Talk:Rorschach test

All 10 images

Moved to /images#All 10 images

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

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

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)

Recently archived discussions

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

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

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

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 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

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)

• An interesting suggestion. So folks could port the article over to Citizendium, removing the images in the process, and work on improving the content free of the concern that they are improving an article that causes harm... And then the folks here could import the improvements... (but wouldn't that still have the same concern, as the improvements at Citizendium would eventually trickle down here...) –xeno^talk 18:58, 23 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)

Congratulations on improving this article without triggering pages of controversy, this is an impressive accomplishment. Chillum 02:47, 24 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)

I just removed the offending picture. Does Wikipedia have to violate criminal law to press a point about a test whose validity is, at best, dubious? Especially when the described points, if used by as naive reader, will give them a more pathological score than would otherwise be the case?jonathon (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you think twice before accusing editors of "violating criminal laws" like this. --LjL (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

More theoretical harm could come from viewing the Snell eye chart than from viewing these images. What if someone was to see the Snell eye chart memorize it, than fool there doctor into giving them a license when they connot see. They could than go out and run over a young girl or something... Should we at Wikipedia be protecting the world from this possible harm?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. Two distinct kinds of harm arrises from the wikipedia images. One kind is comparable to the eye chart. Just as a person can memorize the eye chart and misuse that information, so a person (say, a pedophile - a lot of forensic psych consults involve those people) could actively use this article to try to "beat" the test. According to you, such cases are not wikipedia editors' problem. As the rules currently stand, you may be right. Does that mean we must should follow them in such a circumstance?

There is another kind of harm, however, in the case of the Rorschach images that is not true of the snell eye chart. It is passive rather than active. It is not merely giving tools that enable people may make personal decisions to harm others. Ratherm, they are harmful in and of themselves. Just viewing the image harms results for the test. Not by memorizing them or otherwise actively using them - just by seeing them. This is differnet from the Snell eye chart. Glancing at the eye chart it is not going to impair one's test; one needs to expend the effort to memorize it, and even then one can say whether or not he can read the letter (with my memory, I always know them when I see a line with my other eye). OTOH one cannot "unsee" an image. In other words, if putting the Snell eye chart is handing someone a loaded gun that they may or may not misuse, the Rorschach image in the lead is pulling the trigger on someone just for opening the page.

If the very fact of glancing at the eye chart would harm its usefulness for the individual, would you still want that image in the lead (rather than some other location so viewers would have an informed choice). Faustian (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, it has been said by the SPA/ISR representative that the problem isn't really casual exposure to the test, so I personally would dismiss the notion. But regardless of that, no; I would be quite ready to move the lead image to another location, under "Method" for instance, because I don't really see a drawback in doing that (we could use the cover of Rorschach's book in the lede perhaps)... BUT as long as that's not taken as a precedent for censoring images or other information, or for using disclaimers, because it wouldn't be one (but I know by experience some people can very easily jump to weird conclusions, so I'm wary). --LjL (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say the the SPA in User:SPAdoc's name stands for "single purpose account" and is likely not a representative. I recommended that he contact Wikipedia through official channels if he wishes to act as a representative, however I got no response.

