This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

This page in a nutshell: This page collates some ideas for a general content policy to guide editors on what to include, where and why. I might finish it off if I stay interested, and propose it for community review. Feel free to contribute extensively to this essay.

Content on Wikipedia is subject to editorial and review controls similar to other encyclopaedias. The decision to include material should be born out of several factors; content policies, good editorial reasoning, consensus discussion and the application of common sense.

Any material that is agreed for addition should be verifiable in a reliable source. However, the mere ability to verify information is not considered an argument for inclusion.

The concept of editorial control, in the context of Wikipedia, means to make sensible decisions on the extent and form of material added to an article. It is often argued that Wikipedia merely reflect the information found in reliable sources and it is not the place of editors to make large editorial decisions.

However, in practice, this is impossible. Editors have a lot of leeway to agree on the scope of article content; influenced by source material, but ultimately left up to their good judgement. One example of this is the policy on fringe theories - ultimately the decision to label one (or more) elements of a topic "fringe" is left to editorial discretion and discussion.

Content policies are the bread and butter of editorial decisions on Wikipedia; they set out certain standards for inclusion of material where community consensus has defined a unified approach to material. For example, one of the largest content policies covers "Biographies of Living Persons" and sets out various standards for what to report about living people.

However, content policies are not the end of the matter; they are intended to inform editorial decisions in specific circumstances by providing guidance on existing community consensus.

The mere fact that material exists in a reliable source (i.e. is verifiable) does not make an automatic argument for inclusion. For example; some information might be published, but obviously untrue.

The concept of truth should be applied with care; the maxim "verifiability, not truth" implies that untrue information may be included purely because it is noted in a reliable source. In fact, the phrase is intended to counter the notion that verified information can be replaced by a "truthseeker" - someone convinced of the innacuracy of a piece of information and crusading to remove it.

Anything shown to be untrue, even if otherwise verifiable, should be removed. The extent to which this can be proven in practice may involve some level of research on the part of editors. Take care that this does not violate the sentiment of no original research; for material that requires extensive or technical research to show as false it is not appropriate to invoke this rule.

Apply common sense when deciding whether material is untrue.

Where reasonable disagreement over editorial decisions exist Wikipedia uses the process of consensus to reach a decision.

Deciding on what to include requires the application of common sense and engaging in the subject. Avoid religious adherence to policies in favour of the approach that is of the most material benefit to the reader.