Wikipedia:The duck test
 |
This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. |
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.
There are certain standards and terminology that are often used to judge assertions:
- 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.
[edit] Usage
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 in 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.
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, licenced 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.
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.
