Wikisource talk:What Wikisource includes/rewrite

Suggested changes

While the general proposal is interesting there are a few points that I would make before I step in with more direct changes on the proposal itself:

1. Be positive; this is about what we include, not what we exclude. To the extent that some exclusions are mentioned they should be segregated into a separate major section at the end.
2. Avoid subjective weasel terms. Unless there is a clear definition of what is meant by "notable" or "peer-reviewed", these terms will only attract arguments. The arguments over what is notable are endless on Wikipedia.
3. Avoid redundancy. Most things are best said once without elaboration. Unnecessary elaboration gives the impression that you are trying to say something else when you aren't. Elaboration creates unwanted loopholes. If something is covered by the requirement that it have been previously published you've said it all, unless you want to specify clear exceptions such as translations. When I look at the "Analytical and artistic works" section I wonder what it adds that is not covered by something else.
4. Retain flexibility by using words like "should" instead of "must".

Eclecticology 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)