Wikipedia talk:Policy sculpting: inclusion versus exclusion

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Note: For historical reasons, the first seven diffs are at Wikipedia:Policy sculpting: inclusion versus exclusion. RB 66.217.117.68 (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First draft

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Some sculptors have described the process of sculpting as removing the parts of the stone that are not part of the sculpture. I think that this analogy applies for the core content policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:Due_weight. WP:Verifiability is a rule for inclusion. WP:Verifiability is like picking the block of stone from which the sculpture will be made. What happens next is that in WP:Due_weight we have rules for exclusion. Here we remove un-interesting parts of the block of stone. In the end we want balance (WP:NPOV), not a mound of what wasn't removed.
RB 66.217.118.63 (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the first draft

Blueboar notes below, "...there are lots of reasons to exclude verifiable material that are spelled out in other policies and guidelines (WP:UNDUE is one... but there are others)." I'd like to know what the "others" are. Compare with the essay [Wikipedia:Notability vs. prominence] which states, "Judging the prominence of a factoid or alternative perspective requires an editorial judgment related to the ideas' reliablitiy, verifiability, and general acceptance", but an essay is neither policy nor a guideline. RB 66.217.117.199 (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second draft, with current protection against exclusion in WP:V

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Some sculptors have described the process of sculpting as removing the parts of the stone that are not part of the sculpture. I think that this analogy applies for the core content policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:Due_weight. WP:Verifiability is primarily a rule for inclusion WP:Verifiability is like picking the block of stone from which the sculpture will be made. What happens next is that in WP:Due_weight we have rules for exclusion. Here we remove un-interesting parts of the block of stone. In addition, WP:Verifiability protects from exclusion verifiable material that editors might otherwise spend time debating as being untrue. In the end we want balance (WP:NPOV), not a mound of what wasn't removed.
RB 66.217.118.63 (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[insertion of section title, "Discussion about the second draft" was done here] RB 66.217.117.199 (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the second draft

Subsection heading added by RB 66.217.117.199 (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your analogy... but I have a problem with the line: "In addition, WP:Verifiability protects from exclusion verifiable material that editors might otherwise spend time debating as being untrue." WP:V does not "protect" material from exclusion... there are lots of reasons to exclude verifiable material that are spelled out in other policies and guidelines (WP:UNDUE is one... but there are others). Verifiability is a core concept, but it does not work in a vacuum. All of our policies have to work together, at the same time. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider these quotes:

Finally, it's irrelevant if that statement you mentioned wasn't "true". Wikipedia represents verifiability, not truth. We simply present the information given by reliable sources. (Ref: [here]).

...("verifiability not truth"), can be misunderstood as follows: We don't care whether something is true or not. We just check whether it's verifiable, and that's it. (Ref: [here]).

...editors who then claim that we are obliged to parrot the incorrect reporting as if it was true, because truth simply does not matter. (Ref: [here]).

The point is that WP:V protects against exclusion to the extent that editors say and believe that it does. RB 66.217.117.68 (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]