Talk:Rorschach test

All 10 images

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

The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test

• 
  Plate 1
• 
  Plate 2
• 
  Plate 3
• 
  Plate 4
• 
  Plate 5
• 
  Plate 6
• 
  Plate 7
• 
  Plate 8
• 
  Plate 9
• 
  Plate 10

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

Page protected

• Archived to /Archive 7#Page protected

Arguments Pro

#01 - The cat's out of the bag

• Archived to /Archive 7##01 - The cat's out of the bag - if necessary, continue discussion below

#02 - No evidence of harm

• Archived to /Archive 7##02 - No evidence of harm - if necessary, continue discussion below

#03 - Adds to the page

• Archived to /Archive 7##03 - Adds to the page - if necessary, continue discussion below

#04 - removing the images amounts to censorship

• Archived to /Archive 7##04 - removing the images amounts to censorship - if necessary, continue discussion below

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

• Archived to /Archive 7##05 - Reputable organizations have been showing the images, too - if necessary, continue discussion below

But reputable organizations have also chosen to NOT show the images. See 2001 Scientific American Article Clearly, Poundstone, in his book Big Secrets thought he was doing something very scandalous. So if the title of this argument is trying to say that it has become acceptable to show the images, I think it's a flawed argument. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

• Archived to /Archive 7##06 Argument Pro - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway. - if necessary, continue discussion below

There has often been expressed on this talk page a valid opinion about the poor reliability of the test. But this opinion has no place when deciding whether to show the images or not. This thinking is similar to that of someone who vandalizes another's car saying, "Oh well, they won't care. It's a worthless pile of scrap metal, anyway." It's one thing to point at someone else's car and say it's worthless. It's quite another to then go and sabotage it. (See owner's 2009 letter of complaint and owner's 2006 letter of complaint) I don't think that ethical and we can all agree on that then maybe we can come to some kind of consensus. If we need a policy to help us, I'm all for finding or creating one. But please, may we first bring our ethics to the table? I think it's important that we all show up for the meeting bringing our whole selves. Even soldiers may be permitted to speak freely. In another context, this is sometimes called, "speaking truth to power." for example, standing in the oval office and telling the President of the US what you really think. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a valid arguement. If the test is not very useful or it´s use possibly harmful than that would refute the arguements of possible harm in showing these images.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If being the operative word. Consensus in the field, reflected in the fact that 80% of graduate programs teach it and 80% of clinical psychoilogists who are in a position to use it, do so, is that it is a useful test. Actually even its harshest critics (Lillenfeld, Wood, et al) - a minority within the field - don't go so far as to claim it is useless. See this article: [1] "Controversy has surrounded the Rorschach throughout most of its history, not because it is worthless, but because it has so often been used for the wrong purposes." The claim that it is "worthless" is basically nothng more than a fringe belief.Faustian (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me add this to what Faustian wrote: Even articles that are highly critical of the test [See http://www.psychologicalscience.org/newsresearch/publications/journals/sa1_2.pdf 2001 Scientific American] admit that it has some utility, especially in diagnosing Schizophrenia and bi-polarizm. You wouldn't want that functionality to be harmed, would you? So to use my analogy, if we're walking along the street and we see a car, as long as the car is owned and being used by somebody to some effect, (whatever the degree), I don't think it's right to go vandalizing it. Can we agree on that? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussing a test does not invalidate it. Wikipedia discusses mathematics. This does not invalidate math tests. Discussing and showing what the Rorschach test is is not in any way like vandalising a car. As another example we have tests ( exams ) we use to determine if someone is having a pseudoseizure or a real seizure. If people know about them then they could better fake a seizure and thus might be put on dangerous drugs as a result. They may than die from side effects from this drugs. I do not in any way see this as justification for hiding this information in medical books or keeping it off wikipedia.

The Rorscharch is not the only potential health care peice of information that may cause harm if used inappropriately. If you research depression to determine how to avoid being detected all the power to you. I have not found this to be a real concern with depression. With anoxia however that is a different matter. Here you have a predominantly young female population who work very hard to foil their caregivers and escape treatment. Techniques for tricking you physician are distributed widely on the internet. Health care profesionals need to know about these techniques.

Those who use this test need to know that the people they give it to may have seen it before. That they may lie and say they havn´t. And what better way to emphasis this is keep the images on wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Better way to emphasise what? You think the choice we must give the testeee is to be truthful or to lie? And you see the use of this article primarily as the means by which a person can "trick his physician"? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that the harm is not voluntary, requiring a person to make a choice, but automatic. It happens when someone merely sees the image. This places the responsibility for the harm not on the reader but on the editor, or on wikipedia (indeed, it robs the viewer of the choice to see the image or not to see it). With respect to your examples, would you feel the same way if, theoretically, the act of coming across a particular image of a seizure increased the chances of involuntarily getting one by the viewer? Would you still insist on putting that image into the lead?Faustian (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Anoxia?? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So Doc, if you and I can agree that the test has some value, (say in cases of diagnosing schizophrenia and bi-polarism) then can you agree with me that harming that value would be unethical. Should Wikipedia do anything that might forcibly "substitute for the advice of a medical professional?" Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Discussing the test is not the same thing as showing the test materials. One can discuss any test, such as the SAT or GMAT, and not compromise or spoil it by posting actual items from those tests. It's interesting that your claim that there is nothing, in your opinion, unethical about this page contradicts what the field itself states about doing this sort of thing. Any reason why you are right and the field, collectively, is wrong?Faustian (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While I am a medical preactitioner I am not a Clinical Psychologist, and claim no expertise in the use of the Rorschach test images. But it does seem to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that in this whole discussion one factor is being overlooked. If we stipulate that the interpreatation of the images is subjective (and the entire value of the test depends on this aspect) and the assessment of the subject by the psychologist depends on this interpretation, then surely this assessment can still be made whether the subject has seen the images before or not. All that is required is the the psychologist be aware of the presence or absence of previous exposure. Given that the assessment of a subject depends not simply on his/her bald indentification of an image, but more particularly how, and in what words and in what manner this identification is made, I would expect a trained psychologist to be able to make this assessment irrespective of past exposure by the subject to the images, given only that the fact of exposure is known. If this were not the case then a subject could be Rorschach tested only once in their whole life; is this in fact the situation? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 08:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A good question. But I think that your single factor may be (at least) two separate but related factors - a) that the test is subjective i.e. no right or wrong answers, and b) that it is the pattern of interpretation that is analysed not the pictorial subjects identified. It seems from earlier contributions that the test may certainly be used more than once with the same subject, although I think it was suggested that self-reported pre-test or pre-exposure might lead the practionner to choose an alternative test. But it has not been made clear what are the critera for such a choice. I'm unclear how you "would expect a trained psychologist to be able to make this assessment irrespective of past exposure" since some of those very clinicians have argued here that they can't, for whatever reason(s) - that's the problem, that's the basis for most of this discussion.

I also thought it ironic that this comment was added in this section. I think we may have missed a certain circularity. If, as the practioners advise us, pre-exposure weakens the utility of the test, continued exposure will provide further argument, in the longer term, that the test "doesn't work", i.e. no longer works. There will then be even less reason for protecting the images. I realise that this is not really the fault of wikipedia. The Rorschach's own popularity or notariety in the internet age may be the very cause of its demise? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To Anthony: previous exposure is adjusted for. Nevertheless, it weakens the utility of the test. The norms for the test responses were developed using thousands of people with no previous exposure, across hundreds of studies. The more different that the person being tested is from the normative sample, the less applicable the results based on the normative sample are to the person being tested. Preexposure to any test alters one's responses. Now, someone may argue that norms ought to be developed using preexposed people. Perhaps - but creating norms involves thousands of people in hundreds of studies. It is simply not feasible to recreate this massive body of research involving multiple times to account to every possible type of preexposure - someone exposed once, then again someone exposed twice, or three years ago, or one year ago, etc. Instead, we base norms on a "pure" sample and the psychologist adjusts according to the level of exposure (as well as other fatctors that are different than in the normative sample, such testing setting, etc.). As I mentioned earlier, a good psychologist can adjust to such contamination, just as an experienced driver can adjust to a snow storm. But despite the adjustment the results won't be as good, just as the experienced driver still probably won't get to his destination as quickly or smoothly in a blizzard as he would if the roads were clear. Those placing the image heres are essentially creating blizzards - negatively impacting others' work in a way that negatively impacts others' care.12:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I supposed it's okay to talk amongst ourselves, but the following outside sources support the above articulated claims of loss of utility (to some degree or another) and the need for security:

1. The British Psychological Society
2. the designers of Rorschach test materials in 2009
3. the designers of Rorschach test materials in 2006
4. The American Psychological Association Code of Conduct (see also preamble)
5. American Psychological Association, Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data, 1996.

So it's certain that recognized authorities ask for help in maintaining the security of the images. Are there any sources that claim that releasing the images to the general public could actually help? Not that I'm aware of. I don't like to engage in speculation, but let's assume that there are sources that we can cite saying that publishing the images can help. Now, let's ask ourselves the following question: If there was even a remote chance that familiarity with the Rorschach images were beneficial, wouldn't it be more likely that the APA and the British Psychological Society would advocate that the images be advertised on television. This would undoubtedly increase interest in the test, and bring in more business. More people would receive early diagnoses of bi-polarism and schizophrenia. I don't know about schizophrenia, but I have a friend who tells me that if doctors had known earlier that she was bi-polar, the chemical damage in her brain would be less severe than it is today. Even if the test images served only to attract more people into the door and some other method of assessment were utilized, don't you think the APA and the BPS would leap at the chance to do this? Of course they would. But this is only speculation. Clearly no one is advocating this. So I don't think we should either. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguments Con

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

former title: It may harm people

I think the connection between the preamble and section 9.11 of the American Psychology Association is sufficiently integral to make the argument that the "welfare and protection" of the patient is at risk if the security of test materials and stimuli are not maintained. I think this provides an ethical reason to not show the images. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that some sources say the test is bogus (and some even say dangerous, as rather benign answers can be used for justification for rather serious conclusions unsupported by any scientific evidence), it is also arguable that letting people take the test is harmful. Even among its supporters I've only seen a small minority try to make the claim that seeing the images is actively harmful in any way. It's purely a WP:FRINGE view, and we don't take sides in such "ethical" arguments here anyway, per WP:NPOV etc. DreamGuy (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I didn't mean to imply direct harm. Let me change the title to reflect your point. As to your other point. The APA is not a fringe organization. "Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide." [2] If the APA says that the security of tests should be maintained, then we can say that this is not a fringe view. By publishing the images, Wikpedia would be interfering with the goals of the APA Ethical Code, which "has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work..." [3] The question then becomes: "Do we share this goal?" Others here on this discussion say that we are not bound by the APA's code of conduct. What they mean is that we are not members of the APA and are not subject to their internal rules and discipline. But I think we all share the same goal as the APA: The welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work. The question is, do we trust the APA as a reliable source for information? I'm not saying it's the only source of information, for to do so would be WP:UNDUE weight. But is it a credible one? Of course it is. If we accept that the threat is credible, then the question is this: Are we willing to take the chance of engaging in behavior that might harm the "welfare and protection of individuals with whom psychologists work? Speaking for myself, I don't think so. Speaking for Wikipedia, I think the recent article in the New York Times shows that this organization favors not taking chances with the welfare of individuals. And because 80% of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services utilize the Rorschach, and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach it, [4] the chances are not slim that what we do will have an effect somewhere. I don't relish the idea of rolling the dice on matters like these. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that we document what reliable sources say, but we don't obey them. Just like how we document that many Muslims find depictions of Muhammad to be forbidden, yet we still show the images. This article already covers the APA mandate. Our goal is not to protect anyone, but rather it is to create an encyclopedia. People make a choice to learn about this test when they look it up, we will not deny them this information for their own good. Chillum 06:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

True, we need not obey them. However, we are informed by them. If someone says that showing images of the Rorschach test is forbidden, and here's why... And then we show them, we are not only choosing not to obey, we're also choosing to ignore the reasons why the images are forbidden, aren't we? That's what we should be talking about here: The reasons. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First off the "reasons" the images are forbidden are not covered by the source, that is speculation on behalf of Wikipedians. Secondly, the source only prohibits psychologists from spreading test materials in general(no mention of this test, no mention of people who are not psychologists). Thirdly, we are not ignoring the fact it is forbidden for psychologist to show the material to the public, we are documenting it in the first paragraph. We give a point of view attention by documenting what sources have said, not by obeying them. Chillum 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

While I would accept there may be some value in a comparison with Mohammed, in that both of the discussions revolve around the use of images, I still suspect that this line of comparsion may cast the Rorschach as an example of religion rather than of human science. Use of terms such as "forbidden" may only serve to amplify this slant. Surely organisations such as the APA, BPS and so on, don't typicallty try to "forbid" anything, but are motivated by an ethos of protection of individuals and those who provide healthcare for them. Furthermore, I would also suggest that the BPS, just like the APA, really cannot be viewed or fairly described as a "fringe organisation". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The APA source does not say why it is forbidden, and it specifically refers to psychologists only. I don't accept that every rule in the code of ethics is a health decisions, see the section on how to bill patients. What is more, while psychologists have the goal of diagnosis, we have our goal of providing relevant, informative, and verifiable information. We can't very well compromise our goals to protect the goals of others, not if we intend to remain neutral.

Telephone psychics may have their ability to counsel their customers damaged due to are explanation of how cold reading works, but we are not going to take that down either. A cop may have trouble finding a lie in the suspect if the suspect has read Polygraph#Countermeasures, it is not our problem if they need that information to be kept secret to do their job. If a profession relies on public domain information being kept secret, then it is going to have problems in the age of the internet, not our fault. We can't start compromising our project due to this. Chillum 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, while the sources are not fringe, the view being presented is a) fringe, and b) not supported by the sources. The APA is a fine source, it is just not saying what is being claimed. Chillum 13:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're argue on two fronts: First, you reject that the APA Code section 9.11 falls under the coverage of the preamble. And second, you believe that the goal of Wikipedia is to provide relevant, informative, and verifiable information, and that that goal is exclusive of the goals of the APA. I disagree with both assertions. Let me address them one at a time.

First, let me begin by saying that the same degree of VERIFICATION that we apply in our articles need not apply here. I'm not trying to convince the world. I'm only trying to convince you with consensus building, and good faith discussion. Wikipedia is governed by largely by consensus. And there is no rule that requires you to be wiktionary:obdurate. That is your choice. As the poet wrote:

“ But custom maketh blind and obdurate the loftiest hearts. ”

Okay, now that I've softened you up a little, let me return to the cold, hard facts. The section of the code that deals with proper billing procedures, also falls under the preamble with its goal of protecting the welfare of the patient. I will concede that one is a health concern and the other financial, but I argue that financial welfare and mental and emotional well-being are very similar. Therefore the integrity of the code is unbroken. The preamble is not unconnected to the rest of the document. And finally, I submit the evidence of common knowledge and common sense. It's common knowledge that the administrator of a Rorschach test instructs the subject to provide "the first thoughts that come to mind." It's common sense to assume that these instructions might be included in the reason for Section 9.11 of the APA's code. I'm not asking for much. You're free to to make the deduction. That is within your discretionary powers. Not every source needs to be laid out in a manner so clear as to leave no question. Judgment can be applied. I'm using mine, right now, and it tells me that the APA wants to protect test materials so that they can be used well in the manner in which they were designed. Is that a fringe argument? Did I make a leap of logic? Yes. Was it a big leap that took me to the fringe (your assertion, not mine). I don't think so. And my source to support that is the letter from Schluep Degen They represent the distributors of the Rorschach test which is taught in 80 percent of psychology graduate programs [5] They are not on the fringe. When they say that the Rorschach test should be removed from an internet site because it damages the test result, this makes the opinion not fringe. It is, therefore, a valid concern.

