Talk:Rorschach test

All 10 images

Moved to /images#All 10 images

Recently archived discussions

How many kicks at the can?

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

Inline citation for inkblots needed

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

A note to the newly arrived editors

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

Summary of archives

Archived to /Archive 8#Summary of archives - if necessary, continue discussion below

US Copyright law

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

c:

Sockpuppet investigation

Archived to /Archive 8#Sockpuppet investigation - if necessary, continue discussion below

Lead para about ethics

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

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

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

Further Discussions

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

Streisand effect

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

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

Archived to /Archive 8#RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? - if necessary, continue discussion below

New arguments go here

Moved to /images#New arguments go here

Image of Hermann Rorschach

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

Picture of Hermann Rorschach

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

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

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

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

data on scientific status

Archived to /Archive 9#data on scientific status - if necessary, continue discussion below

A quick reality check

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

Proposed policy by Danglingdiagnosis

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

Completely unrelated, but...

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

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

A new look at old arguments

Archived to /Archive 9#A new look at old arguments - if necessary, continue discussion below

Social Irresponsibility

Archived to /Archive 9#Social Irresponsibility - if necessary, continue discussion below

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

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

Comments from a designated representative

Moved to /images#Comments from a designated representative

Sanity Check

Archived to /Archive 9#Sanity Check - if necessary, continue discussion below

Lots of attention

Archived to /Archive 9#Lots of attention - if necessary, continue discussion below

Perhaps Citizendium could help?

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

A compromise informing the reader about health concerns.

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

Merging from Exner scoring system

It doesn't really look, to me, like the Exner scoring system is WP:notable in itself when untied from the Rorschach test. If I am correct about this, then it belongs to the main Rorschach test article, at least for now; if some day the article becomes too long (including detailed descriptions of other non-Exner methods), then it may deserve being split again, since it's common and accepted to split overly long articles even when it results in non-notable offspring; but that's not the case for the time being. --LjL (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the regardless of the notability of the Exner scoring system, that it belongs in this article as it is so directly tied to the subject. If in the future the information on this scoring system becomes larger it can be split out, but what is there right now would make a great section in this article. Chillum 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the merger, since there don't seem to be strong opinions either way. --LjL (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Another kind of damage

Beyond the damage caused by exposing the images, there is also potential damage creeping into the article by information that overemphasizes fairly trivial aspects of test interpretation (in the Exner system, that is). This Wikipedia article is slowly reaching the level of misinformation that other grossly inaccurate websites have reached that have made extremely misguided and inaccurate recommendations to potential test-takers (such as an infamous website directed toward parents involved in a custody evaluation; if the advice of that website is followed, the test-taker will give a more pathological Rorschach). I'm sure that those on this talk page who really have only a superficial understanding of the Rorschach will scoff at my comments here with the usual refrain that if I don't agree with something then I should fix it. But I don't intend to get into the endless edit warring and absurd discussions, the net result of which will be absolutely no improvement because the experts here are far outnumbered. So the misinformation, quite sadly, will remain in the article. My only purpose in creating this section here is to let the world hear from an expert that the amateurs continue to erode the article. So reader beware: don't think you're getting any good ideas about how to take the test, unless your goal is to produce a pathological or invalid set of test results. Ward3001 (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia does not directly "give recommendations". If one chooses to interpret its descriptions as such, for some reason of their own, that's their problem.

2) Yeah, the answer is "so fix it", and, no, you won't get reverted if you just follow the long and proven tradition of not removing content but instead adding other content that offsets the "POV" with another (putting "POV" in scare quotes since I doubt it's strictly a matter of POV here, but the concept still applies).

