I'm not convinced a "neutralpedia" in the way you describe is possible as the web is right now, unless someone finds a solid way of *truly* mandating neutrality and *truly* policing this. Wikipedia does try and it has the benefit of having the largest taskforce for the quantity of information, but still fails, sometimes spectacularly. "alternative wikipedias" have been attempted but they always fall prey to their own areas of bias because of the contexts and people by which they're founded.
Maybe a bit of a contrarian statement these days, but I think Wikipedia is something that I think still does a lot of good despite the fuckups. For all of its problems, I've also seen a lot of collaborative beauty. Knowing how and when to use it is part of being an intelligent "digital citizen", something we used to talk a lot about back in the day, when the web was still something we could log off from.
Children have it pounded into their skulls from early ages now that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so I don't think insularly it is the source of perceptible social turmoil more than social censorship, misinformation, and propaganda is everywhere on the internet. IMO the biggest problem is how ""news"" (more like blog) sites will scrape stuff off of Wikipedia for breaking issues that haven't been widely seen yet and spread bad edits farther before they can be fixed.