Second, your statement of the goals of Wikipedia is lacking something. I've been reading the five pillars of Wikipedia and I can see that it is not just the provision of relevant, informative, and verifiable information. It is also, in large part, self-governing (See WP:NOTANARCHY and ruled by consensus. In fact, there is a great deal of policy that is aimed at giving editors the freedom to speak their mind without fear of reprisal or ill-will. I promise you, no one will think ill of you if you should decide to change your mind and let ethical considerations influence your decision. You are a human-being, after all. As are we all. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If I sincerely felt that Wikipedia should remove these images due the ethical considerations presented to the point where I would want to advocate the idea, I would recuse myself from the discussion in the interest of having a neutral point of view. I have recused myself from debates where I had strong beliefs not based in Wikipedia policy before. Contrary to popular belief a consensus to violate neutrality is not binding. Rather a consensus to violate neutrality should be discarded as invalid. I honestly believe the removing the images due to these concerns would be a significant departure from the neutral point of view. Once again, we document points of view we don't follow them. Our only point of view should be neutral.

From WP:NPOV:

""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."(emphasis added)

So no, consensus cannot override neutrality, no original research, or verifiability. These are non-negotiable features of the encyclopedia that consensus is not welcome to change. These ideas are part of the fundamental goals of are project and are not to be deviated from even if there is a consensus to do so.

Ethics are subjective, many feel the suppression of information is unethical so we will never satisfy everyone ethically. We can document the APAs position, without creative interpretation, as we already have in the article but to obey it would be a violation of our neutral point of view. Chillum 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the way you're using WP:NPOV You're confusing being neutral with being compliant because, rightly or wrongly, you're placing Wikipedia at odds with the APA. I know because I did the same thing in Argument Con #4 below, but surprisingly, I came to the opposite conclusion as you. I believe that when the actions of two parties are in direct conflict with each other, the most neutral posture to take would be the most passive one. So it seems that we're both using the same neutral argument and coming to different conclusions. Wow. That's confusing, isn't it? (See below).

But back to Argument Con #1, am I applying an ethical point of view to the decision to publish or not publish the images? Yes, I am. Is it subjective, varying from person to person? Only insofar as the Golden Rule is not somehow incorporated into every law and religion on Earth. I think what I'm doing here is applying a universally held ethic. I apologize if I'm not being more forthcoming about exactly which Wikipedia policy or policies are involved, because I think I've found more than one. (see other arguments below) You're right to call me on the use of an ethical argument. My only excuse is that the ethic is a universal one.

You seem to be saying that to agree with the APA is the same thing as "obeying" them. I disagree. I think you're adopting an unnecessarily adversarial position. Is it not possible that Wikipedia and the APA could, independently, come to the same conclusion for the same reasons? Of course it is. Rather than adopting an adversarial position, you could adopt a more neutral position by merely considering the merits of the case. That's what I'm trying to do with this argument. You're free to do the same.

So what do you think about their reasons? Do they have reasons? If so, what are the merits (if any) of their case? Please give us your thoughts on this. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a universally held ethic, if it was then nobody would be arguing with you. We don't use a passive point of view we use a neutral point of view. A passive point of view tries to avoid stepping on people's toes, a neutral point of view tries to cover all significant viewpoints even if they contradict. We don't obey the viewpoints of others, we document them. Nothing stops us from documenting the images, and the APA's objection to psychologist showing them to the public. We don't have to choose.

In order to be at odds with the APA, the APA would first have to take the position that Wikipedia should not be showing these images, that is just not so. The APA source says that psychologists should not show the images to the public. It does not say anything about non-psychologists, nor does it say anything about the reason for this prohibition. Original research is needed to get the interpretation of the source that you are getting. We have documented the APA's prohibition on psychologist against spreading test materials in the article already and that is all we can do. Even if their code of ethics mentioned Wikipedia by name we would not obey it, simply cover it.

I am not being adversarial, I am simply taking the same position Wikipedia has had for every subject since its inception. Cover the subject as completely and neutrally as possible. All day long people want some form of valid information suppressed for some reason or another, the answer is always a firm no unless the reasoning is based on Wikipedia policy. This issue is not any different. The reason I am opposing you is because your position is in direct opposition to our project goals. Chillum 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So as long as no psychologist gives the public the answers to any psychometric test, everyone's happy. Wikipedia can go ahead and publish them all, without reproach, since it has an over-riding (and more important) duty of care to to its "project goals" to be "neutral"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

By providing the images here, Wikipedia is giving the answers of _this_ psychometric test to the general public.jonathon (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The information in American revolution contains the answers to many history tests. Encyclopaedias are supposed to give answers. Chillum 21:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Rorschach has a single set of pre-defined "answers" like most other other psychometrics, but displaying the images here, we are advised, may mean that the ability of the subject to answer in future, may be compromised. But the principle is the same - displaying test materials which ought to remain as the diagnostic tools of the test developer and/or test administrator. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned psychologists can add whatever information they want. I don't know what makes the APA happy. But yes, we can go ahead and publish relevant, informative, verifiable, and public domain content in the furtherances of neutrality and our project goals. I am sure some people will criticize us, but that is business as usual. Chillum 14:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite so, but that's unethical business. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That is one opinion. Ethics are subjective. I find these attempts to suppress information unethical, but that is yet again just my opinion. Chillum 14:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the word "subjective" appear here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a whole article on the subject: Ethical subjectivism. Chillum 14:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. So that proves that "ethics are subjective"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. You asked where the word subjective appeared in the ethics article and I answered you. There is a link to Ethical subjectivism in the ethics article. Chillum 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the people who wishes to draw authority from these ethics, the burden of proof would be on you as to why they are not subjective. Chillum 14:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll await your (non-Wiki) proof that "ethics are subjective"? Glad it won't be a burden. In the meantime I'll just stick to my opinion. Ethics aside, do psychological tests work as well if everyone has seen the questions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the burden or proof is better in your hands. In my hands, I'd have to show that everyone agrees that it's unethical to harm a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient. In your hands, the burden of proof is to show that just a fringe group of people disagrees that it is unethical to harm a pspychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient. So why don't you go ahead and prove it. Show us that this ethic is not universally held. Give us just two people who disagrees with the title of this section. That's an acceptable burden of proof. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, consensus currently favors the current image layout so I really don't have anything to prove. If you are trying to convince other people to come around to your point of view then just sticking to your opinion is not enough, you actually have to support your point of view with convincing arguments that will sway people's opinions towards yours. Regardless of consensus, it must be in line with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV which all supersede consensus. Any consensus that violates these policies should be discarded. Chillum 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You find "these attempts to suppress information unethical", but that is just your opinion. I do not construe the limit on display of images here as "attempts to suppress" but rather as "attempts to limit the harm to a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient". That's the topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is my opinion. That is the problem with ethics, it varies with opinion. That is why we base things here on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy instead of opinion. Chillum 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have any ethics? Do they vary with (your) opinion? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We have policies and guidelines on behavioral issues, as well as many essays. I am not really sure what you are getting at. This all seems to be getting a bit philosophical for a content discussion. Chillum 23:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is harm, which most people would think of as "unethical". What I was trying to get at is whether or not Wikipedia has any agreed concept of "ethical behaviour" that the notion of harm might fit into. For example, that even an encyclopedia has some duty of care to its readers? Or even to other people in the world who may never read it. But apparently this is "getting a bit philospohical". Apparently all ethics are subjective, because there is a Wikipedia article called "Ethical subjectivity", and so ethics count for nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article that Xeno found. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html?_r=2&ref=business In the situation described in this news article, it looks like Jimbo stepped in and suppressed info that could cause harm. The first time Jimbo could suppress it because it didn't have an RS, but later it had an RS and didn't seem to violate Wikipedia policy and was suppressed anyhow. So it can be done if there is sufficient justification. I suspect that the situation with the inkblots is not dire enough to be treated similarly. But who knows what might happen if the head of the APA called Jimbo to request that it be kept out. He might suggest that someone write a new policy, or he might say sorry, no can do. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the word "ethical" is offensive to some people because it raises concerns about those who use the word to describe certain ethics that are very subjective, varying from person to person. I certainly don't want anyone thinking that I'm arguing for Wikipedia to open it's doors to everyone with an ethical argument. Religious, nationalist, sexual-orientation, vegetarian, or otherwise. I understand this objection, and I can imagine a fictional scenario where the mere introduction of the word into talk page discussion could be seen as setting a dangerous precedent. So I'm willing to forego using the word in favor of one more specific to this argument. I like what Martinevans123 said about "harm." That's more specific to this situation. I'll concede that and refrain from using the word ethical as much as I can. I'll even forego the dissertation I had presented about the universality of the Ethic of Reciprocity otherwise known as "The Golden Rule". (you lucky, lucky people.) However, be warned, my desk thesaurus provides little in its place. I'm working under a handicap. But that's okay. The argument speaks for itself, doesn't it? It's the right thing to do. It's not WP:FRINGE, it's not pseudoscience, and it may be applicable to the discussion about how to restore balance to the WP:UNDUE weight violation. (see argument #4 below) I feel at liberty to use the argument in "the final analysis." Because we are talking about something that is not very subjective, aren't we? I can only think of four situations in which harming others can be subjectively interpreted as appropriate: war between states, boxing and martial arts, capitol punishment, and certain cancer treatments, none of which is in any danger of being applied to our situation. So I guess my answer to defending the subjectivity of the "do no harm" ethic is that I'm not trying to apply it to anything other that this talk page. No one here's trying to apply it universally. Oops. Sorry. The word "ethic" slipped out. I couldn't help myself. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I do appreciate your desire for the rule of law and policy. It's can be good to run ethics through such a process. But I also feel that ethical arguments can inform and some cases, encompass the totality of a civil discourse. Of course, if two people differ in their ethics, then law and policy can provide a good tool to use to weigh the differences and come to the best solution. But in this case, I don't think anyone disagrees with the ethical argument presented in the title of this section. Do they? You don't, or else you would have explained your reasons by now. I gave you three opportunities, and each time you didn't respond. Maybe you're protecting someone else's ethics? I wouldn't do that if I were you. You'll overextend yourself. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors who have not seen it may wish to be aware of the 2006 correspondence from Trudi Finger at Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG [6] which appears on the Talk page of the French wiki article, and which concludes with the following statement: "You may not be aware of the fact that the Rorschach Test is of high scientific value. It is of great damage to the test if the stimulus material is exposed in such a way. It is of disadvantage to the psychologists and psychiatrists as well as to their clients." I would be interested to see a translation of the responses made by the editors there.Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was interesting, pretty much the same kind of thing talked about here. First copyright, and then on to potential harm to the results of the test the reader may take. Some showed a desire to heed the concerns, some not. The Google translation is passable. [7]. –xeno^talk 04:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes "the planks of these tests" etc. haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I said passable, not perfect ;p I must admit, I do often have an audible chuckle when reading machine translations. –xeno^talk 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad someone's still laughing here! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought Canada was a bi-lingual country. What are you doing using a translator?  ;) My high school French is sadly lacking, too. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful to reintroduce the debate about whether we should accept the APA as a reliable source. I think consensus is movable on this, because much of the objection was attributed to WP:NOR which says:

"To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

But a policy essay WP:NOTOR says that simple deductions are allowed.

"For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. "

If that is simple syllogism, then so is the idea that the Rorschach test would be included along with other test materials referred to in section 9.11 of the APA code of ethics and the BPS statement of conduct The Rorschach is a highly popular test. In a 1995 survey of 412 randomly selected clinical psychologists, 45 percent said that they use the Rorschach frequently and 89 percent said they use it occasionally. To imagine that the code writers could have overlooked such a popular test when they wrote their code is incredible. Equally incredible would be to think that the preamble of the APA code is not integral to the rest of the code. The function of the preamble is to give words that are to applied to the rest of the document. Therefore "the welfare and protection of individuals" (health and financial welfare) can be applied to section 9.11 and to every other section of the document. In another document, Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data (1996), the APA states

"Such release imposes very concrete harm to the general public – loss of effective assessment tools. Because there are a limited number of standardised 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." (emphasis added)

I take this as attributable evidence from a reliable source that the concern in valid. Furthermore, since there is no argument that controverts this source, (I looked at at a few web-sites and they all merely repeat what the APA and BPS say), we should write our article describing only that view, Right? Unless we can find a source that supports the opposite point of view... Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Argument Con #2 - It violates Wikipedia policy

I find section 9.11 sufficiently compelling all by itself to show that maintaining the security of test materials or stimuli, such as that of the Rorschach test, is important to the American Psychology Association, and that a failure to do so will significantly alter the way that its members practices medicine. This, I think, violates the policy that Wikipedia should not "substitute for the advice of a health professional." See WP:MEDICAL Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The medical disclaimer is directed at the reader of wikipedia articles, not to the editors. (reprint by DanglingDiagnosis of a counter-argument recently made by Chillum) Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a presumption. Here are the counter-arguments:

1. I see nothing in the disclaimer to support the idea that the intended audience are people who don't edit articles. Can you cite a reference?
2. Could it not be directed at both readers and editors, since the line separating the two is nearly non-existent in Wikipedia?
3. I suspect a lawyer could successfully argue that a notice of disclaimer becomes invalid when the party giving the notice does not respect and abide by it.

I'm being more argumentative than I would prefer, so let me be less combative and more genuine. Regardless of the intended audience, embedded in this disclaimer is a Wikipedia policy that nothing in Wikipedia should "substitute for the advice of a health professional." The intent of the disclaimer is to convey that policy to everyone, and I think it succeeds in doing so. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of order re: #3; I would advise against advancing positions that might be (reasonably or unreasonably) construed as WP:NLT violations. I'm not saying this is, but "It could be argued" should be enough without bringing the L-word into it =). –xeno^talk 18:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. I intended no legal threat. If this argument makes anyone uncomfortable to the point that it harms the collaborative spirit of discussion, I will gladly remove it. Gladly! Instead, for the purposes of discussion, I was imagining a scene in which we were receiving legal advice from a lawyer that we (as Wikipedians) retained on our own behalf for our benefit. That's all. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ping User talk:Mike Godwin and to have him come provide his thoughts on this. –xeno^talk 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a better idea than the one I had. I was going to put double braces around a RfC|policy tag and invite the watchers of the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies page. Instead, I'll take your suggestion. Is now a good time? Or do you think that the current work on the main article is still bearing good fruit? I don't want to distract our good editors from what they are doing. A lot of good references are coming forth. Good edits, too. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would probably ping him asap; I'm sure he's busy and won't respond right away. –xeno^talk 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I know what pinging is, exactly. Mike's user page directs us to email. So for the purposes of transparency, is my email to him.

June, 25, 2009

Dear Mr. Godwin,

Your name came up during an interesting, good faith argument forming over at the Rorschach Test/talk page More than one administrator is watching this with interest. One of whom, Xeno, suggested that I ask the general counsel to weigh in. So here I am asking for your help with the following four (4) questions:

Given that prior exposure to the images of the Rorschach Psychological assessment test forcibly influences the way that a psychologist will treat his/her patient, the questions needing your attention are these:

1. Does the publication of the Rorschach test stimuli by Wikipedia invalidate or otherwise cause a problem with the medical legal disclaimer? and if so, would that increase Wikipedia's liability or exposure to a lawsuit?

2. Is there an existing underlying policy embedded in the medical disclaimer? If so, who formed this policy and does this person or persons have the authority to convey said policy to the readers and writers of Wikipedia?

3. If there isn't a policy to be found, should Wikipedia enact a policy that forbids activities on Wikipedia that can or will "substitute for the advice of a health professional?"

4. If the answer to Questions #2 or #3 is in the affirmative, then is this policy applicable to the discussion on the Rorschach talk page? If so, how would you advise us to apply it, here?

Question #1 arose from my suspicion that a medical disclaimer applies to both parties: the author of the disclaimer and the reader. The argument is this: If the author of a legal notice does not follow his own advice and abide by the provisions of the notice, then the reader can justly question the commitment or _________ (insert proper legal term here) of the party giving notice. It introduces uncertainty. That is: Perhaps this commitment does not extend to all situations. Maybe it's okay to do it here, but not there. Maybe it's wrong for one person but okay for another.

Question #2 is distinguished from question #1 by an interesting idea. Has something been missed? Is there a important wikipedia policy that has been inadequately posted? Is this a situation like the The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics , assumed, but not codified until long after the First, Second, and Third laws were published? I'm not sure, I thought the disclaimer was satisfactory, but apparently, it doesn't satisfy at least one Wikipedian. Perhaps more. I'm not sure.

