It was originally mentioned and is already to some extent defined in Real People Please.

One page meant to help explain the BBT was Dave, a comedy in which a small conspiracy at the top ensures that for some months the US president is impersonated, no less. We didn't draw out the lessons from that as yet. But it is recommended viewing, not least for the key line from the president's bodyguard at the end: "Dave, I would have taken a bullet for you." He had earnt the rights of the real thing. But then, the bodyguard knew his real name.

A very important converse issue to encouraging people to be real is the Limitations Of Unmasking. A wider discussion of Individual Identity, beyond Wiki technology, could also be a worthy spin-off of some apparently fruitless disputes here. -- Richard Drake

The important thing, I think, is that the BBT is a "test" in the same way that identifying the presence of starch by observing the behaviour of an iodine solution is, and not, say, in the way that a university entrance exam is. -- Keith Braithwaite

Absolutely. It's not an entrance exam, as discussed more in Treading On Toes. It may be about identifying a bad case of unwanted starch on a few very rare occasions, but usually it's a unconscious, continuous assessment thing, by all to all, based on whatever people are getting up to. This can also be called Normal Evaluation Based Partly On Reference or even Deepening Friendship. These are strange concepts for a Wiki I know. -- Richard Drake

For starch can we read yeast? Jesus had something to say about yeast that seems relevant here: 'beware the yeast of the pharisees' Mark+8:14-21. Relevant to the Breaking Bread Test? -- Martin Noutch

Very nice. Thanks Martin. We only start worrying about this issue in practice as we see people Treading On Toes. But that is, after all, something we encourage. More in that page. -- Richard Drake

Part of what we mean by Full Responsibility Wiki