Talk:Rorschach test

Please see the current RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images

.

Recently moved image discussions

Moved to /images#All 10 images

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

Moved to /images#New arguments go here

Moved to /images#A Consideration on Harm, Protection of Test Materials, and the Use of the Images in Question

Moved to /images#A compromise informing the reader about health concerns.

Moved to /images#Comments from a designated representative

Moved to /images#Stale

Moved to /images#Irrevocable Harm to Authors/Dangerous Precedent

Recently archived discussions

/Archive 9#More misinformation

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 9#Formal mediation filed

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 10#Interesting piece from the NYT

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 10#Improving the criticism section

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 10#Social impact

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 10#Circular Links

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 10#no such word as administrating

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 10#An ER Doctor is not a Pyschologist

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 10#7 Self reference

if necessary, continue discussion below

Utterly cool-headed correction

The pronunciation of the test's name is given as [ʁoɐˈʃax], with the stress on the second syllable. This is incorrect. It should be [ˈʁoɐ ʃax] (or [ˈʁoɐ.ʃax]), with the stress on the first syllable, beginning with an uvular [R]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.231.219 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Another small correction: In the table containing the ten ink blots at the bottom of the article, the tenth plate is labeled "Plate V." It should be "Plate X." Alex144 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both. The latter is my fault; I changed Arabic numerals into Roman because that's what I saw in all the literature. On that topic, shouldn't we also change "plate" into "card" for the same reason? I hardly ever see "plate" in sources. --LjL (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The world supports the addition of these images (reason number 7 I think)

Not only does the majority of editors on Wikipedia support the addition of these images but so does the majority of the world ( look at the comments of the NYTs article). People do not beleive science should take place behind locked door but they beleive it should be an open process.

I spoke to both the head of psychiatry and the department of psycology at my hospital yesterday. No one here uses the Rorschach test even though some have been trained in it. My college the psychiatrist has congratualed use on bringing this discussion out into the open and in her words "exposing this test". --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And as I've said before, James, your neck of the woods is not in the mainstream. I know a number of Canadian psychologists who regularly use the Rorschach and who regularly consult with physicians about test findings as they relate to diagnosis. And I suspect the congratulations given to you relates more to your publicity seeking and 15 minutes of fame rather than any general opinions of Canadian psychiatrists. Ward3001 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This page did receive over half a million hits yesterday. Looks like people consider the topic interesting. Do you have any data to back up your assertion of test usage in Canada? "A number of" does not sound like very many. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As much data as you do for your claims. Do you have any data to back up your conclusions that "the majority of the world" has any particular opinion based on a few comments in the NYT and a congrats to you for your 15 minutes of fame by one psychiatrist? Ward3001 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can we lower the heat a bit gents?... Remember to comment on content, not contributors. –xeno^talk 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If there is a notable controversy over Wikipedia, just document it already like we always do. There isn't any real debate on whether the images should be removed, just as on Talk:Muhammad/images. If it's (a) notable and (b) legal, Wikipedia will carry it, there is simply no point in arguing about this. If Wikipedia content "has stirred controversy" or whatever, just make a sourced statement to the effect and be done. --dab (��) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like someone broke the shaman's magic wand. Though it doesn't really seem to matter at all. The results just depend on how the shaman hits the patient on the head with that wand. --84.226.18.142 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand the logic here. I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of kids applying to college would love it if WP would publish the questions for the SAT. Public demand does not create scientific or encyclopedic necessity. Mirafra (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's basic principles is consensus, though. --LjL (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like most other languages of wiki articles include all 10 inkblots. A few just have a single blot and one uses a fake blot. Looks like the international muultilingual consensus is for inclusion of all ten images.--Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this the "everybody else does it" defense again? Perhaps they too have nonprofessionals who have hijacked their pages. Mirafra (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps they too have nonprofessionals who have hijacked their pages"... This comment really speaks volumes regarding how you perceive Wikipedia. Non-professionals have just as much right to edit as professionals. Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone. This page has not been hijacked, in fact it is under firm control of the consensus of the community. Chillum 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you've correctly read my mind. I perceive Wikipedia as a largely highly successful social endeavour, but one which is subject to abuse. I am not claiming that anyone owns this article. I am, however, claiming that a certain set of people, who have little actual knowledge of the subject, have hijacked the article, refusing to acknowledge the depth of their own ignorance, and refusing to consider points of view that are more based on actual reading of the relevant research literature than theirs are. They have been shouting down any efforts to change their viewpoints. After a period of ignoring, they then claim that "discussion has gone on long enough and we think our POV is consensus, so stop trying to tell us anything we don't want to hear." Although this is clearly not how WP is supposed to work, and I don't think it's generally how WP does work in the overwhelming majority of pages, it seems to be the dynamic here. Mirafra (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well people with conservative POVs have set of to start their own encyclopedia [1] They felt I think that the truth had a liberal bias.[2] Perhaps those who disagree with the foundations of Wikipedia can head off and start their own encyclopedia? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad that the founders of Wikipedia insisted on using a license that allows those who do not agree with our editorial practices to create their own fork on their own web servers. It allows for even non-neutral points of view to be published and based off of our content. Chillum 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

multiple similar examples exist in medical field

As a practicing physician (not a psychologist, i admit) with practice experience of both developed and developing countries, I think that these 10 images should be in the article. People who want to fool the test can theoretically do the google search and find a way. Removing it from the article will only make the article less useful for the common people. The predictions of harm from psychologists are not true. The medical field is littered with such stuff e.g. Snellen chart, Ishihara color test and various motor and especially sensory function neurological tests/assessments which completely depend upon the subject's responses. if we follow psychologists argument, then a significant proportion of medical knowledge will become classified. Access to these plates should not be monopolized. 123.50.162.208 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Except the norms (data from which all interpretations are based) for the Rorschach are from people who are seeing the images for the first time and is based on their first impression in seeing the images. Are you claiming that a patient will give an identical response on seeing the inkblot the first time, compared to someone who has studied the blots for some time, perhaps thinking about possible answers, perhaps talking to his friends about what they see in the blots, and perhaps reading the common responses that are in the Wikipedia article? Ward3001 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Again as I said earlier, (Almost)No genuine subject/patient reads wikipedia articles about Snellen chart, Ishihara color test and neurological tests/assessments before visiting their physician. Some scammers/malingering patients may do that, but deletion of these things from the wikipedia does not help as in all likelihood they will not stop and find what they seek from thousands of other websites. I don't see a reason why these Rorschach plates should be an exception. 123.50.162.208 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, even if you're right that almost no patient reads Wikipedia regarding the Snellen chart (and I'm not sure that you are right about that), I don't think you can safely generalize that to the article on the Rorschach. Most people find the Rorschach more interesting than the Snellen chart, so that alone would motivate many to read it. And people who know they will be taking a psychogical test often feel apprehensive about it since they know nothing about it; in that case, a natural thing for someone to do is read about it (and Wikipedia is a common place to do that). But more importantly, there are extremely important situations in which someone is given the Rorschach who may be motivated to research it for other reasons. The Rorschach is commonly used to provide evidence to the court about the mental status of a defendant, or a litigant in a high-stakes lawsuit. That person has a much higher motivation to find out as much detail about the test as possible. Wikipedia would be a likely starting place for that person. Ward3001 (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well as you said wikipedia might be a likely starting place for that person, but as you said if this person has a much higher motivation to find out as much detail about the test as possible, then in all likelihood the deletion of these plates from wikipedia will not make a difference except for a 30 seconds delay as wikipedia might be the starting point but it is not going to be his/her stopping point especially if he did not find what he/she seeks in the wikipedia article. That person will spend the next 30 seconds on his favorite search engine and find what he seeks. 123.50.162.208 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That argument (i.e., the information can be found elsewhere, so it might as well be here) has been put forth here numerous times. The quality of the argument depends largely on the goals and objectives of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia should allow any and all information as long as it's available elsewhere, then you are right. If, on the other hand, Wikipedia (like most other mainline encyclopedias, such as Britannica) has some editorial control based on the opinions of experts in the field and based on a sense of balancing the provision of knowledge with responsibility to society, the argument is seriously brought into question. In recent months, the former position has been the majority position, and the minority (psychologists and those who respect psychologists' opinions) has been ignored. For a lot of reasons, this has weakened the article beyond the issue of whether the images should be displayed. Ward3001 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That is Not my argument. I think that these plates are essential for the article and also I think that this censorship attempt is pointless, useless and ineffective. 123.50.162.4 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Help me understand why your argument isn't that the information is found elsewhere, so it should be here, especially since you said, "People who want to fool the test can theoretically do the google search and find a way". Ward3001 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My dear friend, My first argument is:"These plates are an essential for the article and therefore should remain in the article".My second argument is:"This attempt of wikipedia censorship is pointless, useless and ineffective as you cannot erase these plates from internet." My argument isn't that the information is found elsewhere, so it should be here. This is not a personal attack, but I seriously believe that your views might be colored as looks like you are psychologist with some publications. And thus you probably know that you have some conflict of interest issues here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.50.162.4 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I could have sworn that the statement "you cannot erase these plates from internet" means that they are found elsewhere on the internet. And this also is not a personal attack, but I believe your opinions and comments are colored by the fact that most physicians know virtually nothing about the Rorschach. I'm not saying they should understand it; I spend a large part of my working life consulting with physicians, and they seek my opinions because they are not experts on psychological testing, just as I am not an expert on a lot of medical tests and procedures. Additionally, if I understand your point about my "conflict of interest", first of all, I use the test clinically with patients almost every day; I don't just study it in an ivory tower and write papers about it. Secondly, your statement about "conflict of interest" suggests that anyone who has studied the Rorschach in depth and published on the topic should not be a contributor to the article because of "conflict of interest". Let's turn the tables a bit. Would you suggest that physicians should not edit articles in their areas of expertise (perhaps they have published; some physicians who practice also do research)? Are you suggesting that those articles should be written entirely by non-physicians? Ward3001 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that we're not just objecting to the publication of the images, but also to the publication of detailed information about test interpretation (however nonsensical and incomprehensible it currently is -- just because one editor has not managed to do a good job doesn't mean that we shouldn't object to the entire enterprise on principle). Mirafra (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Whenever I publish article in my area of expertise, I have to declare my conflict of interests. And no journal accepts article from any author if their are serious conflicts of interests. For example Most journals refuse articles about smoking from doctors employed by tobacco companies. I am not saying that Rorschach test is harmful(as opposed to smoking). I am just saying that you might have a bias here. You might be subconsciously trying to remove every conceivable threat to your academic, professional or financial health.123.50.162.4 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that cardiologists who perform procedures related to cardiology shouldn't contribute to articles about those procedures because it's a conflict of interest? A scientist who specializes in global warming shouldn't contribute ot an article about global warming because it's a conflict of interest? If articles are written only by people with no ties to the subject you are basically excluding experts. Which, in the case of a complex topic which nonexperts can barely understand, is obviously a recipe for disaster with respect to the goals of an encyclopedia.Faustian (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For anon 123.50.162.4: I didn't ask you about publications. I asked whether you think that experts on the Rorschach should not edit the article (or make comments on this talk page) or whether physicians should not edit Wikipedia articles in their areas of expertise. As to your comment that I "might have a bias here", what is your point? That I should not provide information based on 30 years of studying and using the test and reading every major resource on the Rorschach? If what you feel might be a "bias" renders my comments of no value, then almost every article on a scientific subject in almost every encyclopedia is full of information that should have no value because it was added by experts. Is that your point? And I'll also ask, do you think lack of knowledge about the Rorschach could give someone a "bias" in their comments here? Ward3001 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well cardiologists do not monopolize the the information about cardiac catheterizations or try to remove the images of their procedures from wikipedia. I am not saying that you should not contribute to the article or to the talk page. You are welcome to do so. I am suggesting that it looks like that here in wikipedia psychologists and psychiatrists might be trying to monopolize the information regarding Rorschach test as they perceive that this information may jeopardize their academic, professional or financial health. My arguments are same. My first argument is:"These plates are an essential for the article and therefore should remain in the article".My second argument is:"This attempt of wikipedia censorship is pointless, useless and ineffective as you cannot erase these plates from internet."123.50.162.4 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you assume bad faith by stating that psychologists here "might be trying to monopolize the information regarding Rorschach test as they perceive that this information may jeopardize their academic, professional or financial health". Do you think it's impossible for someone to earn his/her living as a psychologist and not resort to underhanded tactics? Do you understand that the psychologists here are focused on damage to the test because that damage can seriously impact the patients who benefit from this (or any other test)? Can you understand that something besides selfishness and financial greediness can be the motivation for the psychologists who contribute to this talk page? The vast majority of psychologists who visit this page decide very quickly to move on because they see that psychologists' opinions are not welcome here. Do you think that those of us who hang on are so desperate in our work lives that we can only survive by keeping images off of a Wikipedia article? Your emphasis on your speculation about the personal motivation of a few psychologists here seriously clouds the much more important issues. Ward3001 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The notion that people who are actually experts on a topic must inherently be inferior sources of information to folks who haven't had professional training in that topic seems kind of silly. If I wanted useful information on a cardiology procedure, I'd ask a cardiologist, not some random person who had decided to read up a bunch of medical stuff. The content of this page shows the folly of having pages be written by people who don't even know what they don't know.

I'll say it again. Those of us who are professionally trained in the administration and interpretation of psychological tests are not objecting to publishing useful encyclopedia-appropriate information, in a form that is understandable to a lay reader who is curious about the test, even if he's curious because he's going to be given it in the near future. We would like to be part of creating that article, so that we can both preserve the usefulness of the tests, help inform the public about what the tests do and do not do (hint: we still don't read or control minds!), and give a clear sense of the realistic strengths and limitations of the instrument. This applies not just to the Rorschach, but to any psychological test. The purposes of Wikipedia are not served by cutting us out of the process.

A brief digression: "Informed consent" to assessments is part of the APA Ethics Code, too (section 9.03). We explain these tests to people all the time, both before and after they are assessed. And the fact is that most assessments are completely voluntary -- the person being assessed, or someone who cares deeply about them, wants information and understanding. In the situations where assessments are involuntary, mandated by the courts (whether de jure or de facto), informed consent is still important -- even more so. We have to not only talk about the tests, but we have to also specifically warn the subject about how the information might end up in court (it's called a Lamb warning). But regardless, we literally cannot test someone who does not cooperate. No one can force you to speak about what you see in an inkblot. You say, "I don't see anything," or, "No, I don't want to do this test," and we're stuck. Test over. We can write about the fact that you didn't cooperate, but we can't generally claim that your lack of cooperation proves anything. APA Ethics Code, Section 9.01: "When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations." Given the amount of paranoia that exists around the Rorschach in the general (nonpatient) culture (whether it's justified or not), I personally wouldn't make any claims that being nervous about the Rorschach, by itself, proved anything about a client.

I made that digression because it seems to me that there is some kind of us-versus-them dynamic here, where psychologists are being cast into the role of "evil intrusive controlling censoring unwelcome other."

Psychological testing lets us see things that we might not otherwise be able to see, just like stethoscopes let medical doctors hear things that they might not otherwise be able to hear. It creates a sample of human behavior that we can use to make possibly meaningful comparisons to other people's behavior under identical circumstances, kind of like improving the controls on a scientific experiment. That's all it does. This is the professional service we offer to the public. We want the tests to stay secure so that they will stay more useful to us in doing that work so that people can get quality assessments. That's all. No nefarious motives. Why are we asserting that being an expert is worthwhile here? Because it takes a lot of training and experience to get good at it. Similarly, a trained and experienced doctor, listening to the funny noises made by the valves in a patient's heart, is going to know a lot more about what to notice and how to interpret the data provided by the stethoscope than an enthusiastic amateur.

We want to provide good and accurate information about the tests, consistent with our duty to help provide informed consent. But it's not just about duty: If someone is nervous about any psychological test, we want them to have access to accurate information that will help them decide whether they wish to consent or not. It will improve the validity of our test results if what we're seeing is a person who is participating in the process, not someone who is so freaked out about the imaginary possibilities that their test-session behavior isn't really a reflection of what they're like in real life. Even if that means that they decide they don't want to participate in certain tests, I'd rather have a client feel that I am a useful expert ally and fully participate in the tests they are willing to participate in, because my ability to help them and to advocate for them is improved.

"Advocate for them?" Yes. Thinking back over the times I've administered the Rorschach over the past year, in virtually every case, the results allowed me to take a kid who was being seen as "a bad kid in need of more discipline," and to help the grownups who were getting angrier and angrier at them (including people like judges and probation officers) understand that these kids were not "bad kids," but kids who were confused, traumatized, brain-damaged, terrified, despondent, achingly lonely, learning disabled, developmentally disabled, on medications that were making their problems worse, etc -- they were kids who were, in fact, doing the best that they could. I wasn't making excuses for the kids, but I was trying to help the adults understand what they actually could do that would help, instead of continuing the prior strategies that hadn't been working. Having good solid test data was part of how I was able to advocate for my clients.

To be continually attacked for someone's imaginary ideas about what evil ulterior motive we might secretly harbor is both against WP policy WP:AGF and really offensive. Mirafra (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychologists don't put test questions from the WAIS-IV intelligence tests, achievement tests, or the MMPI online because to do so would give clients the opportunity to prepare for the tests and distort assessment results such that they are not representative of the clients' true skills/styles. The Rorschach is no different and the cards and any sort of "coaching" information should be removed. The need for "common" folks to learn about the test is outweighed by the potential harm to assessment results in this case. Furthermore, just because medical tests are online doesn't mean the psychological/psychiatric community should follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.66.168 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not "the psychological/psychiatric community". This is the Wikipedia community. And in the Wikipedia community, the "need for 'common folks to learn" about encyclopedic topics outweighs just about anything. Some people here keep complaining that the psychologists' opinion is not taken into due account, but what I keep seeing is people talking as if they assumed that their opinion is automatically relevant, and ruling, for Wikipedia. That's absurd. --LjL (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What I think is interesting is that some editors here think that they speak in some privileged form on behalf of "the WP community," while other editors here are not considered to be a relevant part of that community. Mirafra (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well said, Mirafra. This talk page and the archives (and the personal talk pages of some editors) are replete with examples of false and very biased accusations, misrpresentation of others' opinions, and what is seen as justified personal attacks if done on behalf of "the WP community" (i.e., those who disagree with the psychologists) but egregious "personal attacks" when done in the context of pointing out the problems with edits in the article or unfounded (and sometimes bizarre) statements on this talk page. Some editors here are not considered relevant, and they can say nothing without it being misconstrued as a personal attack or casting aspersions. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To LjL: Could please explain how the "need for 'common folks to learn" about encyclopedic topics" include having them read the actual test items and (supposed) answers? If they want to learn about, say the SAT or medical licensing exams or national final exams etc. do they also, in your opinion, need to see actual items and answers? Or is the Rorschach special and why? I know about the copyright issue but is that the only thing keeping medical licensing exam questions, national finals exam questions etc. off wikipedia? It seems to me that you have labelled giving out answers and questions as "learning about" tests when this is not necessarily so. Presenting the test itself and learning about it are not necessary the same thing. You can learn about any test without getting the leaked questions and answers. Wikipedia is full of such articles, just look at Medical College Admission Test or Block design test among many many others. Faustian (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Medical College Admission Test page actually does link to entire tests and the SAT page explains were you can get copies. Looking at the test does give you an idea about how the test works. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about tests yet to be administered (and thus usable) rather than past tests.Faustian (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Professional complaints will occur

The simplest thing to do here is to report the image poster to the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons and to the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists, both of which have jurisdiction here. This is no threat, simply a statement of fact of what will ultimately occur here. Particularly because the poster has given the media provocative interviews; inter-professionally insensitive. Probably an additional aspect here is the doctor's attempt to practice outside his competencies. So at least 2 grounds. It is true that someone can find both blots and interpretations in various forms, and that this is also a potential challenge and violation of the integrity of the test, but to make this so readily available will ultimately provide test takers with an easy way to invalidate the use of the test for all future uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.133.40 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons the licensing board for physicians, or is there a separate board for that? Also, would the Canadian Medical Association have any interest in this matter? Ward3001 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the images are public domain (a fact everyone seems to forget) going after this doctor would just turn the whole mess into more of a media circus then it already is. He provided less information than is available to someone who takes the time to go looking through the publicly available material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that anyone "go after this doctor", but the issues of practicing outside of one's area of competence and claiming expertise that one does not have are often concerns of medical and psychological licensing boards. That has nothing to do with the images per se. Ward3001 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Sask Medical Association is the advocacy group for physicians, the Sask College of Physicians and Surgeons is the licensing authority, the Canadian Medical Association is a fraternal or association of colleagues. This doctor works for the Five Hills Health District http://www.fhhr.ca/community.htm who would also have an interest in his behaviour. Ultimately also the Sask Ministry of Health - who pays all the health bills in the province would probably have an obligation of some kind. The poster made this job-relevant by posting non-anonymously and with reference to his profession and work place. No doubt as an non-psychologist expert in psychological testing, he is also a non-lawyer expert in copyright laws, a non-statistician expert in reliability and validity matters including those with psychological tests, and perhaps also a non-ethicist expert in ethical practices of other professions, and also a human resources expert in the sense of security other professions have in their profession. I don't think criticising other professions as a group or as individuals in media interviews is considered a good idea professionally, but he has shown expertise in that, and in bringing controversy to himself. The error here may ultimately taking matters into his own hands and deciding that his interpretation of copyright law for these images and interpretation trumps any other issues, including those of professionalism, his and that of others. There is both the issue of the release of images and related info, and the doctor's conduct after the controversy occurred.

