Talk:Rorschach test

All 10 images

Archived to Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 7#All 10 images

The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test
Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 Plate 10

• Some discussion archived to /Archive 7#The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test

Arguments Pro

The below discussions are transcluded from /2009-06 Arguments Pro

#01 - The cat's out of the bag

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro#1

There are three flaws in this argument. The first is that it assumes that readers have made their choice to see medical information prior to coming to this article. But what about idly curious readers? By clicking on "What links here," we can see that there are over 350 pages that link to the Rorschach test article, including one from a #1 song called Crazy and another about a fictional character in a major motion picture called The Watchmen and the corresponding graphic novel that Time Magazine has called "one of the 100 best novels ever written." We can't assume that readers know anything about the Rorschach test. Some are simply idly curious.

Second, no one searches the web with unlimited time and energy. To say that the levy has broke and there's no stopping the flow of water assumes that the reader won't stop searching until he/she finds the images. But what about a reader who wishes simply to learn about the test from a general perspective as the medical disclaimer describes, without breaking test security or betraying individual test responses? Shouldn't there be a place for such a reader to go and learn about the test without the need to get into such specifics? We are, after all, an encyclopedia. We're not a how-to-manual or a textbook.

Third, there are new children born every day. There will always be a population of people who has not been exposed to the test materials and who may need the test to function at its full potency, so that they may receive an early diagnosis and treatment of their diseases. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-argument, it does not talk about policy or purpose it is simply a cop out to presenting a real argument of why to include or not to include something on the Wikipedia.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

#02 - No evidence of harm

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro#2

The Rorschach has been a controversial tool in psychology since it was introduced. I do not have my sources at this time and will post them later. This type of testing involves the bias of the one grading the test. For example, if a psychologist is told that a patient has a personality disorder, prior to them testing the patient, the psychologist will, because of the "human" factor, use that information while evaluating the responses to the pictures that the patient gives. Hooray that the Rorschach has been published where millions can see it for what it is. . .the unreliable, unscientific, unproven method of trying to see into personality that reflects the psychologists view and not the patient's. July 29, 2009 @2314 hr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P3rSist (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just like the Wikipedia is not the place to discuss whether global warming is true or not. It's not the place to question the validity of the test in any case the question should be if the mental health community thinks the test is valid. We are not supposed to make science breakthroughs here. And that is the direction of this argument--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

#03 - Adds to the page

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro#3

(no comments since 17 June 2009 - remove this line when restarting conversation)

#04 - removing the images amounts to censorship

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro#4

First, I agree that Wikipedia is not beholden to the ethical code of the APA. The APA's code of conduct is not enforceable on us. However, it does inform us. The APA also wrote a Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data. These are all "position statements... by a major health organization" and as such are considered important sources of information according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). And second, censorship is a word that is used to mean many things. Ultimately, it means the removal of information for the purpose of promoting an ideology, much like Stalin did. But this is not the definition used at Wikipedia. Here we apply it to mean any restraint on information except for the following exceptions: and then we list those exceptions. This is a peeling of the onion approach at arriving at a definition. It starts broadly and then works toward the center. So with that approach, it stands to reason that we may not have finished peeling the onion. This is why I proposed a new policy that addresses the unique situation of Rorschach and other articles that have Involuntary health consequences Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it though the "no censorship" value is in principle quite absolute, with exceptions being made because unfortunately one must deal with lawsuits and the like (whether or not they're justified). It is not my opinion that harm should be taken into consideration when adding encyclopedic reliably sourced content (when adding content other than that, one really should question why it's being added, and if it's being added to cause harm, that's definitely bad; but that's ultimately another story). --LjL (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A good example is the images that cause epilepsy, following the example of the Rorschach test we should include a video of it so people could see an example. And we should not let the Psychiatrists tell us what to do. These cases show the policy is flawed.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you check the archives, you'll find that has been discussed and that there are indeed articles containing videos that may possibily cause seizures (hardly epylepsy). There used to be a disclaimer in the caption; it has been removed, since a caption of "Video that has caused seizures" is a clear enough hint and we use no disclaimers. --LjL (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is offended by the Rorschach images. Neither can they be described as "profane, or obscene." The policy of WP:NOTCENSORED speaks only to things that are "offensive, profane, or obscene." It does not apply to this situation. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

#05 - Reputable organizations have been showing the images, too

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro#5

(no comments since 15 July 2009 - remove this line when restarting conversation)

#06 - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro#6

I have just reviewed this discussion and would like to take a moment to review the gist of it for the sake of clarity.

There are essentially three positions here:

1. The test is worthless, so it does no harm to show the inkblots.

2. The test is worthwhile, and showing the inkblots causes harm. Wikipedia should not cause harm. Therefore it should not show the inkblots.

3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose mission is to present knowledge as completely as possible, therefore it should show the inkblots.

I find the first position irrelevant, the second position interesting, but not Wikipedia's concern, and the third position to be correct.

The first position is irrelevant because it brings an irrelevant criterion (validity) to what is essentially an argument about the proper role of an encyclopedia. (It may--I am undecided on this--also bring a non-neutral point of view to the content of the article.)

The second position is certainly interesting, with all the ethical and scientific questions it raises. The discussion it has sparked in itself brings great value to the community, but it is not the role of Wikipedia to protect the interests of any professional group, nor to respect their judgments as to the content and role of Wikipedia.

The third position, as I think Richard Paez has made clear, holds that Wikipedia's primary obligation in this matter are to its own mission. I think that this is the only ethically tenable position. Should Wikipedia give bomb-making instructions? Of course not. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. By the same token, Wikipedia should not give instructions on interpreting Rorschach tests. That should be enough.Mrrhum (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC.

this test isn't actually a test to see if people can get the right or wrong answer but to see how the people see things inside their head. now that people now these answers, they are going to start giving them to psychologist and the determination of whether the person is psychological healty is going to be harder and taking more time

An offer to provide rorschach test results

I have the results from my Rorschach test from 1964. these are from my personal medical records. they are in my possession and my property to do with as I wish.

will make available to any! who write and request it. the test are interpreted and therefore mean nothing. the disability is in the observer!

BlueGrass Regional Mental Health and Retardation Board Lexington, Ky.

A Menace to Children and Adults.

I make these available to put an end to their quackery.

--74.142.217.33 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)downhillflyer@yahoo.com

The following is a quote from the home page of the Bluegrass Regional Mental Health and Retardation Board: [1]

"The impact of The Bluegrass Regional Mental Health-Mental Retardation Board upon its valued communities is perhaps best measured at the most basic human level – how we have improved the quality of life for an individual by the direct services we provide, or by the agenda we support, the struggles we assume, or the alliances we establish on behalf of those we serve.

Mental illness, substance abuse, developmental disabilities, and mental retardation present personal obstacles and challenges of an extent that most cannot imagine. The triumph and achievement associated with recovery, growth, independence and progress form the seed for a life journey toward stability in home, community, family and life. These are the journeys in which we are blessed to play a part and which reward us most."

I couldn't agree more with the idea that the impact of any organization is "best measured at the most basic human level." And yet, when we divorce ourselves from the impact of our actions and do not consider the consequences on other people, then we are not fully present here on this earth. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to preserve knowledge for the benefit of people, including that of 74.142.XXX.XX Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguments Con

The below discussions are transcluded from /2009-06 Arguments Con

#1 - It may harm a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient.

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Con#1

These are no longer copyrighted images, and to suggest that they comprise a valid psychological assessment is both inane and immaterial. Immaterial because everyone in the general public is quite aware of the inkblot test, and very few administrations of it are objective. The subject invariably knows what kind of assessment is being given to him, and responds not as he truly feels, but with the answer he wants to give, which he thinks will best serve his purposes. Inane because this test is not only subjective on the part of the subject, but also entirely subjective on the part of the administrator. The administrator brings his own sets of ideas, prejudices, preconceived notions and desires to the test, and applies them subjectively as he sees fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.167.122 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 July 2009

... and you were trained in Rorschach administration where? And you've administered how many Rorschachs?Daveandmicasmom (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

#2 - It violates Wikipedia policy

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Con#2

(no comments since 25 June 2009 - remove this line when restarting conversation)

#3 - It interferes with the workings of another profession

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Con#3

See response at Talk:Rorschach_test/images/2009-06_Arguments_Pro#.2301_-_The_cat.27s_out_of_the_bag Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

#4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.

Portions of this conversation older than the first comment may be viewed at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Con#4

I believe that neutrality dictates that we take a less-active posture, one that does not "reproduce" results favorable to any particular point of view concerning the utility of the Rorschach test. (See definition of neutral.) That psychological tests are so easily vulnerable to vandalism (see 1996 APA statement is unfortunate, but does not take away from our responsibility to be neutral. If you pick up a carton of eggs, you have to watch your step more carefully. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But we didn't pick up a carton of eggs. A carton of eggs was placed in the middle of the street (the public domain), only to later complain that cars are crushing it. True, it wasn't the psychologists who placed it in the stre- public domain, but the law, but that doesn't change the fact the psychologists have known for decades that was going to happen. --LjL (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise that we are not responsible for our actions. The problem with your metaphor is that we have spent quite a bit of time next to this carton of eggs. We're not driving 60 miles an hour. We're going quite slow, and our actions are quite deliberate. So, we have to question our neutrality. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That is true. However, I'm pretty sure we have questioned it, for quite a long time (length of these discussions testify it), and the prevailing consensus is that we should go ahead and crush the eggs. --LjL (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition of neutral is something that does not produce (or reproduce) a desired effect, even if that effect is desired by consensus. Neutrality trumps consensus. It's better to give zero information than non-neutral information. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So wrong it verges on ridiculous. Ever read WP:NPOV at all? NPOV is about representing multiple points of view, not suppressing them. --LjL (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but I don't think it's ridiculous. Neither do at least five other Wikipedians. Wikipedia's neutrality should not be compromised by information that cannot be presented in a non-neutral manner. By providing the questions and answers to a psychological test, we are, in effect, invalidating the test and validating the point of view of people, like Garb and Lilienfeld, who question the validity of the test and have called for a moratorium on its use. [2] [3] Garb is, of course, welcome to start a Wikipedia account and contribute, but he must not produce results that reproduce his desired outcome. That would be a violation of our neutrality policy. So if you wouldn't mind, some of us would appreciate it if you took this comment seriously. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I take the comment seriously, I simply find it appalling that people can be Wikipedia editors and have such absurd censorship ideas all while keeping a straight face. I'm dropping the debate at this point, for reasons including apparent legal threats against James. The consensus is very clear and I'm not willing to discuss it anymore, especially with "five other" editors among which are some who used legal threats, which are now apparently put into action. --LjL (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but I don't think the debate we're having here is absurd. I don't think that I am advocating that we violate the WP:NOTCENSORED policy against offensive, profane, or obscene content. Instead, I think we're violating our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neutrality is a core concern of Wikipedia, and to force our readers into a position that limits their ability to choose is non-neutral at the very least. I look forward to discussing possible ways to neutralize this effect on the reader, but I fear the best option is to remove the information. Better to have zero information than information that is non-neutral. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

By that logic we should delete half the encyclopedia. Scary censoreship logic DD. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I see your point. Allow me to rephrase: Better to have a blank article than an article that is non-neutral. If, as in most articles, it were possible to neutralize the effect of the information and allow the reader to choose, I'd be for it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

#5 - It violates Wikipedia policy on indiscriminate collection of information.

Portions of this conversation older than the first comment may be viewed at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Con#5

They are pictures of the subject itself, and there are only 10 of them: the information is important and small in amount, therefore not indiscriminate, as it is highly relevant to the subject. There might be a case here if there were 300 pictures, each individually pictured. But the small number of them shows that this particular bit of information is limited, not excessive and indiscriminate. --Mysidia (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you've published the entire test. I don't see similar publications of content on any other cognitive or projective test pages (TAT, WISC, etc), nor a push to do so. A description of the test and a sample non-test blot would be quite sufficient to communicate "what an inkblot is."Mirafra (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this article though is the test though, and it is not just an article about inkblots. Thus showing just a single inkblot as an example could be considered insufficient. As for the thought that other tests are not included in their entirety, that has more to do with the status of the inkblots used in this test now being in the public domain, as opposed to most other mental health or childhood development tests which are still under some form of copyright protection. --Raukodraug (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- "what an inkblot is" was a bit flip on my part. I'll be more clear. On the many other pages covering the many other cognitive, academic, and projective tests in common use by psychologists, in every case where I have checked, test security was not apparently violated in any way. I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I checked a whole bunch of the obvious ones. The descriptions of test structure and item type were well within the boundaries of what is generally disclosed by test publishers or professionals who write reports interpreting test data, and would not raise any hackles under the "need to protect test security" requirements of the APA code of ethics. Whether by laziness or accident or intention, WP editors have thus far respected the boundaries of the psychological profession, rather than setting themselves directly in contradiction.

I understand that the specific legal status of the Rorschach (what with the mess that is international copyright law and treaties) is a complicating factor, but there exist copyright-legal and internet-feasible ways to trash the security of other tests in common use today as well, and I don't see any push to do that. In this case, by contrast, the entire Rorschach test has been published -- the fact that it's a test with only ten items doesn't mean that this is not a potential violation of WP:IINFO, any more than the publication of the complete lyrics of a song is dependent upon the number of verses in the song. This is a different standard of disclosure than is applied to other protected psychological tests on WP.

The purpose of explaining the history and structure of the Rorschach and giving an encyclopedia-relevant level of basic information about how the test is administered and interpreted could be just as easily served with an explicitly fake blot. In fact, it might be easier for the expert editors to give *more* useful information by using a fake example, because then we would be less worried about the problem of extensive exposure to the specific blots themselves and would feel more comfortable in clearly explaining what we *can* explain under our ethical guidelines. Mirafra (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the Rorschach test has any test security; the pictures are definitely available. Any member of the public can actually buy them and possibly look them up in the library. The fact that other articles don't include pictures of the test elements does not mean it's Wikipedia rules not to publish pictures. Other articles are in different stages of development. Take a look at Talk:Thematic_Apperception_Test, note the questions from editors about whether the images are copyrighted. If they are not, I fully expect in the future, the other articles about projection tests to include images, however I wouldn't expect all 30 cards to be pictured, it would be far in excess of what is useful to explain the subject. (5 to 10 pictures seems plenty). If a popular song were very short, for example: 4 or 5 lines long, it would not be indiscriminate information for the article to simply include its entire contents. --Mysidia (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not just any member of the public can purchase the Rorschach images. There are security features in place. Psychological Assessment Resources sells the plates for $100/each to only people with certain qualifications. Qualifications level C requires that you have an

"advanced professional degree that provides appropriate training in the administration and interpretation of psychological tests; OR license or certification from an agency that requires appropriate training and experience in the ethical and competent use of psychological tests."

So we can say that the images are protected. You can't just buy them. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because one seller imposes restrictions doesn't mean others do. Try a google search for 9783456826059. When I performed that search, hit #1 was an online bookseller[4] that has copies of the book listed for sale. --Mysidia (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are relatively unusual situations, that a set of plates (it's not a book) is available in that way. What generally happens to create these situations is that a psychologist dies without leaving a professional will, so that the office and such are cleaned out by people who don't know what they've got, and are unaware that these are not supposed to be sold on the open market. There is ongoing concern in the professional community about this problem, because it affects all sorts of tests. They tend to show up on eBay. Now, eBay does have a policy restricting the sale of "teachers editions" of textbooks, but they have not thus far explicitly extended that policy to psychological tests as far as I know -- the APA and the test publishers were talking to them about it. In general, if a professional lists a test for resale on eBay, they check credentials before completing the sale (that's how I bought my own plates, actually) -- many will list the need to check credentials explicitly in the sales listings. So I think Danglingdiagnosis's point stands -- just because someone can get a random copy of something on what amounts to a black (or at least gray) market does not mean that this is a general "sales policy." For all tests covered under section 9.11 of the APA code of ethics, publishers and licensed distributors of the tests check credentials before making a sale. Mirafra (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The qualifications required to purchase psychological test materials come awfully close to the language of things listed in WP:NONFREE. Not for commercial use is a complicated legal status that I don't pretend to understand. But since Wikipedia is already imposing stricter standards on itself than mere copyrights, I wonder if there isn't some form of status that Wikipedia might recognize and be written into this section of policy? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very good point. The policy says, "free as in cost and free as in freedom are two entirely different things, images freely available on the internet may still be inappropriate for Wikipedia." Perhaps the better thing to do is to propose an edit of the existing WP:NONFREE policy to mention that there is a class of information (restricted-access psychological tests) which should not be posted? Mirafra (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this line of argument totally ridiculous. First First-sale doctrine would shoot down any efforts by anybody to control books once they are sold. Second the Rorschach test images have been published before "The Nuremberg Mind" (1975) and Poundstone's "Big Secrets" (1983) Finally nevermind the dozens of websites and online news articles the images are on including the web site the images came from. I even found one that has had them on the internet since 2003. This horse has been out of the barn for a long time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

#6 - It violates Wikipedia policy on non-free content.

This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Con#6

Something that someone else said got me thinking. And I looked back at the page about WP:NONFREE... and noticed the following prominently-placed sentence. "On Wikipedia, our goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as any content granting the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially." Protected psychological tests are not freely permitted to be redistributed or used for any purpose in any medium. You have to have an advanced degree with specific training in the use and interpretation of protected tests in order to purchase them. If you are not appropriately licensed, you can do jail time for trying to use them. Even copies of outdated tests are supposed to be kept at least somewhat protected, because there are not infrequently reuses of items or item formats between editions. We're not talking just about the Rorschach here, we're talking about all protected tests. WP accepts that some information is not just happy hippie-dippy information dancing with infinite abandon around the intertubes. We're asserting that protected psychological tests fall within that realm, and we've backed that up with strong sources: policy statements from relevant well-recognized professional societies. That's not censorship, that's WP following its own self-description and holding itself to its own standards. (originally posted elsewhere by Mirafra (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2009)Faustian (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia's employs standards that are intentionally stricter than just copyright laws. See WP:NONFREE. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a distinction between "distributing a test" and "distributing the images used in a test". The images are free, although the test, presented in a usable form, may carry restrictions in some jurisdictions under laws other than copyright. — PhilHibbs | talk 19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

#7 - Such vandalism defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia.

I suggest we rename this to "Showing the images defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia"--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A long time ago, someone defined the purpose of an encyclopedia.

Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.

— Diderot, editor and publisher of Encyclopédie 1751 - 1772

Three secondary sources, position statements by major health organizations (i.e. the best kind of sources according to WP:MEDRS), have stated that the security of test material is important to the work of psychologists and should be maintained. It follows that Wikipedia would be vandalizing their work by breaching that security. This is the same conclusion reached by Scientific American in its 2001 article on the subject. Such vandalism is contrary to the purpose of preserving "the work of preceding centuries." I want our children to receive the benefit of the Rorschach test. Too many of them may need it. ( 0.7% Schizophrenia, 1-2% bi-polar disorder, etc.)

Is the test perfect? Are there valid criticism of the test? Yes. And we can and should report those criticisms, for to hide such criticism would be censorship. As Denis Diderot said about his encyclopedia, "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." But even he, I'm sure, would draw the line at vandalism. Just because a car parked in front of someone's house isn't the quality vehicle you may wish, that doesn't give you cause to slash its tires.

Many of us have seen and fought against vandalism on Wikipedia. So you should be sympathetic when the tables are turned and Wikipedia becomes the source of vandalism to the work of others. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word vandalism to describe publishing a thing is a flawwed analogy, there is an extreme dissimilarity between the things being compared. Publishing now-freely available images that were used in a test is no more vandalism than investigative reporting, or other publication of information in the public interest. It's not vandalism if other parties publish things about Wikipedia within their own publications, even if they are harmful, even if Wikipedia doesn't want them published, and that applies to any public object: it's not vandalism for Wikipedia to print images like the ones attached to the article. --Mysidia (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of the images in fact aids in the collection and dissemination of knowledge, and serves to preserve information about the test. It does not defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. Perfect test security would ensure that no information about the test is published, and the result is, knowledge of the test is lost of the centuries.