Regarding the lead image, I would only support moving it if a better lead image was found. We talked of this in the past, perhaps an image of the test being administered. Chillum 21:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Xeno did mention that their identity was confirmed. Anyway, I'm sorry, but I didn't think of bringing a camera... and I doubt the psychologist would have been very happy if I had! ;-) How about something like this, anyway? It has the advantage of showing how the blots were actually created, and I believe the whole symmetry-by-folding-the-paper is very much associated with Rorschach in the mind of several people, so that would be a representative image. --LjL (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very good improvement in my opinion...as would be the cover of Rorschach's book. I do not think it would set a precedent because there are two distinct issues reflecting the two types of harm involved. The second type of harm (from passively seeingthe image) can easily be addressed without removing any images from the article: just show the images after the discussion about what seeing the image is all about. This would not be censorship as the images would still be in the article, nor would disclaimers come into play in this case, as the information about harmfulness is encyclopedic.Faustian (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm concerned that some people in other articles (test-related or otherwise) would start saying "hey look, the folks at Rorschach test did manage to get things changed because something shouldn't be seen by people, so we can also change things for the same reason!". After all, comparisons with the Islam, Muhammed and whatnot articles have been made here (perhaps sometimes knowing little about how things actually went in those articles). So I really, really need to stress I'd accept this "compromise" only because, not seeing any drawbacks to it, I don't see it as a compromise. I appreciate Chillum's concerns that the image should be "good", though - if it's encyclopedically "worse" than the current one is, that could easily be seen as a drawback. --LjL (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with compromise as long as no policies (such as censorship) are violated? I have trouble believing that anything other than some sort of compromise with Muslim editors has kept Muhammad's image off the Islam article. Off the entire article - which does seem to violate censorship policy (can you think of any other reason why there is not a single depiction of the founder of Islam on the Islam article?). If we were to move the image of the Rorschach, the change would be much less controversial than on the Islam article - the image would still be in the article, after all.Faustian (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not on the same wavelength; that's what I'm saying, and the reason why I'd accept this solution to begin with: the image would still be there, there is no major drawback (for me). But I'm also saying that I would really hate this "concession" to be misinterpreted. There's nothing wrong with compromise per se, but in this case, I don't believe the "no censorship" policy should be object of any compromise whatsoever, and so I would hate to set a precedent; as you say, it's not a real precedent since there would be no actual censorship taking place, but people are quick to "misinterpret" things like this.

Now, these people are probably in other articles currently thinking about other stuff, so it may seem pointless for me to say this, but... I say it nonetheless; I'd like to be able to quote myself the day someone wakes up and starts censoring things with the excuse that "you agreed to doing that on Rorschach!" --LjL (talk) 22:28, 24 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)

I most certainly did point out problems. I pointed out that the use of the term "Popular" is not done in the way that the Exner system uses it. I pointed out that minor aspects of test interpretation are being overemphasized. Those are problems with the article. If you consider raising issues of legitimate weaknesses in the article "whining", then every talk page on Wikipedia has mostly whining in it. Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I am a registered Wikipedia editor. I edit articles on Wikipedia. There is no requirement that I edit the Rorschach article in order to make legitimate comments about problems in the article (and by the way, I have made major contributions to the article in the past). Please show me the policy that says I must edit an article in order to comment on a talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one, but there is the policy that I just mentioned above, which does tell you to avoid forum/board/blog-like comments. But you know that by now, you've only been told three times. --LjL (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And there is the fact that I have not used this talk page as a forum. Your calling my comments a forum does not make my comments a forum. I have pointed out problems in the article (each one several times now, so don't ask me to repeat the same problems again). Ward3001 (talk) 16:12, 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)