Stray copyright arguments

Never mind that I have found evidence that all the plates have been on the internet since at least 2003 and that links you to SPARC who has all 10 plates. As I said this horse has been out of the barn for a LONG time. As far as copyright goes THE IMAGES ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN BOTH THE US AND SWITZERLAND . That is not an "interpretation" that is a cold hard FACT. Go to Cornell University and look up their US copyright FAQ in PDF format] and see what it says about "Before 1923": In the public domain due to copyright expiration.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In front of me I have a set of ten Psychodiagnostik "Tafeln" (Psychodiagnostics Plates) by Hermann Rorschach, published by Hans Huber, Medizinischer Verlag (Medical Publisher), Bern, distrubuted in the USA by Grune & Stratton Inc, New York, and printed in Switzerland. Each of the ten cards bears the following statement printed on the reverse: "Copyright 1921 (renewed 1948)". Could anyone please explain exactly what this means? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a true statement, for all I can tell: the images were originally copyrighted in 1921, and the copyright was renewed in 1948 (at least in the US, copyright protection used to last shorter than it does now, but it could be explicitly renewed). It's expired now anyhow. --LjL (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. So how long did copyright last for these items after its renewal in 1948? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that exactly about the US. I just trust Cornell when it says works created before 1923 are now unconditionally public domain, regardless of renewal. --LjL (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you LjL. Yes that source seems eminently trustworthy and is very clear. I guess the Copyright Term Extension Act effectively swept away all that came before it. I am sorry to be banging on again about copyright when everyone else is perfeclty satisfied that the images are wholly public domain, because that is what US law seems to have decided. But I am less clear about the situation in Switzerland, the country of origin of the images, and whether or not they have been re-published there with copyright extensions. The way that internet images, as opposed to printed ones, are judged against copyright law is also unclear to me at present. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, there's no need to tell anyone "never mind" or to shout at us in bold letters. This issue has nothing to do with how long the images have been in the public domain or on the internet. There are other issues pertaining to this section. Unless you have suddenly become an expert on professional ethics and licensing board jurisdictions, please don't tell us to "never mind"; let others discuss this according to WP:TALK. Ward3001 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When people keep bringing up the "interpretation of copyright law" nonsense I have every right to yell in bold letters. Rorschach died on April 2, 1922 and in Dec of that year Switzerland passed a retroactive copyright of author's life + 30 years and the US had this really bizarre date of publication + 28 years with one renewal of 28 years. So you had Rorschach going public domain in Switzerland in 1953 and in the US in either 1949 or 1977 depending on if his heirs remembered to actively renew the US copyright. Even though it is called the Copyright Act of 1976 it didn't go into effect until Jan 1, 1978 and only affected works that were still copyrighted at that time under the old law. So Rorschach's plates have been public domain in his native Switzerland for 56 years (the 1955 law was not retroactive as had been the 1922 law) and in the US a minimum of 32 years. I should mention that thanks to the Copyright Act of 1976 and later Sonny Bono law you have this really bizarre situation where works are public domain in their author's native lands but not in the US. For example Conan Doyle's Holmes stories are public domain in UK and the Commonwealth but most of the Casebook stories are NOT public domain in the US and won't become such until 2018-2022 (1923 through 1927+95).--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

-I fail to see the point about whether the images or information is in the public domain in one or another countries. Bruce misses the point entirely. It's about professional misbehaviour. And provocatively compounded by the poster's behaviour in the media. Primum non nocere. It is also possible to find items and info on other tests, as well as how to "fool" them. Wikipedia is about information, so it is no wonder that other sorts of issues are poorly understood, such as test standardization, norms, protection of test integrity etc. But there are those who can be held to account. Copyright is a minor issue in the posting of these images and related info from a professional perspective.-

Yes, Bruce has missed the point again. And Bruce, no you do not have the right to yell in bold letters. You have been told repeatedly that there are much more important issues in this section than copyright. And regardless, yelling in bold letters is uncivil and against standards of conduct on Wikipedia. So I will kindly repeat my request that you stop yelling, stop telling others to "never mind", stop assuming the only issue here is copyright, and allow others to discuss these matters here according to WP:TALK. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Some other sources of Rorschach plates: "The Nuremberg Mind" (1975) and Poundstone's "Big Secrets" book (1983). This horse had been out for a LONG time. Little late to be locking the barn door.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with the major issues here: licensing board jurisdiction, practicing within one's area of expertise, and claiming expertise that one does not have? Ward3001 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would the licensing board care about public domain images and where did Heilman ever claim he had expertise in a field outside of his own? Hayou, Carter (July 31, 2009 "Moose Jaw doctor draws ire over Rorschach on Wikipedia" The Moose Jaw Times Herald states "In his defence, Heilman said the inkblots have no copyright and are already widely accessible (with a little research) in library books or on other websites." Exactly the points I raised before even seeing that article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

- He made comments in the media denigrating a profession and showing misunderstanding of the basic principle of test security. It matters not one tittle that the info if available elsewhere. He deliberately decided to enter into an area, representing himself as a physician. Copyright is at most a secondary issue with this. Quoted here: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/31/rorschach-test.html . And introductory psychology textbooks discuss the test but do not publish these exact blots nor specifics of interpretation of these specific blots.

In a discussion on this talk page (now in the archives) about expertise on the Rorschach, he said, "Actually I am an expert". Ward3001 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

-point us to this please. Unless he can show that he has taken at least courses in psychological assessment, psychometric theory and has had supervised experience with this instrument, I think he's got a problem. As I understand it, projective testing is a specialised area with specific training required. I don't know of med schools certifying emerg MDs in psychological assessment let alone projective testing. I think it is probably helpful if there are multiple submissions about this to the 2 colleges in Sask: Psychology and Medical. The rulings sought would be about mainly his professional conduct. I don't think they would touch the copyright issues, of which I am ill-informed. I do know medical regulatory issues and standards however quite well.-

I just slugged through the regular archive searthing for an expert The closest thing I found was "And I am an expert on assessment." from Ward3001 in Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_2. There was a lot of stuff on that page by DIEGO say he was not an expert. "I'm an expert on the Rorschach' by Ward3001 again Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_3 followed by a lot of sarcastic stuff from Dreamguy about being a better expert then the experts. Now going on to the sub archives.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The comment is in Talk:Rorschach test/images/2009-06 Arguments Pro##02 - No evidence of harm. Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Note I have not personally contributed here, but a visiting person using my computer without my knowledge has. My username may show up in some of these comments in this section. The edits by this person appear to be in good faith to the talk page by this retired health care admin person. I have disallowed further use. Just putting this in for clarity if required. It may be that some or all of these show up with an IP address. --Fremte (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

'All of the pictures of the Inkblot Cards need to be removed. Posting them contaminates this tool, The Rorschach Test. Posting the popular responses further contaminates this test. It is a simple case of scuppering a professional clinical tool and needs to be stopped. In reality, the likelihood that prospective test takers would have studied the cards and memorized the popular responses is low. And if someone does (I have had this happen to me as a Clinical Psychologist once in over 25 years of work), you as the clinician can tell something's up, but it makes it that much harder to help the person, because the data they are giving you is false. The academic controversies around the test are a 'red herring' -- captivating, but not the point, a potent distraction. There is academic controversy around many psychological, as well as medical tests and treatments'. For example, Oncologists -- cancer doctors -- have heated debate about when to administer various aspects of treatment. Neuroanatomists have decades-long, passionate 'fights' with their colleagues about exactly where one structure ends and another begins. And so on. Does that mean we don't believe in the brain? In chemo-therapy? It would seem that it is only because of the provacative nature of the stimuli of this test, that all of this controversy has occurred and that the 10 blots have been allowed to remain posted this long. If Dr James Heilman had posted the answers to IQ tests, or to tests for risk of violence, wouldn't the good people at Wikipedia have removed them immediately? Edith Meyers (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Signed, Edith Meyers (I have a PhD in Neuroscience and Clinical Psychology, am a Chartered Psychologist and Chartered Scientist in the UK.) text'''

I think 'shutting the door after the horse has bolted' applies in this case (and seems to have been so for some time).

Responses to the images will be 'to some extent' determined by the socio-cultural environment/weltanschaung of the person taking the test - and responses will change over time for a variety of reasons. Having the images generally available means that they form part of the environment.

If the concept can be explained to them it would be possible to use the 'colour blindness circles tests' and the Snellen Charts with prehistoric humans, apes, and aliens etc (asking them to draw what they see, if more appropriate than naming the images) and get meaningful comparative data in the process. : this cannot be done wtih the inkblot tests. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like much of the media has published the blots as well. The personal threats are noted. I think a few people are taking this a little too seriously. To clarify for Ward3001 well I claimed to be an expert I never claimed to be an expert of the Rorschach. You are misinterpreting what I wrote.

You claimed to be an expert on psychology. Here is the full exchange [3]:

As you say, we live in an evidence based world. The APA, the representative body of psychologists (scientists) makes decisions based on evidence. Ethical matters deal with preventing harm to the public, which is why it is considered unethical to compromise tests.Faustian (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is this based on? BTW expert opinion is ranked as the lowest form of evidence.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that prior exposure to tests impacts the result of those tests. Do you propose that it doesn't? Since what you propose goes against common sense and against expert opinion, it would seem that the burdon of proof is on you to prove otherwise. As for your opinion about expert opinion, expert opinion is still evidence, whether you feel it is "lowest form" or not. Nonexpert opinion, such as yours, doesn't trump expert opinion when the two contradict each other.Faustian (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am an expert. And no the burden of proof lies with those who claim harm.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So you claimed expertise in a field in which you have no expertise. And now you are being dishonest about it.Faustian (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of these images is based on a desire to create a comprehensive encyclopedia, nothing further. May I remind everyone that that is what we are here to do, we are here to create an encylopedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest the people at Encarta or Britannica aren't there to create an encyclopedia? Neither of those uses the real inkblots or gives answers.Faustian (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What value is there in creating a false dilemma? Resolute 03:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia has an objective of creating a comprehensive source of information, psychologists also have an objective of maintaining the integrity of psychological tests. While Rorschach tests are available elsewhere, posting them on a site as popular as Wikipedia would expose significantly more people to them. To keep results of these tests accurate, the tests and their results should not be displayed in whole on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.169.109 (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To James: First of all, I don't see any personal threats. Personal threats would include threat of harm. I see discussion of professional ethics and conduct, and discussion of a public figure who voluntarily identified himself by name in a newspaper read worldwide. Secondly, the discussion in which you said "Actually I am an expert" was in a discussion of expertise in the Rorschach. You clearly claimed to be an expert in the Rorschach. I even challenged you soon after you made the comment, but you would not explain. You may wish to retract that statement now (which is your right), but at the time it was quite clear that you were referring to expertise in the Rorschach. Ward3001 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither the images nor associations are that secret, they are reproduced in various places (books, online, etc.). To say that Wikipedia should censor them out is absurd. Somebody who reads it here by accident is not likely to remember it for the future, and somebody who wanted to learn about them in the first place would have little problem finding all the info anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is James Heilman claiming to be an expert:[4]

Actually I am an expert. And no the burden of proof lies with those who claim harm.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And as an "expert" voicing his opinion on this test in a newspaper: [5]. "Heilman said he has come under a lot of criticism, but noted the medical community is split quite dramatically over this test. "There are some who believe that this test is useless and there are some who believe this test is a godsend. So if you look at the published literature in the field of psychology, there are recent papers saying giving the test is dangerous and others saying the test isn't used frequently enough," he said. "So if the community of psychologists aren't sure about how useful this test is and it is being applied to the society at large, I think it is very important that we, as a society, discuss the merits of this test." (because naturally scietific controversies can best be resolved by "general society" with no idea of the test)

Here is the "expert" offering his opinions:

• "Discussing this test does not do it harm. Most people who come here I would guess are actually health care providers and others in related feilds not those the test will be used up. Discussing it may actually do the test some good. We discuss the rest of health care honestly and I see no reason why this test is anything special. So no I do not see anything unethical with this page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (Apparently the "expert" can't tell the difference between the test items/ansers and an honest discussion about the test)
• The "expert" Heilman accusing psychologists of not following their own ethics code by trying to limit the images [6]: "The behavior of Faustian and Ward fall significantly below that recommended by the code of ethics they claim to support / follow. What they are attempting to do is unethical as per this code.--Doc James (talk contribs · email) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• In the "Expert sign of section" [7] he claimed: No evidence of harm therefore we do not need to worry about ethics.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Here he is smiling about his notoriety [8]: Looks like the discussion is becoming infamously. They might just start showing the ten inkblots on the evening news yet if we all keep this up. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, if a psychologist were to contaminate next year's batch of flu vaccine and claim as an "expert" that it might not work anyways, he would lose his license. Here Dr. James Heilman has contaminated a widely used psychological test, claiming "expertise" and stating that in his (expert) opinion it isn't a big deal. Indeed he accuses the others of being unethical by opposing what he has done. I wonder how seriously his Medical College take the Hippocratic Oath, in particular " "Above all, do no harm".Faustian (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the "Actually I am an expert." comment Talk:Rorschach_test/images/2009-06_Arguments_Pro#.2302_-_No_evidence_of_harm ''in context'' it is unclear as to what Doc James is claiming expertise in. You could even say in context it looks like he was being sarcastic. Ward3001's position IMHO is like taking George Brown Goode's statement of the Smithsonian being one giant Museum of Anthropology at face value without understanding how Goode defined "Anthropology".

Another factor is Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." This statement (or the entire article) has has already been picked up by Medical News Today, Science Daily, EurekAlert! (run by the AAAS}, lab spaces, physorg.com , e! sciencenews.com, sciencecodex.com, Shrink rap Tri-City Psychology Services, and an increasing numbed of other sites as well as several blogs (which don't count as far as WP:RS goes). A search through the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard archive and throwing out the chaff shows that Newsweek is regarded as [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36 "a highly reliable news magazine"] so the Newsweek article met WP:RS requirements despite Ward3001's efforts to blow it off as simply being among "popular magazines". Now we find that the statement is being made through the news section of an organization that publishes journals on Psychology.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt about James's claim of expertise in the Rorschach, either in or out of context. The issue being discussed was expertise in the Rorschach, James wrote "I am an expert", I challenged him on it, and he did not clarify. Trying to refactor this in hindsight does not change what is in the archives. Ward3001 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on an editors personal ethics is not relevant to improving the article. Trying to scare him away with veiled threats is completely unacceptable. Please stop that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You have missed the point somewhat Apoc. The discussion is about his professional ethics (i.e., false claims of expertise). And when an editor publicly identifies himself by name to the world so that it is apparent to anyone (not just editors here) what he has misrepresented here, that becomes relevant to this discussion. We're not just talking about a Wikipedia editor; we talking about a public figure. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.medpedia.com/ uses real names and qualifications to increase transparency. Wikipedia however does not partly because of fear of personal attacks from less. I beleive in greater transparency however do understand the fears of many in letting there identity be known. Ward I am a physician which makes me a medical expert. Maybe we should bring this discussion to WP:ANI or arbitation or something.

There are complaints that psychologists are unable to improve this page. At this point it is difficult for anyone to make improvements. Partly due to the anymosity here and the fact that the page is block to all but admins. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

James, most of us know you are a physician, and undoubtedly you have medical expertise. Some of us also know that a physician is not a psychologist, and that (with the exception of psychiatrists), most physicians have no expertise (nor claim it) in psychological testing. So the very critical question that you need to answer without hedging or circumlocution is: Do you claim to be an expert on the Rorschach? And do you claim to be an expert on any psychological test? In the past you have failed to respond to such inquiries. You might be able to bring this issue to a close if you'll be straightforward in your answer. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether James is a public figure or not, discussions on his personal ethics are still not relevant to this article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And Apoc, for the second time, this is about professional ethics, not personal ethics. And a false claim of expertise is relevant. Ward3001 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it simply. The addition of these images has nothing to do with an expertise in psychology or any other feild for that matter. It has to do with consensus of wikipedians and the fact that these images are encylopedic. Certain editors not liking the decision of the majority is not going to change matters.

Also I would appreciate you give it a rest regarding who has what qualifications here. As mentioned on your talk page [9] it does not matter who is an expert in what. It matters that the material added to the main space is verifiable. And yes the images are truely the Rorschach images or do you have a ref that claims otherwise.

This page is about the Rorschach it is not about the ethics of those editing. Move this someplace else.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

James, you are refusing to give a direct yes or no to the question of whether you claim to be an expert in the Rorschach. And why is that? Is it because you don't want to dispel your false claims of expertise, or that you don't want to admit that you made misleading claims? And I didn't ask the question in terms of the images. Your answer is quite relevant. You said, "Actually I am an expert". If you are claiming to be an expert in the Rorschach, you then have tried to use that claimed expertise to sway opinions here. Let me try to give you an analogy. I am a psychologist. I know more about neuropsychology than the average person, and I have administered some neuropsychological tests within the limits of my training and background. But I do not claim to be an expert on neuropsychology. If someone needs a neuropsychologist, I refer them elsewhere. So I can give a clear, unequivocal "no" if I am asked, "Are you an expert in neuropsychology?" Since you have said "Actually I am an expert", some here have chosen to interpret that as an expert in the Rorschach, and you have not denied that. Can you give a clear and unequivocal yes or no to the question: Do you claim to be an expert on the Rorschach? If you continue to avoid answering the question directly, we have no choice but to conclude that you do not wish to clarify this matter, making your claim "Actually I am an expert" misleading. You can settle it easily with a yes or a no. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ward this is irrelevant.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood. You do not wish to dispel misleading claims of expertise. You wish to perpetuate the false impressions. That speaks volumes. We can all now without any hesitation say, James has no expertise in the Rorschach. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent I am glad that we have this settled. Now let move on.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciating Conflicting Ethics

I think it's unfortunate that some psychologists have made such a power struggle out of this, rather than maintaining a constructive attitude. Rather than the same old ethics vs. free press debate, there are other angles we could look at.

First, these images being included in Wikipedia should be a red flag to psychologists. They're in the public domain and available on the web - and psychology has not kept up to the computerized world by adjusting itself. Here is an opportunuity Wikipedia has provided for the profession to decide whether it needs to develop new tests and copyright them, or abandon the old tests in favour of existing copyrighted ones. The profession has for years neglected to adjust to the information age in this way, even though for a long time they have known the power of the web and the laws around public domain. There's no point in blaming the media, which has alternate ethics. It's the responsibility of the psychology profession to adjust, rather than assume the media should bend its ethics to psychologists' ethics, as if the ethics of psychologists is superior.

Second, blaming the doctor is meaningless. Anyone could have put the images up. I think it's a good thing to have people who are interested in this subject learn about it. This can provide benefits to the public good. Maybe inspire some readers to study psychology. Or help people think a bit about psychology, which might even lead them to see a therapist down the road. There is no reason to believe the psychology profession's ethic of keeping tests secret does more good than the media's or education profession's ethic of sharing information. Psychologists should realize they live in a shared world with other professions, all of which think differently, and none of which necessarily has the right answer. 66.183.132.33 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Two comments (or a question and a comment): What do you mean by "old" ethics? The APA ethical standards have been revised within the past four years. I'm sure the American Medical Association's and Canadian Medical Association's ethical codes have been revised recently.