Therefore based on the definition above, publishing all details of the test would in effect "transmit it to those who will come after us", and be more inline with that definition than not publishing.

The "definition" of an encyclopedia above contains rationale that is not accepted as part of the definition of an encyclopedia.

There is no robust test security anymore. The images have already been available to the public freely for long enough that even if Wikipedia removes them, they will be freely available at numerous online sources, including public archives that exist of older versions of Wikipedia image files. --Mysidia (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. To the extent that previous norms are damaged wikipedia has destroyed that knowledge. For example, if previous research has shown that only 30% of depressed people see a mouse on the first card (this is not true, I'm making up a much less complex hypothetical here) and wikipedia puts this up, it may be that now 40% of depressed people see the mouse. Wikipedia has rendered the previous findings and whatever benefit they could have given, useless. This is the equivalent of describing a house by tearing it apart in order to catalogue where all the pieces are. By the time you're finished, there is no more house and the description is of course obsolete and false.

To the extent that a test becomes less useful due to its publication, wikipedia destroys the ability of the test to add to more knowledge and renders the previously obtained knowledge meaningless.Faustian (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The average layperson doesn't even recognize the name "Rorschach test". It's an extremely unlikely proposition that a statistically significant percentage of the general public actually reads the article and actually looks at the images; so long as Wikipedia doesn't publish the full details of the test, the methods of interepreting answers, or expected answers for each image, the test has not been rendered useless, and the impact is minimal, except maybe for a small number of individuals who have read the article and studied the images in great detail, so they can make contrived answers. I would expect there to be extroardinary proof that the publication of just the images invalidates the results of the test to justify retracting the images fron an article, and those 3 sources are not extroardinary evidence. As always, professionals utilize multiple tests, not just one, and more information about one test being published can be utilized to assist in developing other tests based on it, a net benefit to the collection of human knowledge. --Mysidia (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mysidia, I don't see the flaw in my use of the word "vandalism". You're looking at the word through the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. I'm using the general definition found in wiktionary:vandalism Vandalism is the impairment of property, even shared property which is in the public domain (such as the Rorschach inkblots), such that it does not look or function as it was intended.

Psychological tests are not designed to be generally published. Wikipedia is. They are designed differently. If you put a boat in the lake, it floats; you haven't harmed it any. If you put a car in the lake, that's vandalism.

I understand you have a personal belief that information is best published for everyone to see. But that's just a general rule-of-thumb, isn't it? I have 3 sources that say otherwise. [5] [6] [7] They're good quality sources that say that psychological tests need to be kept reasonably secure. Publishing in Wikipedia defeats that purpose and is, thus, vandalism. Worse, it vandalizes a base of knowledge, something that Wikipedians, such as yourself, should appreciate. We should be guardians of knowledge, not vandals of it. Like museum curators, we should put as much as we can out for public display, but not in a way that harms or destroys the item. Because we want our children to reap the same benefit as we have. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Point one: I see that your definition of "vandalism" is quite valid, but I wonder why some people here (and in other related talk page) insist on using word "not in their Wikipedia-specific definition". I though we were on Wikipedia.

Point two: given that we are on Wikipedia, I am ready and willing to rely on reliable sources to write articles. But nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that any sources should be using for deciding what's ethical for Wikipedia, or what's vandalism. That's up to the community to decide, not sources.

--LjL (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Point one: I agree that some of us are finding the word confusing because we normally use it with reference to Wikipedia policy and not general usage. However, the other options are not very good. I just opened up my thesaurus and found "sabotage." I'm happy to substitute this word, but I don't wish to imply that anyone is intentionally damaging the test. I think what we have here is more a matter of "Oops. Sorry about the problem I caused, but I have other more important things to consider." That sounds to me like vandals who are just doing their thing. Which kind of makes me the old man yelling out the window, "Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!" I swore it would never happen, but it did: I've become that guy down the street.

Point two: If we don't use reliable sources for our information, who do we use? The community? You and me? I think that's just wrong. You can try and make a distinction between information we use solely in our discussion pages and how it trickles up to our articles, but I worry about going down that road. You're saying that policy only applies to what we do on our articles and not to how we discuss them. I think there are plenty of policies for how we are supposed to act in our discussions. Why some and not others? I also think the better we organize our talk pages, the better will be our articles, because one derives much from the other. Think about it... If we don't apply some pretty basic rules to our discussions, like fact checking and attribution, then I shudder to think what will happen as the results trickle up to our articles. At the very least, it will result in articles that change drastically over time, depending on who's doing the talking, which is what is happening here at the Rorschach test.

Which brings me back to the argument in this thread. By going down this road, we've begun to compromise basic principles to the operation of an encyclopedia. I think we need to take a step back and really consider what it is that we are trying to do. I think we should stick to writing an encyclopedia with general articles that inform us about real-world context, (i.e. information that is relevant but not exhaustive) and that does not destroy knowledge or utility. Because, really, what is knowledge without utility? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Why some and not others" - because that is what the guidelines and policies say. You may perhaps like guidelines, policies and talk pages to be reliably sources, but then you're thinking about a different encyclopedia,, because that is not how this one works. Is there any reliable source that says that "consensus" is the Most Important Thing Ever? Maybe, but in any case that's not what was used to decide that consensus was important on Wikipedia. Policy here has never been built based on what "sources" said about policy. --LjL (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages, according to Wikipedia:Talk page are not for discussion personal views. They are for discussing content on the article. In doing so, we are informed by outside sources. This must be so because we are not supposed to rely on our own expertise. Therefore, if a reliable source says that our article is damaging a test, you are not free to disregard this information. You must accept this as verifiable fact, find another source that refutes this, or perform original research. You may hold this fact in dynamic tension with other considerations and apply judgment about weight, but you may not disregard it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, article talk pages aren't about discussing policy, either. If policy says that something should or should not be in an article, then there is nothing to discuss on a talk page; at best, you discuss on the policy page.

I'm not necessarily saying that we should adhere to the above strictly... but the point is that, while we should "not" disregard infrmation such as a source saying that our article is damaging a test, we should, if anything, use that information to put it in the appropriate article, not to dictate policy. I repeat, not to dictate policy. This seems so obvious to me I never thought I'd have to repeat it... If you want, though, we can bring it to a more appropriate venue. --LjL (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, now, where we are thinking differently: I think policy gives us the freedom to use our discretion. You think you are bound by policy to act in a certain way. Of course, you're free to consider policy or anything else when considering the facts. But Let me free you. From Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means:

"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored."

So, I wasn't aware that I was discussing policy. I think I'm discussing content and using some pretty basic concepts about how one should speak and use (or not use) references. Regarding content, let me ask you, how do you regard the information that we are damaging the test? Facts are facts, and I don't wish you to ignore them. Are you okay with the idea that Wikipedia is disclosing information that may harm or destroy the utility of the test? ...because I'm not. Who are we to interfere? We are encyclopedists. We're supposed to observe and report, not influence, and certainly not destroy the utility of information. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it? Yes, yes, YES. It's not Wikipedia's problem whether the information it provides somehow damages the test. Wikipedia isn't sponsored by the APA, it doesn't owe anything to the test. It's not interfering; actually, psychologists are currently interfering with Wikipedia by bringing their conflict of interest with their code of ethics here, and even forcing administrators to full-protect the article.

Wikipedia's purpose is to report, but who said reporting won't have effects on society? I'm pretty damn sure Wikipedia has already had quite an important effect on a lot of people, simply by bringing so much knowledge and information to easy access. Of course that's perfectly fine.

--LjL (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's your arguments not how many times you say anything. The objective of any encyclopedia is to gather knowledge for the benefit of humankind. It's been shown many times that dissemination of knowledge is a good thing. That is our default notion. What you fail to realize is that even simple ideas like the one I just stated have exceptions. History has also shown that our most basic assumptions sometimes have exceptions. Newton's law was fine for most human experiences for thousands of years, today we know now that at high speeds bizarre things happen. There has never been an encyclopedia like the Wikipedia and the images on this article challenges the basic assumption that all knowledge is good for human kind. Because it hampers the ability of our physicians to take care of us. It's a weird case there are few cases like these.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No excuse me, if the question is "are you okay with the idea...?", the answer is "yes, I am". I am being asked for an opinion; and I had given it a number of times.

As to the content of your objections, I'll repeat things I've already said: 1) not all parties seem to agree there's harm in the accidental viewing of the images (more so in deliberate use of the image to "cheat" the test, but it's not up to us to prevent that) 2) no one has demonstrated that disseminating test materials won't encourage scientists to successfully develop other tests that are resilient to dissemination.

What do where do when there are disagreements and incognita? We jump back our "default" stance, which is well documented and which you aren't in general disagreeing with. --LjL (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia does owe something to the test. Every time I write for an article, my responsibility is to the subject. I take great care so that I may pass on knowledge that is correct and useful. I consider my reader and ask, "how will they use the information." But if 5 years from now, nobody can use a Rorschach test, then we will have failed our purpose. Any why? Because we failed to recognize our circumstances. Do you know the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog? You seem to be saying "It's my nature to act a certain way." But there arises special situations in which it is in everyone's best interest if he or she reassesses his nature. The human mind is the most adaptable of any on the planet. Adaptability and ingenuity is the reason for our success as a species and for the failure of other hominid species. But we still get into trouble when we let custom dictate our actions. As the poet Shelly wrote, "But custom maketh blind and obdurate the loftiest hearts." We have a unique situation here. It's best to recognize that and make allowances. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That requires believing the test is useful, the test will be unrepairably broken by publishing information about it, and the test cannot be replaced by a more robust test (the typical CS argument against security by obscurity, and people can keep saying it just doesn't apply to psychology, but I have yet to hear a good reason why). That's a lot of things to believe on their face. I don't necessarily believe they are true. --LjL (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you or I have the authority to force medical professionals to replace the test with another. That you would dare suggest otherwise is interesting, but such opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could write an article as a commentary and submit it to an on-line magazine. Or if you have a medical license, you could submit it to a professional journal. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who can read can see that is not what I said. --LjL (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What you said was that you have trouble believing that a)the test is useful, b) the test will be unrepairably broken by publishing information about it, and c) the test cannot be replaced by a more robust test. Here's my response: Your understanding about these things is not required. You simply need to accept a source (in this case, a statement by a national health organization) and stop relying on your own understanding or your own original research. We live in a big world; even people with encyclopedic knowledge can be forgiven if they must sometimes rely on others for their information. In this case the information tells us that a) the Rorschach test is considered to be useful, b) we are vandalizing psychological tests, including the Rorschach, by disclosing test data, and c) that doing so may invalidate the results and require the substitution of other tests. I believe that such vandalism defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia and should stop. If you continue to have doubts about the appropriate use of the Rorschach test, then I encourage you to present those arguments in a peer-reviewed psychological journal. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that as much as you may insist otherwise, I still don't believe that it's expected (or beneficial) to use sources to decide what to include on Wikipedia (or otherwise what policies to have). Wikipedia uses sources for its content; it uses editor consensus for its policies. You may not like that but I do, and I'm pretty sure a vast majority of Wikipedians do, as well. --LjL (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm using sources to inform my decision about whether content advances the mission of providing a free encyclopedia. If consensus shows that we are harming the subject of the article, then I believe Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're most certainly absolutely free to base your opinion (which counts, like all opinions do) on. You just can't expect others to do the same, because that's not required. I believe, additionally, that the current RfC quite clearly shows that consensus wants the images to stay. --LjL (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please! The RfC was just created, WP:CCC doesn't exist for you to be able to claim that the consensus of 10 minutes ago isn't valid. --LjL (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me back up to something you said earlier. You said you don't believe that it's expected (or beneficial) to use sources to decide what to include on Wikipedia. But I think you're mistaken. We make content decisions on article discussion pages; that is, in fact, the primary purpose of a discussion page. And according the the guidelines for discussion pages, editors are supposed to utilize rules of evidence and verification. "The policies that apply to articles apply also (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies." Therefore, it's entirely valid for me to cite a source to support an argument I make on a talk page. Just as it is valid for you to cite policy. Doing either does not end the debate. On the contrary, the debate can then begin. So let us begin, recognizing the both of us have verifiable sources to back up our statements and that neither of us are engaging in personal opinions or viewpoints when we cite our sources. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the primary purpose of a talk page would be to collaborate in the improvement of the article. And the issue here is we're not really discussing that; you could say we're all at fault. What we're really discussing is policy. I think I've been pretty careful to always say "policy" rather than "talk page", and there's a reason for that - you, yourself, have started a policy proposal about this, so you clearly realize yourself that this is really a matter of policy. It shouldn't even belong to this talk page. After all, the very guideline that you cite does also say "[...] it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements". This one clearly hasn't. --LjL (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am trying to improve the article and bring it more in line with our mission, which is the preservation of knowledge; not the vandalism of public property. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

#8 - How Dare we Not?

I'm sympathetic to my fellow Wikipedians who find the very idea of withholding information to be distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the free flow of information. I listened to you and heard the visceral disgust you expressed: How dare we decide who should and should not have access to information? How dare we, indeed! I respect the place where that reaction comes from.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have the luxury of avoiding the reciprocal question: How dare we not take responsibility? If not us, then who? Can the reader take responsibility? No, because a) we can't assume they know what a Rorschach test is prior to reading the article, b) the consequences are involuntary, and c) we don't warn the reader about the consequences. Can the psychologists take responsibility? No, because they also have no choice but to substitute an alternative procedure. And parenthetically, whether they should've, could've, or would've anticipated this problem and created a copyrighted, alternative test, one that doesn't rely on the good graces of reporting agencies like Wikipedia, is not something many of us are qualified to second guess and is "water under the bridge" at this point. This means that the people who are most accountable for their actions is us, Wikipedians. We can't shirk the responsibility. Other sites may be publishing the images, but our readers are our readers and no one else's. Let other sites do what they will. We gotta do what we think is right.

I know many of you fear doing anything that seems like censorship. The twentieth century saw enough of that with certain despotic rulers. I argue that withholding images is not censorship because we aren't withholding either criticism or praise. It's simply information: the questions and answers to a diagnostic psychological test. "How dare we withhold information?" you say. To which I reply, "How dare we not." Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"The twentieth century saw enough of that with certain despotic rulers." I call reductio ad Hitlerum (and Godwin's law). Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of anything, and I did not mean that sentence in the way that you took it. Please feel free to disregard it. The rest of the post is, hopefully, more to your liking. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently archived discussions

Page protected

Archived to /Archive 7#Page protected

Question

Archived to /Archive 7#Question - if necessary, continue discussion below

Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots?

Archived to /Archive 7#Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots? - if necessary, continue discussion below

Including all 10 Argument #5

Archived to /Archive 7#Including all 10 Argument #5 - if necessary, continue discussion below

New expert sign-up section

Archived to /Archive 7#New expert sign-up section - if necessary, continue discussion below

Consensus

Archived to /Archive 7#Consensus - if necessary, continue discussion below

Old debate

Archived to /Archive 7#Old debate - if necessary, continue discussion below

Reverting, status quo, and survey re inkblots

Archived to /Archive 7#Reverting, status quo, and survey re inkblots - if necessary, continue discussion below

An informal survey for the inclusion of the 10 inkblots

Archived to /Archive 7#An informal survey for the inclusion of the 10 inkblots - if necessary, continue discussion below

Harm

Archived to /Archive 7#Harm - if necessary, continue discussion below

To be honest...

Archived to /Archive 7#To be honest... - if necessary, continue discussion below

Are all 10 inkblots really necessary?

Archived to /Archive 8#Are all 10 inkblots really necessary? - if necessary, continue discussion below

list of reliable sources mentioned here

Archived to /Archive 7#list of reliable sources mentioned here - if necessary, continue discussion below

We need an image of the test being administered

I think the best way to ^{compromise and partially} satisfy the concerns of all involved is to obtain a more descriptive image for the lead. I think that most would agree that a high-quality image of the test being administered would serve that purpose. Such an image would effectively describe (at least the administration of) the test. The inkblot should be visible in the picture, but since it won't be the main focus of the whole image, it should at least give the reader an opportunity to read our newly minted final lead paragraph before observing the inkblot(s) in detail. –xeno^talk 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments archived to /Archive 7#We need an image of the test being administered - if necessary, continue discussion below

External links

Archived to /Archive 8#External links - if necessary, continue discussion below

False inkblot as the lead image

Archived to /Archive 8#False inkblot as the lead image - if necessary, continue discussion below

Just a suggestion

Archived to /Archive 8#Just a suggestion - if necessary, continue discussion below

Is source for inkblots reliable?

Archived to /Archive 8#Is source for inkblots reliable? - if necessary, continue discussion below

A request to the regulars regarding the below RFC

To the regulars: Let's try and limit our participation as much as possible in the below RFC I've just filed. I think we all know very well where each other stands - and let's see what the wider community thinks. Feel free to respond to questions from new faces, but at the very least, please do not ping-pong back and forth with other regulars. –xeno^talk 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content?

Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? –xeno^talk 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The debate ongoing above centers on a single issue: harm.

It is posited that disseminating Rorschach inkblot images may result in harm, due to pre-exposing the reader to the images and possibly tainting the results of a Rorschach test they may take in the future. Because one can't "unsee" an image, having the image in the lead of the article does not give the reader the opportunity to read about potential harm that may result before seeing it. It is also suggested that we not display all ten images in the article to further reduce potential harm.

Both the American Psychological Association and the British Psychological Society have gone on record that harm may result to the general public as a result of dissemination of test materials (in general). It should also be noted that the (potential) harm is "passively transmitted", i.e., it's not the same type of harm that might result from explaining how pipe bombs are constructed. This is also distinct from a 'content spoiler' - in that while readers should be reasonably expect to find a detailed plot summary about a work of fiction, in this case they may not know ahead of time that pre-exposure to the image(s) may impact potential future test results.

Iff we are willing to accept harm as a possibility, even if slight, should we then heed these concerns and compromise to limit or otherwise restrict our content to reduce the potential for harm? –xeno^talk 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we are talking about a few different forms of harm. Let me give two that concern me:

* Given that the Rorschach is often used in forensic settings, where people might have specific desires to present false information, either to malinger (fitness to stand trial, etc) or to fake-good (custody, etc), giving people the opportunity to carefully mull over the blots has to be considered as a possibility for harm. I don't like raising scare-tactics, but the point is that some of what psychologists do with this test is evaluate potential "bad guys" in order to serve the public good.

* Contrary to popular belief, the test is both a cognitive and a projective test. The cognitive aspects of the test assume that the processing of the information require a certain amount of effort, which is why we want the stimuli to be relatively novel. They don't have to be completely novel, which is why people can be retested without serious loss of validity, but if someone could pore over them carefully for hours, this would remove the novelty and change the nature of the test task for them, thus reducing validity. There are other neuropsychological tests that are vulnerable to this kind of exposure and would suffer similarly in their usefulness as well. Mirafra (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Points of order

As far as I know the APA has not made a statement about harm resulting from showing these images, I am not sure about the BPS. The APA source only prohibits psychologists from making test material available to the public. It does not mention harm or go into motive at all, nor does it mention the Rorschach test. Beyond these important corrections, I support this debate. Chillum 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I amended it to say "test materials (in general)" [8]. You are right in that we haven't been presented with any statements about Rorschach images specifically. –xeno^talk 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It was more my point that the sources presented for the APA have not made mention of harm, or any mention of the motive of this rule. Chillum 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The final lead paragraph does reliably source assertions of harm from dissemination of test materials in general: The APA states that the dissemination of test materials "imposes very concrete harm to the general public" as well, in that "there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose" –xeno^talk 02:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Which source is this? The one I am thinking of is much more limited. Chillum 02:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"^ American Psychological Association, Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data, 1996." quoted in [9] –xeno^talk 02:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. In that case point conceded. Chillum 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I should probably mention, for both transparency and attribution purposes, that the above RFC statement was drafted in concert with Faustian at User talk:Faustian#RFC. –xeno^talk 03:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Superceded?

