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.

Type of contents

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 is the work 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.

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.

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 check it first, in special the sections where that info should be expected to be. But even if someone already mentioned the info, it may be still be possible to work upon 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 amount 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.