Second, the issue is more than "blaming the doctor" for posting the images. The issue also has been the professional conduct and ethics of the doctor, that doctor's misrepresentation of himself as an expert in matters he knows almost nothing about or had any training in, and that doctor's denigration of other professionals. Ward3001 (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• first point - not "same old ethics"; same "old ethics vs. free press debate."
• second point - I didn't say the issue was about blaming the doctor. I said the issue here at Wikipedia has nothing to do with the doctor. 66.183.132.33 (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank 33 for his / her very reasoned comments. And sorry Ward but it is you who is misrepresenting what I have said. You continue to do so even after I have corrected you. I have not denigrated your profession. Only certain members of it. You words speak clearly on there own however and need little help from me. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your "correction" of me was itself a misrepresentation of the facts. So, likewise, your words continue to confirm your pattern of misrepresentation, whether we talk about your improperly claimed expertise or your denigration of psychologists even in the very message you just wrote denying it. Thanks for making my points. Ward3001 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

66.183.132.33, I appreciate your thoughtful input in this debate. Ward, perhaps your opinions about James are better suited on his or your talk page than this article talk page. Chillum 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, perhaps my comments are best suited on this page on which James made improper claims about his expertise (and I have provide the link to that above) and on which he has denigrated psychologists. Maybe your constant refrain of "take it to [whoever's] talk page" is getting so tiresome that it's meaningless. Ward3001 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks applies. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out an editor's misrepresentation of his expertise is not a personal attack. If I claim to be the world's expert in astrophysics, and proceed to make major changes in the article on that basis, and then I revealed that I am not an expert publicly, it would be appropriate to point that out. Ward3001 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC), James said "Actually, I am an expert". In context, I personally read this as him being an expert, but not necessarily in the Rorschach test; i.e. he was referring to his status as an expert in medicine. Both yourself and Faustian provided rebuttals that he did not counter; thus he tacitly conceded that he is not an expert on the Rorschach. IMO, there's no point belabouring it further. –xeno^talk 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this has gotten a bit too personal. Ward, I think that it's reasonable to discuss whether someone has made a claim of expertise inappropriately, but this isn't just about James, and making it a personal fight between the two of you doesn't make you (or any of the other psychology types) look reasonable. James may be an instantiation of a particular POV that you and I find personally and professionally objectionable, but what we're really talking about here is not about him at all. Mirafra (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The salient point here is that Wikipedia's article appears at or near the top of search results for the search term "Rorshach test", that is why this debate is valid despite the amount of other easily obtainable information in the public domain. Wikimedia's views RE freedom of speech and articles written by consensus, are at best intellectually dishonest; in that Wikipedia doesn't have articles on say bomb making, or how to make poison. Excluding such information is a political decision based on social responsibility. Exactly the same reasoning should apply as to whether to display Rorschach test images and results. At the very least there should be a button at the top of the article that warns readers that the images and test results will be displayed, to give readers a choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.190.230 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have all along said I was a physcian. It says as much on my talk page. I have commented that physicians do not learn about the Rorschach in medical school or anywere else for that matter. How you figured out after all of this that I was somehow claiming expertise wrt to the Rorschach is beyond me.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes a nice strawman for people to beat on rather than contest things like Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." To date nothing contesting this statement being made through the news section of an organization that publishes journals on Psychology has been presented and I doubt there will be for a while as it is so new.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is tedious. Because Isanski (who is a publicist, not a psychologist) claims in a press release that a 2000 article is "the last word" does not make it so. The APA Journal Psychological Assessment did a lengthy series on the topic in 2001-2003, the overall conclusions of which were that the validity of the Rorschach equalled that of the best personality inventories, including the MMPI-2. The references to this are given in the Society for Personality Assessment statement on Rorschach validity, the reference to which I posted above. In addition further meta-analytic studies have been published in the interim (9 years is more than a "few," especially in terms of scientific research). Despite this, uninformed individuals continue to post claims that the Psych. Science piece is the "last word." This is, unfortunately, what happens when the media gets ahold of a technical issue: laypersons latch onto definitive statements by publicists as if they were scientific truth, and the facts become obscured. We are seeing this with posts like that above.SPAdoc (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First, Isanski did NOT say "last word" but rather "most definitive word" a totally different thing. Second, I have to question if some WP:SYN is not going on as to date where have been statement but few actual quote out of these other articles. Third, we have Dr. John Grohol in "Rorschach, Research and Wikipedia" stating "That very well may be the case, but there's very little evidence that actually shows that any type of pre-exposure to the inkblots taints the results. In fact, I couldn't find a single study that examined this issue. So while it is a widely-held belief amongst many psychologists, it's not a belief grounded in scientific data for the Rorschach (what some psychologists might refer to as an "irrational belief")." Fourth, as I asked before regarding court cases and Grohol confirmed as far as general modern practice is concerned Rorschach doesn't stand alone but in tandem with other projective and objective tests. He even sates int he same article linked to above "Because it's administered in a larger set of psychological tests, the psychologist who analyzes the test data is looking for trends or similarities amongst the disparate tests. A single odd score on the Rorschach would likely be dismissed, if not confirmed by other psychological testing data." Finally, going back to the Isanski article this is coming out of the news division of an organization who publishes journals on Psychology. Certainly an organization that publishes journals on Psychology is going to keep tabs on what its news division is putting out and control it so not to damage its reputation. It is simple common sense to do so.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No evidence whatsoever that John Grohol knows anything about the Roschach, and his comments are on ... huffingtonpost.com??? GIVE ME A BREAK! Bruce, I'm sorry, but you really can come up with some incredible (read that as completely unscientific) sources. I suppose your next scan of the "literature" will be in the tabloids. You are aware that there are peer-reviewed journals on psychological assessment aren't you? Ward3001 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Two comments Bruce. I asked James above to give us a simple, unequivocal, straightforward answer as to whether he claims to be an expert on the Rorschach or any other psychological test. If he can do so, that could bring this issue to a close (or if he is non-commital or vague) let others know whether he is willing to deny expertise in the Roschach. Second point, bolding letters does not make your point more believeable; you have no basis other than your own opinion that the source you mention is the most definitive word on the Rorschach". There are a number of exhaustive reviews of the Rorschach, including subsequent to the one you mention. Ward3001 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good God, you're still banging the drum about which editors here are experts on the test? I am more of an expert than self-proclaimed experts who falsely tried to claim that 80% of all psychologists used the test, that it's considered valid in the field, etc. The point isn't whether *you* ior *I* call ourselves experts, it's what the outside world's experts that can be proven to be so say, and that's pretty obvious. All the latest studies show the Rorschach is pseudoscientific bunk. The people who think it has value are the people who want to get paid big bucks to read bumps on other people's heads instead of using real science or the company selling copies of the test. Of course those people are going to try to claim the test works... and astrologers try to claim astrology works, the flatearthers still say the world is flat, and the "intelligent design" people try to claim there's no evidence for evolution. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You can keep repeating your ill-informed personal opinion over and over again, but that doesn't make it scientific consensus. Read the articles SPADoc is referencing, for instance. The test is certainly not universally used -- no test is. Part of why psychological evaluation is not done by trained monkeys is that, over time, each professional develops a personal repertoire of instruments they find to be particularly useful in guiding their clinical judgment. Different people find different types of instruments to be more and less personally useful, even when scientific studies show them to have equal validity. There are professional disagreements throughout psychology regarding different tests and the best ways to evaluate for different types of conditions. That's all normal. There are also professional disagreements throughout any professional field, and it can be very difficult for someone who hasn't taken the time to get the big picture to really make sense of it. Nor are the personal attacks on your imagined nefarious motives of the professionals involved in psychological evaluation even remotely appropriate to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, or WP:NPOV. Mirafra (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I can hardly imagine that someone whose user page highlights a quote that, "Experts are scum," has a particularly helpful perspective here in terms of helping us come to some kind of consensus about whose professional opinions are worth thinking about. It's hard for me to assume that you're acting in good faith and that you agree that experts are actually welcome in WP when that's something you consider to be important. (Plus, your rather consistently nasty tone and refusal to cite sources outside of your own head.). Mirafra (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Read in context, DreamGuy's the quote on DreamGuy's page there is actually sympathetic to the concerns of experts. –xeno^talk 18:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me Xeno, but which quote are you referring to? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote from his user page. "Experts are scum" ... (because Randy from Boise wants to include mention of sword-wielding skeletons...) –xeno^talk 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. When you endorse something like "The Wikipedia philosophy is that experts are scum," -- endorsing the notion that expertise is not welcome on WP in general -- it's kind of hard to tell whether the sympathy is towards someone with real-world credentials or Randy from Boise. Mirafra (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I see DreamGuy's comment as just a sarcastic variant of Sturgeon's Law and the "Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")" part of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Going over Sagan's list you can see that several of them seem to apply to the Rorschach Test. Fr example, the Double blind test seems to be the Rorschach Test's biggest stumbling block as explained in "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading" article; the very nature of the test causes problems in this area. I should mention by Mirafra reasoning Ward3001's endorsement of "Wikipedia's days are numbered, I fear, consumed by its own nonfeasance. Tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say." doesn't bode well either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, since you brought up the quote on my user page, I should point out that I include you among those editors who have "decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say". No offense, but you're the one who decided to bring up my user page. Did you happen to continue reading and see "We need a content arbcom drawn from reputable reliable institutions that partner with Wikipedia"? Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If we are using peoples personal talk pages I summit the parts of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit present on my own that I have seen a lot of here: Argument from "authority", Ignoring of "Occam's razor", Observational selection, and Excluded middle.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that we're arguing from authority. We've presented scientific sources numerous times. Mirafra (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Availability

1. Even if# the images are totally blocked on WP, they have been available on WP and elsewhere for 'some time' now, and the controversy has probably alerted many curious people to their availablity. The horse has left the stable (because the cat is out of the bag?) and #whatever# healthcare people now do or say they will have to assume some familiarity with the images. As in other cases there is a boomerang effect - complaining loudly about the publication of the images ensures greater publicity.

1. However# what seems to be the key point is the 'interpretation of responses to the images' - how Broadmoor patients' responses differ from the person on the street or 'the average genius/sports star/captain of industry' etc. So long as #this# information is safe, how does publication of the images affect interpretation?

Can some of this discussion be archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we are not just concerned about the images themselves. We are also concerned about the discussion of how the tests are scored and interpreted. I think we can write a good and informative article that will do justice both to the public's desire to know about these things and to the profession's need to keep them secure. We cannot do that, however, in the current climate, where the educated opinions of psychology professionals are not welcome. Nor can we do it in a climate where self-appointed amateurs are pushing their personal POV that psychological tests are pseudoscience and attempting to use WP not just to inform the public, but also to destroy the usefulness of the tests and to control the actions of professionals whose work serves an important public good. Mirafra (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be 'one of the usual circular arguments': the professionals wish to keep some information opaque so the systems work properly (much as the police may hold back some information on particular cases to identify useful contributors from (colloquially) attention seekers and other hinderances); those who observe the situation wish to be better informed and others go in for creative conspiracy theory generation. Unlike the colour-blindness tests there seems to be a high degree of subjectivity in the analysis, and probably 'most of us' will have different associations for some of the images which reflect 'harmless quirks and particular tastes' - eg seeing a wolf on Plate 1 without any 'possible flags of problems in other areas'

Given the date of the original images, the general knowledge of some of them, the length of time since the 1969 analysis, and other changes - eg Internet, Wikipedia, Second Life - it is perhaps time for a reconsidering. The intent should be to satisfy general curiosity (how are the images used etcd that 'to the casual observer' there seems to be a high degree of subjectivity, perhaps it is time for a reconsidering (the impact of eg the and other means of exploring what we might wish to be).

When the kerfuffle dies down there should be a reworking of the article covering the key areas of historical development and how the tests are used.

There are always arguments about the spread of knowledge to laypeople - and eg some of the 'information readily available on ganfyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable summation of the problem. I'd like to clarify that the current usage of the test is actually much less subjective than most people think it is (it is substantially a neuropsychological test, with the projective aspects taking a supplementary role, and even those are interpreted in light of population norms rather than being purely the whim of the evaluator), and that the normal variation within the population about what people see and why they see it is absolutely taken into consideration in the interpretive system. Mirafra (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra: Your recent posts have summarized the discussion beautifully. I would like to get away from the specifics of the issue of the plates themselves and expand upon a couple of general issues. I think some of the posters don't fully appreciate the reasons behind keeping certain test materials secure. If the tests function better that way, they allow for a more accurate diagnosis and/or personality description. To use a couple of analogies: when researchers use double-blind studies in order to test the effectiveness of drugs or other treatments, informing the subjects of which condition they were in might fulfill someone's version of "freedom of information," but it would make it impossible to accurately test the effectiveness of the drug or treatment. The reference to the eye chart is another example. There is nothing gained by having that available on the internet, but there is an increase in danger to the public in that visually-impaired individuals might be given driver's licenses. The chart could have just as easily been posted with the letters in a scrambled order. The same pedagogical function would have been served without danger. One other point that I want to make. There seems to be a general hostility to psychology and mental health in the tenor of some posts. These have the subtext of "if they are so worried about their precious tests, let them make new ones. If they don't, it's their problem." If Wikipedia were to post something that had the potential of invalidating CT-scans or MRI's (thus making the diagnosis of cancer more difficult), I doubt the attitude would be: "if radiologists can't come up with another kind of test, that's their problem." Somehow, the accurate diagnosis of psychiatric disorders is viewed as less important to the public. Curious.SPAdoc (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem, SPAdoc, is that based on the very design of the Rorschach test (as presented by Wood in "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading") there are going to be problems with double blind. For example, if someone looking at Plate 6 says "I see a Klingon battle ship" the psychologist now knowns he has a Star Trek fan or perhaps fullblown Treker/Trekie on his hands. Someone seeing Plate 3 as "two gnomes riding striders" has told the psychologist they play a lot of WOW. I grew up on a lot of PBS and so see Plate 7 as coral or a vase while Plate 9 reminds me of an oil slick that I saw under my father's car years ago. Then what do do when you have a cultural shift like the internet which as we know it is not even 10 years old?

What is going to happen when somebody says Plate 5 is the headdress of some anime character the psychologist odds are has never even heard of? Better yet how do plates 8 through 10 work with color blind people?

One the most troubling thing in all this is the effort psychologists have put into this and their apparent lack of effort regarding public hysteria around Satanism and Dungeons & Dragons in the 1980s to the point the Center for the Treatment of Ritualistic Deviance out of Hartgrove Hospital in Chicago was set up to address the problems of the "crazy" Satanists and Dungeon & Dragons players despite Armando, Simón, (1987) "Emotional Stability Pertaining to the Game of Dungeons & Dragons." Psychology in the Schools, p. 329-332 showing the whole premise was garbage. Where was the vaulted "do no harm" then?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Bruce, psychologists don't all live under rocks. Some of us are well aware of fannish culture and other non-white-bread cultures and subcultures. The rest do this amazing thing -- when they hear a response they're not familiar with, they actually look it up on the intertubes, or they consult with other folks who know more about it. I'm not kidding here -- these precise types of discussions happen all the time on the professional lists, for precisely this reason.

As for color-blindness, actually, that's been studied. Remember that most folks who are color-blind are not profoundly color-blind -- in the one paper I found on a quick search (Corsino, Bruce V. (1985). Color blindness and Rorschach color responsivity. ; Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol 49(5), Oct, 1985. pp. 533-534.), they found no important differences between color-blind folks and normally-sighted controls. If someone is known to be seriously color-blind, then duh, that would affect one's interpretation of the variables related to color, but not necessarily to other variables -- what we do is note the difference and consider carefully how this will affect our conclusions. It's not rocket-science, nor is it the kind of mechanistic black-and-white process you seem to think it must be.

As for the rest of your screed, this is a classic bit of nonsense, a crude attempt to change the subject. You're saying that if any psychologist anywhere has ever gone off in some weird direction because they didn't understand D&D in cultural context, that therefore no psychologist can possibly be trusted to be clueful and helpful, and that the entire process of psychological testing must automatically be completely invalid because, no matter what the research says, you know you're right? Puh-leeze. Mirafra (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, your comments come from a complete ignorance (not an attack, we're all ignorant about many things) about the coding system for the Rorschach. The examples you gave are easily coded by someone with a modicum of training in coding. The average high school student, with some training in coding the Rorschach, could do the coding of that example (interpretation of the coding results requires vastly more training and experience). You essentially created a straw man because your assumptions are completely contrary to realities of Rorschach coding. Ward3001 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Klingons and WoW, #are# examples of a subjective component - and any psychologist who cannot ask 'what do you mean by that?' will not be able to carry out an effective job anyway.

The Snellen charts issue could be easily resolved with a 'computer screen with a controlled random letter generator' (so the testee will be presented with an unlearnt layout) and the colour blindness tests can be used for self-identification of possible visual problems by non-experts without too high a degree of false positives.

The problem is - most laypeople can understand practical comparisons 'we are seeing the effects of using/not using this particular drug/activity/combination of drugs and activities' or the radiologist's 'this mark on the X-ray/this colour on the scan means Y' - but psychology, psychiatry and other means of analysis #seem# to involve too many variables and assumptions.

Given that the article tells people various aspects of the test (does the person rotate the image and ask permission to do so) it could be argued that 'the proverbial testee' already has some pointers. Most of the people looking at this article will recognise the distinction between 'what is done/the tests being used' (which can be at least partially in public view) and the particular analysis thereof (which will depend on many factors, and which will require trained analysis). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon 83.104.132.41, you also don't have a clue about the coding process. First of all, any decent psychologist will ask follow-up questions. Secondly, the coding of such a response is NOT subjective. Every reasonably trained psychologist would code the response the same way. Once again, you've created a straw man because you have no knowledge of the coding process. Ward3001 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My comment about the psychologist implied that an effective/decent psychologist #would# be asking further questions - and where is the 'straw man' in distinguishing the 'public part' and the 'particular analysis' (which will include the coding 'and all other aspects of analysis') - the 'wolf' response is likely to map quite differently for someone who is into 'vampires, werewolves and suchlike'/Roman military history, or who has certain psychological problems.

Each society has its own cultural assumptions - #who# can do #what# which will, to some extent, define 'normality' eg the Viking Beserker or the Victorian image of the woman as the 'Angel in the House.'