Does anyone agree this RFC has been superceded by the one running at WT:Involuntary health consequences ? –xeno^talk 15:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed Garycompugeek (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone has taken the RFC tag down. I think Dangling should incorporate the opinions of the people who respond to this RFC and try to make a more refined policy proposal after this one closes. –xeno^talk 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I have thought about this and my answer is no. Wikipedia is not censored directly applies here. We should not hold back relevant, informative and verifiable information from people seeking because we feel it is for their own good. The images in the the form of small thumbnails and the very first section describes the concerns about previewing the images. People don't have to stare at them and interpret them, they don't need to click and see the larger version, but if they want to they should be able to. By the logic given here we should not explain the weaknesses in a polygraph test because a criminal may get loose. We should not explain how Cold reading works because it may prevent a psychic from counseling a customer. The fact is that pretty much any test is invalidated if you look up the questions or the answers ahead of time. We should not reduce our content to avoid this. Chillum 14:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much any test is invalidated if the answers are shown to you whether you asked to see them or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with this article, as it doesn't show any answers. There is no right answer to inkblot tests anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much any test is invalidated if the questions are shown to you whether you asked to see them or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

They're not questions either, even if they were that is why examination boards take a lot of effort to create new standardised questions every exam cycle. It seems either laziness or cargo-cultish to rely on these images when others could easily be produced to serve the claimed purpose, and copyright would then undoubtedly be claimed on those. 80.177.9.239 (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculously inaccurate. The current scientific quality of the Rorschach came about as a result of nine decades of research, which today, with a new set of inkblots, would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and would require decades to complete even if every psychology research program in the English speaking world allocated most of its resources to such a project. And even then, there's no guarantee that the end result would be as good or better than the current Rorschach inkblots. This comment epitomizes the profound ignorance of non-expert opinions here. Ward3001 (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, how was the efficacy of these magic pictures ever established in the first place? Please do enlighten me. 80.177.9.239 (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Through 90 years of research. Ward3001 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and would require decades to complete even if every psychology research program in the English speaking world allocated most of its resources to such a project", that is a rather impressive claim. Is that your opinion or did you get that information from a reliable source? Chillum 01:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How much do you think it would cost to repeat nine decades of research, conduct approximately 2000 studies (which requires getting permission from research policy committees, finding thousands of subjects in the age range of 5 to 90 years old willing to participate, paying each of these research subjects approximately $100 each, get the studies accepted in peer review journals, and then synthesize all of the research into a coherent whole). Then, you must deal with the extremely difficult-to-find research subjects (such as several dozen patients who have suicided and also had a Rorschach administered prior to the suicide), reformulate hundreds of possible variables (and you can't use the old variables because they're from a completely different set of inkblots). How much do you think that would cost, and how long would it take? I said decades. One decade would be an underestimate. Two decades might be possible, with unlimited resources dedicated to the project. Do you suggest that it could be done in a year or two? If so, you are even more naive than the anon who glibly proclaimed that "It seems either laziness or cargo-cultish to rely on these images when others could easily be produced to serve the claimed purpose". And please tell me how you can find reliable sources for hypothetical future events? Do we look in the Journal of Psychological Research That Will Occur? Where could I find that reliable source. The reliable sources are the thousands of previous studies that must be repeated. Ward3001 (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You see I don't know Ward, because I am not here to engage in original research. Do you have any sources for your impressive claim? Chillum 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the thousands of existing studies accumulated over the past 90 years. Those are the sources. As you have done in the past, you ask for impossible information in insisting on a source for hypothetical future events. John Exner was the most prolific researcher on the Rorschach. He devoted almost all of the last thirty years of his professional life to researching the Rorschach. He completed several hundred studies and wrote a few books. Do you actually think a handful of researchers are going to duplicate that, plus all the previous 50 years of research, plus the research by dozens of other researchers during Exner's lifetime, in a few years at a cost of a few thousand dollars? And you're quite correct: You don't know. No one knows anything about the future. What I'm not sure about is do you know anything about the past when it comes to Rorschach research. I'm basing this on past research. If you want sources I can post the entire bibliography of Rorschach research on your talk page, along with average salaries of the dozens of university professors who will conduct the research, their research assistants, and university budgets that will oversee the research. Ward3001 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I only ask that you support what you claim. If what you are claiming cannot be verified then it is unverifiable. You are asking me to take several sources and join them into a new idea, that is original research by synthesis. Chillum 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you ask for the impossible. The only way to estimate the future is based on the past. How do you think anyone prepares a budget? Do they look into the future with their crystal ball and come up with exact figures? It is perfectly legitimate, including on a Wikipedia talk page, to make a reasonable estimate about future events based on accurate interpretation of past events. When an editor (anon 80.177.9.239) makes an outrageous claim about the future ("others could easily be produced") on a Wikipedia talk page, it perfectly acceptable to rebut that argument with an educated estimate that reflects a knowledge of past events. If anon 80.177.9.239 had made his absurd statement in the article, it would have been reverted instantly, and rightly so. If I made my estimate of the future in the article, that also would be reverted. But this talk page is an acceptable place to separate wild speculation from educated estimates, and that's what I did. I have given accurate data about past research, so let's see if others besides you think it can be done in less than "decades" rather "months" or "years", and what they base this estimate on. Otherwise you and I could disagree endlessly about the future. Ward3001 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As you didn't even attempt to answer my question, this hyperbole looks increasingly like an argument from authority with no actual proof. I see no evidence of commons tragedy as claimed. 80.177.9.239 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As you apparently cannot understand simple English, this discussion is pointless. Your question was answerered quite sufficiently; you simply cannot or choose not to understand it: ninety years of research. A "year" means 365 days. "Research" means scientific study. Ward3001 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• This RFC is pointless, mainly because it's based upon the idea that seeing inkblots somehow harm you, which is complete and utter nonsense. Framing the RFC this way plays right into the hands of some amazingly unrepentant and calculated POV-pushers. Should we consider harm? Yes, but only if that harm can be reliably proven to be a genuine and immediate result, not just asserted and insisted upon in a rather POV way. Their argument goes like this: "Invalidating this test by seeing the images" (unproven and highly unlikely- you still see what you see even if you've seen them before) "means that no other test is usable" (unproven and frankly ridiculous -- these people are acting like inkblots are the end all and be all of clinical psychology, which is absurd) "which means that maybe there'll be some case where someone won't otherwise be able to be treated for a harmful condition" (highly unlikely theoretical situation which flies in the face of contrary POV that the tests are useless and sometimes even harmful -- we could equally argue that invalidating these, even if we could, we be a GOOD thing) "and therefore we should censor this information" (conclusion based upon a series of completely dubious, unproven arguments). DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please show us the evidence that this claim is "complete and utter nonsense". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about nonsense, but it is all rather unconvincing. Chillum 03:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That was the thrust of the entire post. Refusing to acknowledge it does not mean it wasn't already given. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And please show us the evidence that "the tests are useless and sometimes even harmful". Martinevans123 (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking us to present evidence to disprove your claims? It is your claim, it is your burden to convince us. I for one am not convinced. Chillum 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I am still trying (after over a year, now) to draw your attention to the fact that it is not possible to provide scientific evidence for EITHER side of this argument. I have yet to see your response. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the point really is moot; content will not be removed from a Wikipedia article because of unproven and unprovable concerns, when such content is encyclopedic and extremely relevant to the article's subject. We know already that Wikipedia is not censored, please don't choose to ignore that. --LjL (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you were paying attention that was not my argument, it was my argument that that's a valid POV, and that has already been sourced and is (or was -- maybe I should see if a POV pusher afraid to have criticism in the article took it out) in the article itself. The fact that multiple POVs exist mean that we can't follow the opinion of just one side. This is VERY basic NPOV stuff here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry DreamGuy, I have no idea what you're actually saying. If it's just my level of attention that is to blame, then I apologise. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think the answer is a definite maybe. There are currently about the same number of argument Pro as Con, many of them new. Each one is separate. Ethical arguments are valid, as well. If everyone can agree on the ethic then, why not consider it? We shouldn't dismiss all ethical arguments as categorically subjective. That's just not true. Some ethics are nearly universal. I get nervous when people, who are free to express themselves in a forum that encourages collaboration, limit their comments to issues of policy only. Many of us have not responded or provided their opinion about Argument Con #1. I'm not sure why, but I'm guessing it's because they couldn't find a basis in policy. It seems odd to me. People shouldn't allow themselves to disengage so completely from their own ethics. Even soldiers, prior to following orders, can be permitted to speak freely or to lodge a protest. Instead, what's so unworkable by first presenting an ethical argument, and then, if not everyone can agree, falling back on policy to direct the course of consensus? That'll work and it also allows people the freedom to express their ethics. I also cite the following sources:
  [10] [11] [12] [13]
  I'd like to get comments on Argument Con #4, I think a WP:NPOV violation is worse than a WP:NOTCENSORED one. But I can be patient and wait until this RfC is finished. One argument at a time, right? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the principle of "harm" should be considered in ordinary editorial decisions like this one. However, that principle is not an absolute. It is held in dynamic tension with other core principles such as NOTCENSORED. The degree of potential harm must be balanced against the potential benefit and the fit with Wikipedia's educational mission. It must considered in the full light of all the surrounding circumstances. In this regard, the analogy to BLP is apt. Disclosing the Social Security Number of a private citizen exposes the person to identity theft and is clearly inappropriate but publishing Todd Davis' is fine. (He's the guy in the LifeLock commercials.) Disclosing other personal details may or may not be appropriate depending on how widely the information has already been disseminated, how easily the information could be exploited, etc. BLP is actually quite nuanced in this regard.
  To apply the principle in this case, an allegation of harm was made. Counter-evidence was presented that the image is already widely disclosed. Considerable discussion drew out the nature, degree and probability of incremental harm. Reading the past discussions, it seems clear to me that the community has already given due weight to the principle of harm and reached a rough consensus that it is negligible in this case. (Perfect consensus is, of course, an unattainable goal at Wikipedia.) Rossami (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your wonderful comment. I loved how you seem to appreciate the distinction between laying out all arguments for everyone to see, and then once that's done, assigning weight to them. That's exactly what we need to do. It engaged my thinking very much, and was very welcome indeed. And yet, I might have come to a different conclusion if I were to have attempted to add the following issues to the dynamic tension of arguments of which you wrote. I wonder if your opinion might change after considering the following:

1. Neutrality of the article. This is a core principle of Wikipedia, more important than WP:NOTCENSORED How can we serve the poor reader who says:

"Where? Oh, where can I go to find a balanced article that allows me to make up my own mind about prominent issues surrounding the Rorschach test -- issues such as the one about why psychologists are advocating for the removal of images from the internet. What's that issue about? I see it on so many web-pages; but those pages seem so biased. Where can I go to find the unbiased version -- one that doesn't demonstrate bias by showing me the images. "

It was only 11 days ago that the allegation was made and countered that this important discussion was even occurring outside of Wikipedia, and we're still coming to grips with the idea that we need to show our readers that we are neutral on the subject and not engaging in the controversy or advancing a point of view. (See talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.)

2. The discussion so far, has also lacked any mention of the flaw in the thinking of many here that readers have already made their choice by coming to this page to see information about a medical subject. By clicking on "What links here," we can see that there are over 350 pages that link to the article, including one from a #1 song called Crazy and another about a fictional character in a major motion picture called The Watchmen and the corresponding graphic novel that Time Magazine has called "one of the 100 best novels ever written." Idly curious readers may have no idea what's coming when they click on the Rorschach wikilink. The same goes for fans of these things who will come to our article using search engines such as Google. All the discussions about harm have made the assumption that the reader knows what they are doing when they come to the article. This thinking is flawed, but no one has yet pointed out the flaw. Perhaps no one here has seen the movie.

3. Plus, I see a disturbing influence that has yet to be challenged. There has often been expressed a valid, but negative opinion about the utility of the test. But this opinion has no place when deciding whether to show the images or not. This thinking is similar to that of someone who vandalizes another's car saying, "Oh well, they won't care. It's a worthless pile of scrap metal, anyway." It's one thing to point at someone else's car and say it's worthless. It's quite another to then go and sabotage it. (See owner's 2009 letter of complaint and owner's 2006 letter of complaint) It's possible that once this is pointed out, consensus may change. (See consensus can change.)

4. I'm optimistic that consensus is movable about the interpretation of the APA and The BPS statement. It hasn't been pointed out, yet, how unreasonable it is to read a code of conduct and expect the authors to list specific tests when general categories will suffice. The Rorschach is a psychological test. Both codes ask that test materials and stimuli be kept secure. The Rorschach, by definition, falls under the category of test material and is thus covered under Section 9.11 of the APA Code. Moreover, it is highly popular test material. In a 1995 survey of 412 randomly selected clinical psychologists, 45 percent said that they use the Rorschach frequently and 89 percent said they use it occasionally. To interpret the APA's and BPS's code as not specific enough to include such a popular test is unnecessarily obtuse. Therefore, I think we can use the APA and the BPS as reliable sources showing that experts feel the need to maintain the security of Rorschach for, as is stated both codes, the purpose of protecting the welfare of the patient. I can't help but think that consensus will change on this. It has yet to be explained to me how any other position can be tenable. This will undoubtedly have the effect of changing the dynamic tension and weight of the arguments in "the final analysis."

So speaking as the new guy to this discussion page, (22 days and counting) I'm wondering if you agree that it's a little premature to draw any conclusions, yet. I think there may be a few things yet to discuss. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments - arb break 1

• I have never before encountered an RfC so disingenuously framed. Besides, hasn't this question already been settled? Repeatedly? Dlabtot (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on your first point? As for your second, the section below speaks to that. –xeno^talk 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would I need to 'expand' on it? Dlabtot (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you're claiming I filed a disingenuously framed RFC. That's a fairly strong claim, I would like you to elucidate what part of the RFC you feel was disingenuous and how I could've better framed it. –xeno^talk 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to be drawn into a repeat of one the pointless arguments that I see on this talk page. You filed a Request for Comments; I commented. I don't think there is anything vague or unclear about my comment. How could you have better framed the question? Let's look at another example question: Should dlabtot stop beating his wife? Certainly this question is disingenuously framed, but does that does not mean a change in phrasing will improve it. Rather it should simply not be asked. Similarly, I see your RfC as a disruptive unwillingness to accept consensus. Though no doubt meant in good faith and with the best of intentions. Dlabtot (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll note I did use the construction "Iff" - "If and only if" - we are willing to accept the possibility of harm (...). I have also been trying to remain neutral in this, so I filed, to the best of my ability, a neutral RFC that takes into consideration both sides of the debate. I'm sorry that you feel I was "disingenuous" and that^{, I think} you are confused as to my role here. –xeno^talk 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC) striking/superscript at 18:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not confused. Please refrain from making any further personal comments about me or what you presume to be my mental state. Dlabtot (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I ask the same of you. Perhaps you would like to strike your above comments about disingenuity and disruptive unwillingness. –xeno^talk 18:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly will refrain from making personal comments about you or what I presume to be your mental state. Just as I asked you to. Dlabtot (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've amended my comment. I am still of the opinion that you are confused, since you're trying to say that I am disruptively unwilling to accept consensus. –xeno^talk 18:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all confused. If I recollect correctly, some weeks or months ago I answered an RfC about whether this article should include an inkblot image. Looking at the talk page, history, and archives, it is apparent that a clear consensus has been formed since then. Despite this, the arguments continue. Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this RFC is to determine whether Wikipedians think Rorschach images should be suppressed iff they accept there is a potential for harm. Perhaps you can answer that questions directly rather than complaining about the framing of the same. If the answer is no (i.e. "No, we shall not limit or otherwise restrict encyclopedic content even if it can be demonstrably shown to cause harm"), and the community agrees with you, then (in theory) no further debate on images will need to take place and the talk page can be free of the never-ending debate. My goal here is to bring an end to this long-running dispute. Nothing more, nothing less. –xeno^talk 18:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC) (FWIW, you recall incorrectly. You haven't visited this page before today. [14] It may have been an RFC at another forum though)

I can accept that you are unhappy with my response to your Request for Comment. Nevertheless, it is my response. I again repeat that I have no doubt that your filing of the RfC was meant in good faith and with the best of intentions. Dlabtot (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. –xeno^talk 18:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments - arb break 2

potential for harm is a nebuleuos phrase. In this specific instance, prior exposure can result in inaccurate/misleading scores. In this specific instance, the more one looks at the images, the more one sees in them. Unfortunately for test takers, there is a correlation between what one describes, and the degree of pathology that this test claims one has. That is where the harm, for this specific test comes. (Obviously I'm assuming that the test is valid in the first place, and the person who administers it, is competent to do so. On second thoughts, even if only one, or neither of those applied, but it was being given in an "official" capacity, the harm is still present, albeit magnified by the incomptence of the person administring the test, and/or the degree to which the test is invalid.)jonathon (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In short, I don't think potential for harm should be policy, but it might be a factor to consider, in determining the appropriateness of including/excluding specific data.jonathon (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How many kicks at the can?

Archived to /Archive 8#How many kicks at the can? - if necessary, continue discussion below

New arguments go here

Since the above section got filled with off-topic content unrelated to presenting new arguments I am roping off this section for people to present new arguments to the debate. Please keep this sub-section on topic by sticking to new arguments here, if you have anything else to say there are plenty of other threads. Chillum 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

David S Rohde argument

Okay, I admit, I saw the Slashdot article, but I'm not a newbie here.

There was a recent controversy over removing material at David S. Rohde because it would harm a person. While the possible death of a person is more serious harm than the harm caused by showing Rorschach inkblots, it raises some of the same issues. The Rohde case was also different because the New York Times complained and it was one of their own reporters (which I personally think of as a conflict of interest), and Jimbo personally intervened. Suppressing the information there and not suppressing information here has uncomfortable implications about whether we suppress information based on the importance of the person who complains about it. If we're going to be consistent, we should also suppress the inkblots. If we don't want to, perhaps we should rethink our policies on suppressing anything at all.