I am not using this talk page as a forum. I am pointing out weaknesses and other problems with the article. Your calling my comments a "forum" does not make them a forum. Try as you may, Chillum, you will not stop me from making such legitimate comments on this talk page because I am doing absolutely nothing against policy. If you wish to continue objecting to an editor (who in fact understands the Rorschach) from making comments related to the quality of the article, that's fine, but it accomplishes nothing except to show anyone reading this talk page what kind of attitudes of suppressing information exist here. So it's your choice to either ignore my comments, try to fix the problems that I point out, or continue making pointless comments that are an attempt at suppressing legitimate comments. Ward3001 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For the Nth time - if you're willing to point out which weakness and problems you find, then by all means do. If, on the other hand, you are not prepared to do that, but merely want to say "there are problems" without either addressing them or even caring to specify what they are, then you're treating this page as a soapbox and a place to make irrelevant statements to some undescribed "readers" (this isn't your blog, you know). And that's not OK. --LjL (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And for the Nth time, I did point out the weaknesses and problems: "Popular" is not used in the article as it is used in Exner's system; minor aspects of test interpretion have been given too much weight. Those are problems. I cannot read the Exner volumes and other sources for you, nor can I reproduce them here. If you need more details about these problems, please consult the sources. Ward3001 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Popular" means responses given more than 1/3rd of the times, according to my sources; that term is using only once in the article (and even assuming for some reason that it's used in the "wrong" way, it can very easily be read as a common term without any misunderstanding at all), so I'm really not sure what you're on about. --LjL (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clearly you're "not sure what I'm on about". Thanks for pointing that out. That's the point I have been making to readers of the article. Many of the recent edits are not based on a full knowledge of the Exner system. Ward3001 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the readers have surely got your point now. What astonishing arrogance, by the way. --LjL (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume by "astonishing arrogance" you mean I may have given the impression that I know more about the Rorschach than some other editors on this page. If the fact that I have studied it for 30 years, read about 300 journal articles and every major book on the topic, administered and interpreted about 600 Rorschachs, and taught the topic to medical students, psychiatric residents, and doctoral psychology students, is "astonishing arrogance," then so be it. That's not an attempt to place "credentials over argument", it's simply a response to the accusation of "astonishing arrogance." I'll assume it's not a personal attack, although I myself prefer not to use the term "astonishing ignorance" because I don't expect someone who has not studied the test to know very much about it. I'll let the readers come to their own conclusions. Ward3001 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I obviously don't see anything wrong with you knowing more than others about this test. That's good, of course. I referred to the fact, however, that you aren't sharing this knowledge, but saying - arrogantly, in my opinion - "go read the sources instead", or "it's obvious" (not actual quotations), while being on a place that would allow you to just go and edit the article. But you won't. So the net result is that you're just belittling others with your knowledge, rather than using it to actually contribute. I call that arrogance, and while I certainly don't mean to personally attack you gratuitously, I do believe this has to be said at this point. --LjL (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So maybe I have misunderstood. Do you expect me to read the Exner and other sources for you? Do you expect me to reproduce entire chapters or journal articles here in violation of copyright laws when the sources are freely available in most university libraries? And please don't respond with a simplistic "summarize the sources". An adequate summary of the sources pertaining to the problems in the article would quadruple the length of this talk page several times over. I have edited articles outside my field of expertise, and if something I wrote was challenged, I never once told other editors to find my sources, read them for me, and give me the information so I could fix the problems. I either let others fix the problems who knew what they were doing, or I did the heavy lifting by actually finding and reading the sources. Remember, I'm not the one adding the misinformation to the article. Those who wish to edit the article (I would hope) need to do the work to improve the article. Go to the sources. Read the sources. Seek advice for what you don't understand. And then fix the article. Otherwise, your choice is to leave the article as it is, or settle for a mediocre article. Ward3001 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I do expect you to provide precise sources and rationales, if you actually want to uphold my sourced additions of content. Otherwise, you may as well keep quiet. WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it's understood that the article as it stands is not perfect and is going to be improved. Summarizing the sources isn't feasible? Well, but yes, it is, it's called "editing and improving the article": you summarize and cite. You aren't prepared to do that, for whatever reason? Then please, leave those who are alone.

If, in the past, your sourced (were they?) edits to other articles have been challenged or reverted without the person doing that providing sources to justify that, then they were in the wrong, not you. If you have been led to believe the burden of proof is on you merely because you are not the "expert" on a topic on Wikipedia, then you have been defrauded. --LjL (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sources that you can start with are already cited in the article, or find any of Exner's volumes. If you don't find what you need in those I can point out other sources you can read.
"Summarizing the sources isn't feasible? Well, but yes, it is, it's called "editing and improving the article": you summarize and cite. ": So now what you're asking me to do is to make the actual edits on this talk page so that you (or someone else) can then copy the information into the article. Well, no. That would put us back to square one. First, that would essentially be me editing the article but letting someone else put their name on the edit. I can't edit the article, whether directly in the article or by letting others take the credit for my edits. And secondly, I really don't think one editor copying what another editor has written into an article is very good (or honest) writing style. So if you or anyone else wants to improve the article, I repeat that you need to do the actual work. Find the sources. Read the sources. Seek clarification if you don't understand. And then fix the article. It's really very simple.
A final word for now: I don't intend to debate whether I have a right to make legitimate comments on this talk page any further. I debated the contents of the article ad nauseaum, but I don't have to get any consensus for commenting here. So I will continue to comment as I see fit. Others can either ignore it or comment on it. But I will not continue to respond to comments that challenge my right to discuss here or that do not pertain to the issues related to improving the article. And I also have no intention of telling others repeatedly to read the sources. The sources are easy to find. Others can read them and improve the article or ignore them and let the article continue to deteriorate. Ward3001 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why, but no, I'm not "asking" you to do anything. You may choose not to edit the article (or feel "obliged" not to edit it). The point is that that's not my problem, and I can easily keep saying "just edit the article instead of complaining on this talk page". You "can't" edit the article? Fine, then leave us alone! For goodness sake! Go find another encyclopedia that you can edit! Meh. --LjL (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Leave us alone"?? My initial comments were never directed toward you or any specific editor; they have been comments about the article. It's only when others tell me I can't say or do something that I continue to respond. So there's no one to "leave alone". If you stop telling me what I can and can't do or say here, then I'll stop responding. "Go find another encylcopedia"?? No, I'll continue commenting here; you can either read my comments or ignore them. Ward3001 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Or I can keep insisting that commenting in these non-constructive ways ("the reader must know", "the article stinks [but I won't tell you how to improve it]", etc.), because you aren't willing to (or in the condition to) contribute the way a normal editor would, is in violation of WP:TPNO. --LjL (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I will not continue defending my right to comment here about problems with the article (clearly not a TPNO vio), or defending the legitimate ethical constraints that prevent me from editing. But I will continue making comments about the article as I see fit. Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 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)

If everyone could take personal arguements to personal talk pages it would be appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Ward3001 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am personally uncomfortable even with pointing out the specific mistakes in the article (other than the apparent plagiarism I note below), given that a more accurate article would then be even more of a violation of test security. It feels rather like I am being asked to be an accessory to an ethics violation. I would not engage in sabotage, but I certainly am not compelled to assist in the project.

There are, essentially, two options here. (1) A page that is accurate but restrained in scope, that is informed by the knowledge of experts but that gives careful consideration to the ethical issues. (2) A page that is expansive in scope and is as accurate as the amateurs can make it, without help or hindrance from experts. The professionals have repeatedly offered to assist in project (1), but the amateurs have made it clear that they would prefer project (2), believe strongly that it is more within the realm of their vision of WP, and believe that they are up to the task. Certainly, they've taken up a lot of space saying so.

It's quite a lofty aspiration, and I think that, as with many complex subjects, the potential pitfalls of overincorporation are nontrivial, but, well, I think they've given the matter significant reflection.

Please let us know if there are other pages you intend to treat in similar fashion, because I'd rather focus my time on places where I can be helpful. Mirafra (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to tell us you will not be participating in this article. It is my sincere hopes that you can find an article to edit where your personal ethics are not an issue. Chillum 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra, I understand your concerns about the ethics of pointing out specific mistakes and weaknesses in the article, but I think there's a bit of flexibility in the ethics here. Pointing out the mistakes and weaknesses in the article (1) allows future non-psychologist editors who wish to go to the trouble to find the sources and fix the mistakes an opportunity to do so, thus improving the text of the article and minimizing the misconceptions that are currently promulgated by the article; so far, of course, no one has actually accepted that responsibility, but that doesn't mean some dedicated person might not step in and do so; in any event, however, pointing out the mistakes per se does not worsen the problems already in the article; and (2) it lets readers who move from the article to the talk page know where the problems are in the article so they can reach their own conclusions about whether to trust the accuracy of the article. But I respect your concerns, and I'll certainly listen to anything further you have to say about this matter. Ward3001 (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not meaning to say that any professional coming to a different conclusion about what they feel comfortable doing is necessarily violating the ethics code. I think there's room for difference here. It's just where my personal line is getting crossed. I don't want to be drawn into a game of twenty questions. Mirafra (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have recused myself from articles due to my professional status as well. I sell books. Chillum 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get people to think about a more generalized agreement about secure tests is that, even more so than for the Rorschach (because of the copyright thing), to create good pages for those tests is likely to be at least facilitated by some access to the secure sources. That means putting in some careful thought about how to explain things in a way that is clear and comprehensive to a lay reader (on the logic that a professional reader would go to Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook and the like long before they'd come anywhere near WP) and that also respects test security. I don't think the two goals are necessarily in complete opposition. We can talk a great deal about what a test measures, a certain amount about how it does so and why, and certainly all anyone could want to know about various forms of validity and reliability, without publishing test content. We do it all the time in testing reports. I like talking about tests and how they're built -- it's an area of geekery for me. But if the open hostility towards the tests themselves or to psychology as a discipline (as I saw in this discussion) is going to result in active vandalism of other tests, too, then I'd rather leave the test articles the way they are (most are just stubs or even nonexistent, or what's there is just copies of the information available from the publishers' websites) and work on articles about theory and therapy. My guess is that the Rorschach is, well, a Rorschach, or at least a lightning rod, for various popular anxieties about psychology, and IQ tests are never going to be uncontroversial, but that no one has the kind of emotional investment in most of the other tests. Certainly their talk pages are a lot quieter. Mirafra (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra, I don't have any specific pages in mind right now (although I've been categorizing psychological test articles a bit lately), but yep, I'm definitely going not to feel restricted in adding encyclopedic content that I feel appropriate and that no guidelines advice against including, to any article, psychology-related or not. I'm definitely not going to restrain myself and avoid adding some otherwise relevant content just in order to not upset the "experts". --LjL (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As I stated previously almost 50% of physicians use Wikipedia to look up clinical information. I assume the same would apply to pyscologists. So I think it is more likely professional readers will come here before they march of to their local university library to dig through the stakes.

The number of pyschologists who have visited this talk page is also proof of the frequency they are using Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that psychologists don't use WP. But the information a psychologist would want to know know in order, say, to decide which of several competing tests to order, or to understand what is written in a report about the results of a test they're not familiar with, does not require breaking test security. Like I said, there's an overwhelming amount of good information appropriate to an encyclopedia reader that can be shared with no ethical concerns at all. Mirafra (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The part that really turns my stomach is the concept of "appropriateness to an encyclopedia reader". The idea that it wouldn't be up to the reader, but to you (a general "you"), to read or not to read some information, is so totally, utterly extraneous to my mindset. --LjL (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a combination of information for a broad audience. There is information that a general reader would like to know; such as what do these ink blots look like and what do people think they are. And hopefully information that would help refresh the memory of a professional. Therefore censorship and attempts to restrict the scope of this article goes against the purpose of Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes LjL, I agree. The whole concept of "I know that you should not know this" is a rather unpleasant and self-important idea. Chillum 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not fit well with the Western psyche. Having a group try to tell use what we may and may not know is sort of big brother / communist like. Reminds one of the novel 1984 (book)

I am sure many are now going out of their way to see these images specifically because a group is trying to restrict access to them. This discussion persists partly because it deals with the question of intellectual freedom. We will never agree to return to the dark ages.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing unpleasant or self-important about seeking restriction of information in certain cases. I wonder if some of the outrage about daring to want to keep some information private has to do with normal rebellion against authority among younger people. In experiments involving new medication, would you support, for the sake of the principle of no restriction of information, informing subjects whether or not they are taking placebos? What would doing so mean to the utility of those experiments? Nothing good. Would you, doc james, for the sake of "intellectual freedom" support someone trying to distrubute information about who is or is not given placebos in experiments also? I suspect not.

By their very nature psychological tests (not just the Rorschach) require unfamiliarity with the material to work effectively. This necessity is pretty narrow, basically limited to the test stimuli themselves and the answers to the test. People seeking to limit the stimuli aren't arrogant in doing so; they want to minimize harm to the test takers themselves should they come across the images, and to society in general. As pointed out, tests are useful in terms of helping predict suicidality, risk to oneself and the community, etc.Faustian (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is deemed unethical to tell a patient they are getting a drug and to give them a placebo even though the placebo may help them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, not in controlled double blind experiments, not really (although I'm pretty sure in those cases the subjects know they may be given a placebo, though they don't know if they actually have).

Faustian, don't you see how there can easily be a difference between the "ethics codes" of a group and those of another? They have different goals. Wikipedia is not about conducting double-blind tests with placebo, it's about providing information and knowledge. And as I said above, you give placebo to subjects who know they're partecipating to an experiment, anyway, not just to any patient who's asking for actual medication. That'd be fraud. --LjL (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not seeking to misinform readers by showing fake inkblots and claiming they are the real ones, so comparisons to fraud are inapropriate here. My point here was not about ethics but about the claims of arrogance on the part of those seeking to limit harmful information or comparisons to the dark ages. And ethics codes are not some sort of game played by people within the field, or buraucratic regulation. They exist for a reason - concrete prevention of harm. Although all psychologists here seek to limit the info not all of those seeking to do are psychologists. Danglingdiagnosis, for example, is not. Seeking to limit information in the form of test materials is no more arrogant than seeking to limit information in terms of telling test subjects they are taking a placebo, or for that matter not putting up people's social security numbers and home addresses, in which case one can eaily argue that it is freedom of information and that if someone wants to do something bad with the info it's not the poster's problem (wikipedia at least has explicit policies against posting personal info, but that's a much less obscure topic than psychological tests).Faustian (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You were the one talking about fraud with regards to this article. I was talking about fraud with regard to the possibility that patients might be administered placebo without them being aware of that possibility.

A comparison I find bogus, on the other hand, is that with personal information. They're simply not encyclopedic in most cases (and when they are encyclopedic, they do get added, that's called a WP:BLP; we have those). But here we're talking about hiding scientific and prima facie encyclopedic results. About limiting research to those already in the field. About making it impossible for curious amateurs to obtain actual genuine (rather than "similar" fabricated) information. Sometimes I almost think it's ultimately a matter of preserving a caste, but I hope not. --LjL (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, you are making statements about "preserving a caste" that indicate that you see the motivation has to do with something other than causing harm. The only results which ought to be hidden are those specifically that would harm people. Results about test validity, on whom the test would be useful or not are not an issue here. For every curious amateur who will never have to take the test, there will be some who will and who came upon the page and were forced to see image that may not have wanted to see (perhaps not knowing, before coming to this page, that seeing the images would impact their test results). There are btw ways of addressing this problem without removing the images from wikipedia. Taking the image out of the lead, where anybody who comes upon the article is forced to see it, would be one step. But there has been no effort to do so on the part of the majority. It's not about arrogant people trying to keep their secrets because they think they're better than everyone. It's about people seeking to limit harm.Faustian (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, although I hate to bring up "national security" (because I think that much of what is restricted under that aegis probably should be unrestricted or at least subject to a lot more public oversight than it has been -- there I suspect that we agree strongly), I'm willing to concede in principle that there are times when that kind of information might be relevant to restrict.

And another example, perhaps the closest analogy. Forgive me if I get minor details wrong, but as I understand it, most computer systems have a set of permissions and privileges. People who have demonstrated the ability to do useful things and not cause too much damage are allowed to gain greater levels of access. Ordinary users don't get that kind of privilege. Sometimes limitations to access are made by a good-faith agreement (you'll note that I made no attempt to remove information from the Rorschach article or from any other testing article, because I recognized that to do so would have been unnecessarily contentious), sometimes they are made by actual forms of lock and key (passwords, etc). And people can often move from one level of privilege to another -- there are different means by which that happens. For instance, WP has a system by which people become administrators and gain additional privileges, such as the ability to block a user who is abusive. In general, people gain access to privileges by demonstrating to those who already have the privileges in some formal or informal way that they are both competent and trustworthy. People who gain access against the will of those granting access are viewed as doing something bad, particularly if what they do is intentionally or unintentionally destructive (writing viruses, etc). It's a guild structure, just like psychology, just much more informal and with much more fluidity of role.

I don't know that there is a huge push to publish all of the passwords and methods by which computer systems could be trashed. Certainly, I'm sure that there is plenty of academic discussion about methods (I seem to recall quite a kerfuffle a while back around some MIT students who published a paper on how to abuse the MBTA Charlie Card system), and I would hope that the folks passionate about exploring psychology's secrets are just as passionate about publishing detailed information about the ways in which computer systems can be compromised. I can see how vigorous dialogue around these things could be helpful in improving computer security over time. But someone who published information (say, a username and password that would give open access) that would easily let someone trash WP itself would probably not be too well-accepted on WP, no matter how many times they claimed that WP is not censored. That's not an academic discussion of methodology, that's just inviting people in to screw things up.

Where the analogy breaks down is this. Computer systems are much more agile than psychological test systems. We can't just "change the passwords" or "rewrite the protocols" when something is somewhat compromised. (We do have a system for blocking users who abuse privilege, but even that works quite slowly by computer standards.) Or rather, we can, but to do so requires many many years, many many dollars, and many many extensive research studies to be re-done, before we can have a hope of restoring the system to its previous state. I've been involved with the relatively simple process of updating and renorming standardized academic tests (revising is easier than writing new, and academic tests are much easier to develop than cognitive or personality tests, because the constructs we're trying to measure are much better understood and agreed upon) -- even that takes several years and big bucks and thousands of volunteers. The process is being done all the time (and there is research being done on how the new position of the Rorschach in the public domain may be affecting things), but it's slow, slow, slow.

The more that folks actively try to compromise tests, the more frequently this process must be done -- that has the effect of bogging the researchers down in the process of continually creating new and potentially unreliable and invalid tests to replace the old ones, which pulls resources away from other potentially more useful research tasks (like, say, doing research into which therapy methods are most effective for helping people get better, once we've used the tests to help us figure out what the problems were). Also, decreasing the useful lifespan of a test has the effect of reducing people's willingness to spend that kind of money to do it at all, thus making the problem worse rather than spurring innovation. That's why we're generally asking people to choose to play nicely, to talk about the tests in ways that can be comprehensive, encyclopedic, critical, thoughtful, interesting, and useful, without compromising the security of the items and answers. Not because we hate you, or think we're better than you, think you can't handle the truth, are trying to control you, or any of that nonsense. We're just trying to be allowed to do our jobs without interference. Anyone who is truly interested is welcome to come study -- it's a field that has many career-changers (I'm one myself). Mirafra (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"I don't know that there is a huge push to publish all of the passwords and methods by which computer systems could be trashed." - here you are very mistaken. In information technology, there is actually a huge push to try exploiting systems and publishing the security problems found; there are whole organizations dedicated to this. Breaking cryptographic systems is actually a key component of the whole research about cryptography, and there have been several prizes in money put up to encourage people to try and break a new system, in order to hopefully gather evidence that it's secure, or otherwise realize it's not before there is damage.

Perhaps it's because I'm much more into computer science than psychology that I see your mindset about this all the more extraneous. I do believe the winning mindset in science is much more like what I have described, though.

(As for national security and the idea that content on Wikipedia should be analogous to security levels in either government stuff or general computer systems, I won't comment on that because I would go way too offtopic). --LjL (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I said "I don't know" because I don't know the details of it. I'm pretty aware that the field of computer security works in the way that you describe. My point is that psychology cannot work that way -- it's just logistically impossible. Mirafra (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. And that's Wikipedia's problem again, because...? --LjL (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ethical conduct, or the lack thereof. If a psychological test was a computer, compromising the security means having to re-invent the computer hardware from scratch. Starting with something that preceeds the abacus.jonathon (talk)

That didn't happen to computers to such dramatic extents, but it has to some extent, think cryptography. Computer scientists were generally glad that 1) they had something new to invent (yay) 2) they'd found out about the security issues with what they had. --LjL (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonathon has the point exactly. Thanks for making that clear. Mirafra (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the reasons security software engineers make their code publicly available is so that it can be vetted and hardened. Security through obscurity is a myth, it is surprising how relevant this is to the current discussion. Chillum 02:00, 25 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)

• I've gone ahead and moved the active discussions to /images. I adapted the top notices from the Muhammad pages, but I think they could probably use some more tweaking. Feel free. –xeno^talk 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, the page loads much faster now. Chillum 17:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism?

