Wikipedia:The duck test
|This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.|
|This page in a nutshell: Administrators may take action against sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry if there are obvious correlations in behavior.|
The duck test, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck", suggests that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics.
Some standards and terminology that are often used to judge assertions are, from stronger to weaker:
- Beyond a reasonable doubt;
- Clear and convincing evidence;
- Preponderance of the evidence; and
- The duck test (reasonable suspicion).
The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others.
The "duck test" is meant to be used for internal processes within Wikipedia. For example, consider that "User:Username" is engaged in a heated dispute with someone else, and gets blocked because of it. Immediately after, a "User:Username reloaded" 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 sock-puppet, and act in consequence.
A variation of the duck test in conversations can be found in community discussions where consensus is required, most obviously Articles for deletion. If consensus appears to be approaching one direction, aside from a handful of accounts that are using the same bad arguments (often "I like it" or "It's just not notable"), it might be reasonable to conclude that, even if direct sockpuppetry is not occurring, that the accounts may have still ganged up together.
It may also apply to 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 to treat it as a copyright violation, even if the specific source of the image remains unknown (i.e. theoretically the actual owner of the movie/CD/whatever copyright might be re-licensing the content GFDL and CC-BY-SA to wikipedia ... but the image should be speedy-deleted as WP:COPYVIO 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 WP:OTRS).
The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump or even stand aside policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH. If there is an animal that "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck", but zoologists agree that it does not belong into the Anatidae family, then it is not a duck, period.