I've also complained about how policies seem to be written in absolutist ways that don't seem to allow for suppressing information. WP:IAR says it should only be used to improve the encyclopedia (and I can't honestly call protecting outsiders "improving the encyclopedia") and WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't seem to allow us to be censored in exceptional circumstances. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Slashdot debate [15]. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a very interesting comparison case. Perhaps the argument is refected here in terms of the "importance of the organisation" which complains. As far as I know neither APA nor BPS have directly complained (or even if they had, that the ordinary wikipedia editor would necessarily ever get to hear about it?). But I can't help thinking that the APA and BPS might find it hard to flex legal muscles in the same way that, say, a multinational corporation might. In contast, however, some of the argument here has been about protecting Wikipedia FROM unwanted "external forces" i.e. the expert clinicains who use the test and/or those professional bodies who represent them. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the vast majority of clinicians won't use this test anymore because it is considered to be so unreliable and unscientific. So the APA or the BPS won't comment because they by and large don't care. (Incidentally is there any evidence that either the APA or the BPS were complaining about this test in particular and not other tests?) JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your impression is quite understandable if your knowledge is limited to what is put out by the small number of Rorschach critics within the field (an example is this article:[16] )However, as noted in this wikipedia article, in surveys 80% of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services utilize the Rorschach, and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach it. The Rorschach has recently been used by forensic psychologists in 8,000 court cases, during which the appropriateness of the instrument was challenged only six times, and the testimony was ruled inadmissible in only one of those cases. The consensus within the field is clear that the test is useful and indeed it is used and taught frequently.Faustian (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The APA and BPS probably have very little clue about Wikipedia. Plus, they've already published ethical codes that are really quite clear on the matter.Mirafra (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't think looking at a smudge of ink is anywhere near as dangerous as being kidnapped by the Taliban. Chillum 01:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is not. But the principle is the same: causing harm.Faustian (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Name the individual in harm by showing a PD image. Resolute 03:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I will point out that the Rorschach is used commonly in forensic contexts (custody, dangerousness, fitness to stand trial, etc).Mirafra (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Argument for general disclosure of testing materials (after an appropriate time)

I've read through most of the previous discussions, but they are so voluminous that I may have missed this. But has the Pro argument ever been considered for the general disclosure of testing materials -- in ANY field where a test is used to evaluate a significant segment of the public -- after a reasonable time has elapsed? Of course tests must be kept secret for a reasonable period of time to preserve their norming and keep results consistent. But I fully believe that no field should have information that is kept secret indefinitely if it can have significant effects on the general public. This goes for SAT tests and IQ tests, as well as state secrets. Yes, keep the materials secret for a few years, perhaps even a few decades. But at some point, that information should be opened up and made easily accessible to all. It's the only way to allow checks and balances that prevent abuses of power, whether it's by a few high-level politicians or by a profession that controls major decisions made about people's lives through psychological evaluations.

I do not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with the Rorschach test. It isn't relevant to me whether it's complete pseudoscience or whether it's the best psychological test ever created. The fact is that the more people who are able to examine something, the greater likelihood that potential flaws may be detected and discussed. Also -- again, this is not at all a criticism of psychology -- but the history of science has shown that experts can often overlook, disregard, or even be completely blind to significant problems with research in their own field. I'd be making the same argument if civil engineers had some secret algorithm to compute bridge designs or if a plumbers' union had a secret set of rules they used to create the most efficient plumbing in a house. The fact is that most of the time the experts do know what they're doing, but if the public as a whole can't have access to evaluate it, there might be some serious flaws that have been overlooked or even deliberately ignored. I think this is definitely true in standardized test materials I've seen, where questions are often severely flawed and can have ambiguous answers. However, if the methodology behind the creation and evaluation of those questions is not available to the general public, those flaws will never be corrected. I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of most standardized IQ tests, professional personality tests, etc.

In an ideal world, I'd argue for a two-stage release of materials (first publishing them in a specialized location with less restricted access, and then in a completely public venue), since the rise of the internet creates special problems in information management. The first stage in the past would allow for an extended useful lifespan for test materials in most circumstances. But in the internet age, perhaps this is no longer possible. In any case, the Rorschach test is more than 75 years old. Sorry, but I simply can't see any good reason to keep ANY stuff secret for that long, let alone believing that any test could be kept valid and relevant over such a long time span. You want a properly normed test? Think ahead and norm a new test before the old one goes into the public domain. There are probably a hundred times as many psychologists active now as were in Rorschach's day -- how hard is it for someone to make up a new test that does a similar kind of thing (and in fact, somebody should be able to make one that does things BETTER)? People who use patent laws and copyright laws do the same thing (at least they used to before Disney corrupted the whole enterprise) -- they keep creating and progressing if they want to keep making money and being productive. Why should psychologists be any different? And don't give me any crap about "science" being privileged here; the fact is that secret information allow its users special power. Our trust in that power needs to be periodically examined and justified.

Lastly, for those who would argue that if the general public knows how a test works, its results are no longer valid -- so what? People learn and adapt. Maybe if the general public knew more about how psychological tests worked, they might actually improve themselves psychologically in some way. I don't know. Do psychologists know? In just about every other field, new generations require new tests to evaluate the new expectations, knowledge, and culture of the people who are being tested. Do psychologists really think that their ideas or tests have universal applicability for all time in a way that no other field does? Even periodic renorming cannot make a test valid forever; eventually the questions it answers become less relevant, and the field should move on to other tests or methodologies.

Apologies if some of this repeats what others have said. I don't think my main point has been made before in the abstract, however. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The information that would allow the general public to view and debate the scientific validity of the test is already readily available, in the scientific literature. A quick shot I just tossed at the major EBSCO databases (PsycInfo, etc) with the search "subject = Rorschach" yielded over 6000 hits. I appreciate your personal desire to create a set of standards for the use, revision, and renorming of test materials, but the professional world already does that as part of its dynamic peer-reviewed process, and from a far more well-researched point of view than "I can't believe that they still use that old thing." By the way, the current norms for the Comprehensive System aren't 70 years old -- the most recent revisions are in Exner, JE (2002). The Rorschach: Basic principles and foundations of interpretation, Vol. 1. NY:Wiley. Mirafra (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do note that you seem to assume that I am not familiar with scientific literature in the field of psychology. While it is not my primary discipline, I assure you that I am well-versed in some subdisciplines that overlap with my research. But that is irrelevant. Far from saying, "I can't believe that they still use that old thing," my argument is based not only on trends I have seen in psychology but in many other disciplines throughout the history of science. I am familiar with a number of general disciplines and even some subdisciplines within psychology itself where peer-review does not do its job effectively (for various reasons that I don't need to get into here). And at no point did I imply that there wasn't significant scientific literature on the subject, nor did I imply that there haven't been many renorming attempts over the decades for the Rorschach. I merely stated that the test *materials* themselves are old, and maybe after 75 or 80 years it would be better to design new materials to suit better and/or more specific purposes (as some have; I'm aware of that too) rather than simply collecting new data with old (and potentially flawed) stimuli. There aren't many other examples of specific materials remaining useful for over 75 years in the history of science in the last few centuries, that I'm aware of. Generally, over that span of time in a discipline, the specific interpretation and understanding of the details of how things work changes so much that significant modifications to previous materials are motivated, if for nothing else than because new understanding means that better methods and materials can be developed.

That said, again my primary argument was about the release of test materials (including tests, answers (if applicable), explanations of design, principles used for evaluation) to the general public after a certain period of time. If you note, I did argue that this information first be released in a more limited way (for example, in professional circles, then more generally), but 75 years seems a rather long lifespan to argue (as some of the professional associations apparently do) against widespread dissemination. Norming statistics and similar information is not enough, since statistics can easily be used incorrectly or even deliberately used to manipulate trends in data. Do I really mean to argue that professional psychologists are incompetent? Of course not. But the argument of "leave it to the professionals, who understand what's going on" sounds strikingly to me like the same arguments used to restrict access to state secrets. Everything should be open to more widespread oversight after a period of time; it serves as a check against the occasional myopia of the professionals. I admit that my concern is more about testing in general (whether it be IQ testing, personality testing, or SATs and GREs), but the argument for release of and easy access to detailed information after a reasonable amount of time is just as applicable here.65.96.161.79 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Recognition

The first image in particular has a somewhat iconic quality. I saw it some years ago - I don't remember the exact context, but I believe I was reading about Rorschach. Now that image in particular is associated in my mind with Rorschach and symmetric inkblots. Someone with a worse memory than me might see Rorschach mentioned somewhere, not remember who he was or why he was important, look it up here, and see the image and remember "oh, that's who he was". This is one reason to include images in general - not just to show people new to the subject what the subject looks like, but also to jog the memory of those with a vague recollection of the subject. --NE2 04:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Inline citation for inkblots needed

Archived to /Archive 8#Inline citation for inkblots needed - if necessary, continue discussion below

A note to the newly arrived editors

Archived to /Archive 8#A note to the newly arrived editors - if necessary, continue discussion below

Summary of archives

I understand that the archives for this debate are so incredibly huge that most people will simply not read it. Due to this I have dusted off an old piece of perl code I wrote that creates an index of a page by going through the history and watching when sections are removed. Here is an index of links to the last revision of each section that has ever been on this page before it was removed: User:Chillum/Rorschach test talk page archive. Chillum 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a repetitive read. Like watching a TV show during a writers strike. Chillum 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they don't read the archives, I guess we'll get a few more repetitions? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I indexed the archives, so that we don't have to reject all the same arguments for the nth time. Chillum 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oouy Veyy. This may go round and round forever. Perhaps we should stub image talk out like we do for Muhammad? Garycompugeek (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Forever is quite a long time. That's what we do is it? Like a used cigarette, you mean? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Image of Hermann Rorschach

Foregoing archived to /Archive 8#Image of Hermann Rorschach - if necessary, continue discussion below

Picture of Hermann Rorschach

I have found a better copy of the same picture of Hermann Rorschach than the one we had. I have replaced it. I hope we can all agree this is an improvement. Chillum 23:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. I always cringed at the grainy one. –xeno^talk 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Good find Chillum. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

US Copyright law

Archived to /Archive 8#US Copyright law - if necessary, continue discussion below

Sockpuppet investigation

Foregoing archived to /Archive 8#Sockpuppet investigation

• I've confirmed via email that Psychology12345 and Zeitgest are distinct users, and still have strong doubts that they are socks of any of the regulars here. I've also verified their assertion that they are indeed both students of the same graduate-level psychology programme. They've been unblocked with the understanding they should participate in the discussion rather than unilaterally remove images. –xeno^talk 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead para about ethics

Archived to /Archive 8#Lead para about ethics - if necessary, continue discussion below

Propose moving "removed the inkblot" debate to a sub page

Archived to /Archive 8#Propose moving "removed the inkblot" debate to a sub page - if necessary, continue discussion below

Further Discussions

Archived to /Archive 8#Further Discussions - if necessary, continue discussion below

Streisand effect

Archived to /Archive 9#Streisand effect - if necessary, continue discussion below

data on scientific status

1) The article has a lot of words about the validity and scientific status of the test, but nothign really concrete. are there any numbers or other objective data available ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.64.105 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

2) Although critique against anything sold under the robe science (e,g, the Rorschach test) it is important to try to give a more comprehensive picture of the scientific status. The main reference used in a major part of the "Controversy" section of the article is Wood, James M, M Teresa Nezworski, Acott O. Lilienfeld, and Howard N. Garb. "What's Wrong with the Rorschach?". San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sones, Inc., 2003. ISBN 0-7879-6056-X. It is weak to criticize with one voice - please improve the article by adding good sources. There must be more.

I agree we are lacking objective analysis on this. The Controversy Over Exner’s Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak is a document that may yield some hard numbers. It directly references studies done on the effectiveness of this test. Chillum 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the same critics that are a minority within the field...Faustian (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How significant a minority? Being completely honest on this question, do you see it as a significant minority, or only a fringe theory? Resolute 00:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's more of a small, but significant minority, than a fringe theory. Kind of like, global warming is caused by natural processes rather than by humans (versus global warming is caused by aliens).Faustian (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you support that statement? Has their work been debunked by any other studies you can refer to? The primary author Dr. James M. Wood is the professor of psychology at the University of Texas and has worked in the field since 1987, that sounds like a reliable source. Chillum 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the study "Rorschach Comprehensive System Data for 100 Nonpatient Children From the United States in Two Age Groups" by Hamel, Shaffer, & Erdberg 2000 also suffer from the same minority issues in your opinion? If not then do you have any references to studies on the accuracy of this test? Chillum 23:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiple studies have shown that in their writings Wood, Lilenfeld etc. play games with studies, such as describing 2 studies that support their view (i.e., poor reliability) and ignoring 10 that support the Rorschach. An example: [17]. Another example, from an article by J. Reid Meloy, just one part of Wood et al's "What's Wrong with the Rorschach" (Journal of Personality Assessment, volume 83, pp.344-346) addresses their claim that (p.251 of Lilienfeld's book on the Rorschach) "ten replication studies examined the relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. Nine of the ten found no significant relationship."

This may sound impressive. However, eight of the ten studies were doctoral dissertations that had never been peer reviewed and had never been published in scientific journals. Meloy wasn't familiar with all of those unpublished dissertations, but was on the committee of one of the ones cited by Wood et al as showing no significasnt relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. The dissertation did not include enough participants who were psychopathic to make this comparison. It therefore wasn't a valid study to use by Lilienfeld. It is thus mistaken (at best) or misleading (at worst)to use it as a counterexample.

The only study that was peer reviewed and published in a journal was the one that found a significant difference. The tenth study, one of only two published ones, appeared in a book chapter. It did indeed fail to find a significant difference between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths on reflective responses. Although the psychopaths produced three times as many reflective responses, this did not quite meet significance (p value was .07, just a bit higher than the .05 necessary for significance). Of course, none of these details were mentioned by Wood et al. Their absence confirms the conensus within the field that Lilienfeld are more interested in scoring polemic points than examining evidence objectively.

Those are just two studies debunking Wood's and Lilenfeld's work; there are many more.

Dr. James Wood's CV, btw, is not all that impressive: [18] (you have to click on it and download the MS Word program). Compare that to his critic J. Reid Meloy, considered a foremost expert in the field in terms of forensic work: [19].

This stuff is all confirmed by the fact that the the Rorschach continues to be very commonly used and commonly taught in the field.Faustian (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, this is brief, but will at least give you someplace to start, and it is extensively referenced. (2005). The status of the Rorschach in clinical and forensic practice: An official statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment 85:219-237. [20] Mirafra (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. As long as copyright laws are followed, Wikipedia has no reason to censor these images. Besides, many, if not most, of these images have appeared in psych textbooks for many years. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick reality check

Archived to /Archive 9#A quick reality check - if necessary, continue discussion below

Proposed policy by Danglingdiagnosis

Danglingdiagnosis has proposed a policy regarding possible concerns of health consequences as a result of Wikipedia articles. As it relates dirrectly to this article I have posted it here. See¨: here. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely unrelated, but...

...this is one of the most extensive discussions I've seen on a single topic, and I'm happy to see almost all of it was conducted civilly with little edit warring. That's how things should be done here, and regardless of the consensus you guys come up with, well done! :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While parties on both sides have been stubborn(for better or worse) there have been only occasional assumptions of bad faith, even less instances of incivility, and even less still edit warring. Compared to some debates I have been involved in, this has been very productive. Chillum 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A new look at old arguments

Some of the arguments that others have made center on the harm that might come from a posting of the images. From my perspective, the harm has clearly been established. The norms for the test in question were collected at great expense, time, and effort. These norms are based on individuals who have not previously seen these images. By widely disseminating these images, the Rorschach Test page on Wikipedia is contributing to the invalidation of those norms. This is, in effect, harming the legitimate financial interests of corporations who invested in those norms, but more importantly, the scientific community who uses them to perform basic research on issues related to the greater societal good such as the assessment of suicidality and thought disorders (i.e., psychosis). I will point out that relatively few tests exist that have been validated for these uses--the Rorschach has. Now, I believe that this is strong evidence for the harm that may be caused by continuing to post the images on Wikipedia. Because of this, it seems to me that the onus is now on those who would see them posted to prove that there is in fact no harm. The logic for why the potential for harm exists is enough for them to be removed in my opinion. It is now an empirical question as to whether they do, but until there is conclusive evidence that posting them will not cause harm, I would vote for caution and go with removing them.

The argument made by some that they are posted elsewhere on the internet is not really worthwhile. Most mothers, in raising their children, addressed this point by referencing the hypothetical situation of having all of your friends jump off a bridge. In case that is too cryptic, the point was, "Just because someone else is doing it doesn't make it a good idea (or correct)."

Finally, and I think this has to do with ethical issues as well, I would analogize this issue to what I imagine the issues are for the Wikipedia page for Pornography. Why does that page not include graphic images of pornography? Why no links to videos of pornography? An argument might be made that images of pornography would enrich the page and the coverage of the content. As it stands now, a user may not get an adequate notion for what they are talking about when they discuss pornography? Don't you think that a large number of people would like to see explicit images posted on that page? My assumption is that the some members in the community are offended by the posting of these images, right? I don't think that quoting some Wikipedia policy on nudity here would suffice to rebut this point, in fact it would merely augment it. The Rorschach images are exactly the same. A portion of the community, psychologists and allied professionals, are offended by Wikipedia's refusal to curtail the posting of what we see as protected test material. It is as if there has been a gross exposure of images that should remain outside of the public view, for ethical reasons I might add.

For these reasons, it is clear to me that the debate should end, consensus or not, and the Rorschach images should be replaced with non-official exemplars of what an inkblot looks like. Dolphinfin (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to develope norms in people who have already seen the images. That would be the most responsible and ethical thing to do. Hopefully this controversy will promot this.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious misconception among those who do not understand psychological testing that a set of norms solves most of the problems associated with improper exposure to the Rorschach images. It has been argued (unbelievably) in another section of this talk page that a new set of inkblots could easily be normed and all the problems will be resolved. Now it is being posited that a set of norms for those who have prior exposure to the image will effectively eliminate the problems with test validity and prior exposure. The reality is, to those who have had a modicum of training in psychological testing, norms only scratch the surface in the development of a useful psychological test. Exner developed his set of norms on the Rorschach, but those norms had little meaning if there was no research base for interpreting the meaning of the test scores. That only came about after many years of research that used those norms and applied them to hundreds of behavioral and personality characteristics. The Rorschach (nor any good psychological test, such as the Wechsler intelligence scales) did not suddenly become a valuable psychometric instrument simply because norms were collected. If that was the case, we could easily produce hundreds of new psychological tests at very little cost. Norms only start the process. The real value of the test only develops after lots and lots of research that comes after the norms. So no, it's not true that a set of norms on those who have prior exposure to Rorschach images would do very much to improve the Rorschach. That would only come after several hundred research studies based on those norms. As for the statement that this controversy on this talk page will prompt collection of another set of norms ... dream on. A number of major researchers involved with the Rorschach have been laboring intensively for more than a decade trying to develop a new set of international norms, as well as a new set of norms for children. It has been an excruciatingly difficult process because collecting norms is very challenging and very expensive and time consuming. So this discussion's impact on whether any new norms will be developed will, at the very most, be a drop in the bucket. Ward3001 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolphinfin, you make a few points I would like to quickly address...

• That harm has been clearly established: The fact that reasonable people disagree would seem to disagree that it is clear. While, yes, the presentation of the images on the related article page may "[harm] the legitimate financial interests of corporations who invested in those norms" the financial interests of corporations are not a realistic benchmark. If it were Wikipedia itself could be considered doing harm to encyclopedia publishers and many articles about numerous subjects could be considered harmful to one entity or another.
• The onus should be on those to prove there is no harm: It is a logical fallacy to prove a negative. More so, in discussions of censorship the norm is to place the burden of proof and harm on the side of those that wish to remove or censor the material.
• Rorschach images vs. pornographic images: That is, for all intents and purposes a closed debate (and also a classic example of the censorship debate I mentioned above). Those that believe pornography should be censored have proved their arguments in the public sphere and Wikipedia operates under that consensus. The debate we are having here is (hopefully) moving toward a consensus about these images, but until that consensus is reached, comparing what Wikipedia does with pornography to what is being done with the Rorschach test images is apples and oranges.
• Psychologists and allied professionals, are offended by Wikipedia's refusal to curtail the posting...: While psychologists and allied professionals may be offended about this issue, I'm sure I could find an article here on Wikipedia that would offend me. If all "offensive" articles were edited to make everyone happy, then this would be a very small Wikipedia, indeed. That said, the offense is not a slur or attack against psychological professions, but a presentation of fact, the dissemination of which causes upset. No where in Wikipedia's rules is there a clause for removing factual information because someone or some party wants to keep it secret.
• ...of what we see as protected test material: While you may see it as protected test material, the copyright on the images has, in fact, lapsed. The APA, nor any other professional organization, has any right to use these images any more than a member of the public. They are in the public domain. While psychological professionals may not like this fact, it is the crux of most of this argument, that a portion of the test materials (the images, but not any other related materials that may still be under copyright) is freely and rightfully accessible to the public, and, as such, can be used responsibly in academic and informational settings, or they can even be used irresponsibly in any number of fashions.

