Wikipedia talk:The duck test

User conduct or in general?

This essay needs to be clear as to whether it is referring to user conduct or things in general. in Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Civil_War.3F people are reaching their own conclusions that it is a civil war without the sources saying so and wish to prematurely change the page title. This goes against WP:SYNTH, but they are citing this somewhat vague page as justification for reaching their own conclusions, which are basically opinions in the end, rather than going by the sources. It has been said that this page was meant to refer to user conduct, but it's not very straightforward I am afraid. Thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 21:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Civil_War.3F

Stretch1560173 (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Significant changes in view

MBelgrano has added some text the adds a lot of interpretation to the page and there seems no obvious consensus for the additions [[1]. Stating that it "Does not apply to article content" seems odd it's an essay so obviously does not overrule policy but it is useful when you want to point out that just because someone has decided to use a different name to describe the same thing doesn't mean it's different is it is obviously the same, i.e. you're only talking terminology not categorisation. p.s. Personally I'd say a a platypus does not look, or swim, like a duck. What do others think of the change? --Nate^t/_c 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The need for those changes was raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 84#WP:DUCK used in a way that contradicts WP:SYNTH MBelgrano (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I requested it and I like the change. His change was WP:BOLD, and provided much needed clarification. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly as messes like Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/Archive_1#Verifiability_Fact_vs_Truth the Unintended consequences of this has resulted in utterly insane arguments as to what constitutes OR. Editors are now using this to argue that unless a source states two sources conflict (ala WP:DUCK) we cannot present that fact.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Platypus

It's not like a duck at all, even if it has a duck bill. It adds nothing to the essay and has no consensus for it to be there; an editor even asked for a citation. Dreadstar ☥ 07:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor may have asked for a citation, but where was the concensus for it to be removed? You have removed it thrice thus far without concensus and with at least one editor (myself of course) objecting, and even after you made this topic, you still removed it from the page. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add it. Dreadstar ☥ 07:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Does there have to be a consensus to add it? It was a WP:BOLD edit. Please review WP:ESAS. If there is obvious disagreement over the removal of something though, you shouldn't remove it unless the consensus is to temporarily remove it. Plus, it's a picture of a platypus and some text. It is not a massive or controversial change to the essay, and so it didn't require immediate removal. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes there has to be consensus to add it. Absolutely. Dreadstar ☥ 19:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for that? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea for including it is simply to add a graphical example of the idea of the essay, being specific about the duck, and it's certainly better than the "rabbit in disguise" one (which I did not remove, anyway). Who cares if, from a strict zoologic perspective and scientifical approach, we can set apart the platypus from a common duck? It resembles a duck enough, and it's different enough (a swan wouldn't work the same), so the idea can be understood. Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's misleading and doesn't make sense to me. Even though this is an essay, we shouldn't be presenting information that is wrong. And really, a platypus doesn't look like a duck at all... Why wouldn't a swan work?. Dreadstar ☥ 16:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not really sure how it is misleading. What's so wrong about the duck-billed platypus exactly? The most defining feature of this animal is not its ability to lay eggs, its beaver tail or anything else, no. Most people know the platypus because of its duckbill. Heck, here is a direct quote from the article under taxonymy: "The scientific name Ornithorhynchus anatinus is derived from ορνιθόρυνχος ("ornithorhynkhos"), which literally means "bird snout" in Greek, and anatinus, which means "duck-like" in Latin." - now most of us might not know the scientific name, but you see what the main attraction is. In fact, here is another direct quote (with quotation marks altered) relating to the common-usage that further defends this idea: "The name 'platypus' is often prefixed with the adjective 'duck-billed' to form duck-billed platypus, despite there being only one species of platypus.[13]". Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it quack like a duck? Does it swim like a duck? Does it walk like a duck? Does it act like a duck? Does it really resemble a duck? Would it fool anyone into thinking it's a duck? No. Dreadstar ☥ 18:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It makes a weird rumbling noise, but you can't hear that quack through an image. The taxonymists seem to think it was duck-like hence the name. Its most prominent feature is the duck-bill, plus I'll cherrypick and say that it does indeed live in water and lay eggs like a duck. =p I don't see why you think it is such a big issue for it be there, like I said. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you are making it a big issue out of it, what's the point? It in no way fits this essay, yet you try to force the issue. It's a very poor addition as an example, and I totally disagree that its most 'prominent feature' is the duck bill. The Ugly Duckling is a far superior example, yet you totally ingore it. Dreadstar ☥ 19:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The platypus picture detracts from the essay. It's better without it. Gerardw (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This article needs better writing ....