'The areas of vagueness, misunderstanding and unclarity' on this talk page can be used in developing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon 83.104.132.41, please explain how the "wolf" response would be coded differently depending on whether someone is into vampires or werewolves compared to someone who has psychological problems? Which specific codes would change? Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the codes - which is the point of the discussion (that laypersons' knowledge of these areas of detail will render the process invalid). Most laypersons can make a general analysis of other people's psychological makeup - the psychologist/psychiatrist/other analyst of the mind will be more specific. The analogy (from what I can understand from the article), perhaps, should be to the nucleotides of DNA - the wolf image may get the same Rorschach-test code, but the combination of codes will be different for the reader/writer of vampire and werewolf fiction or the reenactment society Roman Army standard bearer (wearing a wolfskin) and the person seeing an 'apocalyptic Fenrir wolf image'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to make a cogent point, Anon 83.104.132.41. The fact that you know nothing about coding does not make the coding process done by the psychologist invalid. I've given 600 Rorschachs, coded them accurately, and done so even though the patients knew nothing about coding. Is your point here really that you don't know very much about interpretation based on the coding? That would make sense, and if so I think we can safely dismiss your argument. Ward3001 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to me to reveal a disturbing trend that one can see throughout the controversy: a barely disguised hostility to the profession of psychology. To follow Grubb's "logic," we would need to say that no surgeon can be trusted because there have been instances of malpractice; internists are all quacks, because they used to believe that bacterial infection was unrelated to peptic ulcer disease. Similarly, the attitude of some posters here has been "if publication damages your precious tests, tough s--t for you." No one would say that if the subject were an MRI or CT Scan. I believe this hostility stems from the fact that many laypersons don't want to believe that anyone else has expertise in the area of mind or psyche, lest there be something about themselves that is uncovered. If psychological tests are discredited, those seeking help for mental illnesses (who deserve as much care as those seeking help for physical illnesses) suffer. As for cultural relevance affecting Rorschach responses: of course this is the case. I'm pretty sure that no one ever gave a response of Ewok or Wookie to a Rorschach blot prior to 1976. So what? The Comprehensive System for coding and interpreting the test was designed in part to take that kind of subjectivity out of the process. When confronted with responses that are unfamiliar, competent psychologists try to find out if there really is such an animal or fantasy figure, or whatever. Questions that come from ignorance are important and need to be answered; Strident statements that come from ignorance only serve to discredit the speaker.SPAdoc (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with SPA. After reading many of the comment on many of the news pages Psychology does seem to garner a negative reaction from the public at large. This feeling however existed long before this controversy began. As an outsider to the field I would recommend a thorough self examination of the profession to determine why this distrust exists. One I would agree is that much of the topic dealt with is mental illness for which people have very strong reactions. Some however is due to IMO the secrecy of the profession. And the reactions of many of the members of this profession during the current controversy has done little to improve the professions image in the public mind.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly one possibility is when healthcare workers, whom many people want to trust because they depend on healthcare workers, deceptively portray themselves as knowing something about the field of psychology and then do anything they can to denigrate the profession. There's not much that soul searching by psychologists could do to counteract such irresponbsible behavior by professionals outside their field. Ward3001 (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is that attempting to force one group's ethics or beliefs on another group is not usually taken kindly in the Western world.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Or forcing one's absence of ethics. Ward3001 (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee Ward, haven't you noticed that "ethics" means different things to different people? Or did you mean your ethics? Chillum 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ethics mean different things to different people. For some people, including some physicians and Wikipedia "administrators", it means nothing. Ward3001 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone does not share your point of view does not mean they lack ethics. Do you really thing that you are so right that anyone who disagrees with you is lacking in ethics? You seem to forget that some people think censorship is not ethical so you really are living in a glass hour there. Lets not talk about each other okay? Instead we should stick to the topic which I think is pretty much exhausted, not much more to say to each other. Chillum 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not talk about each other??? Tell me, Chillum, when you wrote that message to me a couple of lines above, did you think you were talking about someone named Ward in an alternate universe? I don't evaluate someone's ethics by whether they share my view. I tend to look at things like being deceptive about one's expertise, portraying one's self as a healer while at the same time ignoring potential harm to others' mental health, repeatedly misrepresenting others' opinions, and telling someone to not talk about each other while in the process of talking about ... each other. No wait a minute ... the last one doesn't pertain to ethics. It pertains to basic common sense. Ward3001 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not denying that we have been talking about each other, I was proposing a change. We really should not be as this is not the purpose of this page. Lets not talk about each other, what do you think of that? Chillum 01:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talking about each other just to be talking about each other is something we can do without. The Catch-22 we get into if you are the decider about who is doing that is, you undoubtedly feel that applies to almost everything I've written here and does not apply to most of what you or a few other editors have written here. Talking about what someone says on this talk page or off-wiki (i.e., a newspaper) is very much within the purpose of this talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please stop bickering. I don't think that the editors who want to publish secure test information lack ethics. I don't, however, feel that all ethical positions are equally valid. To put this in perspective, say, with Kohlberg, the editors who are in favor of respecting test security are working from a postconventional mindset -- we're thinking about the social implications of the choice, about what place we think WP should take within the larger social milieu. That's part of why it's been so frustrating and insulting to us to have people assume that we're coming from more immature viewpoints -- avoiding harm, seeking personal gain, etc. On the side of disclosing everything, I see many different kinds of arguments coming from many different people. I have a hard time respecting the ones that are essentially preconventional ("I can do it because I want to and you can't stop me so there!"). The ones that focus on the law-and-order aspects ("WP has a policy that cannot be changed, altered, or reconstrued in light of new information or the specific characteristics of a situation") are frustrating, because it seems that the people are not hearing that we're trying to think about things from a more thoughtful perspective. Rules were written by humans and can be rewritten by humans.

I do also hear a few folks who think they're doing this out of a desire to do good in the world, by freely making all information available to all those who seek it for any reason (a postconventional position). That position is one that I think deserves respect. It's a position that I agree with in the vast majority of situations. However, in the extremely specific instance of secure tests, I think that this social ideal needs to be balanced against another social ideal (the need to preserve the ability of professionals to actually do our work to serve the social good) and that's why I've been willing to spend time here talking about it.

Now, I think SPADoc makes a very good point about the elephant in the room. WP isn't the only place in which people who aren't psychologists are afraid of psychologists. Shrinks have a special and conflicted place in the popular psyche, and a lot of the anxiety seems to be centered around the idea that we might somehow have the ability to read minds or control minds. Of course, we don't. We're ordinary people, we go to the grocery store and put our pants on one leg at a time. A software engineer knows how to figure out the bugs in a piece of code. It seems like magic to me, but I accept that there are things I haven't learned enough about for them to feel easy. A cardiologist is attuned to the subtle differences in sounds he can hear through a stethoscope. Similarly, a psychologist is trained about what to look for in what people do and say -- we're trained to be good observers, really. And how we do that, we're not even remotely secretive about it. Techniques for active listening, therapeutic techniques, etc, are all widely available, and I don't hear anyone claiming that this kind of information should be restricted.

(If someone did, I'd argue strongly against them. Why? Because one person's exercising the choice to learn more about these techniques, and even to practice them without a license, does not affect the world-at-large in the way that one person's choice to damage the usefulness of a psychological test does. You can learn to talk to crazy people all you want, and you won't be stopped until your individual actions break your local laws, but your doing so won't affect the ability of other professionals to do their work and the ability of other nonprofessionals to seek help from whomever they choose.)

I think some of the issue is that everyone, to some extent, reads and controls the minds of those around them. It's part of what we have to do as a social animal. And feeling that someone else might be reading or controlling your mind is scary. The secure tests, as the tools we use to understand what people might not be able to tell us about themselves directly, then become the mad-scientist's 1950's-hair-dryer mind-fryer-things. But they're just tools. It's no wonder that people want to attack and destroy them.

James makes a good point that psychologists need to reach out and explain what it is that we do, to try to reduce this anxiety. That's why we're here on WP, trying to make it possible for us to do exactly that.

But, as with all transference reactions, we also have to accept that the reaction is not necessarily to what we personally have actually done. We need to think about our place within the system, and take responsibility for our own actions, without being drawn into the assumption that whatever someone believes about us must necessarily have been completely our doing. James, I can't control what you feel about psychologists. Nor can I change the experiences you've had or the meaning you've made about them. I have been doing my best in this conversation to be very clear about my motives and goals, and to refrain from making mind-reading interpretations. I have been trying to change people's minds the old-fashioned way, by talking it out like reasonable human beings. If you'll listen, I think I've said quite a few times that my goal in joining the WP editorship is to help communicate about psychology, to help answer people's questions in clear and comprehensible language.

It's unfortunate that this one area, secure tests, is one where I cannot be 100% open. But I'm willing to say quite a lot, within those boundaries, and to contribute to the general knowledge, because I agree that doing so might help reduce the anxiety of people about what it is that psychologists do, how, and why. I'm willing to engage in a lot of thoughtful dialogue about what information does and doesn't have to be protected, in order to both maximize the goal of educating the curious public and to maximize the goal of preserving the usefulness of the instruments. Mirafra (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra this is my first and only direct interaction with practicing psychologist since they do not work with mental illness in an emergency environment were I have practiced and trained. I agree that the reaction of the general public is not completely the result of actions of the profession. Movies and television have probably had more of an effect.

The refusal of some to contribute at all to Wikipedia and only make disparaging remarks than justify this based on what seems to be the policies of the psychological associations does not reflect well on the profession as a whole.

IMO to get the general public as well as other health care professional to be open to outreach and educational efforts by the field psychologists it must give a little. This will involve giving up on forcefully trying to maintain test security which is no longer possible such as wrt the Rorschach. Legal threats such as those made against Wikipedia and personal threats and insults against individuals does not win over allies to your profession.

I by the way frequently refer patients to psychologist for CBT and will not let my experience here overshadow this practice.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

James, are you seriously suggesting that psychologists violate their professional ethics to contribute to the Rorschach article? Do you realize that, in addition to being an ethical code written for psychologists by psychologists with an overarching goal of protecting the public welfare, in most jurisdictions the ethical code binds psychologists by law in order to maintain their license and avoid legal action against them?

Further, are you suggesting that the ethical code of psychologists is frivilous, including the restrictions on violating test security in order to protect the public? And bear in mind that the code cannot selectively state that it's OK to violate the security of one test but not the others.

I'll further comment, as I have previously, that the disparaging and damaging comments made by other healthcare professionals is beyond the control of psychologists. I would agree that many professionals need to clean up their act and stop trying to inflict damage on other legitimate and effective healthcare professionals outside their own specific field. Ward3001 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think contributing to the Rorschach article violates your professions ethics. Do you feel that it does?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would explain some of the misunderstandings here, so I'm glad you asked the question. Of course it violates professional ethics, and if you understand the ethical code it's quite obvious. Psychologists cannot lend credibility to an endeavor that itself is so contrary to their professional ethics and has the potential to cause damage to the public. And that has nothing to do with copyright. If someone located in a country in which copyright could not be enforced published MMPI test items on a webpage, psychologists could not participate in that process. There are two basic reasons psychologists (not just the ones currently on this talk page) have not contributed to the article recently, one of which is it would violate professional ethics. (I'll not get into the other one so as to avoid unnecessary disputes here). Ward3001 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur that, based upon my study of the APA ethics code, that I cannot be an accessory to the intentional process of breaking test security. I've been saying that the whole time I've been here. It's a bummer, because I was hoping to help demystify some of the tests by writing about them in ways that are perfectly fine within the ethics code (ie, nothing I wouldn't put into a report or otherwise communicate to a non-psychologist), but if folks are dead-set on destroying the tests, I'll have to refrain from helping them. Mirafra (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's quite sad. Both psychologists and non-psychologists could make so many improvements in the article if psychologists could be a part of that process, and I think it's important for non-psychologists to be involved. It's easy for the psychologists to slip into "journal article" mode and create an article that is not easy to understand by the average person, just as it's easy for non-psychologists to overlook some very critical information or overemphasize unnecessary details. Obviously the public has become interested in this article (who knows for how long?), but I fear they'll never get an article that is both readable and accurate. Ward3001 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Differing philosophies

I think the issue we have here is one of differing philosophies. We have one group which believes information should be freely available and is attempting to catalog the breadth and depth of human knowledge to offer it free to the world at large. Than we have another group who wish to restrict access to this information on the bases of theoretical harm. I think both sides have heard the arguments of the other. Neither side is swayed. Wikipedia however is based on the philosophy of the first argument and has the support of the majority. It has therefore won. Now if only we could all accept this and move on....--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the assessment. --LjL (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also agree but the problem is what is going to going to prevent those who do not accept the idea that the plate should be available even if they are public domain when the page is finally unlocked? I don't think we want an edit war turning this page into a WP:EW mess or where a small group feels they basically Wikipedia:own the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• That is what blocking is for, a fine alternative to protection. Chillum 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that is what the blocking is for but Chillum points out below you can't keep article protected forever. The effort to totally ignore a statement that came out of a news division of an organization that publishes journals on Psychology just shows how much some people want to ignore that the fact do NOT support them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Roger (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

James, you've confirmed what the psychologists have been saying all along: You view this as a game with winners and losers. Majority rules without consideration of the minority's opinions. What you are calling "consensus" here (on this talk page only, not Wikipedia in general) is determined by majority vote. Thanks for making out point. Ward3001 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree I don't think we will ever change the mind of those who want the images removed, and I don't think they will ever get consensus to remove them. I am all for moving on and dropping this matter. We also can't keep the page protected forever so I suggest blocking anyone who edit wars or ignores consensus instead of letting the article suffer. Chillum 14:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with this synopsis. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

• Hello, I'm completely new to this dabate. Well, that's not quite true (I was up till 3am last night reading all the archives... I know - sad, sad sad!). Sometimes another voice in a debate that has gone on for years (yes, I was very surprised to see how tenaciously the same arguments have clung to their respective rocks), can help... or not - I don't know, anyway:
  

-There's a lot of truth in the point that 'its all out there anyway' (perhaps Psychology authorities need to think what might be next to be 'outed', and try to close that stable door)
-"to catalogue the breadth and depth of human knowledge to offer it free to the world". Seems a good and noble cause. But there are exceptions. There was a case recently where a senior Policeman in the UK carried a document about an anti-terror operation in a see through folder into No. 10 Downing Street. Naturally enough he got in big trouble. If I recall correctly the Media all showed the crucial page, but with the details blurred. Perhaps Wikipedia could take a similar line... the Psychologists professional bodies have erred in not protecting what they should have according to thier own code - to expose this is fine, but to reveal actual details is perhaps not... (analogy not great, because the Police operation details were not already available as in the Rorschach case)
-Standardised Tests (I was introduced to one as part of an Occupational Therapy training) DO take a lot of research over a long time. To potentially accelerate the invalidation of one, just for the sake of "all information must be out there", seems a tad vandalistic to me.
-Surely Psychologists don't rely on the Rorschach as a major tool for diagnosis (someone can correct me here, but there must have been great strides made with other tools/techniques since 1927)
-Unfortunately it seems (sorry, its in the archives somewhere) that courts have greatly increased their use (and reliance?) on the Rorschach in recent years. That's worrying, and WP doesn't help if the tests really are spoiled by prior exposure...
-Surely its well documented that prior exposure to a given stimulus does affect outcomes. As a simple example, that famous psychology text book image of the candlestick/two faces, can never be seen as just one or the other after realisation/explanation.
There we are, I'm sure the arguments will continue but I hope that the Psychology profession is, as we speak, creating alternate, reliable, safeguarded tools.--Jabberwock359 (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting way of framing giving out the answers and the test items to a test. Is doing so for medical licensing exams, the SAT, etc. also comparable in your opinion? Does doing so indicate a belif that "information should be freely available and is attempting to catalog the breadth and depth of human knowledge to offer it free to the world at large." Does opposing doing this constittue "restrict access to this information on the bases of theoretical harm." Is wikipedia a site for leaking tests if you can get away with it (copyright, etc.) or an encyclopedia? Do the two have to be the sasme thingFaustian (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
hmm... having trouble with line breaks, paras, etc.. didn't mean to hide my signature... I'll try here... --Jabberwock359 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess wikipedia is already a site for leaking things if they can be, by virtue of the fact that anyone can post anything at least for a while. Its just in the nature of it. Guidelines are great, but an open access system is bound to used (and abused). On another point: Its not really a 'leak' if its already freely available. The professionals view seems to be that everyone should respect ethical considerations, however in reality that's not going to happen.Jabberwock359 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments, Jabberwock. I'll just respond to part of what you wrote. No psychological test actually makes a diagnosis. As you suggest, a test is a tool used by the diagnostician. Psychologists have many such tools available, including a variety of tests. But they don't all do the same thing. The Rorschach is a major tool used by psychologists (but not the only one), and the casual, flippant attitude that many have shown here about damaging its validity, especially someone who claims to be a healer (and falsely claims to be an expert), is an ethical tragedy. Ward3001 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, an ethical tragedy, but is the tragedy the making of casual flippant attitudes (which you can expect to get on WP), or made by the failure of people who recognised that its validity was vulnerable but did not put adequate safeguards in place? Jabberwock359 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree for the most part, Jabberwock. But one of your points is unclear. What "safeguards" could have been put in place that weren't. It was impossible to legally extend the copyright on the images. The current test took 90 years of research to get to its current status. Any attempt to develop a new test would take decades of research, millions of dollars, and with no guarantee that it would have equivalent usefulness. One possible safeguard would have been more stringent control of the behavior of physicians or other health professionals by their respective governing bodies to avoid wreckless behavior, but that's beyond the control of psychologists. What other safeguards could have been put in place? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, they therefore knew that the copyright would expire and did nothing to prepare for that situation. If you're saying (as it seems) that "there's nothing they could do", then the test should have been recognised as having a limited lifespan and treated accordingly. (I do wonder how the test was made available to non-Psychology professionals in the first place.)

Also, why - given that they could see it's limited life-span and the time needed to create a new one - did they not start making that new one earlier?Jabberwock359 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To some extent, you're engaging in 20-20 hindsight, which can be very misleading. First, expiration of the copyright and public exposure of the images was not a serious issue until the explosion of the internet and proliferation of websites. In relative terms, that happened quickly (relative to exposure the old fashioned way, which was an extremely slow process relative to the internet). Secondly, what could psychologists have done in the few years it took to realize that the internet posed a problem regarding exposure? As I've said, development of the Rorschach to its current level of usefulness took about nine decades. Development of a new test would take decades, cost lots of money, and all without any guarantee that a replacement test would be one-tenth as good. Some tests are much more easily revised. The MMPI underwent a major revision. That took some years, but it's a paper-pencil test with a finite number of questions and responses. The MMPI developers were able to blend old items with new items, allowing for some continued reliance on older research. Additionally, the revised test could then be copyrighted, essentially providing additional decades of protection. Not so with a test like the Rorschach. Some years ago, a psychologist named Holtzman tried to develop a different inkblot test. For clinical purposes it essentially is useless. So in the few years since websites have begun posting the images, what do you suggest could have been done? Ward3001 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it is a form of 20-20 hindsight. But that's my point - if it was inevitable that the internet would proliferate out of copright stuff, and that's only been plain for a 'few years' (although I think many years would be nearer the mark) - then those 'few years' could have been used profitably by the Psychology authorities to warn Courts etc. that the test would shortly become invalid. Instead, one imagines the professionals whispering to each other: 'hush don't say a word about it and maybe we can carry on using it for a little longer before the proverbial hits the fan'. So its a bit disingenuous to blame the latest publicists - a bit like shooting the messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabberwock359 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This 20-20 hindsight defense is laughable. Remember when Rorschach first published the test the US copyright would have had to be renewed in 28 years to keep the US copyright and with that the thing would run out in 1977. We are asked to believe that a bunch of professionals who look after our mental health suddenly went bag full of hammers dumb regarding the issue of keeping what would eventually go public domain (the images themselves) under control. The signs were all there: while Verne's 1863 internet was unknown Licklider in 1960 did predict a limited version of the internet. This Sword of Damocles has hanging by a thread and only as it falls does anyone pay attention?!? Come on the professional couldn't have been that clueless.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your expectations that someone can predict the future is more than laughable. It's very similar to the delusional ideation that I've often seen in people who are psychotic. Next I suppose you'll be saying that psychologists are sending radio signals to your brain to try to force you to say you agree with them. Bruce, it's easy to look back and say psychologists should have been able to predict the future with complete accuracy, but I think it's a safe bet that your predictions about major world events over the next 10 or 20 years will fall flat on their face. For the sake of posterity, let's create an example: Who do you predict will be the President of the United States on January 21, 2017, just 8 years from now? Ward3001 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about predicting specific future events as specific times but broad general trends. James Burke's 1978 Connections pegged the computer as one of the major triggers of change and the last episode of 1985 The Day the Universe Changed took that prediction one critical step forward. Clifford Stoll's 1990 gave us a brief glimpse into that world in The Cuckoo's Egg and the 1992 series The Machine That Changed the World with its "The World At Your Fingertips" episode. Eisenberg, John M (2001) "Can You Keep a Secret?" Journal General Internal Medicne 16(2): 132–134 touched on part of the problem and Steiner, Victoria (2002) "MedReach: building an Area Health Education Center medical information outreach system for Northwest Ohio" Journal Medical Library Assocociation; 90(3): 317–322. The signposts were clearly there to anyone who payed attention to them.