In the end, from everything I have ready here over the last few days, I believe that this argument at Wikipedia likely will rest on the grounds that: because the images are in the public domain, and because there is not a consensus, or even vigorous public debate, in the society at large (as one does find in the discussion of pornography), these images will end up remaining on the related article page. --Raukodraug (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Social Irresponsibility

Is Wikipedia a socially responsible entity? Here is the intro to the Wikipedia page on Social Responsibility: Social responsibility is an ethical or ideological theory that an entity whether it is a government, corporation, organization or individual has a responsibility to society. This responsibility can be "negative", meaning there is a responsibility to refrain from acting (resistance stance) or it can be "positive," meaning there is a responsibility to act (proactive stance).

I believe that the display of these images, at the insistence of relatively few individuals operating on this page, constitutes a socially irresponsible stance towards this test and the images. I believe that it is socially irresponsible because it is at the expense of a marginalized and often persecuted group of people (i.e., mental health patients).

Whether policy or Wikipedia rules exist to support the presentation of the full set of images on this page is irrelevant, the choice to do so is socially irresponsible, and we as members of society, often agree that certain behavior can be prohibited based on this criterion (e.g., yelling fire in a crowded theater, it harms no one directly, but there is a potential for harm).

I would ask those who are in favor of maintaining the images on the page, is your curiosity (or whatever it is that is motivating you) worth more than a parent's ability to have their adolescent child validly administered this test as part of a difficult differential diagnosis assessment? If so, please let me hear your arguments below. I would be interested to know what you see as more important than that. Dolphinfin (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ISNOT your socio-culturally localised idea of appropriate behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those who actually administer difficult differential diagnosis assessments are no doubt aware that the images can be obtained at libraries. I'd assume that most of us agree that teenagers should be chased there wherever possible? Although many local libraries are suffering from budget cuts, thankfully almost all now at least have means to obtain online access to provide some resources that would otherwise be unavailable. Then again, I suppose some libraries (and perhaps some who try to administer difficult differential diagnosis assessments) may differ in their policies. Steveozone (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone is on the internet then the images are already well available to them. If they typed Rorschach test into google then would have found the images. You can't put an egg back into the shell. Chillum 13:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, let's reduce Wikipedia to the lowest common denominator on the internet. If something is "already well available" then it certainly belongs in Wikipedia. The previous gold standard (producing a quality encyclopedia, such as Britannica) should be replaced by the new gold standard: let's emulate the vast number of useless, incompetent, and/or dangerous websites that are now abundant on the internet. Ward3001 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the point could be argued that presenting the images in context with documented, verifiable, and vetted information about the test is, in fact, a more responsible way to present them than the way the may be found elsewhere, be it on the internet or in the library.

In other words, the images are out there and, if someone is looking, they will be found. I would much rather have the interested party learn about the test as a whole than simply find the images elsewhere on the web and draw incorrect or ill-informed conclusions about their use and importance.

As for the general points about social responsibility, I would look at the points in context of the Wikipedia project. When someone is searching Wikipedia they are looking for information about a topic. Removal of the images would remove valid information about the topic (while some argue the value of the images as information, their validity in connection to the Rorschach test isn't really in question). If the Wikipedia project is tasked with, and expected to, present valid and verifiable information on a topic, then it could be argued that it would be irresponsible to suppress the inclusion of the valid and verifiable images.

To directly address Dolphinfin's point about having the test validly administered to a adolescent, let me ask another question... as a parent of two children, if a psychologist were to approach me about administering this test to one of my kids, shouldn't I, as a parent, be able to research and find good information, including the images, so that I may make a responsible decision about the proper care for my child? And wouldn't removing the images be socially irresponsible in the context of Wikipedia being a source of information for many casual researchers and interested parties. --Raukodraug (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Raukodraug, if your adolescent (or for that matter, an adult member of your family) was suicidal but not telling anyone, and if the Rorschach could detect that (which in some cases can occur), and if your adolescent was hesitant to take the Rorschach, would it be a good idea to show the images in the Wikipedia article to your adolescent so that he could see that it's only harmless inkblots? Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would I show my kids? No. Would I want to see for myself before it was administered to one of my kids? Hell yes I would. It is my job to protect my children and, to do so, there is information that I learn and do research on that I never show them, but that still effects the decisions I make to protect them.

More so, the fallacy here is that if they are suicidal and not telling anyone... then who's administering the test??? Really, if the Rorschach test were the only tool psychologists had to diagnose mental illness then this whole argument might be turning a different direction, but it's not. In fact, it's not even close. If Wikipedia were printing the contents of the DSM-IV then I might question the idea, but these images are near 80 years old and the scoring system is nearly 50 years old.

In fact, if a psychologist wanted to use the Rorschach test on one of my girls what would I say? I would probably ask the psychologist why he/she is using a test with such questionable validity on my child? And I'd expect a damn good answer. --Raukodraug (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Would I show my kids? No. Would I want to see for myself before it was administered to one of my kids?": OK, what if an adult who is in treatment but not acknowledging his suicidal thoughts? If that person is curious about the test, is it a good idea for him to look up the images in the Wikipedia article?

"More so, the fallacy here is that if they are suicidal and not telling anyone... then who's administering the test??? ": Sorry, but this comment makes little sense. People with suicidal ideation (and sometimes intent, acknowledged retrospectively) often are administered psychological tests when they show up in a psychologist's office because of depressive or other serious mental health symptoms, even if they do not acknowledge suicidality. I see no "fallacy".

"if the Rorschach test were the only tool psychologists had to diagnose mental illness then this whole argument might be turning a different direction, but it's not.": Does that mean that if we have one diagnostic tool that might do a fair job of identifying serious mental illness, then we don't need to worry about the value of another tool that could add to the diagnostic precision or effectiveness? Does that mean if a simple interview can sometimes lead to an accurate diagnosis, then we don't need psychological tests at all?

"If Wikipedia were printing the contents of the DSM-IV then I might question the idea": Do you believe the DMS-IV does a better job of identifying all important aspects of mental illness than the Rorschach? Do you believe that DSM-IV has never had any serious challenges to its accuracy and effectiveness in diagnosis?

"the scoring system is nearly 50 years old": A gross inaccuracy. Take a quick look at the Rorschach literature over the past 30 years. The coding and interpretive system have been under constant revision, including within the past four years. Ward3001 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The images themselves are not necessary to answer client questions about the purpose, adminstration, use, and interpretation of the test. Professionals talk with clients all the time about the tests they plan to use. But we do not show them the tests themselves ahead of time. We explain what the items are like, or we use sample items that are not on the test. To show them actual items would be unnecessary and could potentially interfere with the usefulness of the data the tests would yield. You don't demand that the College Board let you see all the items on the SAT before you sign up, do you?

Raukodrag, the current system is very current, with the most recent edition of the scoring system being published in 2005. Oh, and the diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV-TR are available (by permission from the publishers) on the Internet already.

What does a professional say? Personally, I say that I find that the Rorschach is a very useful tool for understanding people in a holistic way, and that my experience and that of my colleagues, as well as that of a very large body of scientific research, has been that, although it has rotten face validity and seems almost silly, it turns out to be extremely useful for actually answering the questions that brought that person in for assessment in the first place. No one forces anyone to take any test -- if the kid refuses to participate in the process, then fine, we'll work with the information we can get through other means, and we'll do our best. But we don't generally ask our auto mechanics to explain what wrenches they use -- if you don't trust the professional, find one you do trust.

Hm. I've been restraining myself from explaining more fully about why psychologists want to keep tests secure, but it doesn't seem to be getting through to many folks in this discussion what the nature of the harm is that we're talking about and why we think that WP should conform to the usual encyclopedia practice of not publishing protected tests. Psychologists use tests, not just the Rorschach, but many protected tests, to make high-stakes decisions about individuals. Some of those individuals are seriously mentally ill, and some of them are dangerous to themselves or others. They're very often the folks behind scary or tragic headlines. Test security is protected in order to increase the likelihood that the psychologists can make good decisions, preferably before the headline stage.

Some common examples... 'This individual has a history of violence against his children. He is now petitioning the court to regain custody of those children. The court would like an expert opinion as to whether that is a safe bet.' 'This individual has been hospitalized for suicidality. The insurance company wants her released soon, but we need to have a clue as to how likely it is that she is still a danger to herself.' 'This individual is on trial for a crime, and his attorney contends that he does not understand the charges against him and cannot participate effectively in his own defense. The court would like an expert opinion as to whether he's competent to stand trial or whether he's just faking it.' 'This individual has been convicted of repeated counts of sexual violence. However, he has served his term and is due to be released to the community. The court would like an opinion as to whether he remains dangerous to others and what level of supervision would be appropriate.' Often, what the psychologist finds helps create a more compassionate plan for the individual. While it's never possible to make these decisions with absolute confidence, having more secure instruments helps the process a lot. I'm not trying to raise scare tactics here -- previous attempts to make this point about the nature of the potential harm have not been heard. Mirafra (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Raukodraug, If you are actually concerned about a test, I would suggest discussing it with the practitioner who is proposing it. This is what you might do with an oncologist or gastroenteroligist who is suggesting a colonoscopy. This test is a useful clinical tool, and has shown effects sizes for some things that are higher than tests you trust to work quite well, like the Pap smear (here is the link [21] you can compare the Rorschach and other psychological tests to common medical tests by their effects sizes in that PDF. As others have pointed out above, you do not need to see the images to evaluate reliability or validity of the test. I would again admonish you to discuss any test you are taking with a professional first. I would agree that they should give you a good rationale and discuss any dangers or concerns. You do not need to see the blots for that purpose. The analogy to the SAT above is the correct one. We agree that these test times can remain secret because they serve a society purpose. Others may think that the SAT can be used to keep worthwhile kids out of college, but that isn't the point. As for the DSM (I through IV-TR) these never have been, nor ever will be secret. These are diagnostic criteria and have no strong reason to be protected.Dolphinfin (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A Consideration on Harm, Protection of Test Materials, and the Use of the Images in Question

Thanks for all the users who have given their thoughtful comments in the above sections in response to my previous posts.

Up above (in Arguments Pro) I questioned who was harmed and in what manner. I now realized that the two groups I recognized as potentially being harmed (those in need of psychological evaluation and those performing the said evaluation) were both slightly off the mark. In the posts above I see that the harm being done is to the test itself and it's usability and validity in respect to the public availability of the images. With the harm that is done to the test's usability and validity by the images public display, the desire to protect the test materials becomes a very real concern for professional organizations such as the APA and members of those organizations. As such, the concerns presented here are very real and very appropriate.

Here's the grand problem. It is not the posting or presentation of the images that is causing the harm. The harm was inflicted upon the test when the images lost their copyright protected status and entered the public domain. At that moment, the core of the test became freely, and appropriately, available to the public. I'm not sure who the copyright holder was, but in failing to secure the continued protection of the images, the APA and psychological professionals have been place in an unenviable position attempting to censor the appearance of the image in public.

Many of the arguements presented in favor of removing the images make perfect sense in respect to the question of whether the test is useful and whether the test materials should be protected. When approaching the question from that direction I find no real debate. Sadly, a significant portion of the test materials were not protected and now are in the public domain, and none of the arguements I've seen presented have really answered to the copyright/public domain question. And that is the foundation of the usage question.

While it really concerns me that these images were allowed to fall into the public domain (and it worries me that such a useful test has been harmed by neglect/oversite on part of the copyright holder or his designary), the images are directly tied to the article and have value in presenting accurate illustrative information. Therefore, unless an immensely convincing arguement can be presented that challenges the use of the images under the public domain... an argument that, in all reality, would need to be a legal argument challenging the images' current public domain status... then I don't see a point at which the images will be permanently removed. In fact, without legally changing the public domain status of the images, the battle to keep them out of the public eye is one that cannot be won, because the images will always be freely disseminated and those wishing to keep them out of sight will always be a step behind.

Psychological professionals and organizations have a right to be upset and angry about this issue... but the anger and action needs to be in the direction of those that failed to protect the copyright status of the images and not those that use the images to legitimately illustrate and present useful information to the public. --Raukodraug (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Raukodraug, some of your points are accurate, but you yourself are off the mark in some of your comments, perhaps because previous comments from other editors did not adequately explain some of the details. First, regardless of the issue of copyright, the harm isn't just to the test. The harm is to the patients who could be served by the benefits of information acquired from the test. If you have a contaminated medical test, the harm isn't just to the test; you also are harmed. Secondly, the publisher of the Rorschach test has no culpability regarding copyright. The images were created by Hermann Rorschach, and the copyright to the images expired a certain period after his death. The publisher of the Rorschach test has never had a copyright on the images; it only had trademark on the test itself. In other words, I cannot legally sell the Rorschach test without violating the rights of the publisher, but I can legally reproduce the images because they are not copyrighted. There is a difference. (Incidentally, no responsible psychologist would administer the test from images not acquired from the publisher because of the possibility that the psychometric soundness of the test could be compromised in doing so.) Thirdly, it isn't just the professionals and organizations who have a right to be angry because of any harm; it is also the patients who have been deprived of better care that can result from valid test results. And finally, the argument that the damage was done when the copyright expired has some merit, but it does not exonerate Wikipedia (or anyone else) in whatever reponsibility it has for being the vehicle for the harm. There have been legitimate disagreements in this discussion (including in the archives) regarding Wikipedia's ethical responsibilities in that regard, but whatever responsibility Wikipedia has, it is not reduced by the fact that the images are in the public domain. The old saying "two wrongs don't make a right" applies; the fact that other sources may have inflicted harm does not reduce Wikipedia's additional responsibility for adding to that harm (whatever that responsibility might be). Ward3001 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1. You place the harm to the patient, but that harm comes from using a compromised test. The test was compromised when the images entered into the public domain. That brings me back to the point that the harm is to the test in the form of it being compromised. A patient is only harmed when a practitioner chooses to use a test that has been compromised.

2. I do understand that the copyright to the images were held by the creator, but that copyright can be transferred to a rightsholder (often an heir or a foundation) which can retain the legal right to renew copyright. Because this wasn't done harm came to the test.

3. True, patients can also be angry... but as with the professionals and organizations, their anger should be directed at the entity that allowed the test to be compromised... the original copyright holder.

I understand that some may wish to argue that Wikipedia is doing harm by displaying these images. Those who wish to do so will continue to do so. But I want to point out one very important thing... These images belong to the public. They belong to everyone. No one person, organization or entity has any right to censor the images. Even for the public's own good. (And to head off a discussion of pornography... those images are censored by what amounts to social consensus not any single person, organization, or entity.)

Argue all you want about whether Wikipedia furthers the harm to the test, because it's a moot point. Wikipedia did not and compromise the test, nor did any other site on the internet. This compromise occurred when the images entered the public domain. Some may not like the fact this occurred and may want to blame sites like Wikipedia and accuse them of harming the test and patients, but that is little more that blaming the messenger. Blame needs be laid where blame is due.

Finally, I am truly sorry that the test has been compromised. It was a useful test. But from here forward I will consider the Rorschach test compromised. Any harm to a patient from the use of a compromised test falls on the shoulders of a practitioner choosing to use the compromised instrument. --Raukodraug (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• "You place the harm to the patient, but that harm comes from using a compromised test": Nonetheless, Wikipedia can cause harm (regardless of whether other sources cause harm) when it exposes the images.
• "that copyright can be transferred to a rightsholder (often an heir or a foundation) which can retain the legal right to renew copyright. Because this wasn't done harm came to the test."": Only partially correct, and it misses my most important point in that regard. The copyright was held by the Rorschach family until a specific period of time after H. Rorschach's death. There is a limit to renewal of copyright. That's why books go into the public domain at a certain point, even when all the possible copyrights have been upheld as long as possible. The copyright to the images existed until it was no longer legally possible to maintain the copyright. This has been argued repeatedly here and is a simple matter of copyright law that has been confirmed by legal experts who edit here. Copyrights cannot be held indefinitely. Read Copyright (and please keep in mind that Wikipedia must primarily follow the laws of the United States since it's main servers and its corporate structure reside primarily in the United States). The fact that the copyright to the images expired was not due to anyone's negligence, including the Rorschah family or the pubishers of the Rorschach test. To try to shift blame to either of those clouds the issue.
• "their anger should be directed at the entity that allowed the test to be compromised": That would be the creators of copyright laws that do not allow endless renewals of copyright. That's not exactly an easy target for a patient's anger.
• "Argue all you want about whether Wikipedia furthers the harm to the test, because it's a moot point": It's a moot point from the point of view that Wikipedia does not violate the law. It is not a moot point regarding whatever responsibility Wikipedia might have not to further any harm. As I said previously, there have been legitimate disagreements about what extent Wikipedia has such a responsibility, but you again have clouded the issue by making a blanket statement that "it's a moot point." It depends on whether you're talking about the law or talking about ethics. If you want to argue that Wikipedia has no ethical responsiblity here, you're entitled to your opinion. But don't try to present your opinion as irrefutable fact. It is a fact that Wikipedia does not violate the law by displaying the images. It is an opinion that Wikipedia has no ethical obligation to exercise some control over display of the images.
• "Any harm to a patient from the use of a compromised test falls on the shoulders of a practitioner choosing to use the compromised instrument": And prior to that, it falls on the shoulders of those who decide to display the images, including those who do so on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I present to thee a hypothetical organized religion centered around H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos. One of the central tenets of the religion is that those who aren't properly, slowly introduced to the ways of the Great Old Ones by a licensed priest become corrupted - that those who have read central parts of the stories in their native tongue cannot have their eternal soul saved by the church's ministrations. All information offered is restricted in the organization until one has attained the proper level of committment and training. Now, all of Lovecraft's works have entered into the public domain recently, in (death+70 years) countries. Does Wikipedia publish detailed (but forbidden) incantations that are necessary for an ignorant but interested reader to get a grasp of the religion? Even if some consider Wikipedia to do great harm by releasing this information, doesn't Wikipedia have a duty not to restrict access to publicly available, public domain content based on such opinions? The above example could just as easily (given different copyright circumstances) be a set of objects used to divine the next Dalai Llama, the secrets of Scientology, the number of days that marijuana shows up in a drug test, or publicly accessible details of a crime, knowledge of which the police would prefer to use to identify the perpetrator. There are great numbers of things certain people would rather not have on wikipedia, and proving harm to some interested party is frankly immaterial to the mission of wikipedia. Only in the grossest cases of direct danger (such as a kidnapped journalist), and only then in the worst of references (local Afghan sources) is deliberate censorship ever approved of by the userbase.173.66.253.109 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... a hypothetical argument. Perhaps it might be more constructive if we applied ourselves to the issue at hand. I like agile minds, though. Welcome to our discussion.

As for censorship, how do you feel about a proposed compromise to add a hide/show button that surrounds images? Is that still censorship? Or is that something else for which we have no word? You may be better equipped than I am to explain it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a really good idea to me. It doesn't make any censorship statement - it's simply quietly doing a little "favor" to some readers - and it doesn't mean adding a WP:Disclaimer, even though it has about the same advantages as one (makes it hard to look at the images by mistake if you didn't mean to). --LjL (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see ;Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots? For many reasons the community has shot this proposal down.

