Essays Mid‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Material from Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade was split to Wikipedia:The duck test on 402409607 00:06, 10 January 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade. |
This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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)
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)
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)
The platypus picture detracts from the essay. It's better without it. Gerardw ( talk) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
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. Djathink imacowboy 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
I'll just leave this here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. Feed back ☎ 23:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
swap in image of Magpie Goose. - Richfife ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
{{
Essay}}
tag (e.g.
WP:BRD), and that's fine. Nothing is broken. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Should this essay be adopted as a guideline? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
{{
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)
Essays Mid‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Material from Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade was split to Wikipedia:The duck test on 402409607 00:06, 10 January 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade. |
This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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)
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)
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)
The platypus picture detracts from the essay. It's better without it. Gerardw ( talk) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
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. Djathink imacowboy 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
I'll just leave this here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. Feed back ☎ 23:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
swap in image of Magpie Goose. - Richfife ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
{{
Essay}}
tag (e.g.
WP:BRD), and that's fine. Nothing is broken. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Should this essay be adopted as a guideline? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
{{
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)