This whole article is horrible and unfair. Do you know it has inspired an editor to come chasing me, like a monkey with its tail burnt off, accusing me of sock puppetry? So that is what this page is about, eh! Opening the door for witch hunts. Perhaps you should all study the new decisions about old IPs and stale accounts before opening doors to paranoid accusers. Djathinkimacowboy 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This essay doesn't apply to article content

To quote the "usage" section, "The 'duck test' is meant to be used for internal processes within Wikipedia...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." But in a recent edit, BruceGrubb changed the last sentence to read "The duck test can apply to article content but only if it doesn't ignore policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH to do so." This makes the essay contradict itself—you can't first say the duck test is for internal processes and then say it can apply to article content too! But more importantly, to extend WP:DUCK to article content is a big expansion. It's not even clear to me exactly what's meant by applying the duck test to an article anyway.

Now, I know this page is an essay, but it's a widely-linked one, so it's important to make sure any changes made to it are clear and consensual. Especially when the editor who made the change goes on to cite WP:DUCK in WP:NOTOR (see [2]), which is not a policy page but is often consulted to explain policy... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ouch, that was a bad change. The duck test is as you say for internal content, and to suggest it could apply to articles is wrong, ambiguous and almost certainly against policy. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

I'll just leave this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not every bird is a duck

The way this concept is thrown around makes me believe it is being misapplied. What is considered "reasonable suspicion" seems to me to just be a fancier way of saying "a hunch" and, for some people, hunches reveal what they'd like to be the case rather than what is the case (opinions vs. reality).
Some Admins have a very low threshold and judge any creature with feathers as a duck, they don't even stop to notice how it looks, swims or quacks. It is damaging to Wikipedia when anyone who doesn't model the ideas and behavior of the "typical" Wikipedian gets labeled as a duck (that is, troll or sock). Wikipedia doesn't need clones of its current Editor stock, it needs diversity.
I just think of the childhood story, The Ugly Duckling...when an Admin boots out what he/she thinks is a duck, watch out because it could actually be a swan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That could make a new section of the essay. benzband (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Consider the following behaviors, which I will label "TooSlow" and "TooQuick".

TooQuick: This is where an admin is too quick to identify a sockpuppet, and thus some percentage of non-sockpuppets get treated like sockpuppets.

TooSlow: This is where an admin is too slow to identify a sockpuppet, and thus some percentage of sockpuppets get treated like non-sockpuppets.

How much harm is done in each case?

TooSlow allows the sockpuppeteer to unduly influence consensus-based editorial decisions. It fools us into thinking that three or four editors support something when it is actually only one. Plus, if sockpuppetry works, you will see more of it. This is really quite harmful to the encyclopedia.

TooQuick is really annoying to the falsely accused. Yes, you can appeal, but some editors just quit. The thing is, an editor who always acts in good faith and follows the rules is unlikely to be suspected of being a sockpuppet or operating sockpuppets. The majority of sock puppet investigations involve accounts with little or no edit history, single-purpose accounts pushing a POV, Vandals, flamers, edit warriors, and vote-stackers. See WP:TRIGGER. In many cases, not having them around anymore is really no great loss.

The other thing to consider is that TooQuick admins get a lot of scrutiny. If you are determined to be a sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer, you can ask a totally uninvolved admin to review the decision. And it is the most experienced and productive editors who are most likely to appeal rather than quitting. TooSlow, on the other hand, is invisible. You don't see the harm that is being done. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I came to post a comment and found I already had! I wish I had checked back sooner. I really didn't mean to sound as preachy as my original message sounds...I must have just seen some Editor bounced by the duck test and thought it was unfair, prompting this post.

Guy Macon, I don't see that TooQuick admins get more scrutiny than other admins...in fact, I think the more blocks an admin hands out, the less likely are editors to question them. They just judge them to be harsh and quick on the draw, so to speak. And I don't see how an editor blocked as a sock can appeal to another admin for review since I haven't run into a case where a sock block didn't involve revoking talk page access. In fact, I just asked an admin how an account blocked as a sock can return to editing because I haven't seen socks getting unblocked, they just try again with a new account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

When I started on Wikipedia 7 years ago, I was a fool and wrote an article about something completely trivial and un-notable. When it was nominated at AFD, I was vigorously defending it. I got blocked however for meatpuppetry when someone created an account solely to vote on the article. It wasn't me and I had no idea who the person was. It's been years and I'll never forget that because I'm still completely against this tradition to quickly assume meatpuppetry. Feedback ^☎ 23:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Must... Resist... Urge... To...

swap in image of Magpie Goose. - Richfife (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Helen Keller Auxiliary?