Archived to /Archive 7#Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots? Garycompugeek (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I've seen any arguments that hold any water in there. Censorship? No, it's not, they can be seen at the click of a button. Spoiler warning? No, it's not, many things are hidden by default on Wikipedia articles, for reasons that can simply be down to compacting the article; this wouldn't be a spoiler warning or a disclaimer. If the original author of this article had decided to hide the images by default (possibly because he thought they'd take up too much space), would anyone have complained? I suspect not. So to question the motives when the end result itself is perfectly neutral is gratuitous. --LjL (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This idea has been shot down both repeatedly and recently. Chillum 13:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Trust me, the community is very strongly against hiding content in this fashion. Using the show/hide function to obscure material someone finds offensive has been deemed incompatible with the community's goals. Resolute 14:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Then surely there is a guideline about that? Because I don't think ideas can be "shot down", nor is the consensus very clear from this talk page (perhaps because there's been so much discussion about the whole issue). Most of the more valid points I've seen were about having a disclaimer ("clicking Show may invalidate the results"), not about having a hidebox in itself; I do not propose a disclaimer. Perhaps we should take a WP:straw poll to get an idea what the actual consensus about using a show/hide button might look like? --LjL (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are also technical issues with browsers that would further complicate it, but know it has been thoroughly considered and repeatedly rejected. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Technical issues which, apparently, do not prevent hiding other content when it's done for other reasons...? Since that's something that's quite routinely done. And sorry if I won't just believe you word on this being a "dead horse". I've read what I could find, and I see neither consensus nor convincing arguments. Perhaps I'm not reading the right stuff. --LjL (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hideboxes don't print properly. The only content we put in hideboxes on articles are navboxes, which are quite useless on paper. –xeno^talk 14:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about collapsible tables? --LjL (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hideboxes are just an easy way of making a collapsible table. –xeno^talk 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was saying, I think: that collapsible tables are similar and aren't merely used on navboxes (or at least, the help page makes no mention of that, and I've seen a number of articles where they're used in other places). --LjL (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to an article that puts encyclopedic content in a drop-down? I think this has only very recently achieved consensus for some very lengthy court documents. –xeno^talk 14:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, no, I don't have specific articles in mind, I was just under the impression I had seen a few articles with collapsible tables; I suppose I might be confusing it with other languages Wikipedias. If collapsible tables and hideboxes are generally not supposed to be used at all for almost any reason here, then I agree that they definitely shouldn't be used on this article, either. --LjL (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found the guideline you were probably thinking about at MOS:SCROLL. I believe it does apply to the case in question, and therefore I withdraw any support for having a hide/show thingie: it's clearly against guidelines. --LjL (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_7#Include_Not_In_a_Dropdown_box. We just went through all of this. There was a specific consensus against hiding them in a dropdown box. Chillum 14:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not weigh in on that discussion. Perhaps consensus can change. I'm not a javascript expert, but I understand from you that there are technical problems with some browsers. I'm wondering if there are ways around the problem. If not all browsers support this function, then perhaps we could provide directions where people can download a browser that is capable of performing the task, much like is done with PDF files. Or if that seems too burdensome, then we can avoid javascript altogether and simply use a link to a gallery page. Every browser can perform a simple hyperlink function, right? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

But making a separate article devoid of text and only containing the images would violate various guidelines against such pages. And if User:xeno is right about hidden/collapsed "popups" not being allowed aside from when the text is only navigational, then I really don't think we should make an exception for one article. --LjL (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The seperate article could be about the inkblots. How the creator of the test selected them, made them, etc. while this one could be about the test.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That'd be a compromise solution, but you'll have to admit it's a bit contrived... and there is a downside: having detailed descriptions of the inkblots and of the reasons they were designed like that would likely skew the results of the test much more of a test subject came to read that! I'd personally like to have that information included, but I think the don't-disclose "camp" wouldn't... ;-) --LjL (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it wouldn't absolve any of us of our ethical responsibilities under the APA code of ethics. Mirafra (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop thinking about how inkblots are used in a psychologist office. How about an article about inkblots in general, which includes a specific section on Rorschach inkblots. I've long thought that we need to add prose that describes the "real-world" context of the images. I'm thinking about cultural influences. Andy Warhol did some work with inkblots, didn't he? I just love articles that tell me things that I should know but don't. Like how many movies did I see that showed some inkblot in it? I don't know. But I promise you there's somebody in Wikipedia who can fill us in on that cultural item of interest. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What? "Our ethical responsibilities under the APA code of ethics"? Speak for yourself, please... I'm not bound by any APA code of ethics; I'm not even American, which is the first word in APA if I'm not mistaken. I consider myself bound by Wikipedia policies, that's all. --LjL (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious from context. Us = WP editors who are also professionals with expert knowledge of cognitive and projective testing, who are bound by the APA code of ethics, or the codes of ethics of our respective countries' professional associations. The ones with the other consensus.Mirafra (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Our conflict of interest policy makes it clear that it is not appropriate to put personal or professional interests above the interests of Wikipedia when editing here. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Chillum 12:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say something along those lines too. Don't you think that, even though you (as in the group of people are you defined) tend to say "censorship" or this content would be in line with Wikipedia policy, the reality is that it's really against the spirit of them, and you're acting in a conflict of interests between them and the APA code? If that is the case, and the result is that you do not feel like you can contribute to the article while abiding to the APA code, then that is unfortunate, but it is also, in my opinion, the correct course of action to take. --LjL (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not the posting or presentation of the images that is causing the harm. The harm was inflicted upon the test when the images lost their copyright protected status and entered the public domain

By that reasoning if you hurt someone in any way that is legal, the harm was done by the law making it legal, rather than by you. That's absurd; people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions. The fact that those actions are legal isn't an excuse. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding conflict of interest: please review the page. There is no conflict of interest, as defined by wikipedia guideline, when psychologist editors seek to bring their ethics into the equation. Read the guideline. It states in bolded words, Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. If the aims of the editor is to imporve wikipedia - which would mean creating conditions in which experts would want to contribute - than incorporating ethical principles into articles would inded be advancing the aims of wikipedia. Moreover, the specific examples cited on the guidline page as conflicts of interests involve self-promotion, autobiography, financial motives, legal antagonism, promotional articles on behalf of clients, campaigning and close relationships. Nothing remotely similar to editors following ethical codes and being informed by ethics.

As in the case of consensus (where people claim there is "consensus" because more people want things doen one way instread of a different way), this seems to be the case in which some editors follow the dictionary definition of the word rather than actual wikipedia usage.Faustian (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That is WP:Wikilawyering, seriously. You claim that since you're making it possible for APA-affiliated "expert" editors to edit the article (while they're really just making a choice by not editing it, assuming they don't), then you're improving Wikipedia even though you're actually removing "neutral, reliably sourced" (WP:COI) information to advance "outside interests" and "the aims of an individual editor" (WP:COI again). You're not improving anything, you're just (in your very debatable opinion) making it more likely that other people will improve it. No, I won't buy that.

As for "consensus", there is clearly no consensus to remove the images. "The community will in general not be prepared to remove content on grounds of being objectionable to some people" (WP:Options to not see an image). That's the consensus. --LjL (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not calling for removal of material but for presenting it in a different way (i.e., like not in the article's lead). The conflict of interest page is very clear in defining what conflict of interest is. I'll post the definition her ein its entirety for those unwilling to follow the link:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.

There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously

This definition is followed by examples I provided earlier - self promotrion, autobiographny, etc. None of the examples in the conflict of interest page, nor the definition, resembles this situation. If I was adding material about my private practice, or plugging a book I wrote, onto a wikipedia page, this would clearly be a conflict of interest according to wikipedia's guidleine. If there were an article about me or a company I worked for, and I was editing the article, this would also be a conflict of interest. If I was editing an article about my best friend, this would be a conflict of interest. If I had a particular personal interest in, say the New York Yankees and was making edits that overemphaized this team on baseball related pages, this would be a conflict of interest (promotong personal interests at the expense of nuetrality). OTOH, using my ethical or moral code to inform me as I edit is not a conflict of interest, as defined by the wikipedia guideline. As long as I edit in good faith with the aim of improving wikipedia (rather than promoting myself or my ideas etc.) there is no conflict of interest.Faustian (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from a designated representative

Split from /2009-06 Arguments Pro#6

As a designated representative for both the Society for Personality Assessment and the International Society for Rorschach and Projective Methods (also know as the International Rorschach Society), I wish to respond to the discussion regarding the decision to include reproductions of the Rorschach plates in the Wikipedia article on the Rorschach Test. Because the web discussion is already lengthy, I shall limit my comments to a few salient arguments that have been raised in favor of the continued publication of the Rorschach inkblot images.

The images are available elsewhere; therefore publishing them on Wikipedia can do no harm. This appears to be a version of the “everyone’s doing it” argument. One of the previous discussants made the point that this argument is like saying that because my neighbor doesn’t recycle, I shouldn’t either. Wikipedia can only control what it publishes, not what is published elsewhere. Given the fact that it is one of the first sites most Internet users consult for information, it does make a significant difference whether the images are made available here or not. Many people who are about to be tested will naturally turn to Wikipedia to get some basic information on the test. As it stands right now, everyone who does so will be exposed to all 10 inkblots whether they intended for this to happen or not.

Assessment professional can just use some other set of plates if these become too familiar to the general public. This particular set of images has been in continuous clinical use since 1921. Decades of research around the world involving tens of thousands of clinical and empirical studies provide the foundation for its use in clinical and forensic practice. Although some of the same scoring and interpretive methods could theoretically be applied to some other set of inkblots, extensive clinical and scientific knowledge concerning how people with different personality characteristics and problems respond to the particular characteristics of these specific set of images could simply not be transferred to any other set of images.

It does no harm to show the images. The crux of this argument is that there is no hard evidence that prior familiarity with the Rorschach images affects the results of testing. Our response takes two forms, one scientific and one ethical. The ethical one has to do with the assessment of risk. The question is whether in the case of potential harm we act to avoid the potential danger or wait until it has been confirmed and it is too late? As an analogy, the Food and Drug Administration requires drug manufacturers to demonstrate that their products are safe before allowing them on the market. They do not allow untested drugs to be sold until they have been “proven” to be harmful. In essence, the prevention of harm is the greater good. In the case of the publication of the Rorschach plates, we believe that the potential harm to those who might be assessed as well as to the practice of assessment professionals by invalidating one of its most important instruments is greater than the loss in information about the specific appearance of the inkblots to the general public.

As for the scientific argument, it is an established principle in psychological assessment that familiarity with test instruments, along with the opportunity to practice responses, renders the interpretation of the results difficult, if not impossible. The test as currently used was developed and normed all over the world in situations where the test taker was encountering the inkblots as a novel stimulus, one at a time in a fixed series and in a professional setting. We know very little about how our normative and diagnostic expectations should shift for people who can identify percepts on the blots based on their prior casual familiarity with the images. More important still, the more people encounter these online, the more likely they are to talk about them and play with them, at which point what basis can we have for assuming that the percepts they report are really their own? Further, while there are no studies that measure the effects of viewing the plates on the Internet, data from the study of malingering has consistently shown that familiarity with test materials is one of the better predictors of an ability to “fake” a psychological test (see: Ganellen, R. (2008) Rorschach assessment of malingering and defensive response sets. In C. Gacono and F.B. Evans, Handbook of Forensic Rorschach Assessment, p. 89-119). In addition, in the same volume, Viglione and Meyer noted that the short-term test-retest reliability of many Rorschach variables was only moderate, owing in large measure to situational variables. It is not hard to extrapolate to the effects of prior exposure to the Rorschach images in ways other than a formal assessment (Viglione, D. and Meyer, G. An overview of Rorschach psychometrics for forensic practice. Op. cit., p. 21-53).

The test is worthless anyway. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether it is appropriate for lay editors without any expertise in psychology to decide unilaterally the validity or utility of a professional instrument, this statement is clearly unfounded. The overwhelming consensus of scientists and practitioners is that the Rorschach is an important tool in the psychological assessment armamentarium, and that it possesses validity comparable to other types of psychological tests and even to many commonly used medical instruments (a summary of these data may be accessed at [22]). The Rorschach has consistently been one of the most frequently used instruments in psychological assessment. To state that its usage is controversial is to misapprehend the nature of scientific controversy. In most scientific fields, there will always be a small minority who disagree with the consensus position. This does not mean that the mainstream position is “controversial.” There are a small number of biologists who still cling to the literal Genesis story and deny the validity of evolution; there are a few virologists who insist that Human Immunodeficiency Virus does not cause AIDS; there is a small, but vocal group of scientists who deny the effect of human release of CO2 on global climate change. This does not mean that any of these remain “controversial.” Indeed, according to the New York Times (July 14, 2009), over 6% of the U.S. population believes that the moon landing in 1969 was a hoax and that photographs and other evidence were doctored. This does not mean that whether or not man has landed on the moon is still an open question.

While we appreciate the value of freedom of information for those who use Wikipedia, it is our contention that the preservation of an instrument that serves a vital function in mitigating human suffering and helping people identify the sources of their mental confusion and emotional pain is a greater good. --SPAdoc (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, aside from the fact that I find this whole posting somewhat dubious, especially its claimed origin... have a look at Wikipedia:News suppression. That's just a draft of a proposed guideline, of course (I believe it was started because of a related incident), but have a look: it attempts to define some extremely specific cases where suppressing information from Wikipedia would be acceptable. Why does it? Well, because normally no attempt to suppress information would be considered acceptable by Wikipedians at large. Do you really think this would even remotely meet the criteria? It does not. This doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. --LjL (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LjL, although the anonymity of editing on Wikipedia can raise doubts about the claim that someone represents an organization, in this particular case, as a psychologist, I have very little doubt that SPAdoc does, in fact, represent the organizations as he/she describes. But there may be a way to settle that issue. If SPAdoc and an admin (perhaps Xeno since he has graciously devoted much of his energy to this article) can communicate by email, it might be possible to determine if SPAdoc truly represents these organizations. So I ask SPAdoc to indicate if this is acceptable (if an admin will cooperate). That would not settle the other issues you mention, but it at least might give SPAdoc some credibility. Ward3001 (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you and they wish, but to be honest what irritated me a little was the fact itself of making the claims; I am for bringing forward one's argument, rather than bringing forward one's titles. Therefore, I really don't care, in the end, whether SPAdoc is who he or she claims; I'd let the arguments speak, and I would like to warn that while SPAdoc may have a lot of credibility as far as psychology goes, that doesn't translate into credibility as far as Wikipedia policy goes. And this is Wikipedia. --LjL (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point and agree that on Wikipedia the argument, not the credential, is the point that matters. That, in my opinion, is the most serious flaw of Wikipedia in science-related articles: unlike other mainstream encyclopedias, expert opinions mean no more than the opinion of the person with the least amount of knowledge in the discussion. That's why Wikipedia, although unsurpassed in breadth and (in some cases) depth of coverage, as a source of accurate, reliable information of some topics related to science it is inadequate. The Rorschach article is a prime example of an article that has much potential but will unlikely ever be more than mediocre. I know that those who disagree with me will tell me that I am free to improve the article, but I have already expressed my opinion in the archives as to why that, in reality, is impossible. Ward3001 (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that, even on a "real" encyclopedia, expert opinions matter as far as content goes, not as far as which content should be censored. And even on a "real" encyclopedia, even an expert will have to provide reliable sources (I'd expect that from any decent encyclopedia, "real" or not). On Wikipedia as on other encyclopedias, an expert is advantaged by generally having more reliable sources at their disposal. An expert can also contribute to making the article more readable (knowing the topic easily lets you write better prose about it, all other things being equal), but that can be done on Wikipedia as much as anywhere else. --LjL (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand your point, it's not altogether true that in other mainstream encyclopedias experts have little input about what is "censored" (not a good term, in my opinion, because there is no censorship in deciding where to place an image, but I'll use that term for the sake of discussion). As an example, mainstream encyclopedias (such as Britannica) do not show an actual Rorschach image even though they are just as freely available to those encyclepdias as they are to Wikipedia. I have no doubt that psychologists' opinions led to their decision not to display the images. As a response to another of your comments, experts have more than an advantage of having reliable sources at their disposal. They have the advantage of being able to interpret which of those sources (and which aspects of each source) are more important, and how to integrate the information into something coherent. If non-experts could do that, non-experts would be writing textbooks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue, LjL, is that a small number of other editors were arguing that the ethical codes of the APA and other professional organizations were irrelevant if those organizations did not come here to WP and make a public statement. Now a statement has been made. I'm glad of that. I'm disappointed that it's posted up here where it's less visible, though. I don't know that much about general code-of-conduct stuff here -- I would like to see that statement (and its accompanying discussion, of course) moved down to a section of its own at the bottom of the page. Is that something I can do ("be bold"), or is it more common practice to defer to the person who posted something?

Regarding "censorship" (aka: "the choice of what to include or not") in encyclopedias, the general practice, as I understand it, in a mainstream encyclopedia, is that they recruit experts in a field to write article content. WP is in some ways wonderful in the sense that the scope of articles can be much broader and many people can be recognized for expertise gained outside of the usual processes (autodidacts, etc). An expert on a psychological test would generally follow the same practice as is done in textbooks on psychological tests, which is to include illustrative sample items that are not present on the test -- that's what I see in every psych-assessment textbook on my personal shelf. Even in Rorschach texts, the blots themselves are not generally presented except when they're presenting the information about which locations are where, and then it's only in outline. (The test publishers control access to protected tests -- you have to present credentials to buy them.)

I understand that in most situations on WP, the experts come in and write great stuff and everyone else says wow and there you go, the process works. If there are a few people with fringe views, they cause some havoc, the experts fix their havoc, and if it gets too messy, people ask for help from admins, and again, the process works. However, it seems to me that this completely-open process has the potential to become error-prone, as in this situation, where it seems that the validity of the expertise of a class of professionals is not well-accepted. (I have some other thoughts about culture and expertise that I'm sort of rattling around and may post lower down when I get them organized). Mirafra (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would be happy to verify the identity of User:SPAdoc; if they could email me from their institute-issued email address (it will need to be linked in preferences) for the purpose of confirming their credentials (I will keep their identity in the strictest of confidence, telling no one). –xeno^talk 16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your statements, SPAdoc. Could you please explain how they reconcile with the fact that one of the organizations you represent, the International Rorschach Society, has itself, in the past, made images of all ten cards available on its website for more than nine years? (Not in high resolution, but in a size suffient to prepare answers for the actual testing situation; and after all, this Wikipedia article only contains thumbnails, too.)

As I assume that rorschach.com is also "one of the first sites most Internet users consult for information" about the Rorschach test, I don't see why your "significant difference" argument shouldn't have applied to it, too.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from SPA/ISR Representative

I understand that there was some question of my status. For your information, I am the Director of Public Affairs for the Society for Personality Assessment as well as President of the International Society for Rorschach and Projective Techniques. As such, I have the authority to speak for these organizations, though obviously not for all the individual members. I would like to respond to some comments that have been made, particularly regarding harm and censorship. One comment, in particular, that of LjL, suggests that the standard for removal of information should be "immediate likelihood of death." This standard has two prongs, both of which are in error in my opinion. The first prong is "immediate," suggesting that information that might cause serious harm (or even death)--but not immediately--would be permissible. Publishing the means for making a "dirty" radioactive explosive device, for example, might fit into the "not immediately" category, since it might take some time. The second prong is "likelihood of death." This, too, is far to stringent a standard; there are serious, irreparable harms that are short of death that any socially responsible individual would seek to avoid or mitigate. Ironically, this is the same standard suggested by John Yoo in the infamous torture memos for what constituted torture (actually Yoo's standard was a bit less stringent, as he allowed for "organ failure). As an example, publishing private nude photos of someone without their permission might cause serious emotional harm without actually killing them. In my view, this would be an appropriate area for "censorship." Permanent harm to an important instrument or suffering to individuals who might be helped by the instrument would seem to be worth avoiding. At the same time, freedom of speech or free flow of information is not an absolute good either. As courts have consistently held, there must be limits on free speech in the interests of society or personal safety. As was pointed out by several commentators, neither non-censorship, nor avoidance of harm are absolute principles, rather the relative impact of each must be weighed in order to arrive at a balanced response. In this instance, it is our position that while the potential harm is not grave and unlikely to lead to life-threatening consequences, there is nonetheless a probability that the instrument in question will be compromised in certain instances and this may result in harm to mental health patients and to the legal system that relies upon accurate assessment of defendants and litigants. At the same time, the potential benefit of displaying the images is marginal at best. Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that the Rorschach's utility will be ruined by the publication of the images. Nor is it our position that casual exposure invalidates the test. What we are suggesting, however, is that publication of the images on Wikipedia makes it far easier for those who wish to subvert the assessment to do so because Wikipedia--for better or worse--is the first stop for most people in seeking out information on the Internet. This fact must be taken into consideration when discussing what can--and should not--be published.