Trying to strawman my point is not going to work (A&E's Future that never happened is quite clear on why exact predictions of the future don't work). The fact is that the Rorschach test blots were already out in print media to the general public in 1975 and it was clear by 1992 that eventually the internet was going to get a hold of them and from there to place on it where any Tom, Dick, and Harry could see them. It was not a question of if it was going to happen but when.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, makes no sense Bruce; it's more 20-20 hindsight by you. To say that psychologists should have known that the web would have existed in the 1980s (based on a book by Jules Verne???), and should have known its specific capabilities (such as availability of almost any image) is more nonsense. To expect psychologists to do that is more than a "general trend"; it's equivalent to asking you to predict the President of the U.S. in 2013. After all, there are only two major political parties; it's almost a sure thing that he/she will be from one or the other, so then you simply follow the "general trends" currently in existence, project them only 8 short years to narrow down the field in each party, and voila!! You have the next President's name. As simple as predicting everything about the web 10 or 20 years in advance. And no, it was not clear by 1992 that the internet was going to do anything with the images. The web was only three years old then. Most people did not have computers. Even fewer were connected to the internet, and the ones that were had to wait 20 or 30 minutes to download a single image. 20-20 hindsight, Bruce. That's the straw man. I really think if you give it some thought you can come up with some better arguments about the images than blaming psychologists for not predicting the future 10 or 20 years in advance. You give psychologists too much credit, Bruce. Sometimes we can make some fairly good probability estimates about whether someone might end up with a particular range of diagnoses in a couple of years, but seriously, we're not any better than you are at predicting major world events 10 years from now. Ward3001 (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. The Rorschach blots went public domain in Switzerland in 1955 and the US copyright would have only bought a 22 year period of breathing room. That the Rorschach blots would one day become public domain and therefore not as controllable was unavoidable. The warning signs were all there and trying to say this is all 20-20 hindsight is like bemoaning you should have filled up at that last gas station despite all the indication there wouldn't be another one for another 100 miles.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Predicting 8 years makes more sense than predicting 22 years. So, give us the name of the next U.S. President, and we'll wait 8 years and see if you're any better at predicting the future than psychologists. Ward3001 (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Warn the courts? What would that accomplish? The courts can't come up with a new test. Most people in the court system know even less than the average person who reads this talk page about what to do about these issues. That does nothing to avoid any problems created for the test. The most that would have accomplished would have been to evoke a response of "What do you want us to do about it?" Further, warning the courts does nothing for the vast majority of cases in which the Rorschach has been useful: clinical, not forensic, uses. And your comment of professionals "whispering to each other" is described perfectly in one word you used: imagine. That's your imagination. You portray psychologists as sneaky whisperers who live under a rock and don't know what's going on in the world. I'm one of those professionals, and I'm well connected to many other of those professionals. There was no whispering. There was a quick realization that nothing could be done (except what has been done). And sorry, but I strongly disagree that the proliferation of websites occurred over many years; remember I'm talking about relative time. What you say is a bit like saying that the current economic crisis should have been anticipated by the average investor 10 years ago. The web didn't even exist 20 years ago, and it didn't catch on instantly. Again, you're using 20-20 hindsight. I don't know how old you were in 1989, but most of the concepts prevalent in the web were not imagined by many people back then. Lots of people didn't even own computers then. And the ones that were owned by the average person were incredibly slow. If you had asked someone around 1993 how long would it be before almost any image that exists will be available almost instantly to almost anyone in the world, the speculation probably would have been 30 or 40 years or more. In relative terms (considering the life of the Rorschach is about 90 years), the explosion of websites was rather sudden. I'm afraid your 20-20 hindsight has given you a very distorted perspective of the way things actually were over the last decade or so. There essentially was nothing psychologists could have done to avoid these problems that they did not actually do. Some people here and on other websites have taken lots of shots at the mental health system, but no, psychologists are not shooting the messenger. Ward3001 (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychologists have known virtually forever that the copyright was going to expire. Just assuming that, even after the copyright expired, you would be able to keep the term materials convidential shows an incredible lack of insight. Be it the web or something else, it really didn't take rocket science to realize the probability of "leaking" would increase drastically with the test material going public domain.

As for one's "mistaken" imagination about psychologists "whispering" and conspiring... what should one think when the society selling Rorschach still insists on wrongly claiming copyright on something that's clearly not copyrighted anymore (I call that a "lie"), and psychological organizations here and there threaten to sue here and there (I call that "bullying")?

I guess these entities don't represent psychologists as a whole, but you have to understand why our "imagination" flies free. --LjL (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is absurd and shows your lack of insight. Read the comments above and below. With or without copyright, there was very little public exposue of the images prior to the proliferation of websites. And the publisher of the Rorschach test does not claim copyright; that is a lie and I challenge you to provide proof that Hogrefe and Huber (the publisher) claims copyright. They have a current trademark on "Rorschach test", but they do not claim copyright to the images. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between copyright and trademark. Ward3001 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(Thank you for the unsubstantiated "absurd" "lack of insight" remark) If it is a lie, then it is a lie brought forward by a few entities, such as this article, the Italian Wikipedia (would you mind telling them it's not the case? they won't believe me), and, apparently, yourself. Sorry if i was swayed by this information. --LjL (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your link to Techdirt and to my comment from two years ago do not say that Hogrefe and Huber (not me) claim to have a copyright. The Techdirt article says H&H may take legal action. Copyright and legal action are two different things. (I don't read Italian, so I'll be convinced only if a reputable person besides you does the translation). So you are mistaken in saying that the test publishers claim copyright. Ward3001 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You usually take legal action about something, not nothing (unless you just want to scare people away, though fortunately courts don't like that), and that something can only be copyright. Anyway, I was showing the attitude of psychological groups, that go as far as threatening legally those who publish this public domain material. Another example, a cease-and-desist (and-apologize) letter from the Italian Psychological Association to an Italian newspaper that dared publish inkblots. All I'm trying to say here is that we probably don't like psychologists, and treat them as if they were some "secret society", because their representatives aren't doing anything to be liked, and act as if they were secret societies. --LjL (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So in addition to claiming expertise in the Rorschach, you now consider yourself an expert in the law?? I never cease to be amazed at your ability completely master, in a matter of minutes, fields that take others years to achieve. There could be a variety of legal actions that DO NOT involved copyright. One possibility: trademark infringement (that's not the same as copyright). And before you fly off the handle that H&H doesn't have a legal claim on the basis of trademark, let me hasten to add that whether they do or don't is irrelevant to your (again) absurd claim that the only legal action that could exist is copyright violation in the complete absence of anything to verify that. Please LjL, just restrict yourself to fancying yourself a psychologist, not a lawyer. Ward3001 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I really am sick of your gratuitous mocking of me. To contradict what I said earlier, I'll state now that I really do wish you would just go away. Find a place where your twisting of other words, sarcasm, mocking etc is wanted. This is not it. --LjL (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I was long ago sick of you mocking psychologists, mocking what psychologists have to offer on this talk page and in the article, mocking the Exner system, mocking any attempt by psycholoigsts to critique the article, mocking the publisher of the Rorschach test, mocking the consensus process, mocking fundamental logic instead of wild unfounded conclusions ... I could go on but I don't want to double the length of this page. But most importantly and on a positive note, thank you so much for clearly, unequivocally, and unsurprisingly confirming that psychologists indeed are not welcome on this talk page and that you are one of the chief "unwelcomers". Amazingly, LjL, it's possible for editors to disagree without one of them getting so defensive that communication becomes impossible. Look at the exchange between Jabberwock and me. Ward3001 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not "psychologists"; you, as in thou. --LjL (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

At least two other psychologists have expressed their belief that no psychologist is welcome here. In my case, you just took the extra step of yelling at me and attacking me personally because I challenged your expertise in the law. Ward3001 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ward, I really cannot fathom you of all people of accusing anyone of mocking the consensus process, you have twisted and distorted it so much in your attempts to force your point it is beyond belief. I have only seen LjL respect the consensus that has formed here. You need to stop attacking the people on this page. For all your criticism against LjL at least this user is willing to improve the article. You are confusing psychologists not being welcome here with you not being welcome here, you are becoming more and more disruptive to the discussions that occur here. Chillum 03:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor can I fathom you doing anything except agreeing with an editor with whom you have repeatedly mocked psychologists and constantly held up a "Psychologists not welcome here" sign (and by no means am I the only editor who feels this way). I have at times been disruptive in the heat of the moment; the difference between you and me is that you cannot see your disruption (which occurs quite regularly) or the disruption of any editor who agrees with you and/or disagrees with me. You no doubt will say a perfunctory "Oh I'll admit I've occasionally come close to stepping over the line" just to deny that you think your behavior here has been perfect, but that's not really seeing your frequent disruptions, denigration of other editors, and rejection of any discussion with anyone who disagrees with you. Chillum, you need to stop attacking the people on this page. And the psychologists here also have been willing to improve the article; the only thing holding up that process is complete rejection of any expression of opinions from psychologists by you and a few other editors here. Now, I suggest that you and I both end this particular discussion so that I nor you takes it to a level that is unnecessary. Let's see if you can do that. Ward3001 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I welcome any scrutiny that comes towards my behavior, it has stood up in the past. I am about as welcome for your behavior to come under scrutiny. Chillum 03:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, thanks for confirming my expectation that you simply cannot restrain yourself when an editor in conflict with you suggests that both you and he simply stop discussion here. Ward3001 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you've taken offence because I said 'whispering', and I nearly took offence at being cast as someone with 'distorted 20-20 hindsight'. Perhaps I'll remind myself about the warnings at the top of the page about keeping things calm neutral and non personal.. perhaps you might too. That being said, we actually agree on a lot of things. I too think its a terrible shame that ignorance about a proven useful test has allowed it to be invalidated (if not already then quite soon). One needs to study or at least read a little to know about tests, research, what goes into verifying results etc., before dismissing them, which sadly some of the contributors on these pages have done. So I can quite believe that it took 90 years, essentially, to build the Rorschach up to its level of usefulness prior to the internet proliferation of the images. Far from thinking that Psychologists are 'sneaky people living in caves', I actually have a lot of respect for them, and have worked along side them in multi-disciplinary mental health teams. I guess my basic question to you is: what's the point in hammering away at the folks who have merely done what you acknowledge was inevitable? Are you hoping that somehow the consensus can reach the point of agreeing that the images should not be displayed? I fear that the contributors who think that 'all information should be freely available' may not see the point that there are special cases where that is not true. And if we persuade other Wikipedians, how will we keep a lid on all the other (and future) websites.I'm genuinely curious as to whether you think the test is saveable in its present form. Thanks for your replies, by the way. Jabberwock359 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

apologies to the people who started this section about 'different philosophies'. I have created a big digression, and if anyone knows how to lift the exchange between Ward and me to another section, please go ahead. Jabberwock359 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't take offense at the whispering comment. I was taken aback because it is so contrary to reality. And now, so is your comment "I can quite believe that it took 90 years ... to build the Rorschach up to its level of usefulness" contrary to reality. How long do you think it took? H. Rorschach developed the test in 1921. Much research has been added every year in the last 20 to 30 years, so that takes us to 2009 in the development to the current level. The images weren't proliferated on the internet until the last five years or so. You do the math. About 83 years; I was off by about 7 years. So whether you believe it or not, it's a fact.

And I do agree that we agree on a lot. As for the "hammering away", that's a completely different issue than blaming the psychologists for the problems. I and several other psychologists here have addressed that issue of why the images should not be on Wikipedia despite being elsewhere on the internet at great length on this talk page. I don't think it would be appropriate to suddenly quadruple the length of this talk page by repeating it all here. I'm not trying to avoid answering your question. But there are some excellent answers to that question throughout the archives if you wish to read them. There also are many differences of opinion on that issue, so it's very complex. My main purpose in getting into this extended discussion with you here was to dispel the quite inaccurate charges you have made that somehow psychologists could have prevented these problems. That seriously clouded the real issues here. Thanks for you comments. Ward3001 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Strawman argument as the internet as we know it didn't really exist until 1999 but the Rorschach test images were available in book form as far back as 1975 some 34 years ago. Again this horse has been out a LONG time and gone of and had colts.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You completely missed my point that the availability in book form was miniscule and not a serious problem compared to availability on the web. If it had been a serious problem before the web all of this arguing would have been occurring in books and journals, but there was none. 20-20 hindsight, Bruce. It's easy to look back and say psychologists should have been able to predict the future with complete accuracy, but I think it's a safe bet that your predictions about major world events over the next 10 or 20 years will fall flat on their face. For the sake of posterity, let's create an example: Who do you predict will be the President of the United States on January 21, 2017, 8 years from now? Ward3001 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

err... I was agreeing with you that it took 90 years. I think you misread "I can quite believe" and saw "I can't quite believe" anyway, no harm done. Good luck with the consensus changing! (its going to be like painting the Forth Bridge). Jabberwock359 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. No harm. Ward3001 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with DocJames assessment of the situation. I think there are not two, but three philosophies or points of view (POV) present on this page. The first POV doesn't accept the evidence from a national health organization with 150,000 members that we are harming the test. The second POV accepts the evidence from the national health organization with 150,000 members, but thinks that that our policy of WP:NOTCENSORED trumps it. And the third POV, my POV, looks at the first two and says a) I can't dismiss the evidence, not without substituting my own opinion for that of a national health organization, b) I am responsible for the consequences of my actions, even if those actions are in accordance with group policy, and c) group policy can and should be changed (or ignored) if by doing so, the purpose of an encyclopedia can be better served. (i.e. preserving knowledge by not vandalizing the subjects of our articles.) The first POV is clearly not neutral because it substitutes its own opinion for that of a reliable source. The second POV believes that information has intrinsic value above that of any single individual, and longs to be free and is better off disclosed - a fine ethic unless otherwise shown to be unethical. The third, of course, has no flaws in its composition whatsoever, and will probably continue to be voiced here, if not by me, then by someone else. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also disagree with DocJames assessment of the situation. I think the situation is more complex. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That you for informing us that, contrary to others', your opinion has "no flaws whatsoever", now it's all so much clearer... --LjL (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, DD's argument also works against him. Because, frankly, the majority believes the encyclopedia would be damaged to remove the pictures. So yes, it is being voiced by many people, on all sides. The problem, DD, is that your opinion of what constitutes vandalism is not supported, not even in the context you wrapped it around. Resolute 00:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We are asking (as is our right) to see the studies that prove that seeing this test beforehand hurts it. We still wait for those studies to be produced.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be your right to ask, Bruce and fellows, but you are asking for evidence which, I think, would require unethical procedures to produce it. I wonder would such a consideration concern you at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been addressed numerous times; you just haven't bothered to read the archives. But first, let me give you a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. I want you to give me a conclusive, well conducted study that exposing someone to the vacuum of outer space will kill them. What's that?? No peer-reviewed journal articles in which someone has been purposefully placed in outer space without a protective suit? So your next step to support the killer vacuum argument is to make an inference based on available data. You have evidence that a vacuum kills life, even though you've never purposefully placed someone in an unprotected vacuum in outer space. That's not direct proof, but it's a very good inference. Now, here's the point that has been presented over and over and over on this talk page but that you apparently have not read. You will never see a study in which someone is purposefully placed in a harmful situation to link its relationship to the Rorschach. That's because it can't be done, legally or ethically (Maybe you would do that, but psychologists wouldn't). So, just as in the vacuum example, we use reasonable inferences. I and others have presented peer reviewed studies that illustrate that the Rorschach can identify suicidal patients with a higher degree of accuracy than any other test or a clinician's speculative guesswork (It's in the archives, so before demanding the evidence here, read the archives). I hope you will agree that someone who is suicidal has a potential for harm. We have also presented evidence that prior viewing of the images can alter one's responses on the test and thus create a likelihood that suicidality might be missed because of test invalidity. Just as it does not take a huge leap in logic to know that the harmful effects of a vacuum can kill a human even though it's never been tried in outer space, so it is more than apparent that if prior viewing of a Rorschach image can alter the test's ability to detect suicidality and then if suicide actually occurs, there is harm linked to viewing the image. It's indirect evidence, but it's there, just as the vacuum in outer space example is indirect. You may be eagerly rubbing your hands, shouting that the argument is far-fetched. You may consider it far-fetched unless it's your child, or your spouse, or your sibling who is the suicide victim. Then it's a tragic reality for you, not an intellectual debate. For you to demand that we conduct research in which we purposefully expose someone to harm for the purpose of proving something about the Rorschach is very unreasonable, not to mention very unethical. The evidence is there; you just either don't know about it or ask that more, impossible evidence should be produced. Asking for impossible evidence so that you can then claim there is no evidence is a clever debating tactic, but I can't say that you're the first editor here to try it, or to have it rebutted. Ward3001 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a frequent technique used by the pharmaceutical industry. You conduct one study get a questionable result claim it is very positive and than that it is unethical to conduct further studies as your treatment is so beneficial. It means you do not have to expose your treatment to further analysis that might not come out how you expected. This excuse was used for SSRI's after which a meta analysis of the unpublished and published literature show that SSRI's have no effect in mild / mod / severe depression. See publication bias and depression. Was also used WRT stimulants and ADHD even though the follow up of the largest stimulant study (MTA) showed no real difference between the treatment arms after 3 years.

Now that many million have seen these images this last week it should be easy to do this study. Take a group who have seen the pictures and a group who has not and look at the accuracy using double blinded psychologist to administer the test. Seem straight forwards to me. Harm should be easy to prove without psychologists required to do any more harm.

Harm to the test or harm to the patient? The effects of prior exposure have already been shown to influence the test (it's in the archives; don't ask me to dig it up). (And do you really think the exposure has to be done on Wikipedia??? GIVE ME A BREAK!) If you mean harm to the patient, then no; your suggestion is meaningless because we can't inflict harm. Ward3001 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So Bruce has a very valid point show me the evidence--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you need glasses, James. :) Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, could someone "show me the evidence" that leaking answers to medical licensing exams is harmful to the public? Have any studies been done specifically proving that this is the case?Faustian (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Faustian bring that to the page on medical exams.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's quite relevant here. It's essentially the same question, just different examples. In both cases there is a request for evidence of harm by exposure of test items. It's the process that is at issue, not the specific test. Now, if the reason you want it on another talk page is that it's a demand for impossible evidence, then please let us know and we can explain why we can't harm someone to study the Rorschach. Ward3001 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant as there are online e-book study guides for medical fields] and [[10]] amazon.com readily available. All who make this "exposure of test items" claim is show just how out of touch with what is going out there in the world they are. This is ignoring the fact that these tests are objective while the Rorschach test is far more subjective and the blot themselves are only a very small part of the test.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello ... Bruce ... do you know the difference between a study guide and a test? You link to study guides. When someone buys a study guide, he does not get the questions for the actual test. The question was for evidence of leaking answers to the medical licensing exams, not the medical licensing study guide. Some here are demanding evidence about the Rorschach test, not the evidence for the Rorschach study guide. Ward3001 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Study guides are made for entirely different types of tests. Tests that are administered to ensure knowledge/competence in a subject; the taker of the test will study so they have a better chance of "passing". The concept of a psychological test such as Rorschach is rather different; for one thing you don't "fail" or "pass" a Rorscach test, so there is no notion of studying. The subject generally won't know in advance that they will be administered the test, and there's no cause for them to study, so probably no study guides exist.... --Mysidia (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are quite right Mysidia, when you say there are no right and wrong answers in the Rorschach, and that it is not like tests of knowledge or competence in a subject. But the basis of the Rorschach seems to be that the subject's responses are the first that come to mind, are not consciously considered over a long time and are not on's which are practiced beforehand. I would suggest that it is the scope that image pre-exposure has to compromising this aspect that is the bone on contention here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right Martinevans. And I'll add that this issue of study guides is what is completely irrelevant here. The issue, as posed in the requests for evidence of damage from revealing test items and answers, is that the demand for evidence of a direct, cause-effect relationship of revealing such information on damage to the public is a demand for impossible evidence, because in both cases no one can ethically or legally carry out such a study. Some here have demanded such evidence for the Rorschach, but when the tables are turned and there is a request for such evidence for medical exams, the responses is ... no response. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional Perspective - Hope to Move Forward

I have been a standby observer who has enjoyed the discussion/debate that has occurred throughout this talk page. I am a layman with limited exposure to the Rorschach test, but am an inquisitive individual who will, if a topic interest me, seek additional knowledge via searches more often than not starting with Wikipedia. I assume this is relatively representative of the individuals who the community of psychologists throughout this talk page seem so intent on protecting for our own sake.

There is benefit to incorporating the images into the article. I do not see how the inclusion of the images on Wikipedia leads to negative effects. My premise is not that it is a situation of, “let’s do it because everyone else is.” More so it is the fact that these works are publicly available, were available prior to DocJames release and cannot be concealed ad infinitum. The professional psych community (majority or minority?) cannot make the assumption that these images would forever be protected, the issue was not if but when. There must be other primary tests to confirm or deny findings from the Rorschach test.

• Note: I did not search the Rorschach test, prior to the release here, as such I cannot attest to their prior availability.

On an aside related to the test itself, will the Rorschach test be administered multiple times to the same patient, do multiple practitioners test the same patient to evaluate consistency in diagnosis, can a single patient be analyzed by a panel of practitioners?

Intuitively the initial exposure to this test would be the most effective and offer the greatest insight – yet I am not convinced by this. This cannot be a single application test (the answer to my above questions would greatly help my understanding here). Throughout prior discussion this clinical tool has been compared on multiple occasions by psych practitioners to the SAT and other similar tests; this is not a valid comparison for many reasons (the SAT is annually adjusted, past exams are provided, exam prep is provided, answer keys are given). I am not suggesting that similar material be provided for the Rorschach test, the element of practitioner expertise and the complex method of evaluation make this impossible. The discussion of the methodology of evaluation also follows intuition – the practitioner does not simply evaluate your response but also analyzes your behavior, this is expected and its discussion in the article is beneficial. I find little dispute here with the inclusion of these two elements.

Discussion of whether all of the images should be included vs. some and the level of detail regarding evaluation techniques should be further discussed.

