it depends on what you consider 'neutral'. For instance, newspapers try to give equal time to each side of a story ... but when it's a couple nut-jobs against a well-established scientific theory that's stood for hundreds of years, I really don't think it's worth being 'neutral'.

Now, sometimes, that one outlyer has good points, and it's worth mentioning ... if the community doesn't like the response, they'll vote the person down ... but in my opinion, much of what makes a good question is 'did you answer the question?'.

Take for instance the question, 'What are some of the benefits of electric stoves versus gas stoves?'. yossarian's answer, although top rated, completely did not answer the question, and gave the exact opposite of what was asked for. All his answer really showed is that they're different, and that trying to cook on an electric stove exatly as you would a gas stove will lead to problems. I'm going to vote this sort of answer down.

Likewise, if someone asks a queston like 'how can I make (something) more juicy', and someone goes off about how you shouldn't be eating that, because it's bad for you, I'm going to do the same. If someone asks about reducing fat, answering that not all fats are bad belongs in a comment, not an answer. (in that case, it wasn't preachy enough for me to down-vote, and I probably wasn't in a bad mood when I saw it, which may affect how likely I am to down-vote things).

...

I'd say there's no real reason to need a neutral point of view on things ... if you're getting into medical/nutrition territory, it's probably worth adding a disclaimer, but there's lots of different 'healthful' (god, I hate that word) lifestyles that include lots of meat (eg, Atkins), lots of oil (many mediteranean lifestyles), msg, salt, etc. The important thing is not to overdo anything.