Another thread that has run through this discussion is the point--with which I agree--that the content of arguments rather than the status of an expert should carry the day. Unfortunately, this has, at times, devolved into a distrust of expertise. While appeals to authority are, indeed, the weakest form of argument, it is also true that experts in a field are more likely to be able to evaluate evidence within their area of expertise. I, for one, would have no way of evaluating the relative merits of two different sets of equations for measuring stress tolerances in suspension bridges. Indeed, I would be rather unwilling to drive across such a bridge if I knew it had been designed by a 20 year-old computer science major with no engineering training. Similarly, I believe my expertise--and that of my colleagues--enables me better to evaluate the evidence for and against the utility of the Rorschach as well as the impact of prior exposure to the images on the validity of a Rorschach assessment.SPAdoc (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to make it clear that I don't necessarily support any policy that would mandate censorship of information even if there is "immediate danger of death" involved. I was merely making an example of a proposed policy which is more stringent than what we are discussing here and which nevertheless is, in my opinion, unlikely to pass.

That said, you seem to be asserting that your major worry is not that being accidentally exposed to the test may invalidate it (which you seem to imply is unlikely to be the case)... rather, that people who, for some reason, want to "fake" their test results may achieve that effect by having access to the images and detailed test information. Is that correct?

If so, it was very eloquently put, I'd say, and makes the reason why we should not ever censor information like this clear. If someone actively wants to learn about the inkblots, while perfectly knowing that it may invalidate the test (actually, while doing it on purpose), then who are we - including me and you - to censor information in order to stop that?

We should not do that. Wikipedia is about providing information, not withholding information from people who actively want to obtain such information. It seriously makes me cringe to see people push for the latter option.

--LjL (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The notion that "providing information" is an absolute good or absolute right and that one wouldn't withhold anything even if there was the likelihood that someone would be killed as a result strikes me as a naive and dangerous view. To personalize for a moment: would you be in favor of providing information that allowed terrorists working in Milan access to a nuclear weapon? Of course, this is a farfetched hypothetical, but when ever someone poses a simplistic rule, I am quite leery.SPAdoc (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If it would otherwise be encyclopedic information (which I doubt), yes. It's simply not Wikipedia's job to censor things directly. The law is there for that purpose; it censored Rorschach for 75 years after the death of its author, for example. Also, I'm not claiming that "providing information is an absolute good or absolute right", simply that it is Wikipedia's purpose, and it's a pretty absolute purpose in the context of Wikipedia. I don't blame the APA and other associations, including those which you represent, for striving to keep the test as secret as possible: I'm sure it's in tune with their goals. But it's not in tune with Wikipedia's goals... that's all. --LjL (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Criminal suspects, by necessity, give up certain rights. The rights to speak to jurors (i.e. Jury tampering), rights to bodily fluids (e.g. blood, DNA), the right to leave the country, etc. This would be another. I'm okay with that. I cringe, too, but I understand the need. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but that's just not Wikipedia's job. It's the job of whoever needs to ensure they actually don't speak to the jury, or leave the country, or... read up on the Rorschach test. Wikipedia should inform, not withhold information for whatever reason (or for such a tiny minority as criminal suspects, for that matter... seriously). --LjL (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanity Check

The Rorschach image debate has went on for years. Repeating the same arguments will never change community consensus. Please check the archives first to see if your idea has been discussed. Unless new points are brought up about a subject consensus on the matter will not change. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, Gary. When new voices appear on this page, the consensus can most certainly change without any new points. It's not just the points that lead to consensus; it's also the weight of opinions. That point was made repeatedly by the proponents of displaying the images before the images were placed in the article. I would agree that there is no need for endless repetition of the same arguments, but when editors who haven't weighed in raise old issues, that's how a new consensus can emerge. Whether or not that will occur is yet to be seen, but please don't try to stifle free expression of opinions here, even if those opinions have been expressed in the past. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Ward. New points = New weight. We do not assign more weight (logic) to an argument simply because it is repeated. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

While that's certainly true to an extent (to a big extent, per WP:VOTE and WP:CONSENSUS), it's hard to say it's entirely true: if it were, no one would ever cast, say, AfD !votes "per [previous poster]'s reasons", and things like that. Consensus is not in numbers - consensus is, in theory, agreement among all parties involved - but numbers also count, if nothing else because agreeing to disagree is the only reasonable options when virtually all opinions differ from one's own (not saying that's the case here). --LjL (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To Gary: We don't assign any weight to any argument. If we did, arguments such as "show all the images because the test is complete rubbish" (clearly based on a fringe view, and thus "weightless") which are not uncommon among those calling to keep all the images would strike out the opinions of those who voice them. Yet such opinions are given equal weight to thos eof experts in this field, psychologists.All opinions count. New people have a right to be heard and to share their concerns. Past discussion aren't set in stone. Particularly in this case, where despite your repeated claims of "consensus" there is not consensus because, as LjL has pointed out, consensus is agreement among parties invovled (not all, it's not unanimous, but most). There is no agreement, so there is no consensus. It almost sounds like you're trying to stifle newcomers with whom you disagree. Well, at least you don't try to get them blocked on a false accusation of sockpuppetry as dreamguy has done.Faustian (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly pushing things contrary to policy, Gary. If you were right, the images would not be in the article right now. There were no new points made that resulted in the images being placed in the article. There were more voices that favored adding the images (and even though consensus is not determined by voting, it is influenced by the weight of opinions). And I never said that more weight is assigned because the same editor repeats an opinion. But if dozens of new editors express an opinion (or even fewer in some cases), then consensus can most certainly change. You really need to thoroughly read WP:CON. Stop telling new people here on either side of this issue that they can't express their opinions, even if their opinions have already been expressed by editors who have been here a while. It's insulting to the new editors as well as the spirit of free discussion on Wikipedia. And stop telling editors who have been on this page for years (which includes me) that we can't express agreement when a new editor expresses an opinion that has already been made. You can push your strange idea all you want that other editors should not be repeating opinions, but that's not going to stop it because that's not how things work on Wikipedia. And you can keep telling yourself that new voices cannot change consensus, but that will not prevent a new consensus from emerging if the weight of opinions shifts as a result of these new voices. Your attempt to unilaterally rewrite policy will have exactly zero effect on the way things go here. Let me suggest that you bring up your self-styled revision of discussion and consensus on the talk pages for WP:CON and WP:TALK before trying to shove it down everyone's throat on this talk page, especially the newer members of this discussion, some of whom are new to Wikipedia and may take your false claims seriously. Ward3001 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just stop Ward or bring it to my talk page if you have a problem with me. I a merely trying to forestall endless repetitive arguments that already have consensus. Nothing less. Nothing more. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, no consensus. Hence the "repetitive arguments." that inevitably crop up when there is no consensus.Faustian (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not with you personally, Gary. It's with your comments that are directed at suppressing free expression of opinion. So, no, I will not stop if you continue, and I will address my concerns here where they belong because you made your false claims here. Editors, especially new editors, on either side of this issue need to be encouraged to express their opinions, so I will clarify any misleading comments you make here, not on your talk page. And so far, I don't see that anyone here agrees with you that any editor is not entitled to express an opinion, even if that opinion has been expressed before. Ward3001 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. I encourage everyone to express their opinions too and hey feel free to bring up old arguments but its my opinion your just spinning your wheels unless you have new points to address. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You, just like everyone here, are entitled to your opinion and to express that opinion, so if you want to think of the rest of us as "spinning our wheels" while we continue a legitimate and (hopefully) productive discussion, no problem. Ward3001 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but to say there is not a consensus now is simply living in denial. A few people may deny that there is a consensus, but there is and we will follow it regardless of denials. Chillum 22:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You should have written, "A few people follow consensus policy, most choose to ignore it and go for majority vote instead, and will go for what they want regardless of policy and the few who actually want to follow it."Faustian (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been telling us what we should and should not be doing for far to long now Faustian. I wrote what I meant to write, exactly what I should have written. I don't tell you what to write. It is clear that no amount of reason is going to sway you, you have your mind set on something and you are not going to give up on it. This argument we are having yet again about consensus has been going on for weeks now, I am tired of it. There is a clear consensus regarding the images, that is why their state has not changed in weeks, that is why they are not going to change.

I have suggested this in the past and I am suggesting it again now, seek further scrutiny towards this debate. If you think consensus is being ignored then draw in outside attention, but don't just keep stating that consensus is being ignored. If consensus truly is being ignored then scrutiny should reveal that. I think scrutiny will only confirm that which you will not accept, that there is a consensus to keep the images. Chillum 01:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As an only-recently-involved party here, I can say I don't see much of a consensus, really. But I don't think "consensus is being ignored", either - there simply is no consensus yet. --LjL (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, since the slashdot article things have gotten a bit less clear. There was a clear consensus before that, but now we have to wait for the dust to settle to see again I suppose. I agree with you that there certainly is no consensus that the images are not appropriate. Chillum 01:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Slashdot article? Now I see why discussion here seemed to be more than a bit frantic. Myself, I came to know about this discussion because I was recently administered a Rorschach test, and being curious, I went to the Wikipedia article, after the test (seriously, it doesn't take so much to realize it's probably not a good idea to look at it beforehand - I certainly did avoid it on purpose!). Anyway, now that I know this, I suppose I'll wait coming back to to this discussion after the noise has settled a bit. --LjL (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

When I first arrived at this article on approx. June 16th, I brought some new ideas and found a few new attributable sources. But I didn't feel much interest. Only disdain and heavy reliance on previous discussions. If this situation is ever to improve it can only do so by first, better recording of the current arguments, and then better listening to the fresh voices of people who join us. They are more objective. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and most of the fresh voices disagree with you... and, frankly, your views are not fresh, as, based upon your edit history and worded, it's clear you're a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of one of the editors who had already been posting here. Your comments are the least fresh of anyone here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are off base with that idea DreamGuy. There are certainly sock and meat puppets around, but I doubt Danglingdiagnosis is one of them. Danglingdiagnosis has been contributing to medical articles since October 2006. This article was young and this talk page had not even seen this debate in October 2006. Chillum 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum. If DreamGuy continues to make unfounded accusations about sock/meatpuppetry about editors on either side of this issue, I plan to make a WP:ANI report. That kind of slander is insulting to all of us and contrary to everything about AGF that Wikipedia is based on. Ward3001 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of attention

The recent Slashdot article, and the several spin-off articles that followed it have generated a significantly larger amount of traffic to this page: Graph of hits per day.

It is a pity that controversy is so much more interesting to people than a well written article. Regardless of how it happened, I think it is a good thing that this article has been given so much opportunity to inform over the last few days. More people have seen this article in the last three days than in the last three months. I sincerely hope we educated those people about the test itself, and not just about this tangential debate.

This talk page actually received more attention from the slashdot mention that the article itself did: [23]. It is a damn shame that this dispute is overshadowing the article. Chillum 01:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that the article is about 1/3 fixed, we probably miseducated most of those people. And that is what we will continue to do thanks to the efforts of those who insist on the page being designed in such a away that no expert would ever contribute to it.Faustian (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, if a few of you put half as much effort into improving the content as you do arguing over images, this would be featured by now. Resolute 03:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Resolute, with or without the image arguments, this article will never be featured. It will never be more than mediocre. Ward3001 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Then, frankly, I fail to see why you waste the time with it. Resolute 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't waste my time with the article. That's hopeless because of the mindset here. I comment on the talk page to let the world know why the article is in such bad shape. Your edit summary said "poor attitude". That's exactly right. The poor attitude that has a stranglehold on this article is exactly why it will never improve. Ward3001 (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To Resolute: Because we want to improve the article. At least I do, and I have done so while a compromise version was in place. But if the article is harmful - as it is now - we cannot do so. I, personally (and never mind ethical codes), refuse to contribute to a harmful article. Any expert would consider this article as is it is now to be harmful. So the editors who have forced all the images to be here the way they are now have basically placed experts in the position where in order to make contributions they must do so to an article that they know has the very real potential of harming vulnerable people who could benefitr from this test. Guess what? They're not going to do it. Thus, the editors pushing to have the images here are sacrificing a wealth of potential good content for the sake of just getting those images in. Which is more important? Faustian (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Except for some additions by Xeno to help readers understand the perspective that viewing the images could lead to harm, the article has not had any substantive improvements in about two months; even before that very little was added to improve the article for a long time. That didn't just happen by chance. Those who understand the test and are in the best position to make real improvements to the article have been driven away. It's not because Faustian and I are the only psychologists who contribute to Wikipedia or who have seen the article. There have been significant contributions by psychologists in recent months to other psychology-related articles. The reason psychologists don't contribute to this article is because no decent psychologist will try to add credibility to an article that can cause so much damage. Ward3001 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do decent psychologists really resolve disputes this way? I've got a very difficult adolescent at home, and he doesn't respond to claims from authority (certainly not the psychologist). Explain. I'd be interested. With sources, please. Steveozone (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the larger debate (as I have more important and enjoyable things to do, such as smashing my own testicles with a sledgehammer), but it's quite obvious that the people who want the images included care very much about the article not being censored and do not agree with your assessment of the level of harm. Unless your intent is to further divide the two sides and make them more unwilling to compromise, repeatedly saying, "Well we are trying to improve the article, but you keep getting in our way with your refusal to remove the images. Why can't you just give into our demands and stop hurting the article?", is just counterproductive and does nothing but add yet another point to disagree over. 24.76.174.152 (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've got an hour before I bail on non article space for a few days, but I do want to say that I find your positions incredibly disappointing. And I find your blaming of other editors is misguided and intellectually dishonest as the lack of desire to improve the content of this article is of your own making. Faustian claimed that since the article is only "1/3 fixed", it is "miseducating most people". Obviously the images do not make up 2/3rds of the issues, yet you find it easier to complain endlessly about one problem this article has, in your view, than to fix other problems and mitigate or eliminate other sources of "harm". Rather than do some good on this article, you prefer to endlessly argue in circles on the talk page. No harm in that, but no benefit either. Resolute 04:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, why would you, as a psychology, contribute to an article about the Rorschach test at all? If you believe showing the inkblots can cause damage to potential test subjects, then surely there's a potential for damage by revealing any information about the test. You don't have an "untainted" subject if they know things about the test beforehand, while other subjects didn't. You should push for deleting this article, and other articles about psychological tests. --LjL (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, your question reflects a lack of knowledge of the test and illustrates why the article will always be in bad shape if experts are not allowed make substantial changes. Presenting an overview of a test does not damage its validity. Presenting test items can destroy its validity. The College Board describes the SAT to potential test-takers, and even provides sample items. It does not provide the actual test items. Ward3001 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comparting a test like the SAT to this reflects your misunderstanding of it all, I believe. Seriously, this is pure nonsense at this point. --LjL (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. My mention of SAT is an analogy about the effects of prior exposure of test items. I did not say that the SAT is in any way similar to the Rorschach except for the fact that the two are tests. Ward3001 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, why not petition libraries to remove books on the subject? If people went and looked the subject up they might learn about it!

Sarcasm aside. Ward, Faust, if removing these images is more important to you than making a good article then that is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. LjL, you can try a deletion debate but I think the result would be a consensus to keep the pages. Chillum 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Other way around, Chillum: to you, keeping the images is more important to than improving the article. Basically all experts agree that the images are harmful. You are asking the experts to contribute to an article that they know is harmful. Understandably, they don't want to do so - it would go against their ethics and morals. So by insisting on keeping the images you are creating a situation where an expert cannot contribute. We want a good article. You want all the images, including one in the lead. Unfortunately, the two are mutually exclusive due to the harmfulness of the images. Either a bad, poorly written article with nonsense information but images, or a good article with some sort of way of mitigating the harm (I'm not even calling for complete removal but some way of mitigating harm). To LjL: lots of good information about a test would cause no harm to a potential test-taker. General principles, development, places where the test is used, settings where it is appropriate, general and accurate description of what test stimuli without actual items from the test, basically everything other than the test materials and strategies of cheating or faking. The articles about the Thematic Apperception Test and Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure have been, to a greater extent than the Rorschach article, cleaned up by psychologists.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am personally not interested in starting such a debate; I merely though that Ward3001 and people who shared his point of view logically might be. --LjL (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no valid reason for deletion so it would not be of any value to request a deletion. Chillum 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, according to you, harm is not a valid reason, and improving the article by removing something that is guarenteed to keep experts away from it are not valid reasons.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly how such a deletion debate would end. Consensus to keep. Not according to me, but according to our deletion policy, according to the community. If you think this is just my opinion then by all means file for deletion and get an education on what people think of the validity of your reasoning. Chillum 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a straw man - nobody is pushing to delete the article. Indeed we want to improve it.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume you have not read this conversation, there is indeed someone suggesting the deletion of this article. That is what I was referring to when you responded to me at 13:56. Chillum 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It was me who said that in my opinion, according to User:Ward3001's stance, psychologists should refuse to work on any article describing the Rorschach test (whether it includes the inkblots or not), and push for removal of such information, as it's only reasonable to assume that, if showing the inkblots may result in harm, then any other description of testing goals, methods, parameters and procedure to potential subjects is likely to taint the test results, as well. --LjL (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"according to User:Ward3001's stance, psychologists should refuse to work on any article describing the Rorschach test (whether it includes the inkblots or not)": Again with respect, but that is such a gross misrepresentation of my comments that it is absurd. I never said a psychologist should not work on any article describing the Rorschach. If you think I did, please give the diff of the edit in which I said that. See my comment above in response to your question as to why I would work on any article describing the Rorschach (not me saying that). I said no decent psychologist will work on a test article that can cause damage, and this article (with the images) can cause damage. I think your comments were made in good faith, but I would ask you to avoid a previous habit of another editor in this discussion of repeatedly mispresenting others' comments or point of view. Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, that assumption is largely incorrect althohgh if by methods you mean a "how-to" guide then that's another story. An article can be encyclopedic and thorough without being a guide on how to get the "right" answers on it.Faustian (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But I thought the point was not giving clues on "how to get the 'right' answers". Showing the inkblots certainly doesn't tell you anything like that. I thought the point was merely that anything (including the inkblots) which may likely influence the potential test subject, thus invalidating the results of the test compared to the bulk of data about uninfluenced subjects, were to be considered harmful. Otherwise, why the inkblots but not other potentially-influencing information (like just about anything, not merely "the answers")? --LjL (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue of "how to get the 'right' answers". The fundamental issue is whether the test taker is giving a spontaneous response to an image that he/she has not had a chance to examine, think about, and possibly discuss with others. If a test taker is curious about the test prior to taking the test but unaware that seeing the image prior to taking the test can lead to significantly different results, that test taker may likely visit Wikipedia, find the images, examine them in some detail, think about possible responses, and possibly even discuss possible responses with someone. The norms for the test, as well as the decades of research that have made the test invaluable, are based on test takers who are giving a spontaneous response. Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Any such test giver should assume the patient has had access to these materials and ask them about it. It is all over the internet, and in public libraries, and in book stores. If there was a secret to be kept I could sort of understand this point of view, but Wikipedia's use of these images do not create any new problems for doctors. Chillum 16:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, maybe we can agree to disagree here. If I understand your point of view correctly, it is that Wikipedia has no obligation to avoid any harm that its display of the images causes because the images are already available. I (and others) have disagreed by saying that Wikipedia does in fact cause harm (regardless of whether others cause harm) because it is a frequently-used resource for the general public that might be interested in the test. If I've misstated your point, please correct me. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I was, indeed, asked by the test administerer whether I "knew about" the test before taking it. --LjL (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

LjL, forgive my short memory, but I think you said in a previous message on this page that you intentionally avoided looking at Wikipedia's page on the Rorschach because of concern that it might affect your test results (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, that was a wise thing to do, but unfortunately I think many (if not most) test takers would not have that foresight. Ward3001 (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe that's their problem. I'm prepared to see other people disagreeing with my view, but I do believe this view is more in line with Wikipedia's principles, including that of not being censored. Something not being censored does, among other things, imply that if you use it, you should do it with a grain of salt. The Wikipedia:Disclaimers say things to that effect. I don't argue that having the images on the article won't ever cause "harm" to test results; I argue that it's not Wikipedia's business to take care of that. Wikipedia's business is providing as much encyclopedic information as possible. Why would I be deprived of information simply because some people can't realize they probably should avoid looking at testing material before taking the test? --LjL (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We are such a frequently used resource because of our coverage of different topics. I am saying that the test has its problems, and those are the problems of the test. Wikipedia cannot be blamed for this problem the test has because Wikipedia is not the cause of the problem. If the test relies on the secrecy of something that is not a secret then it is just flawed in that manner. You can't expect the whole world to stop sharing information because a construct relies on ignorance of the content of these public domain pictures. Chillum 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree regarding Wikipedia's potential effect on test results ("blame" if that's the word you wish to use), thanks for clarifying your point of view. Ward3001 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Citizendium could help?