Would it be appropriate for this or WP:SPADE to have a small note to the effect of "If Helen Keller can see the (duck/spade) from the International Space Station, pretending it's not a (duck/spade) may be taken as a sign of bad faith," in cases like WP:SPA socks with nearly identical names carrying out completely identical actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Pokemon

Why the image of any pokemon displayed? The caption and image, I don't think are co-related.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 21:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts

After thinking awhile, I realized that Coots (most notably the American Coot) are often mistaken for ducks. Maybe we could include this? Just a thought. --Saltedcake (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

1st historical use of the duck test, please add

[Copyright infingement removed]

If anyone can make an argument how this "policy" is not verbatim the same exact logic as used in the above text, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, we should also add some helpful historical context for readers, as follows: Today, we know the intellectual descendants of these thinkers as sock-hunters. The logic is the same: if you think something is a witch (or a sock), you must burn it to be sure. If it burns, it was a sock. It it doesn't burn, this is even stronger evidence that it was a sock, as it knows the dark magic of how to reset its router, or knows about coffee shops, where the witches' brew is commonly served. Thus, the surest way you can tell if something is a sock or a witch is if anyone suspects that it is one. If it wasn't a sock, then no one would suspect it of being a sock, would they? Like witches, socks can use their evil powers to play tricks on men, so don't listen to what they have to say. Clear and convincing evidence is unnecessary and are vastly inferior to suspicions. Sock-hunting is the last historical remnant of the the trial by ordeal. Remember, the most important task on Wikipedia is making sure it is free of witches and socks. Edits suspected of witchcraft should be immediately destroyed, or the purity of the community will be corrupted.Inherent Vice (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inherent Vice: Sorry, but adding that text would be a copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is just an essay

Should I change the essay template with an {{Information page}} one? This seems to be an established practice, and I hear it mentioned all over SPI and other places. funplussmart (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Information pages are generally aimed at the readership, not at the internal editorial crew. All kinds of stuff that verges on but isn't quite guideline level retain the {{Essay}} tag (e.g. WP:BRD), and that's fine. Nothing is broken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. Template:Information page appears at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Arbitration, Wikipedia:Merging, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, Help:Edit summary, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, Wikipedia:Splitting, Wikipedia:Merging, and about 400 others. Very few of them are intended for non-editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on making this a guideline

Should this essay be adopted as a guideline? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support as nom. This seems to be a widely-used essay that has such a significant use on Wikipedia that it would serve the community well for it to be adopted as a guideline. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Seemplez 07:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary and WP:CREEP. I do not disagree with the essay; however, the essay is merely a statement of what is already practised, no? Or, did this RFC come about due to there being a plethora of admins that are reluctant to take any actions, even in the most blatantly obvious of cases, without going through some fixed amount of bureaucratic process first, unless it be enshrined in a policy or guideline? If that be the case, then my opinion as to that is that there's nothing deficient in the policies or guidelines, but with admins refusing to apply WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR (and WP:NOTBURO). Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary and CREEP. Firejuggler86 said most of what I would, more concisely. This is also entirely the wrong process. Do a proposal at WP:VPPRO. A page does not become a guideline by the 10 people who pay attention to it deciding amongst themselves it should be one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose no matter where this is discussed As correctly pointed out by User:SMcCandlish this is the wrong forum for any such discussion. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is thataway. BusterD (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  It happens that @SMcCandlish is wrong in this case. WP:PROPOSAL says that the standard process is to "start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page" (emphasis mine). In many respects, this isn't an important detail, but imagine this case: A proposal is made and fails. Years later, an newer editor wants to propose the same thing. Where will the editor look, to see whether this has been discussed before? The obvious place is right here in the archives of the page itself. Therefore it is helpful to keep all such discussions attached to the specific page. IMO the only time you should use a village pump to make a formal proposal for guideline or policy status is if your proposal involves multiple pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. What aspect of it is a guideline or a policy? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the need for this - it seems to describe a norm, we don't need it to prescribe a norm. SportingFlyer T·C 19:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like WP:CREEP. TrueQuantum (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose no matter where this is discussed - in addition to CREEP and wrong forum to declare guideline, I’ll add it is generally undesirable and just not a guideline. To not be CREEP it has to be elsewhere, but even there I would oppose it as to be useful as guidance it must be helpful to editors. Guidelines are *positive* statements telling *editors* a *direction to go*, describing desired specifics for user behaviour or a technical facet of article building. This seems a vague generic directed to admins, about when to be dismissive and snarky, and as an essay it has criticisms about it leading to bad results in the other threads above this in TALK. Anything intended for guidance of RFC evaluation or Deletion discussions should be in WP:RFC or WP:AFD and stated as a positive in telling editors factors that count more strongly. Anything intended for guidance of copyright should be in WP:COPYVIO and stated as a positive in telling editors how to know and then include in the posting if something public domain. Anything intended for sock-hunting should be in WP:SPI, and again seek to be constructive in nature. And please, keep the snarky humor out or I’ll have to remark about people being a silly goose. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• Fails the duck-test. It doesn't look like a guideline, it doesn't sound like a guideline, it doesn't walk like a guideline, it would take significant surgery to make this resemble a guideline.
  However if we ever split essays into valuable-essays-with-consensus vs random-crap-essays, this definitely goes in the consensus-essay pile. Alsee (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• No; it probably has general consensus but I don't think it needs to be made into a guideline. Tol | talk | contribs 19:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Nope. Wouldn't solve any problem that we are having, as near as I can tell. The Wikipededia is sclerotic enough with the rules we do have. As a guideline there'd be more a templation to cite it while maybe playing a little fast and loose with procedure. Herostratus (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support The essay is cited all over the place, and the phrase "it looks like a duck to me" turns up in sockpuppetry cases. While some essays are minority viewpoints that may only be held by one user, WP:DUCK is in common use, which meets the criteria for a guideline. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Most importantly, WP:DUCK doesn't provide any actual guidance. It doesn't say how to determine if two users are the same person; it doesn't give tell-tale signs; it doesn't say what kind of similarities to pay attention to because they are rare, and what kind of similarities to ignore because they are common. Furthermore, WP:DUCK can never provide any actual guidance about identifying similarities because to do so would be to spill WP:BEANS. Public guidance about identifying "ducks" == public guidance for sockmasters about how to avoid detection.

