Wikipedia talk:Policy sculpting: inclusion versus exclusion

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)

First draft

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Discussion about the second draft

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

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)

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)