--LjL (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at you LjL (although you are entitled to write in the section). As I said, it is directed at the naive reader who may try to use the article to figure out how to provide "correct" responses (and all the Wikipedia policies make no difference to that reader or the consequences of his/her reading the artcle). Quote policy to your heart's content, but reader again beware, these policies do nothing to remove the misinformation that has been added to the article. Ward3001 (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the reader is so naive (no offense to the reader!) to believe there's a "correct" response they can provide by reading a Wikipedia article, then I suspect that reader will be unlikely to come read this talk page, in the first place... --LjL (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how documenting common answers is in any way a recommendation. If we say "these are common responses" and people read "use these answers", then they are not acting on our content, but their own will. If someone is actively seeking out the "correct" answers, that is their issue. We are providing verified data and describing it in an accurate context. Chillum 00:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again to the naive reader: I didn't make any reference to "documenting common answers". Ward3001 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the more this debate rages on the more attention we draw to these images. http://stats.grok.se/en/200907/Rorschach%20test It seems like the discussion itself is doing harm to the test now :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reader, look in some detail at this talk page, including the archives. Notice the usernames and the comments. Look in their edit histories to see who has made contributions to psychology-related articles. Get an idea about who might know something about the test beyond what could be found by reading another encyclopedia article on the Rorschach. Come to your own conclusions about whether I (or anyone here) know what I'm talking about. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Being an expert in psychology does not necessarily make one an expert on Wikipedia inclusion practices. So I guess it depends on what one means by "know what I'm talking about". Someone can be very qualified in the field of psychology, but in the field of interpreting Wikipedia's goals, practices, and policies can be frequently incorrect. I for one am glad that interest in this article is increasing, and I am also glad that we are not limiting our information for these new readers. Chillum 00:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at "Wikipedia's goals, practices, and policies". This particular section is not about you or me. It's intended for readers who might consult the page for information and then regret it later. For the purposes of this section, Chillum, I don't care if you think I'm a complete idiot when it comes to "Wikipedia policy". As long as the reader gets the message, then think what you wish about me. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between ignorance and apathy. I am sure you know our policies and practices, it just seems that your own point of view is more important to you than them. I would quote a passage from our conflict of interest policy that is relevant, but I know you are not ignorant of that either. Chillum 01:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again reader, reach you own conclusions about who understands the Rorschach. Not who understands the finer points of Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start a blog if you wish to make personal messages to the Wikipedia readership. We present our content to the readers based on consensus here, we are not in the practice of being a web host for personal opinion. Chillum 01:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, consensus is not necessary to raise an issue on a talk page. Now, I have made my points to readers about being quite cautious about reaching accurate conclusions about the Rorschach by reading this article. And I'll also add for the reader that this little debate about Wikipedia policy has done nothing to remove the misinformation in the article; I just checked, and it's still there. So I don't intend to respond here to an intellectual debate here that has nothing to do with the information I have provided to readers. If you wish to carry on a debate about policy without me, be my guest. Ward3001 (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with Ward's assessment of the current state of the article and its apparent trajectory. Have fun with it. As I said before, my understanding of my legal obligations (the APA ethics code is part of the law in my state) and Wikipedia's policies is that at this point, I literally cannot touch this article. I came to this discussion hoping to find a way to balance the two, so that I could help to make the article more accurate and more useful to the reader, but it seems that other agendas are dominating. Sigh. Mirafra (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see you realize there is a WP:Conflict of interest at work here that (perhaps regrettably, perhaps not, not up to me to say) prevents you and others here from getting involved with certain aspects of the article (I'm not sure, at least from the Wikipedia side, it prevents touching the article at all, but if you say it does from the APA side, then I guess it does). --LjL (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification About the Rules of this Debate

I see that someone has added what they are calling the most common responses to the picture of the first card at the top of the page. I saw no discussion of whether this would be an agreed upon addition. I disagree with the addition of this type of material in that I think makes the article even more harmful to the test and individuals who use the test (practitioners and patients alike). I would like to have it removed, but my understanding is that unilateral removal of material gets you sanctioned and attacked. This seems like a double standard. Am I understanding this correctly that one can unilaterally add material but not take it away from a hotly contested page? If so, this seems highly illogical. Can someone please clarify this issue to me. And I also move to take down the numbers and percents of the responses to card 1 down. Dolphinfin (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What exacty are the numbers representing? It is not clear from the caption. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And I (strongly) disagree with the fact that before adding facts about the Rorschach to the article I should consult anyone. Seriously, sue me. The number are representing frequency, I thought the caption did mention that. --LjL (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong I think it is okay to at info. The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach inkblot test, with the three most statistically frequent mentioned details indicated. is a little vague is all.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did want to keep the caption reasonably short. How about "with the statistical frequency of the most popular details indicated"? (yes, "popular" is a term used in the literature) (and I'm not getting you wrong, I'm just more than a little itchy about people seemingly saying stuff should be censored) --LjL (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but the term "Popular" in the Exner system has a different meaning (with significant implications for interpretation) than the general use of the word "popular". So again reader beware: much of what you are reading reflects an uninformed interpretation of the concepts rather than actual knowledge of the test. Ward3001 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We say that these are the three most popular detail but what are these details?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... the ones pinpointed by the numbers? --LjL (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As to your continued "reader beware", Ward: this is a talk page, not a forum or a bulletin board where to advise "readers" of things. It wasn't even particularly funny the first time. If there's inaccurate content, fix it if you want, go find something else to do if you don't want. --LjL (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong LjL. This talk page is a perfectly appropriate place to point out the problems in the article. Read WP:TALK. So, your telling me not to write here is both inappropriate and pointless. I will make comments about the article on this talk page as I deem appropriate. Ward3001 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But you aren't pointing out any problems, you're just WHINING that there are problems, while refusing to either address them or explain exactly what they are, because you believe (perhaps rightly) it'd be a WP:COI for you. Enough. "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." (WP:TPNO)