Second, the essay doesn't provide any novel insight or anything like that. WP:DUCK barely says anything not already said in Duck test. If anything, it says less.

Third, although it's widely cited, I've always felt it was juvenile. Why say "it looks like a WP:DUCK to me" instead of "these two accounts appear similar" or "they have behavioral similarities." (My impression is that most CUs actually don't cite DUCK and instead use more normal (professional) language, like "behavior similarities," and that DUCK is most often cited by non-CU, non-admin editors making accusations, and only occasionally by non-CU admins making a block based on behavioral evidence. I don't think it's that widely cited; I think a relatively small number of editors cite it frequently, but that's different than many people citing it frequently. That's just my impression though.)

Fourth, it's a bit insulting. "It looks like a WP:DUCK to me" is using the pronoun "it" to refer to people, and even if you change it to "she looks like a WP:DUCK to me," that's kind of insulting, isn't it? At the very least, it's juvenile.

Fifth, the duck test is flawed folk wisdom. There are lots of things that look like a duck, swim like a duck, and quack like a duck, but are not ducks. For example:

• 
  Loon: not a duck
• 
  Grebe: not a duck
• 
  Coot: not a duck
• 
  Moorhen: not a duck
• Daffy Duck: doesn't look like a duck, doesn't swim like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck, but is a duck
  Daffy Duck: doesn't look like a duck, doesn't swim like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck, but is a duck

Personally, I'd support marking WP:DUCK historical. We need to grow out of this, it's one of the things that makes SPI look like a text-based game of cops and robbers played by children. (IMHO.) Levivich 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

• One reason for making this a guideline is because you could block a user for having similar disruptive behaviour to another, already blocked user, and they can say "But WP:DUCK is an essay! According to the blurb, essays may contain minority viewpoints! You can't prove I'm a sock!" (warning sign #1: when somebody says "you can't prove that" it usually means they're as guilty as hell). By making it a guideline, it makes it easier for this charge to stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone who says "but [whatever] is just an essay" doesn't understand how WP:CONSENSUS works. Consensus can form anywhere over anything. Consensus is not determined by what we write down or what page-top banners we put on what we write down; that's just after-the-fact bureaucracy. Lots of essays are acted upon by the community with essentially the force of policy (e.g. WP:ROPE, WP:BRD, WP:AADD, everything with a {{Information page}} or {{Supplement}} essay-subtype banner on it, etc.), and it has nothing to do with what the banner is, what categories the page is in, or what the pagename is. They're part of the site-wide consensus Gestalt, which is why we bothered to write them down anywhere at all.

  It's perhaps unfortunate that {{Essay}} and Category:Wikipedia essays are not limited to such material, also encompassing one-editor opinion pieces, but that is as it is. An {{Essay}} tag in no way invalidates any page or the content in it; it simply isn't dispositive about the consensus level of what the page says. But that's also true of the {{Guideline}} tag. Various pages have had one slapped on them without much discussion, and the lack of actual community buy-in regarding them gets the "demoted" to essay or {{Historical}} or {{Rejected}} over time. We also have pages that have the force of policy or even meta-policy which have no banner at all, e.g. WP:5P.

  In short, there is no 1:1 correspondence between these page-top banners and the consensus level of the content, there never has been, and this is not actually broken, so there is nothing for you to fix here. It's the same in the off-site real world; lots of laws, statutes, and regulations have very little legal-community and general-polity consensus, and are not enforced; they eventually either get removed from the lawbooks and codes of regulations, or get invalidated by caselaw precedent but remain a dead-end part of the legal code ("blue laws"). There are also industry-standard practices that are not part of a legal code but which are effectively enforced legally (e.g. failure to abide by them may be considered actionably negligent).
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Could this article be considered gaslighting?

124.169.140.225 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)