I would like to emphasize this is my first post on Wikipedia and as such I am not exceptionally familiar with all of the policies, thus please bear with me for errors in my analysis. It is my impression that Wikipedia does not provide “How to Articles” and as such the discussion of the images, methodology et al. should be limited to macro level. From this perspective I find the Most Common Interpretations to be useless and un-encyclopedic in nature adding little value to the article itself.

With regard to DocJames, the act is done (bold?) and cannot be reversed, the associated dispute regarding this editor (writ. Ego trip) adds no value to the article and should be limited in nature.

The conversation on this talk page must be re-aligned to the article whereby a reputable article discussing the Rorschach test, its application and validity can be discussed. Possibly we should define non-starters, goals and attempt to incorporate new perspectives. Thank-you I understand that all of the aforementioned points have been discussed ad nauseum I simply wanted to add this perspective in hopes that the article can move forward in a substantive way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.139.238.69 (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, 209.x.x.x... Have you considered registering an account to help us move forward? Calm, rational voices are definitely helpful here. –xeno^talk 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is 'no original research' (as distinct from 'providing original summaries to avoid copyvios/provide overviews) - so it can be assumed much of the information was 'available in various places' for those prepared to look for it. Given the length of time the images and the mechanics of analysis (eg 'does the testee rotate the images, and do they ask permission to do so') will become generally known but not the specifics of analysis (the #significance# of rotating the image and asking permission or not). Information on the former may require analysis of the results to be tweaked - or may result in the testee giving answers based on a more in-depth response to the image: information on the latter #may# cause contamination or invalidation of the response.

Consider 'exams in an educational response': having access to previous test papers does not invalidate the results of actually taking the exam.

'As a general observation' - two months down the line the article will 'disappear' into the general Wikipedia information cloud and there will be a similar argument over another topic (and possibly a couple of others in between): most visitors to the page will again be those wishing further information on a passing reference somewhere, and the effective impact on analysis will be no different to that of 'looking for images in clouds.' Besides, to 'the casual curious layperson' - (colloquially put) if merely having WP (as distinct from other sources) providing the images contaminates the responses to them sufficiently to damage the analyses thereof (which seems to involve much analysis from a range of sources) the layperson is likely to think that the test was not robust enough for purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can this talk page be archived ahead of the 'next flurry of assorted squawkings arising' once the protection on the article is lifted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with 83.104.132.41 the talk page is getting rather lengthy with a lot of repetition, archiving prior discussion would be rather helpful. I took your advice xeno and have registered my account, I look forward to being a calm and rational Wikipedian :) Quasistellar (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've set MiszaBot to archive threads older than 5 days... Should remove some of it tomorrow. –xeno^talk 15:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

As protection is due to expire shortly, I thought I'd drop a note here to ask whether it needs to be extended, or whether it's going to be okay to lift it. If the consensus is that it should be extended, I'm happy to do it, so let me know, or ask the protecting admin, Enigmaman. If we're not around, you can post a request at WP:RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be extended until the media circus on it dies down.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, you and I finally agree on something, about the media circus (I have no opinion on page protection). Indeed, there is a media circus about this page, thanks to some publicity seeking, poor ethics, and ignorance of the facts. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the page should probably get another week of protection, there is still a lot of press attention out there. I also think this talk page could do with some outside administrative supervision to keep the levels of personal attacks and incivility under control(not to mention thinly veiled threats of a legal/professional nature). Chillum 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be administrative supervision by an admin who isn't biased and misleading. There needs to be supervision to address the personal attacks (such as telling someone they are not welcome here), the long history of misrepresenting others' opinions, the biased accusations that excuse those who take one position but accuse those who have another opinion, and the unveiled legal/professional threats such as the one left by an anon editor a few days ago (there are no "veiled" threats; there are issues of professional ethics and conduct that are within the domain of this talk page, but no threats of legal/professional action beyond that left by the anon). Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the media still on about this? I haven't been updating the Streisand effect section. FWIW Slim, the "regulars" have rarely engaged in edit warring, it was more anon users and the occasional casual (but autoconfirmed) user warring over the images for the most-recent protection. I would also echo Chillum's suggestion that you stick around and help mediate here. –xeno^talk 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything, but I did think from the beginning that protection may have been applied a bit hastily, and I think it shouldn't be extended. It says "pp-dispute", but as you said, I don't really believe the regulars will behave like children (they haven't so far, there's no reason why they would start now), and media attention can also mean more people will actually constructively work on the article. Keep it protected for too long, and that won't happen. --LjL (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask people to stop making personal comments about the editor who added the images, and I'd suggest removing any that crop up. The issue here is purely about the content, and whether it's policy compliant and has consensus. Who added it makes no difference to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read this talk page, but there are so many personal remarks it's hard to see what the actual content dispute is about. Is it about whether to remove the images, or is there something more? If it's still just the former, I suggest you consider opening an RfC page on it eg. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach images. You could take a look at a user conduct RfC page and copy the format. For example (picking one at random), see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sbakuria. You wouldn't need all the headers. Someone would need to write a brief statement of the dispute; then ask for "users who endorse this summary." Then add headers for other views: response by User:X, and so on, and underneath each view a space for "users who endorse this summary." Threaded comments go on talk, so that the RfC page is left relatively clean and easy to read. At the end of a couple of weeks, ask an uninvolved admin to close it for you and give a summing up. Getting extra eyes on the issue is likely to settle it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Have posted at Wikiquette just a few brief things from the last couple of days. [11] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, SlimVirgin it's not just about the images. It's not even just about the Rorschach. It's about test security in general, and refers both to text and images, for this and all other protected psychological tests. Professional ethics require that we preserve test security so that the tests remain useful for actual use. This is having the extra side effect, then, of preventing psychologists from participating in the process of improving the page, because the folks who are committed to breaking test security early-and-often will not consider suppressing any information. For my part, I am going to continue to respect the reality that folks have shut down the possibility of removing information that harms test security, so I will not edit this page in any way. I'm continuing to participate in the talk-page discussion in the hopes of helping people understand why psychologists feel that the policy needs a very narrowly-tailored exception for this type of information, both because of the social harm that can be caused by the destruction of psychological tests, and because if that exception is made, then the quality and the comprehensibility of the information presented in WP can be improved because the folks with more extensive knowledge of the topic can actually participate in the process. Mirafra (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think semi-protection will do. The influx of autoconfirmed users coming here and edit warring has stopped, and I see productive work being done already. I would like to echo Xeno in that, with the occasional exception, edit warring by the parties involved in this debate has not been an issue. Chillum 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally like to see how unprotection fares. I asked the protecting admin to give it a shot a while ago. –xeno^talk 01:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the goalposts?

I'm not sure where the goalposts are anymore. I'd like to see the situation resolved such that psychologists can begin editing the article again and not be concerned about their personal or professional ethics. If this or a similar image were in the lead, would compromise be reached? Or does it also require the removal of some of the 10 inkblots and/or the common answers? –xeno^talk 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that all ten inkblots need to be removed, as well as the common answers. The discussion of scoring methods would need to be thought through carefully by people who actually know the test well -- this is not an area where one can self-educate quickly and easily, honest. I could probably find a way to get comfortable with the proposed lead image, although I'd prefer one with a fictitious blot. That's where I've been the whole time. What has bothered me is the way the goalposts seem to keep getting moved on the other side, with each new hit to test security being claimed as a new consensus. Mirafra (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried that the polar sides aren't even on the same soccer pitch anymore. –xeno^talk 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're saying Xeno. Sadly, the psychologists don't have a lot of choice in the matter. At one time, it seems long ago, there was a very stable compromise in place in which one blot was adjacent to the "Test materials" section. During that time psychologists participated in editing even though they had some mixed feelings about it. That was pushed aside. I can't speak for other psychologists, but such a situation might encourage more psychologists (including new ones) to participate. Ward3001 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I do notice there was a time from about August 16 until December 16 when there wasn't a single edit to the talk page in the whole four-month span. But neither was there much improvement in the article during that time: [12]. –xeno^talk 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if the wikipedia page doesn't magnify the damage that is otherwise easily accesible (i.e.,. you don't have to dig through a library or even through googlebooks to find it) I would probably contribute. The images are easily available to those who seek them so I am not arguing for their complete removal from wikipedia. It's not my preference, but I can live with images being on wikipedia. However, there is no need for the image of a card to be in the article's lead when other images such as the one you posted would be a more accurate representation of the test (this article is about the test, not the blots after all). With respect to the images, a hide/show option would have been ideal, but this runs afoul of technical considerations. Limiting the images to the back of the article, and to the minimum necessary to illustrate the article's points, would be acceptable to me. We no more need a gallery of every single card than we do a gallery of every painting by Pablo Picasso on his page. Alternatively, the blots can be treated in the exact same way as Muhammad is on with respect to Islam. There is no image of the founder of that faith on the Islam article; instead they are placed on the article devoted to the man himself (and even there, not in the lead). At this point, we probably have enough material for a Rorschach Inkblots page (or at least for a substantial stub) which no psychologist would touch. We can move the gallery there, and maybe keep one card on this page in the test materials section with a lead similar to the Getty image. That would be a compromise I could live with. As for the answers - they are inaccurate when not understood in their proper context anyways and are more likely to muck up the test for people than to provide encyclopedic content. Thye ought to be removed.

One lingering problem would be shifting goalposts. For a long time this article had a compromise in place during which the inkblot was in the test materials section. I made a number of content contributions during that time which I regret making now because they somewhat limit the article's level of nonsense. I'm leery of this happening again: make the compromise, let psychologists fix the article, and then ignore the compromise/consensus after awhile.Faustian (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very good point. All the more reason for an actual narrowly-tailored policy about these things. Mirafra (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recording the breadth and depth of human knowledge is not something that is compromisable. This has been the goal all along and one which has never changed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Josef Mingele no doubt would have strongly agreed with that statement. Ward3001 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In some cases, we have to give up our cognitive distortions, such as black-and-white thinking (#1 in that article), in order to move forward towards a greater goal of actually recording the breadth and depth of that knowledge in a way that is both accurate and not socially harmful -- right now, you're serving neither ideal effectively. Mirafra (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that we're clearly not in agreement about the need to make an ad-hoc exception to Wikipedia guidelines for this article. You point out that the general goal should be scrapped in this case. We don't agree. What does that mean? It means we're back to the default: following the general principle. It's that simple. --LjL (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I love it. You always know that the arguement has hit rock bottom when one side starts calling the other a Nazi. Well played Ward. It has been a couple of months since I was called one of those. But I guess it is the least I deserve as I sort of compared you guys to communists a while back.  :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

James, give me the diff in which I called you a Nazi. Read my words. I was addressing the issue of non-compromising recording of knowledge without regard to ethics. That same theme that I brought up was also commented on by another editor. I simply gave an example of someone who would agree with the concept in theory. I did not call you or anyone a Nazi. This picky parsing of words, reading things into someone's comments that are not there, making false accusations based on comments about content and not editors, has gone over the line. I'll let others decide whether you have grossly overreacted. I think you have. Ward3001 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should leave Mengele out of it. I don't think anyone here should be compared to Nazis, fascists, Communists, etc (although I will note that those accusations have gone in both directions in this discussion).

But the more general point is precisely what we're asking you to consider. People who are trying to find and publish information sometimes, in their enthusiasm for the goal, go to lengths that cause harm to others. Some of the classic social psychology experiments of the 1960s are horrifying examples of just this problem, and they led to the development of research policies for the protection of human subjects -- the pursuit of knowledge-at-all-costs was not considered to be so important that it justified giving no thought to the collateral damage. Perhaps this history is why it's obvious to the psychology-types here why we as Wikipedians need to think carefully about how our documenting and spreading human knowledge might cause inadvertent harm to humans, many of whom won't even be the ones who accessed that knowledge.

Wikipedia has now become large enough, prominent enough, and enough of a go-to place on the internet, that it's now no longer appropriate to put one's hands in the air and say that whatever harm might come to others through our actions isn't our problem or our responsibility. We're now the equivalent of a kid standing on a freeway overpass and tossing bricks into the air -- I would hope that most of us wouldn't buy the argument that it wasn't that kid's fault if someone happened to be driving underneath. (Yes, I know, brick-tossing is probably illegal. I'm not managing to find an analogy that holds perfectly. So don't quibble. Work with me here.)

I know it can be hard to hold two ideals when they sometimes come into conflict. Tolerance for ambiguity is not something that comes easily for a lot of people. I believe strongly that information should, whenever possible, be shared openly. I just also believe that there are sometimes situations where the harm that this is likely to cause outweighs that goal. Test security is a small area of psychology, and even within the test pages, there's a great deal of information that can be disclosed without causing harm to test security. But we need to think about our position within society. Mirafra (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra: If we take a step back, I think part of the problem is that Wikipedia is still in its adolescence (and unfortunately, discourse is often dominated by adolescents). As such, there is a natural attraction to rigid black/white thinking. "we are committed to expanding human knowledge, and anything that detracts from that must be opposed." We even have examples such as LjL's infantile assertion that he would be comfortable posting information that would aid terrorists in his own home city because it is not wikipedia's responsibility to promote personal safety. The notion that as long as you cling to some abstract principle, you are excused from all forms of social responsibility or from the consequences of your actions is quintessentially adolescent. Unfortunately, you are speaking for--and to--the adults here. While I think that arguments about how much social harm is or is not done by posting the images or attempts to find ways of posting information that mitigates harm are important, blind assertions of "principle" are, in my view useless.SPAdoc (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You really had no need or reason to qualify my assertions as "infantile" for the purposes of your reasoning, and I ask you to refrain from doing so in the future.

As for "information potentially aiding terrorism", such information is already on Wikipedia, in the form of... well, in a huge number of forms, for instance in the form of detailed information about aircraft systems - just the first example that comes to my mind, since I have edited a few of those. Do you plan to remove such information? --LjL (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions?

So it looks like we have settled things than. A number of the psychologists here will not take part in any activity which might improve the article well any image of the Rorschach or comments about common responses are presented on this page. The majority of editors will not agreed to there removal. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article and if as is acknowledge above certain editors cannot ethically take part in this process... Those who are still interested in improving this page should just continue on. If any of those within the field change there mind they are always well to join in. By the way most of the articles on Wikipedia are not edited by experts within the topic field discussed. This page is not required to be different ie. input from psychologist would be desired but it is not essential. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's settled. Perhaps at a dead end, but that's not the same as settled.

Many articles such as those related to film stars are not edit by experts. Most technical articles are not controlled by experts, but they are generously edited by experts. Wikipedia would be in a lot worse shape if that was not the case. Ward3001 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Although the article on Jennifer Lopez might not be edited by experts, the ones about, say Endoscopyor PET scans probably have some expert involvement. The Rorschach has more in the common with the latter than the former type of article, and the editors hellbent on refusing all compromise with the experts are basically insuring that the article is written by people who - however intelligent and well-meaning they may be - have little clue about a complex topic, thus insuring that it's a poor encyclopedia entry.Faustian (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I also don't agree that it's settled.

Frankly, also, besides its near-incomprehensibility, I feel that the article in its current form is seriously out of whack on the NPOV front, in large part because it has not been balanced by folks who have a broader view of the scientific literature on the test. This is not a subject upon which one can just read a few papers and instantly understand the complexity of it. Even among psychological tests, the Rorschach is beyond beyond beyond complicated.

On most of WikiProject: Psychology, folks seem to have a clue about how professionals and nonprofessionals can collaborate effectively. I'm enjoying dipping my toe in there. I would hope that this could be established here, too. Mirafra (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This comment can be considered an "aside", so skip it if you wish. It's interesting that if psychologists could contribute to the article, a lot of the "bickering" (done civilly, of course) would probably be among the psychologists because of genuine disagreements among experts. Over time, that could improve the article, and would be a refreshing change!!! Ward3001 (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra you are correct that this test will probably not get full coverage without the contribution of psychologists. But we are not restricting your contributions. Create a new user name pretend you are not a psychologist and balance the article if you wish. We must compromise. We on the other side are not going to remove verifiable information that is encyclopedic and of interest to the general public to create and article that might be more of use to practicing psychologists. This encyclopedia is written for a general audience first and for professional second.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Now I think you've slipped into some faulty thinking James. As Miafra has said in the past, psychologists don't follow the ethical code simply to avoid getting in trouble. Do you think the only reason psychologists or physicians have ethical codes is to stay out of trouble? No, they have them because it's a good idea, and it's for the protection of the public and improvement of the profession. If I understand you correctly, you're actully now encouraging psychologists not only to violate ethics, but to be deceptive about it. Is that what you're saying? And by the way, there was a very effective compromise a year or so ago that was in place for a long time. Ward3001 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's remarkable how he is encouraging others to try to get around ethical codes ("Create a new user name pretend you are not a psychologist and balance the article if you wish").Faustian (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion? Maybe the best would be to make the article read "Rorschach was a test", I think it is and will be for the future no more on account of the images and tips for the user. Someone will write a paper about how this destroyed the test and there will be psychologists discussing what has happened here for many year of the future. I had made one comment one other time, and it was erased. Is this correct policies? Perhaps only the posters who wish the inkblots posted have a real say? I am a psychologist myself resident in Mexico. Mex-psych (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I can't speak for anyone else Mex-psych, I think your comment was removed by an admin because it was personalized toward an editor, not toward the concepts being discussed. I personally don't see any problems with the comment you made above. Welcome to this talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed by an uninvolved admin here: [13]. Please direct your comments towards the issues and not the editors. And welcome. –xeno^talk 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Mex, I don't think that the Rorschach should be instantly spoken of in the past tense. Mirafra (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion for compromise

This is the second time I've suggested something without looking in the archives (or even Xeno's summary (looked, didn't see it) ) to see if it's been proposed before. Shame on me, I just don't have the stomach for it.

Anyway, I just thought of something, and thought I'd throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. Could all 10 images, and their typical interpretations, be included in a sub-article to this one? The main article could go back to having a single image with no interpretation that, apparently, was the previous status quo. That way, theoretically at least, those psychologists who don't feel comfortable editing a page with all the images and standard responses could still help with this one. They'd obviously stay away from the other one completely.

Kind of like setting up a "bad bank" with all a bank's toxic loans, so the rest of the bank can operate normally. The disagreement would no doubt continue, and megabytes of talk page discussion would roll on and on, but it would only continue on the sub-article's talk page. This more-general article might be the better for it.

In theory, psychologists would be able to separate their dislike of the sub-article from their willingness/desire to work on this one. In theory, those who think even more should be written about the images and the various interpretation could expand the sub-article. It wouldn't be a POV fork, because it would only deal with the images and their interpretations, not re-hash whatever was in this article. The Harry Potter article doesn't have a section which lists all the characters, but refers to a List of Harry Potter characters. We could do the same here. List of images used in the Rorschach test, or something.

If neither side likes this idea, does that make it a good solution, or a bad one? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Scooped again, Faustian just proposed this 10 minutes ago! ;p (I also vaguely recall it being pitched as an aside) But this section would be a useful place to discuss it. I think this would be a good compromise. Rorschach test inkblots would be better than "List of..." imo. That would be a good place to discuss their cultural significance as well. –xeno^talk 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(3 e/c's, all with Xeno (grrr :) ) That's eerie; Faustian seems to have just proposed something very similar in The "#moving the goalposts" section, above. I can't type fast, so the 10 minute difference in timestamps should prove that I'm not just parroting his idea and claiming it as my own... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me - although I'd like some sort of guarenteee that the images wouldnt just be put back into place after the article's fixed. Of course if it sounds good to me I can expect the almost knee-jerk contradiction from some quarters : ( Faustian (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if such a guarantee can be given as CCC. The best way to prevent the articles being merged would be to make sure they are both quality articles that stand on their own. –xeno^talk 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree strongly: I would support such a move. The images and a discussion of there social significance and the ethics of their publication could all be moved. Before we move the lead image however I think we must find one similar to that that appeared in the NYTs as mentioned above.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  That exact image will cost us $600.00 per year to license, so we should probably consider restaging it. I think we have a project that does stuff like this, I'll try shopping it around. –xeno^talk 22:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fer cryin' out loud, if we can come to some actual agreement here, any of us shrinks can stage it, trivially. Let me think about the rest for a bit. Mirafra (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get someone to stage it at Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 7#We need an image of the test being administered but didn't really get any traction. I made a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop#Rorschach test staging, so please cancel it if you decide to do it. –xeno^talk 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. We already had a pretty firm agreement from most involved that such an image would be the preferred lead image.