I don't think you need to weigh in on the given assumption that a patient's previous exposure will influence the actions of a psychologist, however, it's your choice if you wish to do so. I'll leave that up to you. Historically, there has been much controversy surrounding the difficulty of finding a reference that shows

1. Potential harm to the patient, and 2. Corruption of the test results, and 3. The correlation between #2 and #1

Recently, this controversy has lessened. The lively discussion has produced some references which have found a fairly stable, if new, place in the main article. The discipline of editing the main article page helped focus our efforts and some good work has been accomplished, recently. Of these references, I think the reference from the American Psychiatry Association is the best. I think that reference is quite adequate to show that experts in the field believe that it is important to the practice of their profession to have the security of the test images maintained. Other references also support this idea, and seem to be preferred by other editors:

1. Scott O. Lilienfeld, James M- Wood and Howard N. Garb: What's wrong with this picture? Scientific American, May 2001 http://www.psychologicalscience.org/newsresearch/publications/journals/sa1_2.pdf

2. Dawes, Robyn M. (1991). "Giving up Cherished Ideas: The Rorschach Ink Blot Test". IPT journal 3. http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_4_5.htm. Retrieved on 2009-06-23. "American Psychological Association rules of ethics prohibit my presenting an example of a Rorschach inkblot. (Presumably, prior exposure to these blots would contaminate the validity, if there were any, of any subsequent use.)".

3. American Psychological Association, Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data, 1996

I appreciate the work that you do. Thank you for doing it, and thank you for helping us build consensus.

Sincerely yours,

DanglingDiagnosis

obligation? good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this interpretation of the medical disclaimer to be contrary to its spirit. The whole point of the disclaimer is that we are not doctors, we are not giving medical advice, and we should not be interpreted as such. For one thing it says our content "cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional". In this case we aren't even giving advice, I fail to see how showing images could be seen as advice, or as a substitute for advice. We are not substituting anything, we are giving information about a test. If a doctor chooses to substitute a test for another that is the decision of the doctor and not Wikipedia. The argument seems to be a non sequitur. If there are any legal issues with us showing public domain images then I am sure Mr. Godwin will point them out, and I urge you to seek this clarification if you have not already. Until then I find this argument uncompelling. Chillum 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Argument Con #3 - It interferes with the workings of another profession

To force a health professional to substitute one procedure for another is to interfere with the practice of medicine. We have no right to do so. We've heard expert testimony (sourced?) that says that the Rorschach test has been carefully calibrated over a period of many years. This calibration changes when the patient has been exposed to the images, perhaps to the reduction of confidence in the test result, perhaps not. If you'll forgive a little humor: I used to work for a municipal engineering and surveying company. The manager of the survey department had a cartoon on his wall showing an elderly woman wearing a scarf over her head bending over a piece of wood with a red ribbon sticking out of the ground. The caption read, "I wonder how many people know that as tax-paying citizens, we have the right to move these survey stakes if they don't look right to us." That's what it sounds like to me when I hear people here claiming the right and responsibility to show the test images on Wikipedia. I think it's interfering with another profession. To what degree, is a little uncertain. But it's still interference. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We aren't forcing any professional to do anything. They can substitute or not. And allegedly "interfering with a profession" is not a valid argument on Wikipedia, as lots of articles arguably interfere with tons of professions. People can educate themselves so they don't need to hire consultants, info on potentially misleading sites can educate people to avoid certain people, etc. Frankly, Wikipedia itself is the poster child for interfering with the workings of the profession of publishing encyclopedias. DreamGuy (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly can they substitute? Could you tell us what are these "tons of professions". And how do you propose that people "educate themselves" to be the psychologists who then administer projective tests to themselves, by reading Wikipedia articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, your example shows Wikipedia competing fairly on a level playing field. But that is not the case here. Here we are actually sabotaging the work of someone else. See the letters of complaint from Schluep Degen in 2009 and 2006 So, even if I were to accept the proposition that the test should not be taught in 80 percent of graduate psychology programs because it's value is small, I still can't condone sabotaging the work of professionals who believe differently. Doing so violates the ethic of reciprocity and WP:NPOV. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Argument Con #4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.

According to WP:NEUTRAL, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." The action of publishing of test stimuli is, in effect, engaging in a dispute about the publishing of test stimuli. It engages quite fully, indeed. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The full name of WP:NEUTRAL is WP:Neutral point of view. The above excerpt is from the section Impartial tone of that policy page. AFAIK, the only dispute is on this talk page, regarding whether or not it should be in the wiki, like disputes occurring throughout talk pages on the Wikipedia.

If there is a dispute going on outside of Wikipedia regarding publishing test materials, it would be very useful if we could see that discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a conflict. I see the APA with their statement in their code of ethics as the protagonists in the conflict. The antagonists would include people like William Poundstone in his 1983 book "Big Secrets" published by Harper Collins with the tagline "the uncensored truth about all sorts of stuff you are never supposed to know." I see conflict brewing between the two. I can't imagine the APA taking a stronger stance than the one they took. And Mr. Poundstone makes his book sound quite scandalous, doesn't he? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an excerpt, with page number, from Big Secrets where it advocates dissemination of the material that APA wants to keep confidential? Or are the secrets simply displayed to make an interesting book, somewhat like Wikipedia is simply displaying the inkblots to make an informative article. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Any comment by the APA on the disclosure of the "secrets" by Poundstone's book would also be useful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary that both parties refer to the other party by name in order for there to be a verifiable conflict? Isn't it enough that representatives from each side have acknowledged the conflict in general terms? Many people in conflict will try to avoid finger pointing unless absolutely necessary. That doesn't mean the conflict is any less real. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any dispute. The APA directed its Code of Ethics section 9.11 only towards psychologists, presumably because it realizes that those are the only ones that it has influence over. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed in your discussion with Chillum that you mentioned a dispute regarding copyright, where the APA was not mentioned as a party. I commented below on that copyright dispute. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument Danglingdiagnosis. Wikipedia is not taking a stand one way or another about the test, it is simply publishing existing verifiable information about test. We have even included the point of view that it is presumed that prior exposure to the inkblots would contaminate the validity of subsequent tests. The act of publishing the images is not engaging in a dispute, however the act of documenting some doctors objection to this practice describes it. If anything that section would prohibit us from censoring the images based on the dispute. Chillum 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Publishing the test images shows by our own example that we condone the practice of publishing test stimuli. This asserts a strong bias in favor of the viewpoint of people such as Mr. Poundstone. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The question then becomes how do we show a neutral point of view to both parties? That's an interesting question. I'm not sure I have the best answer to that question. But I am sure that showing all 10 images, just as Mr. Poundstone did, would be a very strong bias in favor of him. We need to do better than that in order to make a good encyclopedic article. Don't we? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Poundstone released images that at the time were not available to the general public, so the comparison is a bit flawed from the start. The fact is that many public sources of information show these images. We are not engaging in a dispute with the APA simply because we are not obeying rules that were intended for psychologists. We are not doing anything new here and we are not breaking any rules, we are simply documenting accurate and verifiable information. Chillum 02:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To address your other point about both parties, all we need to do it get some reliable sources and document them. What we do not do is obey them. We document to what extent who disagrees with what to the extent that reliable sources provide. We also document the images. Neutrality has never meant that we must remove information based on the beliefs of an outside group, it simply means we document those beliefs too. Chillum 02:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case, showing the test stimuli would be reproducing the same behavior that is at the heart of the conflict. We can't do that and remain neutral at the same time, can we? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Our Earth article does not say that the Earth is 6000 year old and was created in 7 days. Does that mean we are engaging in a dispute with creationists? What about showing Muhammad in his article, are we engaging in a dispute with Muslims? For on thing, I don't see any evidence of this dispute... where in reliable sources is this dispute even documented? Chillum 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, and it goes to WP:UNDUE and PSEUDOSCIENCE. I'll ignore the pseudoscience aspect and focus on WP:UNDUE, because I think most will agree that the APA has clearly earned the right to be represented in this article. I'm just concerned that we've given undue weight to Mr. Poundstone's point of view. The images just leap out of the page, don't they? It's hard to read the article and avoid them. I appreciate the recent work that went into the main article. Indeed, I think that using a combination of discussion pages AND the main article is in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS. But after seeing the results, I haven't changed my mind about the agreement to use a hide/show button, or if that causes technical problems with certain browsers, then perhaps a simple link to a separate gallery page. As WP:NEUTRAL states, "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." In every scenario and example described in WP:NEUTRAL, this core concept is maintained. In our case, I'm not sure we've done a good enough job of doing that. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to use neutrality as an excuse to delete something I don't like. Instead, I'm trying to add something. I'm trying to maintain the CORE PRINCIPLE of neutrality, which is to give the reader an informed choice. That's the compromise I propose. For you and me, it's a compromised position, but it's not one for Wikipedia. Instead, I think it goes to the highest ideal of Wikipedia. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

But it is not Mr. Poundstone's view, it is Wikipedia's view. I don't see anyone using his views in any way. The fact is that Wikipedia came to the goal of including informative, relevant, and verifiable information on the subject independently of Mr. Poundstone. I agree we should stay in keeping with consensus, which at this point favors the current arrangement of images. Chillum 14:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"It's Wikipedia's view," you say? But Wikipedia shouldn't take a view on controversial subjects, right? That's a violation of WP:NEUTRAL It's not proper for us to align Wikipedia with an author that is taking a controversial view. Even Mr. Poundstone admits that he's taking sides. The name and tagline of his book convey that he's aware of the controversy. Plus, I just googled "Rorschach test" and the second source listed, ironically from a group named "S.P.A.R.C." agrees with Mr. Poundstone that there is a controversy. Their page summary header (submitted for use by search engines) uses the actual word "controversial" and they devote a large part of their page describing the controversy and the position they take in the controversy. They're quite clearly embattled over the issue discussing many of the same subjects that we've covered on this talk page. So I've now provided two sources that show there's a controversy outside Wikipedia. So I repeat: Wikipedia needs to take a balanced view of this controversy, describing it with a neutral tone and not engaging in the actual controversy itself. I think that mean forebearing in publishing the images. But rightly or wrongly, I'm willing to bend a bit to come to a consensus. I'm hoping you're willing to do the same. Of course, I haven't yet tested the waters to see how any of the other editors feel about any of this discussion. I'm a new guy, here. Perhaps something I said has contributed something new to the discussion. If so, I'd like to know. I don't want to assume anything. Decisions should not be made without the consideration of what other people are thinking. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I said. I did not say that Wikipedia has a view on this controversy. I said that Wikipedia came to the goal of including informative, relevant, and verifiable information on the subject independently of Mr. Poundstone. Wikipedia certainly can and has come to the view that it should seek to include informative, relevant, and verifiable information. To remove the images due to the controversy would be taking a side. Not obeying a commandment from an outside organization that not meant for us is not taking a side in a dispute. As to the source talks about how it "violates the copyright on the Rorschach Test" when the test is public domain, not exactly confidence inspiring, meta data aside I see no mention of controversy. Chillum 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The APA is not psudo-science, it is a wonderful source, it is just the APA source does not say what is being claimed. The APA source prohibits psychologists from spreading test materials, it makes no mention regarding the public at large spreading test materials. What is more, it does not mention harm or for that matter anything regarding the motives of that rule. It also does not mention the Rorschach test. It simply does not support the claims being made without undue original research in the interpretation of the source. Surely if this is such a universally held belief that not following it would be undue weight then a reliable source could be provided that supports precisely what is being claimed? I have been asking you, Ward, and Faust for such a source for about a week now. Chillum 14:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I hear you. You want a credible source from an authorized representative of the side of the dispute that is asking people to please not publish Rorschach images. How's this? A letter dated 22 May 2009 from Schluep and Wenger Berger Schluep and Wenger Berger are the legal representatives of the owner of the trademark RORSCHACH and the world-wide publisher of RORSCHACH psychological test materials. They have the authority to speak on behalf of their clients. This letter from one publisher of Rorschach images to another expresses the idea that competition between publishers and prior exposure to the images is harmful to the test results. Sorry for the delay. I'm still new here and I'm working under a handicap. I've been averting my eyes from the images as best I could which makes it hard to read what's going on. Plus, I've been afraid to use Google for fear that I might accidentally come across the images. It's true - I'm not lying about that. I don't want to jeopardize my health. And it would be really, really nice if the Wikipedia article and talk page could better respect the concerns, the valid concerns, of people like me. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that is closer, however are lawyers really credible sources in medical matters? Do either of the people who signed this document have any sort of training in this area? It seems they are claiming a copyright on something that is public domain. They also thought the person was using "all 10 of the official inkblots" when he wasn't. This seems to me to be an attempt to intimidate someone with half truths and outright falsehoods. The credibility of this source is highly in doubt. I was hoping something more a long the lines of a medical opinion than a legal one. Chillum 02:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The war is being fought on legal turf, and I, too, would rather it weren't. I, too, and not accustomed to looking for and finding medical opinions with the legal system, although I understand that medical opinions often find a place, there. I agree with you that Schluep and Wenger Berger's client, as the publishers of medical test material, would be better qualified to speak about medical matters. However, it would be more than just slight incompetence if these lawyers were to so grossly misrepresent their client's position. The letter says that the client received a copy. If the client didn't subsequently fire Schluep and Degen for gross incompetence, then I think we can safely assume that the publishers of Rorschach tests have medical concerns about the competition of, and the prior exposure to Rorschach test materials. They believe it and and I'd like to do a better job of representing their position in our article. I'm open to suggestion about how best to do that. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The lawyers claimed a copyright on public domain works, and they did not even realize the the images in question were not the Rorschach images, I don't think "more than just slight incompetence" is that far off the mark. Chillum 04:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martinevans123 that Inkblot.com "might get my lawyers reaching for their quill pens too." I don't have a reference for you, but I bet I can find more than a few examples of lawyers successfullypursuing copyright or trademark infringement against defendants who were publishing images that closely resembled the original. No, until I see evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to assume that these lawyers are adequately representing their client's position. I'm sorry I opened up this line of inquiry. I was being facetious when I did so, but I guess that's just my hubris keeping me grounded. Just as you are keeping me grounded. Thanks. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, Dangling. All these lines of enquiry help to build the bigger picture. This whole inkblot.com fiasco raises again a vitally relevant question - how is the "fake" image defined? At the pixel level? How many pixels must differ? Or is it just what can (or can't) be distingiushed by the "average viewer"? Is it just the idea of the inkblot? If the real Rorschach inkblots (being "free images") were used in a different way in a differently named test, would that infringe copyright? There must be a good deal of relevant case law from the world of trademarks, I'm guessing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as American law goes, and with my l33t non-lawyer law knowledge: it's a trademark issue if there is the possibility of reasonable consumer confusion between their test, and the trademarked Rorschach Test (merely having a similar test is not enough, it has to appear to be coming from the other party). If they don't use the name Rorschach, that's likely not an issue, unless the Rorschach owners argue (successfully) that the mere image of an inkblot is their trademark. It's a copyright issue if they use copyrighted test materials, or 'lift' a copyrighted test directly, or create a derivative work, without permission. And it's a patent issue if the test process itself is patented, even if they write the new test themselves, so long as the test they create matches that described in the patent. Patents are the only place where methods or "ideas" can be protected, and they've got a 20 year limit. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The KIRKBI AG and LEGO CANADA INC. v. RITVIK HOLDINGS INC., a Canadian case, is the only precedence I can think of as far as the trademark issue goes. Lego attempted to claim that their block's design was their trademark, and thus a competing product, MegaBloks, was in violation. It was rejected as trademarks can not apply to the functional design of something. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Schluep and Wenger Berger, in their letter, seem to be invoking the law of trademark, rather than that of patent, in both USA and Switzerland. What is not clear from the preceeding discussion is whether or not, if the case ever came to court, the notion of harm through pre-exposure would be tested, or simply the trademark. If the notion were to be tested, it seems likely that Rorschach users might well be called as expert witneses - I don't think any court, in USA or Switzerland, would rely on "a reliable source fromn Google". It is unclear who, if anyone has patented the method of computerised Rorschach administration (unless, of course, Schluep and Wenger Berger have confused these terms?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that they object to the use of "Rorschach" in reference to theinkblot's test, which is without a doubt a valid concern, assuming their claim to the trademark is valid. As I said, trademarks are to prevent consumer becoming confused as to who they're dealing with. They also invoke "Swiss unfair competition law", claiming that the competing test invalidates their own test, and thus can't be allowed. This only makes sense combined with the trademark claim; they seem to be a little vague about this, but that's the only way it can be sensibly read. They may have left the ambiguity intentionally, though. The letter does not make any patent complaint that I can see. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So you both agree that Schluep and Wenger Berger are serving their client with some degree of competence? Good. That determination, plus the authority of the power of attorney (enclosed with the letter) makes them authorized to speak on behalf of their clients. So I think we agree I can quote them as a verifiable reference. We began this thread when Bob K31416 asked to see evidence that the dispute we're having about publishing Rorschach test stimuli is also occurring outside Wikipedia. I'll offer the following references to support that:

1. The APA code of ethics (which does not point any fingers and makes no reference to any offenders)
2. The title and tagline of Mr. Poundstone's book Big Secrets (which doesn't point any fingers but which implies another party)
3. The arguments found on Inkblot.com (in which both parties are identified)

I submit that there is a dispute going on. Now it falls to Wikipedia to either take sides in the dispute or to remain neutral. If we remain neutral, the more passive our response, the better, I think. We don't want to engage in the dispute itself. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what? That legal letter has nothing to do with this particular discussion we're having here; it's simply a trademark complaint regarding a novelty inkblot test which is misusing the Rorschach name. There is no such trademark violation on Wikipedia, nor is anyone claiming that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

True. The letter is not directed at Wikipedia. And I haven't yet developed an opinion about trademark infringement. Like you, I'm trying to overlook that. However, the letter from Schluep and Degen is an important source of information, information that is pertinent to our discussion:

1. Unlike the APA code of ethics which asks that the security of all psychological test materials be kept reasonably maintained, this letter specifically asks that the Rorschach images not be published on the internet. Some of us were questioning the lack of specificity in the APA code of ethics, as if the code might not apply to the Rorschach test materials.
2. The letter states why the security of the Rorschach should be maintained: Because prior exposure to the test stimuli is harmful to the test results.

These are important ideas to our discussion, here. The source of this information is quite well-placed, isn't it? The information comes from authorized representatives of the designers of the Rorschach test. I'd say these were expert opinions and shouldn't be overlooked. Now, is there a legal opinion also being expressed about competition? Yes, there is, but I don't know if it's important to our discussion. I'm overlooking that, for now. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there are disputes going on and that by dipslaying images Wiki is taking sides. A conventionally published book can't be much more in the public domain. And while I doubt that the lawyers expected to see one of their letter on the internet, that `dispute' also seems to be a public one? Or perhaps whether or not a dispute is public does not matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Danglingdiagnosis, In your discussion with Chillum, the dispute that you were referring to was one regarding copyright of the pictures. That issue appears in the article in the section Protection of test items. If you feel that section violates WP:NPOV, I urge you to propose changes to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia seems to be careful about not violating copyrights. I presume that subject was adequately discussed here and it was determined that there was no copyright violation regarding the inkblots. If you feel that is wrong, you might consider pursuing your objective along those lines. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just noticed something interesting in the wiki.

The inkblots were first made publicly available by William Poundstone in his 1983 book Big Secrets, which also described the method of administering the test and gave outlines of the ten official images.

It looks like the actual images weren't disclosed by Poundstone, just the outlines. What a wuss, LOL. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about the conflict at S.P.A.R.C. "Let's google "Rorschach test" and move on and see if we find more conflict. Perhaps the critics there will reveal more about their objection and not just the blunt instrument of their sword. Ah, yes. Here we are: The very next item on the list: The Inkblot.com has a letter from Schluep Degen Attorneys-at-law dated 22 May 2009 that again brings out the sword, but it also reveals something about the source of the conflict, making it a conflict of ideas and not just a copyright violation. It says, and I quote, "The psychological testing of Rorschach only makes sense when the tested person reacts spontaneously and therefore mustn't know the ink blot cards by antipant. Otherwise, the test becomes worthless." The letter continues with more legal sparing, but it is much more revealing of the true objections of one side of the conflict, isn't it? Of course, this is seen through the filter of a lawyer with sword raised, but we're starting to get a picture of the real conflict, aren't we? There's certainly a war going on. Shall I go on to the next Google item or are you satisfied, yet? I think we can see that it's a war of ideas, not just a copyright violation. Or am I seeing things that aren't really there? If it is a war of ideas, then that raises the conflict to a level on par with the lofty purpose and function of Wikipedia. It then becomes Wikipedia's responsibility to live up to its principles and take a neutral viewpoint in this conflict. I see Chillum's point that not publishing the images could be seen as taking sides. However, publishing the images seems to me to be more active and thus, engages more in the dispute. It's undue weight. See WP:UNDUE It requires balancing. The best way to do that, I think, is to give the reader a choice. Of course, I'm open to suggestion, here. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So it seems that inkblot.com runs a computerized on-line "test" using fake inblots. Hmmmm, I think that might get my lawyers reaching for their quill pens too. Wikipedia's use of images seems somewhat less scandalous by comparison. Still not sure why Mike at inkblot.com thinks that Swiss law extends to Sweden. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The editors that included the pictures did what Wikipedia editors normally do for any article. They brought together available information. In my opinion, the deviation from normal editing practices would be censoring the pictures, rather than their inclusion. If you still feel that the pictures are a violation of WP:NPOV, you might want to get other opinions at WP:NPOV/N.

Regarding giving the reader the choice of whether or not to see the 10 inkblots, the reader has the choice because of the need to scroll down before seeing them. However, I recognize that the reader may not have a choice with the one inkblot at the top, except for the choice of whether or not to look at it closely enough to make an interpretation. But then that is for discussing in another section here. Or if you think that is an NPOV issue too, you can get an opinion on it at WP:NPOV/N also. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That choice seems to rest on reading the sentence. (To view them, see The ten inkblots section below.) and then either clinking on the link or scrolling down. I suspect many readers, including Wiki habitués, browse articles by scrolling down, to see the general layout/ content BEFORE reading anything in detail. But of course that is a choice too (even if it is an unconscious one?) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been a comment on this argument for 5 days. Let me refresh things by restating the argument: Publishing the images violates neutrality in the same way that a journalist sent to cover a street protest violates neutrality by picking up and carrying one of the protest signs. He/she can't be both neutral and actively participate in the protest at the same time. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But we are not taking a side in any dispute. We are acting based on our own policies and practices, as we always have. To adjust your analogy this would be more akin to a reporter wearing clothes to a protest demanding nudist rights, he is wearing clothes but not because he is taking a side, but because that is what he always does. If we were to deviate from our project goals in order to take a side on this issue that would be a violation of neutrality. You are proposing a no win situation for Wikipedia where it show the images and have taken a side, or we don't show the images and have taken a side. Instead of that, we should just do what we always do and cover the dispute(though there is not much to cover based on the sources) as best we can without giving authority to it. Chillum 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but we are taking sides. Anyone looking at our article right now will see a biased article, one that is taking the same side of S.P.A.R.C. and www.inkblot.com and every other site that shows the images. And they'll wonder, where can I go to get a neutral point of view? I want someplace where they won't shove an opinion down my throat, so I can make up my own mind about whether to look at the images or not.

Luckily, we're not faced with the all or nothing proposition: as in your analogy. A better analogy would be a reporter covering the conflict between street protesters clashing about the right to wear animal fur and then publishing his story with a byline and picture of himself wearing a fur coat. He could remove the coat for the photo, couldn't he? Even though he normally wears fur, he would have to change. It's a requirement of his job. There are ways to avoid showing bias and still cover both sides of this conflict. I'm open to discussing how to balance the WP:UNDUE weight. But some kind of compromise is in order. I can think of two solutions that I can live with:

1. Remove all of the photos and replace them with facsimiles. Perhaps the article wouldn't have as "complete" coverage as you'd like, but there's no rule that says we have to "completely" cover a topic. Wikipedia publishes many incomplete articles. We even have a policy against publishing too much information. (See WP:IINFO, or
2. Add a hide/show button allowing readers to make a fully informed choice prior to viewing the photos. If their browser doesn't support the javascript button, then treat it like any PDF file and provide instructions about how to download a software that can do the job. Or just use a simple "link" to a gallery page.

I'm open to discussion. But we have an WP:UNDUE weight problem. Both sides in this conflict should be open to compromise. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You say "I want someplace where they won't shove an opinion down my throat" but the fact is that us showing the pictures is not presenting an opinion at all, we are simply demonstrating verifiable information. If you want the dispute covered find reliable sources that show it exists outside Wikipedia and we will mention it in the article, but we will not deviate from our regular practices to take a side.

Adding a show/hide option and replacing the images with facsimiles are both solutions that are a) rejected by the community and b) in violation of our not censored and neutrality policies. You can say we are taking a side in this dispute, but it is simply not true. Our regular editorial practices are to show pictures and we are not deviating from that. If we were to deviate from that for the reasons given then we would be taking a position. Your very arguments go against your proposed solution, you are asking us to take a side instead of using our regular editorial practices. Chillum 13:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please help me understand your position?

1. How is adding a hide/show button censorship? It doesn't remove or delete information. Rather it adds more information.
2. How is adding a hide/show button not neutral?
3. How is displaying the images not taking part in a dispute? Doesn't it just scream that that we don't think there's a problem? Isn't the claim of "no harm done" one of the reasons being used to display them? The "there is no evidence of harm" argument is a prominent part of our discussions. So if experienced Wikipedians assumed that this was a valid argument for presenting the test stimuli, why wouldn't a reader make that same assumption?

If I'm missing something that I should be seeing, then I apologize. But I genuinely don't share your position. I don't see it as Wikipedia's position, either. I don't believe Wikipedia should take a position. But if I must weigh policy choices, I'll take WP:NPOV over WP:NOTCENSORED. Censorship isn't an either/or binary proposition. Censorship comes in varying degrees, and I've demonstrated a willingness to explore the middle of the spectrum. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I've been listening to Chillum when he says that the goal of Wikipedia is to provide "relevant, informative, and verifiable information." The key word in this is relevant. I've been looking at the at the first pillar and found that says that it says that Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information." My dictionary defines indiscriminate as "Not properly restricted or restrained." So let's properly restrict ourselves, shall we? Surely if Wikipedians can band together and limit the information we provide about the plots of novels and the lyrics of songs, even songs not in copyright, then why not psychological test materials? I propose that this policy be amended to include the following:

5. Psychological test material. Test results are altered when a person has had prior exposure to the test questions and stimuli. This can harm a psychologist's ability to serve the welfare of the patient. Articles about psychological testing may describe test material in order to illustrate a verifiable, referenced point of discussion, but such articles shall endeavor to provide only the minimum detail required to illustrate the point.

The key concept that this fifth item shares with the other four is the issue of relevance. It's not enough to just list lyrics, or plots, or test stimuli without explaining how the lyrics, or plot, or images support the context and issues raised in the article. We can't just list material because it's interesting by itself; we need to also present it in an encyclopedic manner. In other words, "without prose, it no goes." or WPNG for those of us who like acronyms. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You can propose that on the WT:NOT talk page, this is not really the place to propose new policy. I think you will find though that people don't like the scope of WP:NOT to be increased for each specific issue. As for if the material is relevant then I would say that is for consensus to decide. Consensus currently finds the images to be relevant. I do appreciate that this argument is based on policy though. Chillum 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm following the principles of the indiscriminate info policy, and merely extending the list of examples of articles that often violate indiscriminate information policy. The aim of the policy, I think, is to increase the relevance of information. You seem satisfied that the Rorschach images are relevant to the article we're writing. But that's a very insular point of view. Instead, the policy aims to increase the relevance to the real-world. e.g. How did the lyrics of Bob Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind affect society in the 1960's and today? Even though the lyrics may be published elsewhere, without verification of a real-world application, articles with such indiscriminate information are not "encyclopedic" enough. Relevance is verifiable. The Rorschach images in our article are currently listed without relevance. That's indiscriminate. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How can you say they are not relevant? The topic of the article is the test, they are pictures of the visual part of the test. I suppose if you extend policy to include your point of view then you would have a point, but you need to get consensus before extending policy. If you not trying to enforce policy, but rather convince us that the spirit of the policy should preclude these images then you have some convincing to do here. I don't see the images as indiscriminate, they are precisely what the article is about. Without the picture one only gets a vague notion of what the ink blots really are. Chillum 14:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But I wonder if maybe we both have valid points that could by synthesized into something that can improve the article. The plot of Guys and Dolls and Wuthering Heights are relevant to the musical and the novel, but that doesn't mean that we narrate the plots in our articles. For reasons not entirely clear in the policy, (See WP:IINFO we seem to restrict our information at times. Perhaps it's because policy asks us to balance pure information with verifiable real-world context. We need to help our readers understand "why is this information relevant to my life" and not simply assume that the reader comes to the article knowing why they need the information. So maybe we need to answer the question: "Why should the reader know this information?" Answering this question may or may not result in changes to whether to or how many images we present. I'm really not sure. I'm just following the logic without trying to manipulate it toward my other concerns. But it certainly will result in a more encyclopedic article. Of that, I'm sure. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The why is simple, you better understand what the ink blots actually are when you see them, than you would if they were simply described. The topic is better covered. I just don't see the basis of the argument that this information is indiscriminate. Chillum 16:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right and I'm not reading the policy correctly. I think there's a spirit to the policy that may be relevant, here, about how best to present creative works, such as the Rorschach. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic of Vincent Van Gogh would certainly be "better covered" by showing images of all of his paintings. But that's not really the point. Is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:37, 5 July 2009 (talk • contribs) Martinevans123 (UTC)

If the point is not to better cover the topic, then what is the point? Chillum 01:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the existence of many similar images is not reason in itself to use all of them. It's quite possible for an encyclopedia to give the idea of a topic by just using examples. Wikipedia articles should not function as catalogues. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. When I had only seen the first image I assumed they were similar. But in fact they are not similar, they change in style and medium as they go on. I did not know that before I saw all of the pictures. They informed me in a way the text failed to do. Chillum 13:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly surprising you were informed "in a way the text failed to do" if the text doesn't describe them. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Informed you about what? I'm glad for you that you find that interesting. But why should the reader care about changes in color? The point we're trying to make (and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who sees it) is that exhaustive information is not the goal of Wikipedia. So the question that I think should color our decisions is "Why should the reader care?" Asking this question can only improve the article. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

According to a licensed retailer Rorschach test images

1. are sold under license from Hans Huber Publisher, Bern Switzerland.
2. are Copyrighted © by Verlag Hans Huber AG, Bern, Switzerland, 1921, 1948, 1994.
3. may not be reproduced without permission from the publisher
4. can only be purchased by specially qualified buyers that have an "advanced professional degree that provides appropriate training in the administration and interpretation of psychological tests; OR license or certification from an agency that requires appropriate training and experience in the ethical and competent use of psychological tests." ( a.k.a. Qualification C)

All of these things makes the images WP:NONFREE content. Wikipedia has rules about reproducing non-free content. There are 10 of them. We should follow those rules. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The images are public domain. The author has been dead for over 70 years, there is no copyright. The other portions of the test, such as the scoring system may be more modern and thus copyrighted, but the images are public domain. Anyone who claims a copyright on these images is either mistaken or lying. Chillum 13:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you truly believe these images may be copyrighted and you are not just looking for another reason to remove them then you are welcome to start an investigation regarding these images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. Please post a link to the debate here if you do. Chillum 13:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the name "Rorschach® ink blot test" is a registered trademark. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So are Sony, Nike, and Wikipedia. Trademark protects identity not content. We can't create a test and call it the Rorschach ink blot test. We can still write an article about it. Chillum 14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering what is the law regarding the use of the Registered Trademark symbol "®" when refering to or describing a product protected by such a mark. And how does wikipedia respond to claims such as that of parinc.com at point (3) above? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We deal with such claims with: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. If you decide to make a post there then please put a link to the debate here. Chillum 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is history repeating. The images are at the commons and have been kept before, so if someone truly wants to claim they are non-free they would have to launch another discussion at the commons, not here. –xeno^talk 15:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Martin, we don't include the symbols. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). –xeno^talk 15:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you once again, xeno, for being such a helpful administrator. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I did not know about the MOS for trademarks or about the distinction between commons vs wikipedia for deletion debates. Chillum 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

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

Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots?

