User:Cambalachero/Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

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.

All the information included in articles in Wikipedia must be verifiable, that is, it must be available in Reliable sources. However, verifiability is necessary but not sufficient, and some content may not be included in a given article, even if it is verifiable.

Types of content

Errors

That sources are reliable does not mean that they are infallible. It is possible that an article from a reliable source has a mistake; when one is found, it should be silently ignored and not cited in the Wikipedia article. A possible cause of mistakes is when a source talks about a topic that is beyond their usual area of expertise.

Note, however, that it is not enough to claim "this is an error" to remove a reference. Be prepared to justify why it is an error, citing a better source to explain it.

Trivia

An article about a given topic in Wikipedia will talk about the most important and defining aspects of it. For example, an article about a person will have the biography of that person. But Wikipedia does not include everything about the topic. That a musician released a new album is noteworthy info, that he helped an elder woman cross the street is not.

Excessive in-story content

Wikipedia includes articles about works of fiction, and those articles have a section that explains the plot of the work of fiction. Those sections usually don't cite references: it is assumed that the work of fiction is itself the reference. Then we can explain the plot in full detail, scene by scene and focusing even on the portraits on the walls, right? No. Wikipedia aims for an out-of-universe perspective. Plots are described in summary, to explain the basic idea of what the work is about, and no more. Wikipedia is more interested in the real-world context of the work: how was it made, other works that influenced the authors, the reception it had with both critics and public; that kind of stuff.

Very long quotations

Although quotations may help to describe an opinion or explain actions or motivations, try to avoid abusing them. A long quotation is not a proper substitute for encyclopedic writing, even if it is really helpful. If a quotation is really long, just start with "John Doe says..." and explain what he said on your own words. You can simply add the relevant part of the quote later, rather than the full quotation.

Needless to say, if the article or section is about the quotation itself, rather than about the topic or context of the quotation, it should be reproduced fully, even if long. Compare "We shall fight on the beaches" with Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II.

Non-notable topics

Notability within Wikipedia is when a given topic is relevant enough to have a specific and dedicated article about it. It is a form of verifiability at its core, but it's not just verifiability. Many topics have specific guidelines that define what is notable and what is not. That means that, even if a topic is not notable, we may still find sources that talk about it. For example, a newspaper may publish a brief interview with a garage band that made some concerts: that interview alone may not be enough to make the band notable.

Such info may sometimes be appropriate in larger-scope articles, but not always. Also, lack of notability is not permanent, and just because that garage band is not notable now doesn't mean it won't be in some years, if it keeps growing.

Speculation

For the most part, the content of articles mentions things that have already happened, not future developments. Even articles that are nominally about future topics (unreleased films, scheduled elections, sport contests) still talk about what has happened in relation to them. For example, an article about an unreleased film may mention the confirmed cast, actor or directors that were considered and then left, the work done so far, the trailers released, etc. It would not try to guess what will happen in the plot of an unreleased film, as specialized sources often do based on small "clues" they may see here and there (the character will die because the actor's contract expired, the title implies that X thing happens, someone said something that may be understood as an involuntary spoiler, etc).

We do, however, have articles purely about speculation, when it is speculation about an event that may or may not ever happen (such as the Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact) or that will happen in a future so far away that we'll never actually see it (such as the Heat death of the universe). Still, we try to include only educated guesses, not just any random speculation. And if an author makes predictions about the future in his books, we may reference them, but on his own article, and framed as such. "John Doe predicted in his book that the economy of Foo will collapse in some years" may be mentioned in the article of John Doe, but not in Economy of Foo.

Minor news

That a source is reliable means that we can trust that what they say is accurate. It does not guarantee that all the news they talk about will actually be that important in the grand scheme of things. This is more noticeable in 24-hrs TV News channels: being on-air all day means a lot of time to fill, and sometimes there are just not enough news topics to fill all that time. At such point, slow news and "slice of life" news may be used to fill the void. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to pick those news items to make articles. In particular, try to avoid gossip and rumors about people's private life. Even if biographies have a "personal life" section, stick to life-defining events (graduation, marriage, divorce, kids, moving to live elsewhere, etc), and only report them when they actually happen.