Have started an outline of what this future page could look like. All who wish are free to edit it. User:Jmh649/Sandbox Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, I think one reason you didn't get any traction is that the psychologists gave it some thought, then a few red flags popped up because of our history of being in the unheard minority here and fears that it would somehow only result in temporary improvement, then back to the same old issues when the majority steps in. Just my opinion. But it's worth discussing. Ward3001 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. It's fine, as I said a few times, to move the lead image further down after finding a better image for the lead (staged test would be fine, but surely not with a wrong/blurred inkblot, I said that before too), but moving the images and part of the text to another article is unacceptable, especially after I'll have added information about differences in responses among various cultures (which I intended to do shortly before the article was locked). The images belong to this article; articles are split for technical reasons, not to hide away stuff (that doesn't need hiding, anyway; the images are at the very end of the article, you'll know you'll hit them if you scroll down). Besides, there seemed to be agreemend that the media blew this controversy out of proportion, and now we're saying it deserves its own article (just so the images can be moved there)? Please. --LjL (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually since the test is about much more than the inkblots it is a legitimate argument that all the emphasis on the blots in the article constitutes undue weight.Faustian (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight is about point of views, not factual content. This latter (and sometimes the former) should be fixed by adding balancing content, not by removing the overweight content. An encyclopedia grows by adding information (and of course, you have to start somewhere, which may be the inkblots in this case - but see later), not by removing it on the grounds that there is not enough other information - I'm sure you see the absurdity there.

(Anyway, what undue weight would the inkblots have? Most of the article is not about them. That's basically... well, the inkblots themselves in the gallery, what else?) --LjL (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't read policies just to support your POV.WP:UNDUE states: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.." So yes, it is about factual content also, absolutely.Faustian (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We would be remiss if we did not at least leave the first inkblot on this article, as it is an iconic example of this test, and something a reader coming to this article would expect to see. Perfectly fine with moving or removing the gallery though, as I do not believe it adds much to this article. An image of a doctor administering the test as a lead, thus pushing the first ink blot below the fold, would also be an ideal compromise, in my view. Resolute 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with this compromise.Faustian (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This would also allow more thorough discussion of the ink blots. Have translated some text from the French wiki and changed the image positioning just as an example of what it could look like. There is certainly enough about these blots to deserve their own page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

James, if that proposed page isn't such an amazing example of (1) apparently-bad-faith attempt to move the goalposts about two hundred yards in your direction and (2) complete nonsense about the actual current use and interpretation of the Rorschach blots, I don't know what is. Guys, go take a look, but make sure you don't have any liquid in your mouth first. Mirafra (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that is the draft of the sub-article, not the Rorschach test article. –xeno^talk 23:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said it is only a translation from the French Wikipedia. Now if this will solve nothing than we will just stay with what we have. If we move these images to another page we will need to increase the content surrounding them or what would have been the point. Some how you were hoping that we would just be moved off into a corner were they could languish and be forgotten about? We are here to write an encyclopedia and if that is not the desire of some of the editors here than maybe they should think of doing something else.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that shows you how valid WP is as a source for psychological information. And I think we've had enough of being told to go away. Mirafra (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure (I really have no idea, just asking) that isn't merely a more-or-less accurate description of the traditional French system of interpretation (there is one, see for instance here)? --LjL (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In which case it would need to be clearly referenced as such, and clearly distinguished from the other interpretive systems, so that it is not misleading to a reader who would otherwise think that this represented accurate information about the current usage of the test in the English-speaking world. Otherwise, it reads an awful lot like a way of using discredited approaches from the past as a way to tar the well-supported approaches of the present. Not very good NPOV or encyclopedic practice.

I still stand by my statement, by the way, that adding paragraphs of purported "answers" when even the addition of one or two purported "answers" was the topic of heated debate represents a serious effort to move the goalposts. Mirafra (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, LjL, you're about 100% wrong here. At present, there are several French schools of the Rorschach. One (represented by the author of the chapter you cite) uses the Comprehensive System (the same empirical system used in the US), another uses a psychoanalytic-developmental model, another a linguistic-psychoanalytic model. The gibberish translated from the French wiki article represents I-don't-know-what, but is not a dominant paradigm anywhere.SPAdoc (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I admit it did sound more than a bit dubious and unlike everything else I've read. --LjL (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose based on policy. WP:POVFORK is very clear that you cannot simply create a new article because consensus does not agree with you in the main article("A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."). Forking articles is not for the purposes of getting around consensus or neutrality. You can however fork a copy to your own web servers and do what you will with it under the terms of the GFDL. Consensus and neutrality aside there is just not enough content to justify making an article with the content found to be objectionable by some here. Chillum 23:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to make the explicit point about content forks, but it's undoubtedly a valid (and important) one. --LjL (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. While I am still of many minds about having the blots on a separate page with nothing else, I certainly can't agree with the notion that there be a "bad bank" that psychologists are asked to pretend doesn't exist, particularly if the purpose of establishing that bad bank is to create a playground where non-psychologists can write whatever they want about a subject they know little about and seem to have very strong POVs about. If they do the job well, they destroy test security, which gets us right back to where we started. If they do it poorly, it's harmful to the encyclopedia (and also still creates problems in terms of test subjects giving ridiculous responses). Either way is rotten. To suggest that this somehow solves the ethical problems is to massively misconstrue the notion of professional ethics.

I think the problem is that this goes way beyond the blots themselves. It's about the text. The blots shouldn't be in the article, but in some ways they're the least of the problem at this point, thanks to the recent spate of goalpost-moving. A lot of the recently-added (mis)information about test scoring and interpretation should also not be in the article, because it's largely incorrect, it's not relevant to a general reader audience, and because it violates (or confuses) test security. To know what should and shouldn't be in it, what the balance of the current research position is, what will help a general reader understand how the test works and why something with such rotten face validity is so strongly valued by many psychologists, is something that really needs to be hashed out by the people who actually know the current system and the current state of research well. Mirafra (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, because I see a moving goal from your side, too. Initially, the goal seemed to be simply to censor out the images; now, it seems to be to censor relevant text, too. I think I said that before, but, why don't you just propose removing the whole article, since there's the risk that even mentioning (for instance) the concept of a color response may skew the results (and if you don't agree with the sources that says that... I don't know what to say then)? --LjL (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this will accomplish nothing. It will only move the argument to a sub page were we will have the same group continue to try to have this information removed from Wikipedia.  ::::The reason why I added the content from the French Wikipedia was to get around WP:POVFORK as than it would need to be forked due to size. For this I was assumed to have bad faith.  ::::I think we are working at different end. One group is trying to remove encylopedic material well the other is attempting to create an encyclopedia. The two are obviously incompatible.-Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really believe finding ways to "get around" policy is the way to go, anyway. Nor, honestly, do I believe there's any actual grounds (because of the current fuss or otherwise) to make a separate article about the controversy/inkblots/whatever, nor do I believe there's a sane way to separate a part of article that doesn't need or benefit from the inkblots for discussing the topic from one that does. They're entangled. --LjL (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think the article needed to have information removed until you guys started adding information recently. Nice try at the whole minimizing and shifting-blame thing.

And I am sick of being told that your POV is the one with the monopoly on wanting to create an encyclopedia. That's why we're here, too. What I can't figure out is why it means so much to you to write about something you know so little about and can make such a poor contribution to. Mirafra (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My addition of the gallery did bring over a million people to this page well what had been here previous was only getting 200 hits per day. So I think people wish to see these images.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bringing a million viewers to a nonsensical page seems hardly a useful goal. Mirafra (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well we did bring Wikipedia into the spotlight for a brief moment. And we tweaked people curiosity all well giving psychology some press.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, until information was added, you wanted no information removed. Makes sense. I do suspect your last statement shows that you don't quite understand the whole thing behind most people writing on Wikipedia; anyway, that's not particularly relevant. --LjL (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not the images that brought the million people here, it was the resistance to the images that sparked all of the interest. If anything good has come from this debate it is that it has informed many people about the test. Thanks for that by the way. Chillum 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But given them incorrect information. I fail to see how this helps either the readers or Wikipedia. And again, this sounds awfully like what I hear from clients in domestic-violence situations -- "If you'd just let me do whatever I wanted, none of this would have happened. So it must be your fault." Mirafra (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been asked a few times that anyone point out any incorrect information, if you point it out it would help a lot. Domestic violence? What are you talking about? I am not indicating fault, I am showing gratitude. Chillum 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The last bit is a not so subtle insult. The previous bit was a little strange though. Not sure Mirafra is referring to the Rorschach a "nonsensical" test.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already said many times that we can't play 20 questions. Ethics aren't about lawyering.

If you provide nonsensical information about the test, then the encyclopedia article is not serving the goal of an encyclopedia.

No, it's not an insult. It's an analogy. My reference to domestic violence is referring to your claim that the disclosure of information is our fault for having objected to it after the fact, rather than expecting folks who posted the information to take responsibility for their actions in making those disclosures. Mirafra (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Mirafra it is very insulting to compare use to wife beaters, if you don't realize that then you need to stop and think for a little while. Do you realize how it sounds when you tell us that the article is incorrect but you cannot tell us how? This is an absurd statement. What exactly are we supposed to do to address this undefined concern of yours? Chillum 00:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously remove all the images and the bulk of the article text. I'm starting to think you aren't listening, Chillum! --LjL (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This all really goes against the purpose of the talk page. It is here to improve articles not post about how horrible it is now that everyone in the entire world has seen these blots. Now that everyone has seen these images the test is useless per some peoples words and thus the test has only historical significance. It therefore is in the realm of the historian and no longer that of the psychologist. Maybe we should tag it with the history wikiproject?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as insulting -- that was not my intention. But the point still stands -- if person A does something inappropriate, person B says they shouldn't have done it, and the resulting argument draws attention to the action, it seems pretty out-of-line for person A to suggest that it's all person B's fault for not just silently acquiescing to A's action.

Chillum, if you need yet another explanation of why professional ethics prevent me from answering your questions while you insist upon then using that information to further violate test security, then I think you should just go back and reread the archives, since I've explained it several times before.

LjL, I don't think that most of the article text needs to be removed. I think that a lot of the historical information and the discussion of research support is not NPOV, and that much of the information about interpretation needs to be rewritten by someone with knowledge of the test so that various ideals can be held in dynamic tension.

James, that's also nonsense. It's still a well-used test, despite what appear to be your best efforts to destroy it.

I'm trying to see if we can find a way for you guys to recognize that right now, you're not actually making a good encyclopedia article, in that it is not NPOV, it is not accurate to the content, and it is written in a way that prevents experts from helping with it. It might be a long article, but if it's filled with information that is misleading and confusing, that's hardly good encyclopedic practice. Mirafra (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay to be serious. We all known that this is the way the psychologists editing here feel. And we all know that you are only able to tell us how bad the page is and you are not able to make any recommendations or to help yourselves to improve matters.

There is only one goal and that is to have the test material removed from this page. We all understand that. But this is not the place to continue venting your complaints.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, Mirafra, then forget my intrusion and answer Chillum's original question, please. --LjL (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not just making this stuff up Mirafra. The content of the media coverage was not about the test itself, but rather the controversy on this very talk page(a pity). Wikipedia does things a certain way(ie neutrality, not being censored, providing relvant verifiable information etc...), some people came here and fought against it prodigiously(without success) to the point that it got media attention. Those million people did not come here to see our article, but rather to see this spectacle that we have created. Your analogy also depends on the assumption that providing this information is inappropriate, that is just an opinion, a minority opinion at that.

I have heard all you have to say about ethics and I accept that you choose not to edit this article or even be clear in your criticisms. I am telling you that if you cannot express you concerns then they will not be given consideration. This lack of consideration is not personal, you just have chosen not the given us the information we need to give such consideration. I really don't think you will convince us of anything if you are not willing to go into details about what your concerns are. Chillum 01:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what is just still boggling my mind is the idea that you'd rather have an inaccurate and incomprehensible set of articles on secure tests than think productively about how to engage collaboratively with the editors who would like to help. Mirafra (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bit mind boggling that you expect any response when you won't tell us what is wrong with the article. You seem to be confusing "engage collaboratively" with "blindly obeying". I don't accept the false dilemma that without doing as you say we can never have a good article. I am starting to doubt the very existence of these mystery inaccuracies that you refuse to point out, how on Earth can it be against your ethics to point out a factual error? If it is against your ethics to point out a factual error, then how come you are able keep vaguely referring to such error. Is the line really positioned such that you can only insinuate but not inform? Chillum 13:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think we're asking you to blindly obey anything -- perhaps that is the source of the misunderstanding. We're asking to engage collaboratively. For us to feel comfortable doing that, we are asking that our professional ethics and the actual real-world usefulness of the tests the articles are about to be respected.

The problem is this. If I say, "Here, this statement is right, but this other statement is wrong," then you are getting confirmation for the correct statements. And then you'll come back and say, "I don't know what's wrong with it, you have to tell me." It's facilitating the process of your continuing to damage test security. I cannot ethically help you do something I feel is deeply ethically wrong and will cause harm in the real world of real people. I'm saying, "Your page is crap," because it's clear that the people who are currently contributing have no clue how nonsensical their statements are -- they think they don't need our help, and I'm saying that they clearly do. If I were truly anti-WP, I would say nothing and let folks keep writing nonsense -- that's harmful to the public position of the test (in that it doesn't present NPOV), and it will contribute to the problem of uninterpretable protocols, but at least it would contribute less to the efforts of someone who was trying to deliberately fake. But since I think that having a clear and informative WP article would be a good thing in the world, I'm willing to keep trying to come to some understanding. Mirafra (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter to prevent image removal

I added blot images to Special:AbuseFilter/131. If nothing extraordinary happens in the next few days I will unprotect the article. Ruslik_Zero 11:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll point out that last time (I mean right after the media exposure), disruptive edits by IPs were not really limited to the images. Anyway, I do believe we can just wait a little and see what happens this time. --LjL (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Another compromise section

Given the latest proposal just got bogged down in other debate again...

Ultimately, I think all sides will agree - whether they support this decision or not - that there is not nearly enough support for removing all inkblot images from this article. There is, however, also a great deal of concern expressed regarding the display of all inkblots. In my view, the top two issues are the following:

• The inkblots are public domain, already available, and are of encyclopedic value. As such, they belong on this article.
• The gallery of all images is provocative, especially to those within the field.

Everything else we've discussed is really just static that is generated by these two core arguments.

I suggested it above, but wanted to formalize my proposal:

1. Keep the first inkblot (and not a shadow copy) in the article.
2. Remove the gallery. We already have a link to the Commons category that has all images, but perhaps add a see also section link to that category indicating that all images can be found there.
3. If possible, have someone create an image of the test being administered to use as the lead image, pushing the remaining inkblot "below the fold".
4. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia believes there should be no disclaimers in articles, I wonder if we could get away with a statement in the lead discussing the expert reaction that is along the lines of "Many experts believe that the publication of the images, such as the one displayed below, could compromise the reliability of the test."

I believe this would be a good compromise that gives voice to all sides. The first image especially is an iconic representation of this test, and we really can't remove it while claiming to want to document the sum of human knowledge. However, I personally do not find galleries to be especially encyclopedic as a general rule. As such, removing the gallery would be an editorial decision to improve this article, while ensuring that the links to all images are available and visible so that readers with an interest in seeing all ten plates may still do so. Moving the remaining plate down, while adding a statement along the lines of what I propose would allow us, without using an explicit disclaimer, to both express the concerns of the psychological experts (which is notable enough for the lead), and caution the reader that they will find such an image later in the article. They can then choose to continue reading or not at their discretion.

This proposal is something that can be discussed independent of the feasibility of creating a child article dedicated to the images themselves. Thoughts? Resolute 03:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Another good suggestion. Of course the recent NYT et al. media frenzy provided us with many good sources to create a disclaimer-that-isn't-really-a-disclaimer. –xeno^talk 03:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Would support the previous recommendation over this one. The page was only getting 200 hits a day before the media and most were probably from those directly involved in this debate. I am sure it will go back to that and this test will return to obscurity. I think people have put to much emphasis on the importance of Wikipedia. I know we all think it is the greatest thing ever but I do not think most of the world care. Just as they would not go to a book store to read up on this test once this passes they will not come to Wikipedia to see it either.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how a squabble among 6 or so editors turned into a world media event. Not a good commentary on the media's ability to choose what is and is not important. And media "expert" treatment of the Rorschach leaves me wondering how wrong they are on topics that I know nothing about (and thus can't verify the accuracy of).Faustian (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I counldn't agree more. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus that the media has blown this out of proportion. Chillum 05:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the media tends to blow everything out of proportion as that is what sales.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are three groups of people in this discussion (and in most other WP 'debates on controversies': the casual passer by who merely wants basic information ('WP as a point of first resort'); the practitioners of the subject, who wish 'to maintain the integrity and practices of their subject'; and those who wish to find out all they can about the subject/develop WP as far as they can. There will #always# be a tension between the professionals and the investigators about how much information should be generally accessible (as has been said variously above, some information should be kept out of the public domain 'for a variety of reasons specific to the given context').

What is required of the page is - 'an inkblot image' (which, as far as many passers are concerned could be an inkblot specifically generated for WP) - and, as it has 'been found' the image of the inkblot in use; and a statement to the effect that 'the Rorschach test is used to generate a set of numbers which are subjected to various transformations: various psychological attributes and conditions generate consistent "patterns" in the results.'

It should have been evident that the specific images would come increasingly into general visibility, especially once they moved out of copyright, and other images would feed into the process (inkblots are easy to generate, also sertain computer image generating programs, Mandelbrot diagrams 'and so on'). Eventually the intepretative documents themselves will come into the public domain - and then what? No explanation has been given as to how the interpretation is independent of context - why someone living during the Great Purges, a member of a remote tribe and a person with a Second Life avatar can be number-crunched in the same way - when the comparison test case is more self-evident for 'aliens, ancestors, apes and us' with the Snellen chart and the colour-blindness tests.

And in response to the response 'somewhere above' - just because I (and probably many others on WP) do not understand the scoring system #does not make my comments worth ignoring# - even those 'ignorant in a particular field' (and I, like others, have my areas of expertise) can make valid comments/raise issues that need to be addressed (whether or not there are constraints due to particular circumstances). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the efforts to "compromise" seem to be based upon the idea that we should hide images that have no reason to be hidden to try to satisfy people whose satisfaction has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy or standards. The inkblots should all stay, "above the fold" or no, and the lead cannot be used to push a POV to try to scare readers away. DreamGuy (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Actually, no one claims that the interpretation is independent of context -- exactly the opposite is true. The reason psychological evaluation isn't done by trained monkeys is because it is crucial to understand the individual in systemic context. But that's a side issue.)

