Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images

Threaded responses here, please.

Productive

I believe this is a productive move forwards. Perhaps we can clarify the consensus on this matter and then abide by it. Chillum 19:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures very likely to remain on Commons

I thought it might be worth mentioning that the community on Commons has several times decided not to delete the images. Therefore, while it is possible to reduce the space given to these images, as long as there is a link to Commons, all the plates will be available to all readers. Samulili (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The plates are all over the Internet anyway, and they're readily available to readers as long as Google exists. That's not really the issue; the issue is about whether they should receive exposure in the article. --LjL (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to link to Commons for the inkblots when they can and should be in the article. The fact taht they are going to stay on Commons just shows the overwhelming support for leeting the world see them, which is the same reason they should be on the article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Image galleries

I see arguments referring to WP:IG. The fact that we have textual and referenced content that relies on the presence of all 10 of these images seems to indicate that they pass our image gallery criteria. Should we remove the images then the content regarding common answers that we have now, and the content that will be added later regarding the differences in answers amongst cultures will have no context. They are not there for decoration but rather to support the content of the article. Chillum 20:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking editorially, does a simple table adequately express how a patient would react to each image, or would we be better off discussing at length, in prose, the typical responses someone undergoing the test typically has, using one or two images as an example? As an aside, if we retain the table of responses, I think it might look better if the gallery was integrated, somewhat along the lines of the table at List of Alberta premiers. Resolute 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Have started such a page here.User:Jmh649/Sandbox If we do add more detail regarding the inkblots themselves we would have to create a subpage. If does not mean however that we cannot leave the main gallery in the main page and than discuss each image in more detail on a subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

II really really don't see why we would have (or should) create a subpage for that. It's fine on the main page. --LjL (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just added textual information in prose about responses elicited by the cards (from Weiner, the co-creator of the Exner system, a source used numerous times in the article). All of them, though. No reason why that should be limited to an arbitrary "only some". --LjL (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, anyhow, I don't intend to replace the table with that content; I believe the table is very indicative of cultural differences and gives an at-a-glance idea of the amount of popular responses for the various table. "Popular responses" doesn't really mean "how a patient would react to each image" (although I guess much of the media have treated it like that, by calling them "the answers to the test"). "Popular responses" are merely those content responses given by more than 1/3 of people. It's an arbitrary cut, but apparently one that's provide effective for at-a-glance evaluations.

As to your idea of integrating table, image gallery and prose in one list rather than three separate lists (isn't that basically what you meant?), I'll probably do that, have a look at this draft (although I guess discussion of that should be brought back to the article's talk page). --LjL (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I like this format.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That new table is superior to the current gallery. Resolute 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Display only some"

I'm seeing a few arguments that only some of the images can/should be displayed, on the grounds of WP:IG. I don't honestly see how that guideline may apply here, given we are talking about a very limited number (which cannot grow) of images that physically are the subject; but besides and beyon that, I think you are ignoring that there are reasons to display the individual cards, mainly because they are mentioned in the text of the article in contexts where it makes sense.

• As said on Talk:Rorschach test, at least one gray, one gray-red, and one multi-colored card should be displayed to give a valid idea of what these cards look like
• "popular responses on the first card include bat, badge and coat of arms" - "[...] the bat in card I appear to be characteristic of North America"
• "in Scandinavia, "Chrismas elves" is a popular response for card II"
• "For example, a bow tie is a frequent response for the center detail of card III [...]"
• "the figure of card IV is often called a troll by Scandinavians and an ogre by French people" - ""musical intrument" on card VI is popular for Japanese people"
• "French subjects often identify a chamaleon in card VIII"
• "[...] while specifically card IX's "human" response, [...]"
• "[...] the crab or spider in card X [...]"

Additionally, I can't imagine how a table that compares responses in different culture samples may be classed as unencyclopedic (unless basically every table on Wikipedia is)...

And finally, I don't see how displaying a limited, but significant, number of images (such as 5 or so, as has been proposed) may in any way reduce the "harm" perceived by psychologists: they would still complain and refrain from editing the article, given the bulk of the "unwanted" information would still be there, and the ones who'd like a complete article would miss out. Everyone loses. --LjL (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the image gallery on the pneumonia page [1]. I hope to add images of each of the lobar pneumonias eventually. I consider it encyclopedic. How are these images on the Rorschach test less so. More info is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Again I agree include the 10 images and include a discussion of the analytical methodology. The issue I have relates to where to draw the line related to the most common interpretations, referring to the image gallery for pneumonia does not appear to be a valid comparison as the degree of subjectivity in the response is greater. From an encyclopedic perspective I am struggling to see what this section adds to the article. I will look into this further, thank-you. Quasistellar (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanding scope of RFC

Elimination of content is occurring in other psychology related article such as Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure were an image of the test has been removed. Wondering if we need to expand the scope of this article to include all of psychology testing?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to focus on this issue alone here. If we reach a consensus here, I would presume someone could boldly apply the same result to that article. Resolute 03:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that avia [[2]] produced scholarly papers in which the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test image is included this is clearly a non starter:

Shin, Min-Sup Sun-Young Park, Se-Ran Park, Soon-Ho Seol and Jun Soo Kwon ((2006)) "Clinical and empirical applications of the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test" Nature Protocols 1, 892 - 899 doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.115

Jamus, Denise Ribas; Maria Joana Mäder (2005) Journal of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology vol.11 no.4 Porto Alegre doi: 10.1590/S1676-26492005000400008

If the Journal of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology don't consider revealing the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure image a comprise of test security then why should we? If we can find a similar paper for the Rorschach test images it would be totally relevant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Censored

If we are required to pretend that Wikipedia is not censored, then I suppose that is the end of the argument, regardless of the extent to which we are destroying the purpose of the article's subject by describing it. Art LaPella (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispensing test-taking advice?

I was rigorously trained in various Rorschach scoring techniques in graduate school and during my internship, but never use it as a professional. Since there are in infinite number of ways the results can be interpreted, it is not suitable for forensic work. A test in a similar situation is the Bender-Gestalt. There have been available for many years books on how to answer psychological test questions and interpret results, primarily some very good ones written for attorneys to use in cross examination to discredit psychological testimony in court. Psychologists are aware and usually able to detect false test results through experience and by comparison of test outcomes with ancillary information, other test data and behavioral observations. I am not overly concerned about the Rorschach cards, but I might worry about what is made of the information. It would not be true to say, for example, that such and such respond to Card I means so and so. That would be misleading to the general reader. If the Rorschach is going to be used as a "test case" for a general policy on Wikipedia about disclosing test data, then perhaps a more general discussion is warranted. I don't think Wikipedia wants to be in the business of offering medical recommendations nor suggestions on how to answer specific psychological tests. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't do that. Wikipedia describes. --LjL (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers medical recommendations of others. It recommends that alternative medicine is not recommended for the common cold.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you mean this from the common cold article, it is very carefully worded and backed up by scientific data. It doesn't say alternative medicine is not recommended.

Many alternative treatments are used to treat the common cold. None, however, are supported by solid scientific evidence.. Some alternative treatments, like echinacea have not been shown to have any effects on the frequency of infection, the duration of infection, or the severity of symptoms of the common cold. Other alternative treatments which similarly lack solid scientific evidence include calendula, ginger, garlic and vitamin C supplements.

—mattisse (Talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not even worth considering

WP:CENSORED. There's really nothing left to say.
— Ω (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What about videos that cause epilepsy? I really would like too see everybody arguing this point to openly say what is their position on that.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians creating own scientific stance independent of the scientific community

While many Wikipedians argue about the likelihood of harm or the sources of harm itself. They are making an attempt of creating an original opinion about a scientific question that already has been resolved by the scientific community. Even as I know that people may disagree with me they should not shift the discussion from what is it that the scientific community believes to be true. We are not an independent scientific community. By WP:ORIGINAL the Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether harm happens or not. But what is the scientific consensus. We are not going to argue whether quasars are truly galaxies, and publish our own opinion disregarding the scientific community.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)