User talk:Atsme/Canine notability/Archive 1

The duck test - "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". This essay focuses on users who edit in a manner that suggests financial conflict of interest.

During your Wikipedia editing, you may encounter fellow editors who appear to engage in POV pushing which favors various businesses or industries, in a manner that leads you to believe they have a conflict of interest with respect to that industry. In an anonymous editing environment, it is not always possible to prove or disprove COI editing; However, “COI Ducks” may violate multiple policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:EDITWAR, WP:GANG, WP:BULLY, WP:BITE. At the end of the day, it is the policy and guideline violations that matter, as this is disruptive to Wikipeida and causes article content to suffer, which can have serious real world effects.

In 2015, Wifione, a Wikipedia administrator and “COI Duck”, was banned after a long history of fellow editors noting problems with Wifione’s editing. Wifione’s work in maintaining an article on a bogus business school cost unsuspecting students in India significant money. [1]

I think I see a Duck
If you think you have spotted a COI Duck, stop and carefully evaluate the situation. It is possible you have misinterpreted things. Some editors seem to misinterpret significant scientific or technical knowledge as a sign of a COI Duck, but this is a mistake. Knowledge is not a problem and Wikipedia needs knowledgeable editors. It is also possible to misinterpret upholding policies and guidelines such as WP:VERIFY and WP:MEDRS as signs of COI. For example, adding reliably sourced content that is favorable of a pharmaceutical or pesticide (or removing poorly sourced information critical of such) is not a sign of a COI Duck. However, POV pushing in favor of these or other industries in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:EDITWAR, WP:GANG, WP:BULLY, WP:BITE may mean you are dealing with a COI Duck.

MEDRS
MEDRS can be a confusing guideline for some editors and this confusion can lead to misinterpreting the situation. To understand MEDRS, you need to understand the terminology of primary, secondary and tertiary source, in the context of medical literature. In plain language, a primary source per MEDRS is an individual research study, a secondary source is a review of multiple research studies, and a tertiary source would typically be a medical encyclopedia or medical textbook etc. MEDRS discourages the use of primary sources (individual research studies) because many of these individual studies contradict one another. Results of an individual research study may not pan out in further research. Reviews of multiple research studies provide a clearer picture, and are therefore preferred per MEDRS. It is important to note that while a discussion of an individual research study published in the popular press, may technically a secondary source under the general WP:RS guideline, this is not a good sources for medical content. A secondary source per MEDRS typically refers to a research paper that reviews multiple individual studies that is published in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific or medical journal. This is the preferred source for medical content on Wikipedia.

Not understanding MEDRS can lead editors to think they are dealing with a COI duck when they are not. For example, when content referenced to a peer reviewed medical journal is added to an article, and it is reverted “per medrs”, editors might not understand the rationale (it was a primary source) and see this as a COI issue, when it’s not. Please take the time to read the entire MEDRS guideline at Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

With respect to COI ducks, it is important to note that MEDRS does not excuse or allow original research or synthesis. MEDRS is not an excuse to engage in WP:CHERRYPICK. If you run across these problematic editing behaviors defended "per MEDRS" this may suggest you are dealing with a COI duck.

Possible remedies
If you are concerned about COI Ducks on Wikipedia, consider adding noticeboards including WP:ANI to your watchlist, and when you see editors are calling for a block or topic ban, read the diffs provided and read the relevant talk pages/article histories to see if the evidence really seems to support such action. Chime in if the evidence does not support a topic ban, because tagteams of ducks may use that method to maintain ownership of articles. Other remedies might include things such as if you notice a new editor being bitten by a duck, reach out to him/her and welcome them on their talk page. Direct them to the Teahouse and dispute resolution. Advise them that no matter how unreasonable the duck or duckteam seems to get, do not become uncivil with them, as this will be used against them.

Important reminder
Always evaluate your own behavior and the quality of your own edits whenever you suspect you are dealing with a COI Duck. It’s easy to dismiss the problem as being with the other editor. Always be sure you are careful to follow Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, otherwise the problem is just as likely to be you.