Tachyony: Imported page

2022-01-19T16:01:08Z

Imported page

New page

{{Short description|Wikimedia project page}}
{{redirect|WP:QUACK|the essay "Lunatic charlatans"|Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans}}
{{redirect|WP:DUCK|the WikiProject on birds (including ducks)|Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds}}
{{essay|interprets=the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sock puppetry policy]]|WP:DUCK|WP:QUACK|WP:DUCKTEST|WP:FOWLPLAY}}
{{nutshell|Administrators may take action against [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sock puppetry]] or [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry|meat puppetry]] if there are obvious correlations in behavior.}}
[[File:Wood duck eclipse.jpg|thumb|alt=A photograph of a wood duck standing on a rock.|"Well, it ''could'' be a [[Rabbit–duck illusion|rabbit in disguise]]..." (but it isn't)]]

The [[duck test]] – "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then [[Operational definition|it probably is a duck]]" – suggests that something can be identified by its habitual characteristics.

The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, editors must [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] from others.

== Usage ==
The "duck test" is meant to be used for internal processes within Wikipedia. For example, consider that "[[User:Example1]]" is engaged in a [[WP:DISPUTE|heated dispute]] with someone else, and gets blocked because of it. Immediately after, a "[[User:Example2]]" registers on Wikipedia and continues the dispute right away, saying the same things and in the same tone. The duck test allows us to consider it '''an obvious [[WP:BADSOCK|sock-puppet]]''', and act in consequence. If "[[User:Example3]]" then registers and continues the dispute, it is appropriate to escalate sanctions, because the matching behaviour is sufficiently obvious to deal with it as sock-puppetry again.

(However, check Example1 and Example2 aren't longstanding editors with similar names - [[WP:CONFUSED|it does happen]]).

==Variations==
[[File:Sockenpuppentanz2.jpg|thumb|alt=A number of literal sock puppets with buttons for eyes. One wears a pair of glasses. Another has yarn for hair.|If your favourite [[YouTuber]]'s article gets [[WP:AfD|nominated for deletion]], ''don't'' get all your [[WP:Meatpuppetry|friends]] to say "[[WP:ILIKEIT|I like it!]]" Even though they all ''look'' different, we can spot that you recruited them...]]
A variation of the duck test in conversations can be found in community discussions where consensus is required, most obviously [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]]. If '''consensus appears to be approaching''' one direction, aside from a handful of accounts that are using the same [[WP:ATA|bad arguments]] (often "[[WP:ILIKEIT|I like it]]" or "[[WP:JNN|It's just not notable]]"), it might be reasonable to conclude that, even if direct sockpuppetry is not occurring, the accounts may have still [[WP:MEAT|ganged up together]].

The duck test may also '''apply to [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violations]]'''. If there is an image that is clearly a movie or TV screenshot, or magazine or CD cover, licensed as an own work by the author, the duck test would allow us to treat it as a copyright violation, even if the specific source of the image remains unknown. For example, ''theoretically'' the actual owner of the movie/CD/whatever copyright ''might'' be re-licensing the image [[GFDL]] and [[CC-BY-SA]] to Wikipedia ... but the image should be [[WP:F9|speedily deleted as a copyright violation]] despite this slim possibility, because there is no need to prove [[beyond a reasonable doubt]] that the uploader was ''not'' in fact the copyright holder ... if so, they can try again via the [[WP:OTRS|Open Ticket Request System]].

The duck test '''does not apply to article content''', and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as [[WP:NOR|no original research]], [[WP:VER|verifiability]], and [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. If there is [[Coot|an animal that "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck"]], but zoologists agree that it does not belong in the family [[Anatidae]], then it is not a duck, [[wikt:period#Interjection|period]]. (That being said, some editors believe that [[wp:you don't need to cite that the sky is blue|you don't need to cite that the sky is blue]].)
{{clear}}

== See also ==
* The template {{t|Duck}}, which appears as {{duck}}
* [[Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal"]]
* [[Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade]]
* [[Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope]]
* [[Wikipedia:You can't squeeze blood from a turnip]]
* [[Presumption of innocence|Innocent until proven guilty]]
* [[Confirmation bias]]
* [[Prejudice]]
* [[The purpose of a system is what it does]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies]]

{{Wikipedia essays}}

[[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppetry]]

Wikipedia:The duck test - Revision history

Tachyony: Imported page