Wikipedia:The duck test
 | This is an essay on the sock puppetry policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Administrators may take action against sock puppetry or meat puppetry 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 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 assume good faith from others.
Usage
The "duck test" is meant to be used for internal processes within Wikipedia. For example, consider that "
(However, check Example1 and Example2 aren't longstanding editors with similar names -
Variations
A variation of the duck test in conversations can be found in community discussions where consensus is required, most obviously
The duck test may also apply to
The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as
See also
- The template {{Duck}}, which appears as
Looks like a duck to me - 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
- Innocent until proven guilty
- Confirmation bias
- Prejudice
- The purpose of a system is what it does
- Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies