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

• FYI, there an ongoing centralized discussion regarding "{{hidden}}" the village pump. –xeno^talk 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Including all 10 Argument #5

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

New expert sign-up section

Since we are expecting some new psychologists (or at least editors knowledgeable about psychology) to join the group of editors in charge of this page, it is important for us to have some idea about how that's coming along. So it's a good idea if these new experts would identify themselves here and possibly include a bit about their training and background in the Rorschach. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

2 -

Consensus

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

Old debate

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

Reverting, status quo, and survey re inkblots

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

An informal survey for the inclusion of the 10 inkblots

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

Harm

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

To be honest...

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

list of reliable sources mentioned here

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

We need an image of the test being administered

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

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

Are all 10 inkblots really necessary?

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

External links

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

False inkblot as the lead image

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

Just a suggestion

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

Is source for inkblots reliable?

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

A request to the regulars regarding the below RFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Points of order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Dlabot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More comments

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

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

Superceded?

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

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

How many kicks at the can?

I have seen something very similar at the Muhammad depiction debates. After a few months of being told that their basis for the removal of the images(it offended their religion) was not a valid reason to remove them people began to try each and every policy they could find. They would explain how NPOV and OR requires that we remove the images, then they tried copyright, then they starting bringing up obscure manuals of style. All the while the true reason for them wanting the image removed was the same as it always was, it offended their religion. In the end such a tactic failed as because a) the policies did not support their arguments, and b) it was seen as a transparent attempt to get what they wanted.

I am seeing a bit of the same thing happening here. The reason to want these images removed remains the same, but due to this reason being rejected a variety of replacements arguments come to take its place. In the last couple days I have seen history repeat itself here. I have no objection to policy based arguments, I prefer them in fact. However I do ask that they be sincere. Perhaps every one of these new arguments was a sincere attempt to bring Wikipedia in line with its own policies, perhaps it was an attempt to use policies as a tool to get what one wanted. It is possible there is very real and honest concern about the public domain status of the images we use, or if they violate neutrality, or if they are properly verified, or if they are derivative works, or if they are undue weight, or perhaps some people just wants the images removed for the original reasons given.

In the interest of creating a neutral point of view I request each one of you to ask yourself: "What is more important to you, advancing the interests of Wikipedia, or advancing an outside interest?". Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. I am sorry if I sound like I am accusing anyone of something, but it does seem very familiar to me. Perhaps I am wrong about this? Chillum 13:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why I initiated the above RFC, based solely on the supposed actual motivation for removing the image(s). –xeno^talk 13:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A productive step. It sort of reminds me of a poll we had a few weeks back, and another RFC a few months ago. Sometimes Wikipedia is like watching re-runs of an old show. I wonder, if this RFC finds that we should not remove the images for these reasons, will it satisfy those who wish to remove them or will this just go in circles forever? Chillum 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it does seem like a broken record after a while. It seems like we have settled this issue except for the disagreement of a small vocal group of editors.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If the "outside interest" is preventing harm to others, then yes Chillum, for me that wins every time over "the aims of Wikipedia". While I don't really mind being compared to a religious fanatic, I think others might - I honestly believe that the concerns here are different to those at Muhammad. And yes, I remain very disenchanted. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated that preventing harm is not congruent to our goals of creating an encyclopedia. Information may be used to help or harm and even that varies from perspective. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The "use" of information, to help or harm, would seem to usually depend on conscious decision, which, in this particular case, may not be an available option. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but back onto my original topic. How many kicks at the can? If the same arguments are made and rejected by the community for say another 2 months will we accept consensus then? How about after a year? How about 5 years? Will Ward and Faust just keep arguing as they have since early 2008 until those disagreeing with them simply give up? Chillum 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, repeating the falsehood that it is only 2 editors opposing what you want, even after your claim was shown to be false here: [15] and you even admitted it. I guess some habits are hard to break.Faustian (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I asked how long we must entertain the same notions that have been rejected time and time again. I mentioned you are Ward because you are the two who have been pushing this the longest and the most. This is demonstrable by the archives which I am very familiar with. Chillum 03:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and I retract my last comment although given the history you ought to be careful about not commenting in a way that could interpreted as emaning it is only two people. FYI, since your arrival onto this topic you have been at least as active, if not more so, than either Ward or I or any other editor. As for "rejected", that is irrelevent. PEople do disagree and I never denied that in this case the expeerts are outnumbered and in the minority. The point is what we do with this disagreement. Faustian (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any new arguments?

Will a continuation of this debate be an endless repetition of the same rejected arguments over and over? Or is there anything new to add?

It is a terrible waste of time to tell the same people that the same arguments still are not compelling month after month. I think we should stop responding to arguments that have already been given plenty of consideration and rejected. We have already established a stable consensus on this matter and I think we have given this one issue enough attention and would like consider it settled until such a time as arguments that have not already been rejected by the community are presented.

Surely there are other aspects of this article we can work on. Chillum 21:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The sad t hing is that you can archive everything above your comment, and in six months time, it will all be repeated again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo daoist (talk • contribs) 06:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned that people might engage in endless repetition of the same old arguments, you might consider fully developing the ones we have now

1. 1.3 Arguments Pro

     #01 - The cat's out of the bag
     #02 - No evidence of harm
     #03 - Adds to the page
     #04 - removing the images amounts to censorship
     #05 - Reputable organizations have been showing the images, too
     #06  It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.  

1. 1.4 Arguments Con

   * 1.4.1 Argument Con #1 - It may harm a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient.1.4.2 Argument Con #2 - It violates Wikipedia policy
   * 1.4.3 Argument Con #3 - It interferes with the workings of another profession
   * 1.4.4 Argument Con #4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.
   * 1.4.5 Argument Con #5 - It violates Wikipedia policy on indiscriminate collection of information.
   * 1.4.6 Argument Con #6 - It violates Wikipedia policy on non-free content.

They are well organized and easily found when someone goes looking back in the archives. However, some of these arguments still have questions left hanging. Future readers might question, as I did, whether the issues that they have had ever been fully explored before.

If you're thinking about the future, you might also consider what Steven Colbert in his popular television show, The Colbert Report, might say when he visits this discussion a few months from now. I think we've raised some issues that would get his attention, namely the role of ethics in Wikipedia. What will he say? Will he excoriate us for ignoring ethics in favor of policy, and compare us to Islamic or Christian fundamentalists: calling us "Fundawikians" for taking our policy "Bible" as the complete and total word of authority and in our zeal, promoting the cause of evil in the world? Or would he applaud us for not deviating from "our goals" in the face of "outside interests." I think he'll portray both extremes. Or maybe he'll run a sketch portraying us like the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment. We'll get lost into our assigned roles as guards until suddenly someone calls a halt to the experiment and we are all exposed as mere college students, sitting in our underwear in our darkened dorm rooms, deciding the fate of others. I know Steven Colbert. He'll do something funny. But I think we should pay better attention to how we want ourselves to be portrayed. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't base our content on what comedy talk show folk have to say about us. Every last one of those arguments have been given plenty of attention over the last several weeks. Do you have any new arguments? You know, ones that have not already been rejected? Chillum 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't even sound like a serious argument. To even think that Stephen Colbert will even be here in a few months (where did THAT come from?) or that he would take your side (your kind of ignorant arguments are exactly the sorts of things he loves to skewer mercilessly), you're just deluded. And none of it has anything to do with how we conduct ourselves on an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What a surpise, more personal attacks from dreamguy ("Your kind of ignorant arguments").Faustian (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia not have any policy on publishing test materials? Shouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Chillum 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No (other than copyright laws) and no. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Einstein says the definition of insanity is doing the some thing over and over again yet expecting a different result. These are old arguments. Just because questions have not been answered, or answers fall short of your expectations, means nothing to the community as a whole. Broad community consensus has been achieved regarding the images therefore the burden of proof to change it lies with anyone wishing to change it. None of these arguments has apparently changed anyone's mind. Repeating them will not either. Trying to find any possible way to remove the images is becoming disruptive. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Does he, I've not seen his talk page. If there really is no policy then perhaps Wikipedia would be improved by having one and the debate here would be a useful test-case in the path to achieving this. Questions deserve considered answers and not accusations. How else can debate proceed? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPP is a good place to propose a new policy. We have been answering your questions for months, I can't imagine anybody who would say we have not given them due attention. This has been weeks of endless repetition, you ask how else can a debate proceed? It can proceed by presenting an argument that has not already been repeatedly rejected. Or you can simply stop beating a dead horse. Chillum 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Ever the sarcastic one. Martin debate is good but not the same refuted debate. If you wish to create policy try the WP:Village pump. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Chillum and Gary. But can you remind us when the question above about policy (five hours ago), which you have kindly answered, was ever previously asked (or answered) in this debate? But please stop throwing your wiki UNCOOL STICKS. And the point I was making was that Albert is not a wikipedia editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That was more of a question than an argument. I think it has come up in the debate before, or perhaps not. There is no such policy as far as I can tell. If you think this needs further discussion you can create a thread about it. I did understand that you were referring to Einstein. Chillum 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And where is the debate on harm refuted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This section is to present new arguments, not to rehash old ones. There are sections above dedicated to the question you just posed about harm and there has been plenty of response and consideration given above. People have remained unconvinced. Please, does anyone have any new arguments? Chillum 15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "section above" dedicated to the question of wikipedia policy on publishing test materials? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a section above about harm. Regarding the question about the non-existent policy I just said you can create a section if there is more to talk about. I suggest you create it at WP:VPP because creation of policy is beyond the scope of this article. Regardless, asking if a policy exists that would support your position and being told it does not exist is not really an argument in favor of your position. Chillum 15:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the lack of a clear policy to prevent it is the reason why the images have been displayed here in the first place. But thanks for the clear, non-accusatory, advice (please note my non-sarcastic and concilliatory tone). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(in a soothing deep and friendly tone) I suggest that such a policy proposal is likely to come to the same conclusion the consensus here did. However, if you propose a policy then I will participate in the debate. It is possible I am wrong about my prediction that the community would reject it. Chillum 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The policy for prohibiting test materials doesn't exist because we don't need one... and in fact it'd be actively opposed to other policies we do have. If you disagree with our other policies on this matter you can't just up and create a new policy that will somehow overrule all the others. Making policy is a long process that requires an extremely broad and active consensus from the wider project and not something you just write up in a dusty corner of the site and expect others to follow. Seeing as how other longstanding rules such as WP:EL aren't even policy yet despite years of being here and supported, you have exactly zero chance of having any policy preventing test materials from being included here. But if that's the only avenue you have left to try to get what you want to do over the strong consensus against you, good luck with that. (That ought to keep you busy for the next ten years.) DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chillum for your friendly encouragement. But ten years in a dusty corner with "zero chance of success" doesn't sound so attractive, DreamGuy. So maybe I'd better stay here after all, like all the other "stubborn" editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's only been 7 days since the discussion at Argument#1 - It may harm... began. In that time, new sources where discovered and questions left hanging. I answered Xeno's call to come to this discussion 22 days ago. It makes no sense to invite someone and then ignore their questions. It's not very WP:CCC of you. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not true Danglingdiagnosis. That argument was first brought up in early 2008 and again numerous times before this most recent turning of the wheel. I can see how someone relatively new to this very long debate would think that this has not been given due consideration, the archives are very long and tedious to read but they do tell the story of this endless repetition I speak of. Chillum 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction it was even earlier See Talk:Rorschach test#Which image (From July 2007). You can see that Ward and Faustian were busy stating the exact same arguments that are still being argued today. Just compare this poll from February 2008 with this poll from June 2009 and you can see that this debate was settled ages ago. Look at this index of the archives I have created to see a full history of this debate: User:Chillum/Rorschach test talk page archive. Chillum 02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction before I disappear again: the debate was never settled because consensus, defined as compromise, was never achieved. Instead a 2/3 majority had their way with no input, in terms of the article's construction, from the minority. So the only thing that wa settled, I suppose, is that experts are outnumbered and that 2/3 want something done a particular way. As long as this sad state of affairs exists these things will keep coming up again. This is exactly what happens when you don't have consensus and when the debate isn't settled.Faustian (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another argument that has repeatedly been refuted. Consensus does not mean everyone is satisfied, there has been consensus for showing the images for over a year and arguments to the contrary have not changed that. This debate was settled last year, you lost. This idea has been given more than enough consideration. Do you have any arguments that have not already been repeatedly rejected? Chillum 04:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation: The majority choose to ignore the policy concerning consensus and still win by majority vote. This is how the debate has been "settled" and arguments "refuted.". The reality is that the problems keep coming up again because indeed there is no consensus. Indeed, this is a perfect example of the wisdom of consensus policy.Faustian (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

How come you did not object to consensus in February 2008 but you do now? How is this consensus not to suppress the images different than the consensus not to suppress the images back then? Chillum 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Because over a year ago I had't read the consensus policy and naively took others' word for it when they claimed that votes equals consensus. Thanks for showing an example of me trying to forge some sort of compromise, though.Faustian (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the thread on "what is consensus" got archived. You can restart it if your like and we can talk about it some more. This section is for any new arguments that have not already been rejected by the community. Chillum 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation: a majority of editors involved on this topic have chosen to reject wikipedia consensus policy and to steamroll their version through, claiming that their majority equals "consensus."

Here it is: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review, 92kb of discussion on the subject. Chillum 04:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That just shows how many editors prefer what. Consensus isn't majority preference: [16]"Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. 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." The current "solution" does not respect the the opinions of the minority (indeed it does not take them into account), it is merely the preference of the majority, and there is no consent to move forward. Thus there is no consensus. I initiated a discussion and an rfc on the wikipedia"consensus discussion page: [17] and [18]. Very few people responded, and their opinions, though not consistant, seemed to indicate that consensus is indeed compromise, provided that such compromise doesn't violate wikipedia policy (NPOV, use of reliable sources, censorship, etc.).