In other cases, a topic's interest and relevance are fleeting: it's very important right now, but that importance will fall from a mountaintop in just a few days or even hours. For example, let's say that there was a multiple car crash in the commercial area of the city. There are damaged cars, injured people, traffic delays, all that stuff. The TV news are there for some hours, and detail what has happened, what the police and emergency systems are doing about it, testimonies of eyewitnesses of the event and people that work nearby, and so on. But what happens the next day? Surely by then all the cars have been taken to maintenance or disposal, all injured people have been taken to hospitals, damage to the public space is either repaired or set for repair, traffic is normal again, and life has moved on. There's likely no reason to make an article about the car crash, even if the coverage is still in the page archives.

Neutrality

Undue weight

Although articles must mention all relevant viewpoints, it is possible to influence the reader towards a certain one by adding extra information to make it seem more credible, or less. Information added with such a purpose is usually removed.

Unrelated info

Comparisons

Sometimes making comparisons is relevant for a certain topic, when the subjects being compared are intimately related, to the point that either a shift or the lack thereof is relevant info in itself. For example, comparing the policies of a governor with those of his predecessor, or the style of a music band with that of a previous band with the same lead artist.

Other comparisons may be more problematic. A publication that is aimed towards a specific audience, such as within its own country, may have to talk about something from elsewhere. If its audience is not familiar with the subject, the publication may be tempted to draw comparisons with local ones, just for the audience to have a vague notion of what is being talked about. "Do you remember John Doe, the greatest archetype of X in our society? Well, Richard Roe is basically the John Doe of Foo". Usually, it's not a good idea to do this on Wikipedia. Comparisons can be misleading, and for each superficial similarity we will likely find several divergences if we press the comparison deeply enough. Besides, such comparisons would seem pedantic to those who are familiar with the less-known subject.

Comparisons that should definitely be avoided are the Reductio ad Hitlerum ones. Which are not limited to just Nazism, but to any figure that is unpopular enough to provide the same effect. Opinionated sources usually draw comparisons or focus too much on tenuous links to such figures to discredit others.

Words that would introduce bias

Structure

Content is elsewhere in the article

A common misunderstanding that may take place is when someone finds a certain information and feels that the Wikipedia article should mention it, failing to realize that some previous editor already thought of that and already added that information. Although it is not required to read the full article before editing it, it may be a good idea to do it anyway, especially the sections where that info should be expected to be. But even if someone already mentioned the info, it may still be possible to work on it: rewrite it if needed for better clarity or make it MOS-complaint, add extra info that was not present in the first text, add references if the text lacks them or we have better ones, etc.

The lead section is a special case, as it is meant to be a summary of the whole article, and it is the most visible part of it. Certain information may be included in a later section, and be implied in the lead. For example, "he won several awards" in the lead, and a detailed list of such awards in a dedicated section. Adding the detailed information in the lead, such as one specific award, should only be done when it is more noteworthy than the others (for example, a Nobel Prize would likely merit a specific mention), or when it is an intrinsic part of the subject's notability.

Content is in a sub-article

Wikipedia has articles about many topics, but the number of things that may be said about them is not always the same. For example, a single article about a rock band should probably be enough, but Rock music is a topic of a much bigger scope. In those cases, articles move info to related articles: subgenres, regional scenes, subculture, etc. It may be tempting to mention something or someone at the parent article, but if the article on Rock Music listed every Rock band ever, its article size would grow so big it would be almost impossible to maintain, much less to actually read.

Relevance is not symmetric

In several or most cases, a given piece of information may be related to several topics with dedicated articles on Wikipedia. That information may be relevant for one of them, but not for the other. For example, let's say that John Doe has attended a concert of Iron Maiden and liked them so much that he started his own band, and even became notable on his own to be mentioned on Wikipedia. That info would be completely relevant in the article of that band, but not in the article of Iron Maiden: a band plays at dozens of concerts in front of hundreds of people. It may have been a key life-defining moment for John Doe, but for Iron Maiden it was just another day, another concert.