I long ago stopped following the details of this argument since it seemed unlikely to be resolved in the foreseeable future, but some of the above comments regarding a perception of hostility to experts reminded me of a lot of the stuff that's been said by Citizendium proponents. I've never participated in Citizendium myself so I don't know how it really works over there, but I just checked and they don't have any article at all on the Rorschach test. Now that Wikipedia and Citizendium have compatible licensing schemes, perhaps it might be useful to both frustrated expert and Wikipedia alike to write one up over there? The best parts can then be ported back and forth and merged between the two. Note that I'm not proposing a POV fork, of course, both proponent and critical views would need to be given their appropriate weight in both articles. I'm suggesting this as a way to overcome what might simply be incompatible styles of workflow. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A compromise informing the reader about health concerns.

In an earlier discussion that veered away on a tangent, I agree with Chillum and LjL. We are encyclopedists, first here. Any expertise we bring should only be applied to the judicious use of outside sources, lest it become WP:NOR original research. And in this case, we have 3 sources that are "position statements... by major health organizations" and thus graded as secondary sources (the best kind according to WP:MEDRS ) These sources all say that exposure to test material can damage the utility of test results. These sources are not contradicted by any other source. Therefore, as encyclopedists, we may treat them as the attributable sources that they are. They are not outside influences. They are sources of information. And they inform our discussion about how we may best serve our readers. What is an encyclopedia? According to encyclopedia:

"Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.|Diderot

What better service to future generations than to be neutral and allow the reader the freedom to choose his/her own course and not have it be pre-determined by those who went before them? Otherwise the encyclopedia becomes an anchor holding back our children.

So getting back to the issue at hand, I think the guidelines of WP:IG and WP:SCROLL

1. did not consider situations such as the one in hand and (an article with involuntary health consequences), and
2. they ask us to use WP:COMMON common sense when applying them.

In looking at the talk pages of these guidelines, I find nothing like the situation we are presented with. So I would submit that we have some latitude in how we apply them to our situation. It is a really good idea that, in this situation, makes good sense. I think we've discovered here, a good use for this technology. Now the only question is, is the technology up to the challenge? If not, when will it be. I'd like a chance to see it in action. Can someone please make two sand boxes, one with scrolling and another with a hide/show box? I want to see if my browser (Firefox) or printer (Brother) fails in any significant way. If my browser fails, then maybe I can download another one that works better. I need special software to read a PDF file. Why not one for Wikipedia? Many of you are already using a special browser specific for Wikipedia. What's it called again? Is it up to the task? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

However, you also have to consider that Wikipedia is very wary of ad-hoc WP:Disclaimers for various reasons. If it weren't for WP:IG and the technical limitations, I would probably be happy enough with a show/hide box, but it would need not to have a disclaimer to respect the guidelines about disclaimers. Note, however, that having reliably sourced statements (by the APA and/or other relevant bodies) in the article, not as disclaimers per se, but simply as relevant information, to the effect that potential test subjects shouldn't look at the test material beforehand should be fine - and, as a bonus, would probably work as an effective disclaimer for anyone caring to read it. --LjL (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I see your point. But again, this is only a guideline. The guideline points out the difficulties in allowing exceptions, but it does allow exceptions -- strict ones. The discussion behind WP:Disclaimers considered voluntary health consequences, but not involuntary ones. I can think of no better exception to this guideline than an involuntary health consequence. And we are allowed to use common sense in applying this guideline. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I get the difference you're making between involuntary and voluntary health consequences. Anyway, forget about the medical disclaimer, and check out this one: Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. I think it's pretty clear when it says "ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL". I'd also say that WP:No disclaimers definitely applies here, and makes good argumentations, and it does "represents a solid and long-standing consensus". --LjL (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since your health isn't effected at all by looking at these pictures, hiding them is ludicrous. Verbal chat 16:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, please tell us how you know whether anyone's health is "effected" [sic] by looking at the images, whether this editor or anyone else. Do you have information that the rest of us don't have? Maybe you think you're using logic, but please tell us how any amount of logic let's you know anything about a Wikipedia editor's health, either now or in the future. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that this harm from viewing these inkblots that is so obvious to Ward, yet they are never mentioned in the sources? The sources provided refer to the idea of test material in general. If these inkblots are so sensitive then why do we not have sources that describe them?

Most information is dangerous to someone under some circumstance. It is not our place to hold back information because someone may somehow be harmed through learning it. If people want to learn about a subject we let them. Chillum 16:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The harm is obvious to every expert who has contributed to this discussion, but not obvious to a lot of (though not all) of those who know nothing about the subject. Some of these who know nothing about the subject then argue about what the experts have said - i.e. when the APA explicitly stated that distributing test materal results in "concrete harm", Chillum argues that the APA may not have meant the Rorschach because the APA's statements didn't list any specific test whose dissemination would be harmful. This implies that Chillum believes he knows what the APA meant better than psychologists themselves do. Anything to advance his agenda, I guess.

AS for the last comment: "If people want to learn about a subject we let them." Sure. But if they don't want to see the images, do we have to set up the page so they are forced to see them? This argument isn't just about keeping images out. It's about denying people a choice.Faustian (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No choice is being denied, really. There are WP:Options to not see an image, for this as well as for any other article in case "some people wish to not see some images on Wikipedia". Why would this article be holier than other articles where people may not want to see some images? Because the APA says so? As opposed to whom, and we should care because? --LjL (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, some people wouldn't know about the harmfulness of the images until they learned about it. Once can't expect people to reset browsers in order to not see an image that they don't know it is harmful to see.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why - of course you can expect that, if you've provided a clear site-wide WP:Risk disclaimer to people. If people won't read it, or will ignore it, then that becomes their fault, not Wikipedia's. And, you know, your "once you've seen it the harm is done" argument probably applies for just about every image that "some people wish not to see". It doesn't apply to this article any more than it applies to other ones. --LjL (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the situation with the Rorschach is quite a bit more obscure than that of, say, opening up a page about a sex position and being confronted with some graphic scene, or about a battle and seeing something violent, etc. People can't reasonably be expected to assume that seeing a Rorshcach inkblot is going to invalidate the test for them without knowing something about the test.Faustian (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's true, it was a surprise for me that only ten inkblots existed. But then again, I avoided looking at the whole article before taking the test, because I did believe my test results would be better off if I didn't, regardless of the inkblots themselves. Other people won't take the same precautions? That's their problem. Wikipedia isn't here to babysit people, but only to provide information. "Babysitting" people "for the greater good" has been the chief excuse for censorship worldwide and throughout history. I won't accept that mindset here. --LjL (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand Verbal's preconception that information, by itself, can only be meritorious. However I have 3 sources that say otherwise. [24] [25] [26] These are "position statements... by major health organizations" about psychological test materials (which the Rorschach definitely is) and thus graded as secondary sources (the best kind according to WP:MEDRS ) There is no source that I can find that contradicts them. So I submit that your opinion (and mine, too) is WP:NOR original research. We are not experts on this, so it's best that we not act like ones. It's best to leave that to peer-review journals, of which there are many. They don't need Wikipedia to try and act like another. So yes, Verbal, I understand this flies in the face of our preconceptions, but you can't deny this and call yourself an encyclopedist. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. No, that doesn't apply. And neither does your failed policy proposal. Verbal chat 17:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we please stop the name-calling? Verbal, if you have a substantive argument to make, please make it. Just sticking your fingers in your ears is not very convincing.

Also, note that the Society for Personality Assessment and the International Society for the Rorschach and Projective Methods have made a public statement on this very page (hidden in the labyrinth above -- should I move it down here?), saying the same thing. How much more do you guys need?

The problem that I have with "making it the user's problem" is that there are many situations in which the person who will be harmed by this disclosure of information is not the person who is reading the WP article. Like I said, the Rorschach is often used in forensic contexts, where the person taking the test is being evaluated regarding some risk of harm to other people, and where the test subject is seeking information precisely because they want to learn how to fool the evaluator. (I cited sources for this already.) Sure, we always ask them if they've seen the test before. But someone in that situation would lie. That's why we as professionals don't want to just rely on the honor system, and why we are obligated to make the efforts that we can make to protect test security as much as possible. Yes, I've heard a zillion times, the images are available through other sources, but that doesn't mean that we at WP have to contribute to the problem. Mirafra (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no reasonable claim to be made for any health concerns at all, and the claim is just a POV. You can't push POVs onto the article. We don't add disclaimers, we don't let articles get taken over by people who ignore consensus, and how many different ways do you need to be told NO before you'll accept it? This is just plain disruption at this point. DreamGuy (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but you're ignoring the points that I and others have been making. Please stop the character attacks on anyone who disagrees with you and the random screaming of "shut up!" We've brought reliable sources to support our claims. You can do the same. Please do. Mirafra (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I ask once again, why do none of the sources presented mention Rorschach tests? If this really is such a big issue then where are the reliable sources talking about it? Why is it that slashdot is reporting Wikipedia's debate on this subject when no documentation of such a debate outside of Wikipedia seems to have been presented? Why do those who wish the pictures to be removed have to use sources that don't directly mention the topic at hand? Chillum 20:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe how obtuse you're being. I've only been here a few days, and this is at least the second or third time I've heard you making this still-specious argument. First, there was a statement from the Society for Personality Assessment, on this very page, that specifically mentioned the Rorschach. Second, the APA and BPS codes of ethics are by design, general documents. They refer to all psychological tests. They don't enumerate them. The Rorschach is one of hundreds of tests in current use that are covered by that section of the ethics code. New tests are being designed and renormed all the time. If you wanted to create a psychological test of your own and could convince psychologists to use it, then it would be covered under that code, too. It's not original research to say "The requirement to preserve test security covers all tests that psychologists use. The Rorschach is a test that psychologists use. Therefore, the code covers the Rorschach." Mirafra (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, Mirafra, "reliable sources" are what you use to source material in the article. They are not what you use to remove material from the article, not on Wikipedia. You can cite all the sources you want - they don't trump WP policies. --LjL (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to the fact that Chillum keeps saying, "We don't have to protect test security because we can't be 100% sure that the sources from the APA and the BPS that say that test security is important actually refer to the Rorschach." The question he's asking here, which I'm reminding him of the answer of, is specifically one he's been asking over and over again. Those of the you-can't-remove-anything camp are saying that if we want to support removal of information from the article, we have to prove that there is a darned good reason for it, and have requested multiple times that we cite sources. (and then ignored or attempted to discredit all such sources, sigh).

Of course, this does beg the question of whether any removal of information is ever justified. That seems to me to be something that happens all over the place on WP, when information is incorrect or irrelevant or in violation of policy or just plain dumb. And the discussions that happen about that appear to be themselves ones in which people ask for reliable sources to prove people's statements that the removals are justified.

You have to recognize that no matter how many times you keep asserting that your understanding of policy is the only right one, you are not convincing anyone who does not already agree with you. You're just shouting. Mirafra (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, let me point out that WP:NOTCENSORED is not an absolute policy. It lists several exceptions already. In each case, it's a narrowly tailored exception that has good WP:COMMON reasons behind it. Those exceptions appear largely to have arisen because significant problems arose, resulting in edit wars and unresolvable conflicts. Kinda like what we have here. We're proposing a change to policy, because policy can change, and we feel that it should change here. I understand that you disagree with that position, but please stop speaking as if policy were immutable. Mirafra (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy is not immutable, but it can really only be changed when there is consensus to do it, and in that case consensus, while not meaning unanimity, does mean darn good consensus. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any policies at all, we'd just work based on more-or-less-consensus in every distinct situation.

Also, I find Chillum's argument as you expose it weak. Mine is that even if we were 100% sure that security is important when it comes to Rorschach, that's no excuse for taking away encyclopedic information. Not excuse at all, unless you do change policy (and basic principles, I'd say).

As to exception to WP:NOTCENSORED, I can only really see ones related to legal issues. Those are damned hard to avoid, so you have to abide. And of course, wrong, offtopic or unencyclopedic content is not kept, but that doesn't have to do with censorship. --LjL (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Question to LjL: although you find the issue of harm no excuse to remov e encyclopedic information, to you feel that it may inform the presentation (though not removsal) of that information?Faustian (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get what you're saying - is that basically "should we put a disclaimer?"? If so, then personally I wouldn't be so much against it, but there's a policy against that, and while (as you say) it could be changed, there are some valid reasons why that policy exists. I also said I wouldn't mind putting the images inside of a hide/show box, but again, that's against policy and there are technical reasons to. But all in all, I wouldn't be outraged if that were done. --LjL (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out this wikipedia page: [27]. The mesaage under the video states "One of the infamous scenes that caused the seizures. People with a history of seizures should be cautious before viewing this file." Nobody seemed hellbent on removing that note warning people; it's common sense that doing so is just the right thing to do.Faustian (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that article has a painful history of reverts with regards to that video and its caption. I find the disclaimer completely gratuitous: the caption already says, basically, "This is the scene that causes seizure". And then it adds, "But caution, it may cause seizures". Duh, really?! I'm going to remove that. --LjL (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that some warning is appropriate? Good. We really need to be more aware of the effect we can have. There are some vandals out there who are targeting epileptics. See the news story about the April 2008 attack on epileptics. I found one statement in this story that was chillingly similar to comments I've seen on this talk page:

Hey, don't put words into my mouth :-( I never said that some warning is appropriate, I actually said the disclaimer was gratuitous, and I removed it; and I pointed out that the bare encyclopedic caption (which is, in itself, not at all a warning) can function as a good enough warning. But that's a side effect. I didn't say we should positively strive to include actual warnings. I did and do not state that. --LjL (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"If people are actually vulnerable to such flashing images and yet surf without protection, then I find it difficult to muster up any sympathy for them," one user said.

"It's not like they stabbed these patients to death... They put some flashing images on a messageboard, thats (sic) it. Everyone survived," said another.

I would not wish to be one of those so quoted. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Going to a website that's specifically for epileptics and posting flashing images with the intent to cause seizures is significantly different from refusing to remove the images from this article on the basis of them harming the results of a test the reader might possibly later take, which the summary of the article warns of, well above the actual images, because you believe it would be censorship. The comments may be somewhat similar (note: only somewhat; the ones in that article are noticeably more assholeish), but the context they were made in is very different. Your comparison is incredibly disingenuous. 24.76.174.152 (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sub-pages: policy and arguments

For those of you just joining us, the previous comments are referring to a proposed policy being discussed over at User:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences#Censorship vs Propaganda. The proposal was submitted by me for review 10 days ago. I immediately invited all interested parties to view it and comment. Many of the people here are doing so now. Feel free to joing us.

You may disregard any knee-jerk criticism that I was "forum shopping" because that would mean that I was running from my opponents. That is not the case. This "knee-jerk" reaction is merely a wish by many that we can resolve policy issues here on this talk page. I share this belief. I only wanted to write down an idea of how such a policy might look, if we were to enact one. The instructions for how to do so are laid out in WP:POLICY and are there for anyone to see and follow. I simply had an idea and wrote it down.

The question you should be asking yourself is

• "Does the community generally believe that Wikipedia is better off with, or without, the proposed guideline or policy? What status for this page will best contribute to the main goal of writing an encyclopedia?" (taken from WP:POLICY)

Keep in mind that no one is trying to censor information. By that I mean that no one is trying to undermine or influence public opinion in a way that is favorable to a cause, an ideology, or a government body. There's plenty of valid criticism for the Rorschach test. I just don't wish to be a party to vandalizing the test. Just because I may think that a car is worthless, that doesn't give me permission to scratch it or slash its tires.

I also feel that Wikipedia is betraying a bias by showing the images. This debate is not limited to Wikipedia. It's on the front page of top Google search sites about the Rorschach test. For us to take sides is like a reporter covering a story about animal rights while wearing a fur coat. (See subpage Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con##4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality. You may wish to watch this subpage discussion.)

I am in favor of the work Xeno has done in creating these subpages. Feel free to continue to lay down thoughts in chronological order, but if you think you have an argument or a proposal that has not yet been expressed, feel free to add it to the appropriate subpage. And I suggest that you watch these sub-pages, as I do, so that I won't miss any contribution. We don't want anyone years from now asking themselves, "I wonder if they thought of this or that?" Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not exhibiting a bias by showing these pictures other than our bias towards being informative. We are showing the images because that is what we do with all of our articles, not because we are taking sides in any dispute. To go against our normal editorial behaviour and remove these images due to some sort of controversy would be a demonstration of bias.

If we simply ask ourselves "What would we be doing if there was no controversy regarding the display of these images", the answer is that we would display the images like we do in every other article. To do anything else due to some outside controversy would be a departure from neutrality. We can document the controversy as far as sources describe it, but we don't take a side. Chillum 22:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But there is a controversy, and there are plenty of articles about Rorschach that have chosen to not display the images. The reader will understand if we do as Scientific American did and simply say that "the images are protected" (Which is true.) Our neutrality is better protected this way. I think the need is greater for a neutral site that explains controversy without engaging in it. See WP:NPOV Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Censor" does not mean that. Wiktionary defines "to censor" as "To remove objectionable content". Dictionary.com defines it as "to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor". Merriam-Webster defines it as "to suppress or delete as objectionable". Note how none of them say anything about the reasons for which it is censored, of which there are many. 24.76.174.152 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

DD I don't think you understand Wikipedia's concept of neutrality. It is not doing what Scientific America did, on the contrary it is not allowing the opinions and practices of outside groups dictate our style. The very fact that there is a controversy requires that Wikipedia not take a side, and that we do what we would have done in absence of the controversy. Removing the images due to this controversy would be engaging in it, acting as we always do in regards to images without consideration to the controversy is neutral. We should describe the controversy. not take editorial action based on it.

We document that Muslim people often put "pbuh(praise be upon him)" after the name of their prophet, but we don't actually do it in our articles. This is the same thing, we need to document the practice, not engage in it. Chillum 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet, there is not a single image of Allah on the Islam article. I guess Muslims are more repsected than psycholgists (or the general public) on wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't have any pictures of God Faustian. Perhaps you are thinking of the Muslim prophet Muhammad(who was a human not a deity)? You will notice we do have a picture of him in the article about him. We have pictures of the inkblots in the article about the inkblot test. We don't have inkblots in the psychology article, and we don't show Muhammad in the Islam article. Do you see the pattern here? When the images are on-topic we show them(even when people scream at us for years to stop), then they are not on-topic we don't. Chillum 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)