83, I think you've summed it up well, and presented a not-unreasonable compromise. The only lingering problems I have are that (1) this fight is then going to just recreate itself at some future point, at which point the experts who will have helped to make the page more clear and informative are going to feel that we were taken for a ride, and (2) it's going to do so on every page about secure tests. I really think this is something that needs to be thought through at the policy level, with some clear and vaguely permanent resolution. Mirafra (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to create a subpaged-style RFC wrt to this. –xeno^talk 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's aimed at me, I need more explanation. Mirafra (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See the instructions at WP:RFC. You would be creating something like WP:Requests for comment/Protection of test materials or something. An example: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing. –xeno^talk 13:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I am very new to the whole new-policy thing. Not sure how to avoid the inevitable accusations of forum-shopping and meatpuppetry and we-already-ignored-you-before. Could people who are more clueful than I perhaps talk with me someplace other than here about how to make a very narrowly-tailored policy that would provide for maximal information freedom within the boundaries of test security that might trigger a more thoughtful response? (WikiProject Psych? my talk page? ) Mirafra (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes, 4) Ok, but it's already there, last paragraph of the lede. --LjL (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• LjL puts it well, "1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes, 4) Ok, but it's already there". In short, I see no reason to remove the gallery other than reasons that the community has rejected. I have always supported an improved lead image with greater encyclopedic value(not simply to push something "below the fold"). Chillum 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I find the opposition to moving the gallery rather interesting. Especially Dreamguy's comments above, because I could easily argue that WP:IG, a policy, would apply in this case. Does a gallery of ten images add anything that the single image does not? In my view, no. We should always have at least one of the real inkblots in the article - I would not support 83's suggestion for that reason - but I don't believe that the gallery is a necessity for this article, as the other nine plates to not add significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject. Especially if we make it clear that all images are easily available on Commons, which is also in line with the image gallery policy. Resolute 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• This has been discussed before, I for one did not know there were multiple colors in the later cards. I also did not know what they looked like. I don't see how WP:IG applies as there is a very specific number of these images and they give a clear context to the prose of the article. Also notice that there is textual encyclopedic content that relies on the images, see the comments below each image in the article. This information would be meaningless without the images. Chillum 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  Meaningless without all ten images? One black and white card, one black and red card, and one colored card would be sufficient to show each type of card.Faustian (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The text says that there are colored cards. Again, I don't see that actual cards are needed to show this. Mirafra (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• From WP:IG: "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made" (emphasis added). Comparing and contrasting is precisely what we are doing, we have information about each image that would not fit into the article if they were not present. Last I checked there was also a strong consensus to show all 10 images. Chillum 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the first example I was just going to make, colors. There is more than that, though; as I said before, I intended to introduce information about cultural differences in responses, and now that the article is unprotected, I've actually started that section. I find it's absurd to have a description of the different responses given to cards in Europe vs America without having a gallery of the cards themselves, don't you think? (Of course, I bet some people here obejct to the textual content as well, but I personally find that so far from my ideas I'm honestly not really even willing to discuss that). --LjL (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if our only goal is to make the best article possible(and that is our only goal) then we should not remove the gallery as content of the article depends on it. Chillum 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the 10 images should remain within the primary article as each image is significant in its own right. I will side with LjL's above conclusions 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes (if possible), 4) Yes. I do not forsee the images being removed and believe we should refocus our discussion on the text content.Quasistellar (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The gallery is at almost the bottom of the page. This means that it is not given very much emphasis / importance. Yet still it is all we can discuss. With how much attension it seems to generate on the talk page and elsewere maybe it should be listed first? By the way agree with LJL 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes, 4) Ok Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cultural differences

An excellent resource for this section is the entire issue of Journal of Personality Assessment, International Reference Samples for the Rorschach Comprehensive System, vol. 89 Supplement, 2007. I don't have a link to it that can be accessed without a subscription, but if someone is resouceful enough you might be able to get your hands on it. If I can help with that, let me know. It has a lot of technical information, but if someone is willing to put in the time to try to digest it, it could be useful. Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Couple of points

1. When we post concerns that the Rorschach is not a valid test we are not pushing our own POV but those of people within the field who have published on the topic. See Wood for example. These opinions are those from experts in the field.
2. The field of psychology must look forwards. Those who beleive that the Rorschach is useful will have to develop new norms regardless of the outcome of this debate. They showed these images on fox new with the most common answers and they have been published in many papers around the world this last week.
3. No one here believes psychologists are involved in mind control. What we do all agree is that they use this test in some very important social situation involving some very vulnerable people ( like child custody and criminal investigations ). And that these results can have a dramatic effect on peoples lives. What we do disagree on is who should all be involved in the discussions surrounding their use. One groups thinks this discussion should involve all parties involved ( ie. the world as a whole ). The other group is trying to exclude everyone who disagrees with their opinion. Even many of those within there own field. Some have commented that criticism from those who do not regularly use the test is invalid. Only those who believe the test is useful use it, well those who do not use the test do not. The selection criteria guarantees that you get the answer you wish.
4. Discussing this openly is an important part of science. And no one should be excluded from the scientific discussion. The problems facing the world is not to much understanding of science but to little. "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives" and I think discussion this test in full detail will do so in a positive way.
5. The opinions / ethics of the APA ( with 150,000 members ) should in no way override the opinions / ethics of Wikipedia ( 10 million editors)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My response:

1. Agreed. OTOH the opinion of Wood is a minority one within the field and should be weighted accordingly. Once you stop doing so, the POV issue appears.
2. True. Not that this excuses the harm that was done.
3. Improper framing of the question. Nobody is trying to exclude "everyone who disagrees with their opinion." This is a straw man. The consensus within the field is that it's a useful test, with a small number of dissenters. Now, how do you include "the world as a whole." Do you propose that usage effectiveness and utility of medical procedures that can dramatically affect people's lives also be judged by electric engineers, plumbers, and hair dressers ("the world as a whole")? Or in your opinion does this have to be psychology's problem.
4. Discussing a test openly doesn't mean laying out all the questions and answers to the test. Indeed from a scientific perspective it defeats the purpose of the test. The opennness of revealing who will be in a placebo group and who will be in a control group certainly doesn't advance science, it just spoils the experiment. Likewise, revealing test items and "answers" spoils the test. We don't have to spread understanding of the medical licensing exam by revealing next year's questions and answers. You are correct that it does affect people's lives. The Rorschach is a tool that is used in some very difficult circumstances. An example of one life affected by the Rorschach, from personal experience, with identifying details removed. A psychiatrist was unsure about a very intelligent young man brought by his parents who presented with being guarded, isolating from others, staying in his room for weeks. His observed symptoms may have been depressed. He showed no overtly bizarre behavior but seemed a bit "off" so the psyciatrist asked for consulation from a psychologist who administered various tests. During the interview the pt. spoke little, was guarded, but said nothing bizarre. On the MMPI the pt. took a long time but was smart enough to figure out the "correct" answers on his own by producing a valid and totally normal profile. On the Rorschach the responses were quite psychotic. as a result antipsychotic medication was tried. After a few days the pt. had insight into his thoughts, and discussed them. For months he had been sure that he was getting messages from the television about the CIA spying on him, that even his parents were in on it, and that he had even made plans to either kill them or to flee. This guy was computer savvy, the last thing he needed was to have access to the questions and answers. We can't be 100% sure what would have happened if he had access to this page, but indications are that he would have spoiled the one test that gave a good clue about what had been going on. How would wikipedia have affected this person's life thanks to Dr. James Heilman's effort to reveal the questions and answers? Well, it's doubtful this person would have gotten the treatment that he needed. As a result he could have hurt someone, or he could have ended up on the streets along with many other untreated people with mental illness (I am using this example specifically because even Wood et al concede that the Rorschach does a decent job at finding psychosis - this usefulness is basically unquesitoned in the field). The efforts of some editors here basically amount to spoiling a useful tool that helps people in the real world.
5. Opinions/ethics of APA are probably better informed on psychological topics than those of non-APA wikipedians.Faustian (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Point 3: Actually this is exactly what we do in the rest of medicine. It is called informed consent. Here is a paper on discussion of cardiovascular disease. [14] Another one pertaining to PSA. [15] We get patients involved in there medical decision making.

Er...what does this have to do with anything? Informed consent doesn't mean knowing in advance whether you are in a placebo or a control group. It doesn't mean knowing the questions and answers in advance, either.Faustian (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Was an affirmative answer to the question posted above: "Do you propose that usage effectiveness and utility of medical procedures that can dramatically affect people's lives also be judged by electric engineers" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No it's not, James. The more apt analogy would be for the FDA to canvass a random sample of accountants, electricians, and sociologists to determine whether or not to approve a drug or a new surgical procedure. When I conduct an assessment, I do provide information about the procedures and obtain informed consent. That doesn't mean that I accept my patient's view of which tests to use as equally valid as my own. If someone came into your ER with symptoms of an MI, would you accept his insistence that you give him antibiotics to treat it? I defer to your judgment on the emergency treatment of cardiovascular disease and the evaluation of the literature. Apparently, you don't give experts in other fields the same courtesy. SPAdoc (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Point 5:Opinions/ethics are not determined by your profession. One does not get to discount the rest of the world just because you disagree with them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you assuming that 10 million wikipedians represent "the rest of the world?" (or for that matter that vandalizing the test represents the collective wishes of the 10 million wikipedians?)Faustian (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No and neither do I assume that 150,000 member of the APA support removal of these images from Wikipedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The APA has issued a statement describing this as harmful. Wikipedia has not made an ofocial statement either way. Not a valid comparison. Moreover APA is more qualified to judge something related to a psych test than is wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes and Wikipedia has deemed these images encyclopedic which it is more qualified to do than the APA. Now the APA has described it as harmful to the test not necessarily as harmful to people. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The APA ethics code is all about preventing harm to the public. Releasing the images is harmful to people. Wikipedia has not issued a statement about psychlogical tests. I'd estimate 60 editors on this page have wanted to release the images. So, a statement indicating the collective opinion of 150,000 experts versus 60 or so wikipedia editors. Faustian (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the APA code of ethics exists to preserve the income of its members. The APA never said that releasing inkblots would harm the public. If the APA were to publish a scholarly paper demonstrate some harm, then perhaps we could weigh that harm against the obvious benefit. But no such harm has ever been demonstrated. Roger (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I think you're having fun with us again. Unless they've revised the ethics code within the last day or two, I don't see the "income" issue addressed at all: Could you point that out for us specifically? A direct quote about psychologists' income would be helpful. I hope you're not saying that the ethics codes of all healthcare professions exist to preserve members' incomes. There are and have been some physicians on this talk page that might take offense at such a comment. And the evidence for harm has been presented and discussed repeatedly on this talk page. (In case you're getting ready to demand a link to that, please look for it yourself, throughout the archives). Ward3001 (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I suggest that you apologise immediately for what may be very easily construed to be a highly offensive remark. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are offended by what your professional organization does, then complain to them, not me. I see that you use a British spelling, so my guess is that you have nothing to do with the APA anyway. Maybe British codes of ethics work differently, I don't know. But American organizations adopt codes of ethics for the benefit of their members. Roger (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I use American spelling. I'm a member of APA. And now you've also managed to offend all the American physicians who might come to this talk page. So I'll ask you for a second time: Give us the specific part of the ethics code pertaining to protecting incomes, with relevant direct quotes. Otherwise, I think it is very much in your best interest to drop this issue before you manage to offend even more people. Ward3001 (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you are an APA member, why don't you ask them yourself about why they have a code of ethics. Not just psychologists and physicians have codes; so do lawyers, engineers, accountants, and others. And yes, those codes exist to protect the members. Roger (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I have read the code of ethics many times, and participated in many courses and training programs based on that code of ethics; there's no need for me to ask the APA anything. The APA has provided extensive and thorough response to all of my questions. But I've politely asked you twice for quotes from the APA ethics code that might provide a shred of evidence for your offensive remarks, and both times you have refused to even acknowledge the question. So now let me state it a bit more firmly. Give us direct quotes from the ethics code to back up your accusations, or drop this matter. A three-year-old can repetitively parrot a statement like "APA ethics exist to protect members' incomes", but the three-year-old can't explain the basis for the statement. I think you're much more capable than a three-year-old, so give us the quotes, or continue to passively confirm to everyone that you are simply making things up. Ward3001 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So that's how the ethics of any professional body work in America - for the financial benefit of its members? I think you'd find in other countries such as the UK that many organisations and businesses have a Code Of Conduct, which ultimately works for the benefit of those organisations and businesses, but which may explicitly include advice on matters of ethics designed specifically to protect the client and/or the general public. Whether or not I am personally offended by Roger's remark is beside the point. As it stands it seems quite offensive to any member of the APA. Schlafly do you mean "to protect the members from risk of litigation?" Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one making offensive comments here. Faustian said, "APA ethics code is all about preventing harm to the public". The APA code is written by APA members for APA members. The public is not even involved in the process. Martinevans123 suggested that I "apologise". Ward3001 is a member of the APA, but he does not even seem to know the purpose of his own ethics code. All of your comments are wrong and insulting. If you think that I am wrong about the APA ethics code, then go ahead and post your evidence. Tell us why the APA code says what it says about test materials. Prove that the APA ever considered anything other than the financial gain of its members. Roger (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the purpose of the ethics code is to prevent harm to the public. It says so in the preamble: [16] "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline". Naturally this might not fit in with Roger's personal conspiracy theories....Faustian (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, people, stop quibbling about this. The politics of APA have no relevance to this article, and this talk page is not a forum to discuss things very loosely related to its article. Therefore, I strongly suggest this topic is just dropped at once. --LjL (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The ethics of APA has a lot to do with this article. So kindly don't tell us to stop talking about it. Ward3001 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the APA became relevant from the argument that the APA ethics code is evidence that disclosure of inkblots would be harmful. If everyone agrees that this is no evidence at all of harm to the public, then I would be happy to drop the matter. Roger (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is no "evidence". I believe that in the absence of evidence one should heed relevant professional opinion. If one takes "the public" to include those who may at some future point be asked to participate in the Rorschach technique, having seen the images here first, there seems to be the potential for harm. Yes, Roger, I suggested that you "apologise", but that was on the basis that the APA (and apparently many other professional organisations) have `ethical' codes not based soley on financial considerations. Apologies if this is seen as forum quibbling. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, Roger. Do you think we're bargaining here, bargaining with the truth?? Do you think this is some sort of game: "If you admit you're wrong, I'll stop making offensive remarks" (followed by sticking one's tongue out). Is that what you think is going on here? A game of who can make up things the most, shout the loudest, and be the most offensive? Give us direct quotes from the APA ethics code to back up your claims. And for that matter, give us direct quotes from the American Medical Association, since you've now included American physicians in your accusations. This is not a game. Ward3001 (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not going to stop telling the truth just because you claim that some people are offended. Do you really need a tutorial on the APA ethics code? If you are really an APA member, then you should be able to explain to us how the APA is relevant. Perhaps this inkblot disclosure threatens your income somehow. Perhaps the APA helps you protect your revenue stream. Perhaps you have an obligation to the APA to censor information and thwart competition. Perhaps you might be embarrassed that you and other psychologists have been using such a phony test for years. I don't know. But I do know that disclosing the inkblots is beneficial, and the APA has never said that that disclosure would harm anyone. Roger (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, the preamble to the APA ethics code states:[17] "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline". Everyting in the Code is in the Code specifically for the purposes mentioned above, including [18]: "The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.." If that is not clear enough for you, the APA also released the following statement: [19] "Disclosure of secure testing materials (e.g., test items, test scoring, or test protocols) to unqualified persons may decrease the test's validity. Availability of test items to an unqualified person can not only render the test invalid for any future use with that individual, but also jeopardizes the security and integrity of the test for other persons who may be exposed to test items and responses. Such release imposes very concrete harm to the general public - loss of effective assessment tools. Because there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose (in some instances only a single instrument), they cannot easily be replaced or substituted if an individual obtains prior knowledge of item content or the security of the test is otherwise compromised." Now, I am sure that your conspiracy theory will view this as a smokescreen or whatever but that as irrelevent as your uniformed opinion concerning the test's uselessness.Faustian (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We can now safely dismiss Roger's wild confabulations as in the same category of the aforementioned three-year-old who, confronted with his hand in the cookie jar, claims that his invisible friend gave him the cookie. If three clear and straightforward requests of Roger to provide information from any ethics code of an American healthcare organization does not produce even the slightest attempt at providing a single word from those ethics codes in support of his claims, I don't think anything can save Roger from further embarrassing himself. Let me try to reassure any new American psychologist, physician, or other healtcare professional who comes to this talk page that this sort of childishness does not represent the opinions of anyone else, on any side of any issue on this talk page. I don't intend to waste more time and talk page space on this silliness. Ward3001 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I really think we can and should safely close this generally pretty inappropriate and somewhat insulting thread. --LjL (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Roger's continued insults should not be addressed any further. Ward3001 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mex-psych's comments

If a psychological test has validity it is validity for some purpose. To say that the Rorschach test is completely invalid for all purposes is simply false. It is invalid for some purposes. For examples, if a someone has had the test when they have the child custody fight, or in criminal assessment of offender, then it would be mostly the invalid uses. We do not suggest the blood test for the broken leg. It does seem perhaps that because some people have had this test given to them or they are aware of it, in situations far beyond the validities of the Rorschach test that there is motivation to expose the test completely and conveniently. This test has some valid uses for example in diagnosis of the type of thinking disorder for example - the difference between the schizophrenia and the psychosis which may occur with the bi-polar and very serious depression.

The "APA" is one psychological organization in the world, there are many others in many countries. A few editors from one group in mostly I think one country but certainly from one language group will dictate to the rest of this world? Very troubling to me and even more to my colleagues who cannot respond in the English. The perspective of the users of these pages of wikipedia do not take into account the rest of the language cultures everywhere else. If peoples would be so kind as to understand that the principle of the free information in all situations has balances with other principles such as those of needing tests that will be valid for some specific purposes this would be of help. There are more principles than 'all information shall always be available to everyone'. Mex-psych (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mex-psych, I agree whole-heartedly with all the the points you have very eloquently made here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Mex-psych. We must consider all things in balance. Information may have intrinsic value, but not as much value as the knowledge of how to use that information. Providing information that destroys knowledge and utility is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. See encyclopedia. The images do not advance the mission of an encyclopedia. Because of this, the policy of Ignore all rules applies. See further discussion at this SUBPAGE See also the fable The Scorpion and the Frog and The tragedy of the commons Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It has often been said that, for IAR to apply, it must not need to be explicitly invoked... Seriously, IAR isn't a weapon to go against what the majority of Wikipedians think. --LjL (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that IAR is not a weapon to go against the majority, just as consensus is not determined by majority rule or ignoring the minority. Ward3001 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, consensus is hardly unanimity, and I feel quite confident that opinions have been heard and viewpoints have been stated, especially with the current RfC. And please, considering some of the other comments I've seen too, check out also the Not hypothetical section. --LjL (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, I don't see any changes in the article that have resulted from the majority listening to the opinions of the minority. We'll see whether that changes with the RfC. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Listening to" doesn't necessarily mean "compromising". A few people seem to be under the impression that when there is a minority, then reaching some compromise where the majority concedes something is necessary. It is not really. --LjL (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. There has been no compromising. That's known as consensus by majority vote. Ward3001 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And thus no consensus as defined by wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken, but I'm tired to explain it. Just read the links I've given. --LjL (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Where? Here [20] it states "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions." Obviously the majority wants its preference and enforcesit through majority vote, there is no cooperation from the side of the majority, there is no consensus. Further down,[21] "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time." No synthesis, no common ground. No consensus. Faustian (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus never means majority rules I believe, it you think it is majority then there can be the strategy made. I looked up the consensus in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus . Wikipedia is certainly not the consensus in the way it operates. For example, maybe if many psychologists from many places all agreed with the idea to remove many of the inkblot pictures and next all joined the wikipedia then would the ones who want all images in the webpage believe it was consensus? If so, please provide these instructions and perhaps this can be obtained. This inkblot issue came up with wikipedia over the summer, and we do not have the psychologists at the meetings or at the hospitals and in the clinics so much. When it resumes in the fall (autumn) then we could get overwhelming numbers if the consensus means to simply making a good hearing of the opinions and then a vote carried by the majority. I thank the people for the toleration of my writings in the English. Mex-psych (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC posted

I've created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Would editors please go there to add statements in the appropriate sections, so that others can endorse them? Once the first statement is up, I will start posting the RfC in various places e.g. village pump etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Format of inkblots section

I have drafted a re-formatted version of the inkblots section, that tries to integrate information instead of presenting every aspect separately. I like it better than the current one and I think it's more appropriate (it has also been suggested on the RfC talk page, but I'd like to know if it displays properly in other people's browsers, since it's a slightly involved table. --LjL (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this added detail is excellent. Would support its addition.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, actually, though, there's no added detail: it's exactly the same stuff that is already in that section, just formatted differently. --LjL (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct you are missed those additions.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do all the images, apart from number VII, have coloured backgrounds? Is that how they appear in the 1927 plates? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Two world views

What we have here is the collision of two world views. Each side is willing to maybe make some small concessions but none that would bring the two sides close enough to ever reaching consensus. I see no potential end in sight for this ongoing debate... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Where I see some possibility for understanding (and the only reason I stick around here), is that I think we all actually share the same goal. I came to the test pages precisely because I wanted to help people understand psychological tests, so that they wouldn't seem so mysterious, bizarre, and potentially threatening. I think that one of the worst things the field of psychology has to wrestle with is that people don't understand what we do, and there really is no reason that questions can't be answered clearly, concisely, in understandable language. I would love it if we could find some way to trust each other. Mirafra (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Trust depends on context. I will be quite willing to trust a psychologist as such when I actually consult one or undertake therapy. That goes for any medical profession, and other professions, too. But I won't automatically trust their judgment on what to include or leave out of a Wikipedia article (even a Wikipedia article about something in their discipline), because that's the wrong context. Hell, I won't even trust them about information in the article, or I wouldn't insist on providing sources for every statement! (By the way, I'll take this chance to add that this article is awfully unsourced in some pretty sizeable parts; at least, the parts I added are thoroughly sourced, although you say they are wrong anyway). --LjL (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Card size

The cards I have, from 1964, are 17 x 24.5 cm, not 16 x 24. Have they since shrunk? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)