When atempt at discussing policy is made, you conveniently chose to ignore the policy points: [19], instead choosing to add a false statement about how many people are in the minority, incorrectly (disohonestly?) claiming it was just two people. Then you used a straw man argument that I claimed that consensus policy calls for 100% agreement even t hough I never claimed that it did. You then cherry picked from policy rather than using whole quotes to produce a skewed interpretation. When you were called on this misbehavior, you chose to revert to ignoring the policy guidelines. The bottom line is that here we have an example of a majority choosing to ignore wikipedia policy and having their way because there is no mechanism in place to enforce that policy. The result: no consensus.Faustian (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to create a section to talk about my behavior go ahead, my user talk page would be a good place for that. The consensus was reviewed by multiple outside sources including a post at ANI. How can you act like your viewpoint is being disregarded when it has been given so many months of consideration? It simply has not been convincing. We all know if the numbers were reversed and the majority wanted to remove the images that you would call it a consensus(if I am wrong then deny it). This section is for new arguments, not rehashing old ones. Chillum 13:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any new arguments that have not already been discussed ad nauseum? Chillum 13:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But Faustian's points are perfectly valid, whether written here in this section or anywhere else. They are the very reasons that prompted me earlier to take objection to the proposal made by one editor to "hammer out agreement" and to suggest that such an approach was redolent of the Secret Police. Apparently those whose views cannot be accommodated can simply be accused of "wasting time" and of using the same old arguments "for months on end". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret police? A bit over dramatic perhaps? We just don't agree with(and are thus not obeying) your arguments, we are not kicking in your door in the middle of the night. Have you read the archive of this debate I have posted at the bottom of this page? What we are facing is nothing more than proof by assertion which is no proof at all. These are the same arguments for months on end, there is no accusation about it, it is all in the archives. A huge amount of consideration was given to the arguments, it is not accurate to imply that we are trying to unduly dismiss them. I am just asking for an argument that has not already been rejected. Chillum 13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I also read it all when it was going on, thanks. I just think that hammers may be the wrong tools with which to try and reach "agreement". I'm keeping Adolf in reserve, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about with "hammers", and "Adolf"? We already have an agreement, it does not include 100% of the people here, but it includes enough people to be a strong consensus. We don't obey every minority viewpoint, we do give them all consideration, but in this case they have just not been convincing. If the numbers were reversed and most people wanted the images removed, would you not consider that a consensus to remove them? Chillum 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You accused me of a "not so subtle variation of Godwin's law", didn't you? And I am objecting to the idea that agreements can always be "hammered out". That's what I'm talking about. But I also don't see that consensus is compatible with the notion of "obedience". There was a time when the debate was considering changes in position or display mechanism of images as a way of reaching agreement. But now we the choice seems to be "images vs no images". Hang on, don't tell me... I'm not allowed to make this point, as it's not new? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that, predictably, Chillum has chosen to sidestep a discussion on actual wikipedia policy points as usual. His strategy seems to be: ignore policy, go with majority rule because the majority can get away with ignoring policy, and then label the dissenting minority whose views are not accomodated at all (in violation of the consensus policy whose points Chillum refuses to discuss) as troublemakers repeating the same arguments. He complains about my drawing attention to his behavior, then makes up claims about my own ("We all know if the numbers were reversed and the majority wanted to remove the images that you would call it a consensus(if I am wrong then deny it). "). For the record, I would accomodate a minority view that disagrees with me and have stated so. I'm not Chillum, after all. And this is indeed the appropriate place to highlight Chillum's behavior because it reflects the process that has occurred on this page. He also claimed that consensus was discussed. Yes, it has been - and he derailed that discussion as demonstrated.Faustian (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is weak Faustian. If we let minority view rule then we would basically have chaos. The wiki in practice is very democratic even though we state its not a democracy. That's because we weigh arguments based on logic and common sense. It is possible to have 10 editors on an article abandon those principals and have a minority win consensus with the help of an RFC or outside mediation because their arguments were more logical and given more weight. Attacking Chillum is not going to change things. If you have a problem with his behavior and cannot solve it on your talk pages you can place a wikiquette or a request for comment on a user. This page is for article construction of the Rorschach test. If you do not wish to accept consensus then follow the dispute resolution process. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your statement is based on a straw man - I do not propose that minority rule - that would be a violation of consensus policy (as is, of course, "majority rule"). I only point out that per policy the minority viewpoint needs to be taken into account in the layout of the article, otherwise there is no consensus.Faustian (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not every viewpoint needs to be reflected in the article, I don't see anywhere in the consensus policy that says that. Chillum 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity - so viewpoints by scattered individuals indeed do not have to be taken into account. On the other hand 1/3 of involved editors are not scattered individuals.

• Wikipedia:What is consensus? "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. 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."
• "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""
• "[20] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal restrictions."

So is the solution you ram through with your majority respecting the minority's opinions? It is not. Is there overall consent to move forward? There is not. Is there common ground? There is not. IS there a synthesis of the two viewpoints? There is not. Is there a balance betweent he competing views? There is not. It is, actually, 100% what the majority wants. So thre is not consensus per consensus policy.Faustian (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere, we have a definition of the rough consensus which is the actual standard at Wikipedia. Perfect consensus is impossible in any group larger than about 8 (according to some study I read in a leadership class more years ago than I'd care to admit). In any sufficiently large group, there will always be a minority unable or unwilling to concede to any position but their own. No functioning group can allow itself to be held hostage by an uncompromising minority (the so-called tyranny of the minority problem). While rough consensus does not mean that majority rules or even that supermajority rules, it also does not mean unanimity or even unanimous consent. Does anyone know where that "rough consensus" discussion got moved to? I think it might be useful reading. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you have written. That is why wikipedia consensus policy wisely involves the principle that [21] "Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. 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."

So basically, consensus means an article that no one is 100% satisfied with but that, with the exception of a couple of isolated editors (inevitable), people can live with. Compromise means giving something up. Given the ratio of preferences the minority ought to give up more than the majority when the compromise is forged - article ought to reflect the majority's wishes more than those of the minority - the minority which at 1/3 of involved editors is substantial cannot be ignored for consensus to be achieved. However, to repeat myself, in this articles' case the majority refuses to compromise and seems to demand that the article reflects 100% what they want. As the majority they get to outvote any attempt at compomise. Every attempt at compromise has been shot down by this majority. So what do we do when a majority opposes policy?Faustian (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratios? This is not math. You simply have not convinced the community of your point of view. If you think there is a violation of consensus on this talk page then seek outside scrutiny, just don't just keep insisting it is the case when so many people have told you this is not so. Post at WT:Consensus and ask the people there what they think, that has worked well in the past. I remember a posting at WP:ANI where several people agreed that consensus has formed. How is it that the only people who think consensus is not being served are those who are not getting what they want? Chillum 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you insist on using this section I created to talk about new arguments to repeat things that have already been discussed to death in the past? There are pages of discussion in this thread and none of it presents a single new point. It is all just a rehashing of the same old thing. I have had to start yet another sub-thread just to attempt to give someone the opportunity to breath fresh air into this debate. Chillum 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when am I and the other 1/3 who disagree with the other 2/3 not part of the community? We are all the community, and we ought to work together to forge a compromise. I did post to the consensus article and as I stated only a few responded and they seemed to indicate that consensus was indeed compromise as long as no policies such as NPOV, Reliable Sources etc. were not violated. I will note that once again you have chosen to avoid discussing the policy points, Chillum, but to change subjects.

When you make incorrect claims about consensus or the debate being settled I have the right to correct you no matter what section those false statemtns are in.Faustian (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But this is a NPOV issue. But you knew that because we have already had this discussion. Why do you keep using this off all threads to repeat conversations? The whole spirit of this thread is new arguments. Chillum 04:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, when you make incorrect claims about consensus or the debate being settled I have the right to correct you no matter what section those false statements are in.Faustian (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

New arguments go here

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

Inline citation for inkblots needed

I put up a {{fact}} in the Inkblots section because I thought an inline citation should be there, and the template was deleted! Please note that when the reader comes upon the section with the inkblots, he won't know what the RS for them is without a citation there. Isn't that why we have inline citations in Wikipedia, instead of just a list of references at the end? Gee whiz, don't know what the problem is about putting the citation there. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I can't do it because I haven't seen the inkblots in the RS that should be in the inline citation. I don't dispute that they are probably in the RS, like they are in the wiki. I just think that someone who has seen them in the RS that should be cited in the inkblots section should put up a proper inline citation there! Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think someone (hopefully someone other than me) should write some text to go with the pictures and then an inline citation can go there. Otherwise, a floating ref just looks peculiar. The references are almost immediately below the images, so I don't see it as that big of a deal either way. –xeno^talk 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with attaching the inline citation to the section title, The ten inkblots, so that it would be useful for the reader like inline citations normally are? That's why I put up the {{fact}}, and it should be there to encourage editors to do that. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone writes that text, maybe we ought to be clear on which are the "real images" and which are the "real test images" (see the[22] section above)? The source in Commons for these ten images is a website in Spanish (English translation available) written by someone in Argentina. Curiously it ends with the following advice:

"I find that following these tips for prepairing your own responses is much more useful than indicating specifically what to answer: psychologists are not stupid, no matter how stupid their science can be. And the mistakes that could get ourselves busted are not only the answers we give but also how to act in general." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've never seen an inline citation in a header like that. Let me look into it a bit. I still think the text is a better way to go about it. –xeno^talk 16:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, We don't know when there will ever be text in that section. So until then, it seems best to attach the inline citation to the section title. After all, it's the reader who is the main consideration, and an inline citation there would benefit the reader. A {{fact}} there would encourage editors to do that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob I have never seen a section referenced. The WP:MOS#Section headings does not discuss it. Common sense would seem to dictate that TOC/indexes help navigate a document while sourcing is done to relevant text in the article. I'm sure clarification can be made at the MOS talk page if neseccary. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This should do for now. Wasn't there a source that listed common responses? That might be useful text to go with the section. –xeno^talk 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now in good conscience I can presume that you have checked that the inkblots in the book match, and I can improve that and replace it with a proper inline citation to the actual book. OK? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but it seems redundant, no? Inline citations are not a requirement when the text is explicit. An inline citation here would be like writing "Kurt Vonnegut's [[Cat's Cradle]] involves fictional substance known as ice-nine.<ref>Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle</ref>". And, no, I haven't confirmed. I think DreamGuy above said he did, though. –xeno^talk 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had something better in mind. But in the process of looking up the 13 digit ISBN at amazon.com, I found this. It looks like the images that are in the wiki have different backgrounds than the images that are in the item at the ISBN. The official images appear to have plain white backgrounds, whereas the images in the wiki don't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice find! So what do we make of the ones we're using now? Poor scans? Background of paper tarnished with age? –xeno^talk 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess is water damage, which may have also altered the inkblots themselves. This seems more apparent for the multicolored ones. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

← Yes, that would certainly explain the running colours. –xeno^talk 18:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This speculation seems silly. Ward and Faustian claim to administrate the test as practicing psychologist and they have never spoke up that these are not the correct ink blots and a google search almost always seems to show them this way. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So where do we go from here? I don't think we can display probably water damaged images and claim they are the official inkblots. I don't even think we can display them in a qualified manner by saying that they are nearly the same as the official inkblots but have been water damaged or altered in some other way. We don't know how they compare. And putting in the wiki any comparison of the altered images and the official images by an editor would be a violation of WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If the image quality is not perfect that is not a verifiability issue, that is a quality issue. We can show a grainy black a white image of a historical figure and still say it is them, even if they are not really black and white and overexposed. We use the best quality images we can find. The images have been cited to a reliable source, and this source seems to be verifiable. If it is shown as a reference or an inline citation is of little importance, I would support either. If someone can provide higher quality scans that is wonderful, we can always use better copies of public domain images. Chillum 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look like just a scan problem. More likely water damage, as I mentioned. As Xeno noticed, the colors are running. We don't know how much it has altered the images. Apparently, no one has even looked at the actual inkblot plates in the RS. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More speculation. The only way challenge the existing inkblots is to bring verifiable proof that they are incorrect. (and in that case we would use those other ink blots that discredit the previous ones) Garycompugeek (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gary, Have you ever seen the actual inkblots in an RS that can be cited here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More than one source has confirmed we have the correct images for our reference. This is a quality issue, not a verifiability or original research issue. If the images are less than perfect then we should seek to improve them when we are able to, but currently they are the best representation we have. Chillum 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

re "More than one source has confirmed" - Are you referring the the mini B&W images in an advertisement for "blanks" and some small low res ones that had different backgrounds than the ones in the wiki? Those aren't confirmation in my opinion. All you can say is that the general appearance is similar. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

these ones have a yellowy background, lol.

On second thought, I think I'll leave it to you folks to decide what you want to do and pull out now. I really don't have a dog in this show. Also, I thought you folks were pretty good to work with. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

aw, don't leave so soon! =) re your over-written question [23], is File:Rorschach inkblots.jpg the one? –xeno^talk 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, You've been very kind and charming, but it's time to move on. I can repeat what I said when I came here originally, I appreciate your invitation. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input here, especially the "list of reliable sources" section that gave us a little push to...well, work on the actual article, once in a while, rather than just arguing about it ;p –xeno^talk 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One more time: I have seen the original images and can confirm the ones here are accurate. The images to me look largely like poor photos/scanning. Most reproductions add color casts invariably, and the existence of tonal shifts does not in any way invalidate these images. Some may also have some water damage, but from a quick glance at a couple of the scans at larger size I see nothing of any substantive difference for our purposes. Considering that at one point people were arguing that we could completely make up our own inkblots entirely out of thin air, it seems odd know to be raising quibbles about nonexact matches in color. Web images and computer screens are never going to be exact matches anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here's an interesting citation that may explain where the different shading and colouration comes from: http://books.google.ca/books?id=zXDVZSgrJnYC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=psychologists+outraged+at+rorschach+test&source=bl&ots=lio6SQOt5y&sig=GJzBKpinykmKvzgIye5_HGwrIJU&hl=en&ei=7FxXSoe2H4WANtXPpZ0I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7 (page 172, near the bottom) –xeno^talk 15:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A note to the newly arrived editors

It seems the article has attracted the attention of some new editors. I would ask that they review the very lengthy history of this debate, familiarize themselves with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and participate in the discussions ongoing above to gather consensus before unilaterally removing images from the page. Thanks! –xeno^talk 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the new users to the debate, however Zeitgest and Psychology12345 ‎are both obvious sock puppets of the same person. I had really hoped this debate would not break down into edit warring and sock puppetry but it has now started. Chillum 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's also the possibility they were alerted to this dispute from some web forum somewhere. I would like to think the regulars here know better than to engage in sockpuppetry. –xeno^talk 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, a look at the timeline:

22:10, 7 July 2009 Psychology12345 creates a new account
22:11, 7 July 2009 Psychology12345 removes images
22:25, 7 July 2009 Psychology12345 removes images
22:32, 7 July 2009 Zeitgest creates a new account
22:36, 7 July 2009 Zeitgest removes images
22:43, 7 July 2009 Zeitgest removes images

And it is very clear this is the same person. Perhaps it is a form a meat puppetry, but that is the same animal. I would like to think better of the regulars too, but even reasonable people will become unreasonable will they will not give up something they cannot have. Chillum 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to find a wholly uninvolved admin to look into this. Chillum 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. But there is also the possibility that it was a non regular (perhaps even a non-Wikipedian) who came across this debate and then raised the issue at some off-site forum. The regulars here, while persistent, have for-the-most-part acted within policies and guidelines. –xeno^talk 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Bongwarrior to look into this. I looked at the block logs and found he is active at this time, and as far as I know has not involved himself in this debate. Chillum 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Bongwarrior has come to a similar conclusion as me. I think as long as we keep an eye on these accounts and they remain inactive that there is not much more to worry about. Chillum 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image of Hermann Rorschach

Glad to see that the image of Hermann Rorschach has now been restored to the article(s) by Chillum's addition of "Hermann Rorschach, psychiatrist died in 1922, so this image is public domain." to the Licensing field. This seems to have satisifed Garion96. But there still seems to be no source information, as was pointed out to the original image uploader on 2 Jan 2007.

Surely, regardless of the subject matter, the copyright of a photograph is held by the photogapher (and up to 70 years after his death) or by a publisher. I think it seems unlikely that less than 70 years have passed since the death of the photographer in this case, even if his ir her identity is known. But were the rights holder suddenly to come forward, I think they might be entitled to a compensation payment for the infringing use of the image. I wonder if this photograph has ever been published in a book about Rorschach? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get US copyright law. If it was from before 1923, which it clearly was in this case because it's not a photo of a skeleton of Rorschach, then it's automatically public domain. The 70 years from death of the photographer does not apply in this country for the time period in question. Source is irrelevant, as whereever it came from it's pubilc domain and the photographer would never "be entitled to compensation payment". DreamGuy (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry, it seems I "don't get" a lot of things. So the country in which the photograph was originaly published is irrelevant? Did wikipedia ask for source information just for RS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia always asks for source info these days because it's easier to demand it even in cases where it's irrelevant then to let the typical image uploaders who don't know anything about copyright upload whatever they want. Unfortunately some of the people going around tagging images as unsourced don't use some common sense before doing so. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asking: "So the country in which the photograph was originaly published is irrelevant?" Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Wikipedia:Public domain seems to cover the topic. I don't have time to read it now, but will later. Chillum 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(note) If we look here [24] we see this "The picture of Hermann Rorschach on this page is from H. Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious (Basic Books 1970). Reproduced with kind permission from Institut Henri Ellenberger, Paris."

