If I understand it correctly, the original formulation is in fact incorrect.
Please see https://github.com/joeyh/git-annex/pull/52/commits/e5bb450f44c6dfd01d7b2c84b3fa40c25867a47e for the patch.
No, it was correct as written. But, I think that was a confusing example
since it essentially contained a double negative, and so I changed it a
while ago to a --include example.