Dolphinfin, please see WP:BRD. If you disagree with a bold addition, you may revert, and then discuss. The caution against "unilateral removal" mostly pertains to the images. –xeno^talk 13:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't need consensus to perform the regular editorial practice of adding relevant verifiable information to an article. Ward, if we are lacking in detail please fill in such detail. I don't see any actual reasons why there is objection to this information other than more vague references to harm and being uninformed. If the information is wrong somehow then show us how with reliable sources. If the information is right but you just want it held back for some reason then a very convincing reason will be needed(hint, "it may cause harm" is not very convincing). Chillum 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't object to anything, Chillum. I simply pointed out the misinformation so the reader will know that it's in the article. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything; that's a pointless endeavor. I'm trying to help the readers understand the truth about the quality of the article. And no, I can't edit the article for both ethical and practical reasons (the practical reason being that I don't wish to repeat several years of edit warring and worthless discussions that will not result in any improvement in the article). So it's up to you non-psychologists to find, interpret, and summarize the reliable sources. Ward3001 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So leave us alone. If you "can't" or "won't" touch the article (see WP:COI, then feel free to consider this none of your business, seriously. --LjL (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again LjL, don't tell me to "leave it alone". My comments are appropriate, and as an editor I am entitled to make them. There is no policy violation. Ward3001 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

An "editor"? An "editor" is someone who "edits". You already said you won't edit, so it's no use complaining without either addressing or precisely indicating the issue you're complaining about. And as for policy, I think "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." is clear enough in WP:TPNO. --LjL (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ward, this is the page to talk to other editors, not other readers. If you are not talking to us but instead our readership then you are in the wrong place. You are saying it is misinformation, but you are not telling us how or why. This page is for editorial discussion not protesting. If you think trying to convince us is a pointless endeavor then just move one, don't carry a sign up and down the street proclaiming how wrong we are, or at least do that on your own website. Chillum 14:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again, Chillum. This talk page is for anyone who wishes to read it, including readers who decide to read it after reading the article. And I am not protesting. I am writing about the problems with the article, which is precisely what a talk page is for. It's interesting that after the psychologists were driven away from editing the article, now you are trying to stop us from commenting on the talk page. But Wikipedia doesn't work that way. I am not making my comments for you specifically, Chillum, unless you wish to read them. I am making them for anyone interested in the article. If you don't want to read my comments, feel free to skip over them. And the harder those who have a stranglehold on this article try to push the psychologists away, the more obvious it becomes to the world why this article is in such bad shape and getting worse every day. Ward3001 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is in fact not a forum or soapbox for discussion of a topic, it is only for improving the article which you appear to have given up on in favor of pushing a point of view. Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech rather it is project to write an encyclopedia. At least start your own thread if you are not going to participate in the existing discussion. This debate is difficult enough without one-way off topic declarations in the middle of a discussion. Chillum 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a tag that can be put onto the article, like the nuetrality tag, warning the reader that much of the article is nonsense? Or would that be covered in the disclaimers?Faustian (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a "factual inaccuracy" tag, but, given it'd be (if I'm not too mistaken) stuck with respect to sourced material, it wouldn't survive very long unless you were willing to point out what is factually inaccurate and how to make it accurate. "Tag and run" doesn't really work in this case. --LjL (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

General agreement to move the inkblot debate to a subpage

See: Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 8#Propose moving "removed the inkblot" debate to a sub page

My reading of my query regarding moving this debate to a sub-page in the interests of giving this article breathing room is that it was for the most part accepted. I would like to quickly confirm this before going ahead and doing it. I feel this is a neutral move that is in the best interests of the article. Discussion can continue, but it has become so large that it cannot share its space with other topics. Please, just re-iterate your feelings on this idea so that I can take action with the desire of the community in mind. Chillum 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Which threads are you going to move? A lot of them are dormant and should just be archived in the usual way. –xeno^talk 15:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the debate actually about inkblots anymore? Unless I'm just overreacting, it seems to me like the (textual) additions I recently did to the article are being attacked with claims that they should be subject to censorship. What do we move? --LjL (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)