US Copyright law

Dreamguy, re your change [25], does the Copyright Term Extension Act not apply? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Per that article: "Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward" The inkblots were made prior to 1923. US copyright laws over the years have been a mess of conflicting periods of coverage and other standards. The original US copyright laws (ones in effect for old, public domain works such as these inkblots) had nothing to do with the death of the creator but only with the publication date. It's not safe to lump the US in with other countries on the 70 years thing, as most of the time it doesn't match up. DreamGuy (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends on which inkblots we are discussing? As far as I can see the ones on the test cards are being printed even today and so are "works made after 1923". Psychologists aren't using the actual ones printed by Hermann Rorshach before he died, are they? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They are using the original images he made before he died, yes. Merely copying old images and printing new versions faithfully reproducing the originals does not give a new copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. DreamGuy (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did those originals have white backgrounds or coloured? Do we know which are being used now? Does that matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at the bottom of #Inline citation for inkblots needed; this may explain where the different versions of the images come from. –xeno^talk 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fascinating citataton, xeno, that suggests all sorts of variety in the original printing. I wonder how it continues and concludes. Perhaps it explains away the "water damage theory"? But I am still left wondering whether what are used today on the cards are really the same as Rorshcach himself produced in 1921, or even the same as those published by Verlag in 1927. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Same images. There are photos of Rorschach displaying some of the inkblots in question (one even was the cover of a book), and they are the same ones. Variations in background colors make no difference. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Which book was that? But "makes no difference" to who? Was that Rorscharch's own view (and that of his proponents) or is it just the view of the US legislature? How different does an image have to become to be seen, legally, as a different image? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand copyright law and sincerely want to know, please educate yourself; don't insist other people do it for you. DreamGuy (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have insisted nothing. By simply asking some questions I had hoped that my lack of knowledge might enable you, or any other editor, to educate the community here. If you understand copyright law and sincerely want to explain it to us, please just answer. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

At what point do we file a sockpuppet investigation into single purpose accounts such as User:Danglingdiagnosis, User:Zeitgest, User:Psychology12345 and User:Dolphinfin? It's pretty clear that these accounts exist to try to give the appearance of more people supporting a position than actually exist. It wouldn't surprise me if other socks were at work as well. Maybe if we figure out who is responsible they can all be banned (with the sockmaster) and the constant whining will die down or go away completely. DreamGuy (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll still get my "whining", I can assure you, constant or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

AS long as it's not disruptive and you limit yourself to one account, that's fine. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am neither sockpuppet, nor impressed with the arguments for keeping the images up on the page. The issue is quiet clear to me. It is a matter of ethical conduct. A large, internationally recognized society, the American Psychological Association, includes within its ethical guidelines to protect test material. These test materials are potentially being spoiled by being placed on this page. Although I am not a "sockpuppet" as you call them, I would support their use as part of protecting the test's images. This would be keeping with the ethical principles of the APA. Dolphinfin (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet of Psychology12345 and blocked indef. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to lump Danglingdiagnosis in with these other blatant single purpose accounts. He created his account in 2006 and has contributed to a variety of medical articles over the years. I am going file a checkuser request on the new SPAs that have been showing up to remove the image after work. Chillum 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolphinfin, may I ask how you came to find this debate? Were you contacted either in private or through a public forum? Chillum 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer. I was bumping around wikipedia today, procrastinating as I often do, and decided to see what was put together for the Rorschach test. My interest is professional, and I recognize that this particular test often generates a great deal of controversy, both within and without the clinical psychology profession. However, the writing is now on the wall, this test is valid for quite a few purposes, and much of the complaints leveled at it in the 1990's and early 2000's have been resolved through empirical work and responses. I see it as an enormously useful tool that has achieved its utility through a great deal of work from a lot of well meaning people. That isn't to say that like ALL technology, it can be used to harm someone, but the preponderance of the use is for helping others. I see that utility of it being threatened and degraded by its posting here. When I saw it I was quite surprised that wikipedia would allow it to be posted. So, I created a name so that I could edit it off; isn't that how this is supposed to work? Only then did I realize that there was so much controversy going on behind the scenes. In general, I am a huge fan of wikipedia. I trust it more than most sources for information, recognizing its limitations. Yet this is one time that the process has failed. There are times when just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it. Just because the information is available, doesn't mean it should be broadcast. I see this as one of those cases. I think that much of the controversy around the Rorschach stems from fear of it. The actual practice and implementation of it is not nearly as nefarious as those who would see it debunked imagine it to be. In fact, it is not nefarious at all. I see the hard work of my colleagues being destroyed (however minutely) through the posting of these cards. I don't see why everyone feels that they are entitled to this information. It is not being kept secret out of some sort of "masonic" or "secret society" ritualism; it is more useful when someone can be exposed for the first time in the testing scenario. I guess I am disappointed that wikipedia has gone the route it has gone with this. Although it may not be copyrighted, it should be protected information. To use the old cliche, I hope those who insist on it being posted on here don't need it at some point, because it may have been worn away as a tool by then. I see many acceptable alternatives, such as a inkblot that is not part of the 10 cards that could serve as an exemplar. Or, to a lesser degree, an outline or two. Please remove them for the sake of clients who seek services of clinical psychologists. That is all I would ask. Dolphinfin (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another expert opposed to showing the images.Faustian (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another person who is clearly not a real account, you mean. One vote per person, please. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain to us how you know why Dolphinfin is not a "real account"? I can't believe that your statement was just meant to be plain insult. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin, Dolphinfin is an obvious sock puppet and has been indefinitely blocked as such along with his/her other two accounts. Sock puppets are not "real accounts" because they are just one person pretending to be many. It is a way people push their opinion when their arguments fail. Chillum 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see they are now banned. But how is that sock puppetry proved exactly? And how do we know that the sock puppet accounts weren't created to discredit the proponets of image removal? If genuine, it seems to be another example of the ethics of professionals at odds with the rules of wikipedia. If that editor now creates a new single account to continue debate will they be allowed to contribute? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If the "Sockpuppet Investigation" achieves nothing else it has solicited one of the most eloquent and reasonable statements yet added to the whole discussion so far. Thank you, Dolphinfin. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin are you encouraging sockpuppets? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As you can see< Gary, I made this comment before the investigation concluded. The statement still seems genuine to me, partly for the reasons suggested by Faustian. But I'm even less sure now how we would ever decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's more likely that these users were canvassed here from some off-wiki forum. I do hope that none of the regulars are responsible for this, and remind that meatpuppetry carries the same risk of sanction as sockpuppetry. –xeno^talk 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have filed for an investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Psychology12345. Perhaps check user results will shed some light on the matter. Chillum 20:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

More like yet another sock puppet opposed to showing the images Faustian. The investigation came back positive. Chillum 03:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: what if one person sees the images, is horrified, and then tells his colleagues who then also chip in, without any instructions from the first guy. Is this meat puppetry? Do people have a right to tell others what they see? and if someone is told by a colleague s their right to contribute forfeited? This seems different from canvassing for support to screw with the system. The talk pages of one of the two "sockpuppets" seemed to suggest it was two guys in the same office who came across the image. I also wonder about the "likeliness" of the third, dolphinfin. His case showed different geography from the other two but was based on "similar behavior" and the fact that it can be accessed remotely (is that rare or something?) Faustian (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting possibility. The other possibility is that someone here is using proxies. Both a check user and an uninvolved administrator came to the same conclusion as me. Chillum 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Having now read Faustian's comment I am very unconvinced that this sockpuppety has been "proved" at all. But I am guessing, not being an administrator, I have no say in that process? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Being that you have confessed no knowledge of how we flush these things out in the open do you believe your qualified to discredit the process? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It was more of question Gary. But I'm certainly sorry I asked now. So that's how "we" do it, is it? My belief in my own utility here grows smaller by the hour. But thanks for all the encouragement. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do, Martin, would be to ask the blocking administrator. You could also comment at Wikipedia:AN#Uninvolved administrator needed for sock puppets. FWIW, checkusers are intentionally vague about how they come to their conclusions, to prevent sockpuppeteers from gleaning much information about how they are identified by technical evidence. That being said, if the CU said "confirmed" then that probable means they were editing from the same IP/browser. "Likely" probably had more to do with locational evidence, which would lend credibility to Faustian's comment above about colleagues discussing and unknowingly becoming meatpuppets of eachother (no doubt this distinction isn't immediately apparent to non-Wikipedians and actually pretty much breaks down as a term if they weren't previously editors). –xeno^talk 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you once again, xeno, for taking time to explain and not to make personal judgements. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering they showed up near each other in time, acted the same way, gave the same excuses(compare User talk:Zeitgest with the reasoning Dolphinfin gave above), wrote in the same style, and had technical evidence linking them, I think we can assume it is just someone trying to bypass 3RR and unduly influence the debate with multiple accounts. It happens all the time on Wikipedia. Chillum 19:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Chillum. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the checkuser, zerttgeist and psychology12345 were "confirmed" sockpuppets. However, the explanation they/he gave makes the confirmation problematic. If indeed it's a case of two people in the same practice or the same graduate department finding out about this page and acting on what they found, wouldn't a checkuser result in a "confirmed" categrization? According to checkuser, Dolphinfin was not a "confirmed" sockpuppet but a "likely" one, based on "Likely IPs are geographically distinct, but are those that can easily be accessed remotely, other technical evidence is similar, and behavioral evidence is similar." This doesn't seem strong enough for something as extreme as a block, in dolphinfin's particular case, and given his explanation for his actions which cover the "behavioral evidence". Moreover, his edit warring stopped after he was informed of it, so at the time of the block he wasn't doing anything wrong. It might very well be a well-intentioned novice wikipedia user who has now been driven off from further contributions, which would be a sad thing. It ought to be noted that the same person calling for the block for sockpuppetry also unfairly accused danglingdiagnosis of being one of the sockpuppets too. We should avoid witchhunts here.Faustian (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You can always ask for further review at Wikipedia:AN#Uninvolved administrator needed for sock puppets. I suspect however that most administrators, like me, will see this as an obvious sock puppet. I wonder how you would feel about these three brand new carbon copy users if they all were supporting the showing of the images? Chillum 00:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly suspected a well intentioned novice and to drive them away would indeed be a sad thing. Perhaps dolphinfin will request an unblock and provide further explanation. It seems unfair to expect novices to always know and apply all the wikipedia rules. I hope danglingdiagnosis has received an apology. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology? For what? He's clearly not a new uninvolved editor either. DreamGuy (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I suspect the person who created those three accounts is still using Wikipedia, and possibly even still using this very talk page. Lots of people know how to use proxies, what most people don't know is that some of them forward your IP and if one uses such a proxy they will be revealed by a checkuser. Chillum 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Dolphinfin did in fact requested an unblock just a three hours after you predicted it. You sure called that one. Chillum 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully their shenanigans will lead to the sockmaster soon. DreamGuy (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And the unblock has been declined. Chillum 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

By whom and where? Looks like a nasty witchhunt, given the facts. I guess we've come to blocking/banning new users, trying to hide the debate on a subpage, etc. as a way of forcing "consensus" and silencing the experts.Faustian (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, you would be equally appalled if sockpuppets supporting the inclusion of the images were blocked, right? Or does your failure to assume good faith only apply to the blocking of proxy accounts that are on the same side of your little obsession here? Resolute 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And I suppose we'll never know why the unblock was declined. Let's hope the next new editor here has more success. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Those were not new editors, they were sock puppets. Chillum 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead para about ethics

Why is the last lead para about ethics included? It's not about the ink blots or the test at all. I think it should be removed. Verbal chat 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good compromise to balance the concerns of showing the images and an image in the lead with the argument that this may cause harm. It's not a disclaimer per se, but it does at least highlight the concern in an encyclopedic fashion. –xeno^talk 19:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The professional bodies responsible for teaching the test and overseeing its use have very strong concerns about the public display of test materials, of which the inkblots are prime examples. These concerns are only made more serious by the fact that the Rorschach may be used to diagnose suicidality. So the para is certainly "about" the inbklots, and if it doesn't seem to be so, perhaps it ought to be improved so that it does. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So the reason we have this discussion in the lead is because of an argument on wikipedia, rather than for encyclopaedic concerns? It really looks like a disclaimer, and I really don't think that is a good enough justification. (Just so you don't think I'm dumb, I've studied psychology at Uni level (not my main subject, though) and I know many who work in the field.) Verbal chat 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it reads well, is encyclopedic, and expounds on the final sentence (or "final fragment" seperated by ;'s... what do you call that?) of the 3rd lead paragraph. –xeno^talk 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The users of the test, as well as the publisher don't see the ethical concerns as "an argument on wikipedia". If you want to read about the inkblots as if they were pretty patterns in a coffee-table book, then you wouldn't want any ethical stuff. But if you're more concerned about the USE of this test, you need to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I supported that lead paragraph as a compromise, however it seems the compromise did not satisfy anyone because they still argue for the removal of images. It seems like it has accomplished nothing. I agree there are synthesis issues, it is a group of related statements by different sources lumped together to advance a point of view. This seems to be present more for the sake of the debate than the article. Chillum 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It had accomplished quite a lot before people started taking it out without discussion and arguing that it should not be there. I have to agree that the two issues have become entwined - the insistence on the inkblot at the top led to the ethics being put near the top also, where you might not have expected to see them. But as with the later introduction of the ten inkblots, I too have become wary of compromise, as I feel once again that the rug is about to be pulled from under those who want the inkblots not to appear or to appear less prominently. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When we took the most recent poll nobody sided with the idea of not showing them at all, and most people decided they should be shown as they are. Chillum 21:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When exactly was that "most recent poll" and what was it's title? Not this one then:[26]? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is still on this page: #An informal survey for the inclusion of the 10 inkblots. The consensus was clearly in favour of not hiding the images, and nobody supported the idea that they should not be shown at all. Chillum 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that your position was against the showing of the images, you just did not count yourself. My mistake. My point regarding consensus stands despite this. Chillum 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I "did not count myself"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So, voting = concensus? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out why I did not notice your stated position in the poll, you did not number your position like everyone else did. I never said voting = consensus, there was plenty of discussion to go along with it. Chillum 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"I am not a number, I am a free man". Hmmm, yes plenty. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that it is rather obvious that the images should be included, and if I knew of the debate beforehand I would have said that. That doesn't change the apparent irrelevance of the paragraph in the lead. Verbal chat 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with verbal. If not for the image debate this section would not have been included because it is not really relevant to the subject of the article. Chillum 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am truly astounded that you can suggest that the ethics of psychometric testing are "not really relevant" to the subject of this article. Why is it "rather obvious" that the images should be included? And is it really the task of an encyclopedia just to point out what is obvious? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not relevant because the sources are talking about test material in general not the Rorschach test. Perhaps it would be better suited in an article on medical ethics. There seems to be undue interpretation of the sources, and the way they are presented implies that they are referring to this test. Chillum 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, they're actually refering to ALL tests, this one included. But which other article shows the test materials quite so openly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Verbal. The conflict is real and not just limited to the English Wikipedia. It is found on the French, the Polish, the Norwegian, the Italian, and it is found prominently on (at least) the first three web-sites listed on Google. Some of these sites are showing the images with the expressed purpose of helping people "beat the test," -- one in circumstances surrounding a custody dispute of children. We can't ignore this dispute. Instead, we're attempting to stand out from the fray and provide a neutral point of view of both sides of the conflict. This is complicated by the fact that the dispute centers around the idea of "pre-exposure" to the images, so we can't expose our readers to the image without showing bias. (e.g. a TV news reporter wearing a fur coat reporting on camera at a street riot between people throwing paint and arguing about animal rights versus the right to wear a fur coat.) We have reputable sources that "categorically" say that the lack of security of these test results can harm the ability of a psychologist to protect the welfare of his patient, and we have letters from the the designers of the test that make the same claim "specifically" to the Rorschach. We also have an article from Scientific American that while highly critical of the Rorschach test (while granting that it seems to do well with diagnosing Schizophrenia and bi-polarism) chose not to publish the photos saying simply "the images cannot be published." Here at Wikipedia, the contention seems to center around whether or how we are to be informed by these sources and weigh them against our goal of providing information. So I'm thinking we have a neutrality WP:NPOVissue up against and WP:NOTCENSORED problem. The question is how much should we let this conflict (this "outside influence" as Chillum calls it) move us in either direction. I think that since

1. WP:NPOV is so very important, and
2. Wikipedia can and has provided restrictions on information before, (see WP:IINFO) And
3. since censorship is not simply an either/or binary proposition, (book burning being one extreme, a movie rating system, Rated PG-13, on the other)

I'm thinking we need to inform our readers about the issue BEFORE they see the images so they can make up their own mind. The spirit of most wikipedia policies is to let the reader make up their own mind, so anything that helps them do that is, I think, very appropriate. Clearly, any compromise is going to hurt each of us Wikipedians in some way, and that's okay with me. I think we need to explore the dynamic tension of this conflict and find a consensus. You're welcome to help us do so. Let's see, did I forget to mention something? Just read the index and find the 6 arguments PRO and the 6 arguments CON, and you can get a good perspective. And welcome. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Having a discussion about ethics in the lead is a compromise. I am happy to see it stay.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have something, but not what we had for the reasons I gave above. Chillum 04:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not showing the images is not an option. They are relevant, add to the encyclopaedic content of the article, and are PD. Ethics should be mentioned in the article, but only related to this test and not in the lead. WP should not bow to special interest groups in suppressing information, and I'm glad it hasn't. This over the top disclaimer needs significant trimming to meet our policies. I'm afraid whenever I see an ink blot test I either see bats and Kim Basinger, or a Far Side cartoon. Verbal chat 07:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I see an ink blot test I see a Wikipedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Verbal. Having the information in the article at all is a compromise but having it in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think our standard of inclusion for the subtopic "ethics" in the Rorschach test article should be sources talking about ethics and Rorschach tests. Taking sources that talk about testing in general and then applying it to this test is original research. Where are the sources about ethics as related to the topic of this article? Chillum 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is no more OR to include the Roschach when a source mentions tests in general than to include elephants when a source mentions all mammals just because that specific source did not mention any mammal species specifically. The APA Code doesn't mention any specific tests and the APA statement about the harmfulness of compromising tests doesn't mention any specific tests either. To claim this statement doesn't apply to the Rorschach because the Rorschach isn't specifically named is like claiming that claiming that laws against thefts don't apply when the specific victim isn't listed by name in the law itself. Nice try. Faustian (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

By that logic we could include any source that has general relativity to topic regardless of specifics. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

All tests huh? So this would apply to a reflex test too? Is it unethical to let the public know your going to use a little rubber hammer? Repeatedly sources are being brought up that do not directly apply to the subject and they are being creatively interpreted to support a position they do not support. That is original research. I ask once again, why are there no sources discussing the ethics as related to the subject of the article? If somebody would provide that then we could have a section on ethics that is not original research. Chillum 14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, hammers again, little rubber ones this time. Sorry to have confused you Chillum, but no I meant all psychological tests. I had assumed the context of APA and BPS might have provided a clue. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great leap to induct that the APA concerns speak to tests where reliable goes down with pre-exposure, and we've sourced that this is the case with the Rorschach. I still think the paragraph is entirely appropriate and encyclopedic. Sure, if we can find another source to attach to it, that's great, but for now I think that in the interests of balancing the concerns we should leave it where it is. –xeno^talk 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:OR: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

This is exactly what is being done here. All we need are sources that actually talk about this huge controversy being described by a few Wikipedians, and then to limit our commentary to a faithful representation of those sources. Our original research policy makes it clear that A + B does not equal C unless a reliable source has already made that connection for us. We should not be combining sources in this matter. Chillum 14:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I'm surprised we haven't been able to find anything like this. –xeno^talk 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethics codes do not mention any test specifically just like laws don't mention any potential victim of a crime specifically. There seems to be nothing inherently surprising about this. BTW, the ethics code also doesn't mention by name every person whom the psychologist is forbidden to cheat or steal from. The APA has concluded quite clearly that "The APA states that the dissemination of test materials "imposes very concrete harm to the general public" as well, in that "there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose". Those who implictly claim that the Rorschach inkblots do not constitute "test materials" when they claim that the APA code doesn't apply to the Rorschach becasue the ROrschach isn't listed by name are the ones engaging in OR. Faustian (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we can find reliable sources on the ethics of stem cell research, and of cloning, and of numerous other medical topics. Where are the reliable sources on the ethics of showing Rorschach test images? It is not the place of an encyclopedia to document a topic that is not already being covered by reliable sources. Our original research policy says that too. Chillum 14:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there something about the ethics, specificlly, of every kind of species of animal to be cloned? Is a source that speaks about cloning "animals" not applicable when mentioning the cloning fo Dolly specifically?Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not sure why people want this paragraph removed. It doesn't strike me as OR or SYNTH at all. Then again, I may be biased being the one who penned it. –xeno^talk 14:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want it removed, I want it replaced with something more in line with policy. There must be something related to ethics and Rorschach tests out there, and we should accurately reflect what that says. Chillum 15:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. –xeno^talk 15:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also not sure why a sub-topic is in the lead(other than to act as a disclaimer). The lead is to summarize the topic, this content refers to nothing in the article, rather it is a self contained glob of loosely related sources. I think it should be a section in the controversies section(once we have a source that established that there is such a controversy related to Rorschach tests). Chillum 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Ethics in psychology" By Gerald P. Koocher, Patricia Keith-Spiegel , pp 159-160 http://books.google.ca/books?id=KwatUOmKCrUC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=psychologists+outraged+at+rorschach+test&source=bl&ots=N_GPpPM4P9&sig=QzqAQTmkhG4rySHGq8kw9t8rBKI&hl=en&ei=BlpXStvcBo7CNq_puJ0I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8. –xeno^talk 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that is the start of a good section on ethics. Good find. Chillum 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But they are exactly the same ethics. And don't appear to be wholly "subjective" either. So, if we knew that black labradors are dogs and that dogs can bite, to state "black labradors can bite" without a verbatim reliable source would be WP:OR, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Both from previous discussion and the above, there was clearly no consensus to add the major WP:NOR and WP:NPOV violating text to the lead, and no consensus exists now, so it will be removed per WP:BRD. If someone would like to propose a new version that is fully sourced to reliable sources and not slanted in such a way as to give WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, by all means write up something to suggest here, and if you get consensus to add it through hammering out the wording, then it will be added, but not before then. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already at BRRRD, so why would you do that before we finish discussing and looking for better sources? –xeno^talk 16:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple, because we should not be writing the content first then looking for sources, we should find the sources first then write the content. We have at least one very good source now, thanks Xeno, so instead of putting that old stuff back lets write something up from that. Chillum 16:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

This has been dominating the article talk page for too long. I suggest we set up a sub-page to keep this page manageable. There has been a pitiful level of non-inkblot removal related discussion on this talk page and the article is suffering because of it. I saw the same thing on the Muhammad image removal debates, the article talk page got so blocked up with one issue that it would not function as an article talk page anymore. Once they moved the debate to a sub-page the regular talk page once again began to be used for constructive purposes. It is my hopes that moving this one issue to a sub-page will restore productivity to this page, and benefit the article. Opinions? Chillum 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the editors responsible for most of the actual non-inkblot related content of the article are the ones objecting to the inkblot. As long as no consensus re: the inkblots is achieved, the experts will have little else to discuss. I suppose exiling the inkblot conversation off to some subpage is your way of ending the debate.Faustian (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Again I note that you are falsely trying to claim that all the experts support the removal. If you have nothing else to discuss here, you have no point to even being on the page anymore, because you already lost decisively on the one thing you apparently give a damn about. DreamGuy (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of false claims all at once. I never claimed that "all experts support the removal." Actually I don't support complete removal from wikipedia of the inkblots. Secondly, name one expert involved here who does not support some sort of suppression of the inkblots. With regards to "the one thing I care about", well, when there is a wound the focus is on healing that wound before moving ontop to other things. I may have contributed more referenced content to this article than all of the one pushing to include the inmages combined. i would like to contribute more, but cannot if the article stands the way it is, because doing so - contributing to an article that harms people - is unethical and immoral. That's where I stand. And most experts would do likewise.Faustian (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Again with the speaking for "experts" (switching from all to "most" doesn't change anything). As far as naming an expert "here" goes, I'm clearly more an expert on this topic than MartinEvans123 is as he doesn't seem to know when the inkblots were made, if the ones being used now are the same ones Rorschach made, and other extremely basic facts about this topic. And as far as the real world goes, plenty of experts think the Rorschach is inherently flawed, so obviously they don't care if the images are here. And you'd have to be pretty addled to think this article could at all harm anyone. DreamGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is completely accurate to state that most experts involved in this debate urge some sort of suppression. The only experts on this topic are psychologists, and almost every identified psychologist involved in this debate supports suppression. This can be easily verifed thanks to Xeno's monumental work: [27]. Sorry if the facts don't agree with you. As for your own self-claimed "expertise", it is contradicted by obviously bizarre statements about almost nobody using the Rorschach or that its supporters are a "tiny minority." The facts, included in the article, are that 80% of psychologists who do work that could potentially involve the Rorschach (clinical psychologists performing asseszsment services) use it and that 80% of graduate programs teach it. Thanks for sharing that you, personally, as a nonexpert apparantly holding a fringe belief concerning the Rorchach's worrthlessness, claim that that "you'd have to be pretty addled to think this article could at all harm anyone." I guess the expeerts whose collective statements about the harmfulness of distributing test materials and stimuli are "addled", right, according to Dreamguy? As for the comment on Martinevens, there you go atttempting to reframe the debate by pretending I said something I didn't say. I said that almost all experts support some sort of suppression. Not that everyone who supports suppression is an expert. Nice try, though.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, where's that reference that tells us the inkblots created by Rorschach in 1921 are exactly the same as those now printed on the cards used by practionners today? There seem to be quite a wide variety of images, like this one: [28] which is described as having been "Bought to Rorschach Institute in the 80's and digitally restored by me." I have never claimed to be any kind of expert, so I'm afraid I can't be in any competition with your good self. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely any editor has the right to be on this page, unless they have been banned. But are experts considered "external forces" and thus not be trusted? I didn't realise it was about winning and losing. I thought it was an encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you guys have to stop pretending that "experts" means people who agree with you. This is an encyclopedia. You seem to want it to be the mouthpiece of some tiny minority of the psychology profession. DreamGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are the psychology profession experts who agree with you DreamGuy? Where's the evidence that "some tiny minority of the psychology profession" would think that showing the inkblot images is wrong (if asked)? Or even, where's the evidence that of those psychology professionals asked only a tiny minority think that? In fact - how many have we even asked? I thought it was being argued that experts such as these are seen as unwanted "outside forces" in wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus right now actually, a strong consensus, that is why the state of the images has been so stable for the last couple weeks. While ending this debate sure would be productive at this point, that is not my goal. Don't worry, once the Muhammad image removal debate moved to its own sub-page it continued for several months and several mega-bytes of text. Moving to a sub-page is not going to give either side any sort of advantage and I am not sure why you would think that. No, the reasons I gave are above, this article talk page is basically being held hostage by this all but settled debate and it is disrupting other work. I don't accept the dichotomy that the page will not be improved until we remove the images. Chillum 13:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There you go again with your false claims of consensus. There is no consensus. If there was, there wouldn't be a big debate.Faustian (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a big debate, just two people whining about some things that aren't even real concerns (and if they were wouldn't matter as far as our policies are concerned), and some sockpuppets. DreamGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, apparently falsely accusing everyone but two people of being sockpuppets.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You may not accept it, but there is a consensus, it is plain to anyone without a strong bias. The debate ended ages ago when new arguments stopped being brought up, this is nothing but arguing. Chillum 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is plain to anyone who hasn't read consensus policy or who seeks refuge in majority dictatorship. The fact is that 1/3 are ignored (20 people last time this was counted), in terms of the article layout. No compromise regarding the images has been brokered. All attempts at compromise have been shot down and argued against by you, with support from the majority. Thus, no consensus. No matter how many times you falsely claim there is.Faustian (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you seek outside scrutiny of this consensus? Oh wait that was already done and the consensus still held up. The consensus policy does not say that every opinion should be represented in the article, especially when it is completely contrary and incompatible with the majority of reasoned opinions. You did not win this debate, just accept it. Pretty much every compromise offered involves suppressing the images which is directly against consensus. A compromise should result in more people being satisfied, not less. Chillum 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There you go again with your straw man argument, once again falsely claiming that I stated that consensus means 100% agreement. It seems that you are willing to do anything other than actually address the policy points. We have a majority that refuses to compromise, thus torpedoing consensus (which is compromise). This majority is exploiting an inherent flaw in the system in that there is no mechanism to enforce consensus policy when the majority refuses to follow policy.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely this aspect of debate has been "dominating the article talk page" for so long only because people think it's worth debating? If people wish to debate other topics they should just start a new thread. All but settled? We are still arguing whether or not concensus can even exist unless the minority view has been accommodated instead of being voted out. Why should this debate disrupt anything? If editors wish to improve the article in others ways that is entirely their choice. Improvements of all kinds are worthwhile. But if they choose to debate image display, because they consider it the most important and fundamental question, that too is their choice, whichever side of the debate they support. I agree with Faustian that some people may well see the 11 images of inkblots and deem the whole article unworthy of their efforts. But Faustian should be thanked for at least improving this article throughout the debate despite his insistence that keeping the images here might prevent some others from doing so. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Only the few people who did not get what they wanted are arguing that there is not a consensus. Thank you Faustian for improving this article despite the presence of the images. This debate clearly is disrupting the regular editing of the article, a quick look at the archives shows that. Why do you think that moving to a sub-page would be disadvantageous to your side of the debate? It seems like a neutral move with the best interests of the article in mind. Chillum 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and many people who got what they wanted are saying there is "strong concensus". Is that a surprise? We seem to have different views on what concensus is. The archives are full of debate on the display of images because that's what people wanted to debate. I don't think moving to a sub-page would necessarily be disadvantageous to either side. But I still think it's unnecessary and that the reasons you are giving for doing it are not robust. Let's see what others think. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There's consensus on the inkblots, consensus on the consensus and consensus on the meaning of the word consensus. What next, we have to demonstrate consensus that there's consensus of the meaning of consensus? IT'd be beating a dead horse at thios point to point out that you're beating a dead horse. Enough. DreamGuy (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All horses still quite healthy, thanks. Chillum was trying to discuss moving image discussions to a sub page? Not a stub page. And you already at the glue factory. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What is that even supposed to mean Martin? Chillum 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That is supposed to mean that I disagree with DreamGuy. In my view the horses are not dead, let alone being beaten. To me DreamGuy sounds here like a Knacker, taking away these horses for boiling down into glue. And it was supposed to mean that your thread here, Chillum, was created to discuss moving to a sub page, not concensus about images. And I still don't know what a stub page is. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy can't seem to make any accurate statements today.Faustian (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of what is accurate and isn't has been shown to be completely worthless. DreamGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

your opinion, as accurate as all your others.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Faustian's opinion of what is accurate has been shown to be worthless at all. And he has made some very useful contributions. I suggest that you apologise for such a derogatory remark, DreamGuy. Chillum - if a sub page was produced for image discussion, would someone need to copy all those places where discussion cropped up about images in other threads (as this certanly tends to happen)? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lets see what others think. Chillum 18:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support the move of this discussion to a subpage.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support as well. Lets be honest here, this debate is being maintained by five or six editors at this point: Gary, Chillum and DreamGuy in support of them, Faustian, Martin and Ward (though he hasn't edited in about a month). You six have combined for nearly 2200 edits to this talk page, which is well over half of all edits, and I would be very confident in betting that at least 80% of those edits are related to the image issue. This little battle royale you have going here is completely overshadowing any topic that focusses on the article itself. Moving this private war to a sub page will allow you to continue rehashing your debates while also allowing other discussions to breathe. Resolute 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support the creation of image discussion page. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Further Discussions

I agree with Chillum that the use of sub-pages could be helpful. I'd like to see separate sub-pages for each argument: the 6 PRO and the 6 CON. Each sub-page could have a watch function that we could subscribe to. A better organized talk page (or sub-talk page) means a better organized article.

I'd like to point out that there are a number of discussions that are still open.

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

talk:Rorschach_test##06 Argument Pro - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.

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

talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #3 - It interferes with the workings of another profession

talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.

talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #5 - It violates Wikipedia policy on indiscriminate collection of information.

Also be aware that I'm proposing a new policy called Wikipedia:Involuntary_Health_Consequences. Please come and discuss it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Great idea proposing a policy. We can get some input from the community as to what they think of these ideas. Chillum 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

re the subapge idea: I think it might work. we could transclude all the active ones and even "noinclude" the upper portions of the argument as time passed (that everyone had time to absorb already). This way someone new could go to the transcluded subpage to see all that had come before in that particular debate or "line of argument", as it were. It might get a little messy, but it can't hurt to try. –xeno^talk 03:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)