Parts of the page appear to be copied without attribution from http://www.rorschachinkblottest.com/inktest.php. Mirafra (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Which parts? Chillum 02:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that some of the first paragraph is common in content with the link you gave. It is attributed to "Gacano & J. Reid Meloy 1994", I wonder if perhaps both Wikipedia and this other website share this common source? Does anyone have access to this source to confirm? Chillum 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• There may be a lack of attribution, but it's more likely the website not attributing Wikipedia. That paragraph existed in our article since its genesis in 2003 [1]. The website is dated January 7, 2007; here is our article just days prior [2]. Look familiar? –xeno^talk 02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, really, just happened to notice it. The Gacano and Meloy book is highly technical, intended for readers already expert in Rorschach interpretation. Not sure why basic statements like that would be in it. Mirafra (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of sites copy stuff from wikipedia without attributing it to here.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, yes a lot of people copy our work without attribution. 2003, not bad. Chillum 03:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Silly peoples... They just better hope they're not in my classes... I'm a serious hawk on those things. Mirafra (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

More misinformation

For what it's worth to anyone interested, more misinformation, overemphasized details, and information that is distorted because it has been inserted out of context continue to creep into the article. So if anyone in the future wants to fix these problems, look at the time this message was posted and review all edits made in the last 24 hours. Exner's volumes are the best sources to locate the explanations needed to clean up these problems. (And I have no intention of arguing about whether this is a legitimate comment -- it is -- or whether I have an obligation to fix the article -- I don't -- or whether my identification of the problems is accurate -- it is.). Ward3001 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder, though, why you think that the readers and editors at large here are so stupid that they won't read this article critically or refer to the sources in case they need validation of the information they find by themselves, without you pointing out such obvious things to them. --LjL (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a lie. If you lie about me again I'll consider it a personal attack. I don't think readers and editors are stupid. And if the problems are "such obvious things", they never should have been put in the article in the first place. Try to bait an argument all you want; I don't intend to argue. Ward3001 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to reframe it as just funny. And an interesting illustration of the power of the Rorschach to reveal personality. Mirafra (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Geez Ward, that criticism is so vague I cannot do anything constructive with it. You say there are things wrong with the new additions but you do not say what specifically is wrong. Is it that the information is factually incorrect, or that you just don't think it should be in the article? For someone who does not want to argue you sure are taking a contrary stance fairly often. Chillum 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat I'm not arguing about this, so it's likely that this is my last comment in this section. Read my comments in the previous sections. I've been through this matter repeatedly in previous sections. I cannot legally reproduce the sources here. I will not read and summarize sources for other people, especially if the summaries would be extremely lengthy. I cannot ethically do the necessary rewrite on this talk page and let someone else copy it into the article. I have stated in general terms that the recent edits add misinformation, overemphasize details, and distort information by taking it out of context. Someone who truly understands the Rorschach, especially the Exner system, can read the edits, read my comments, and very quickly realize what I'm talking about. For someone who has little knowledge of the Rorschach, it could take hours of explanation to even begin to explain it. The very fundamental problem here is that a person who has not studied the Rorschach extensively cannot read a few pages out of a book (and not even know if it is a decent source to begin with) and then try to write something in the article that makes sense or fairly represents the subject matter. And I'm sorry, but I can't help that someone with little or no real knowledge of the Rorschach is attempting to add information to the article. I have very little knowledge of astrophysics, so if I look around for a book on the topic (and have no idea if it is worthy source), read a dozen or so pages (and maybe or maybe not understand it in the context of the entire field), then try to edit the article, it would stand to reason that my edits likely would be quite problematic. That basically appears to be what is happening here, although I can't assume how much any particular editor here has read about or understands the Rorschach. So the only solution, if someone is willing to step forward and do so, is for someone to do what I have repeatedly said needs to be done to fix the article. Someone needs to find the best sources on the matter (in this case, Exner, Volume 1), read the sources in detail, seek clarification for what they don't understand, and fix the problems in the article. But please, Chillum, with respect, don't give me a "Geez Ward" (although that may have been done in good faith) as if I am creating the problem. Don't blame the messenger when the messenger (me) did not make the problem edits to begin with. This is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit. That doesn't mean that an editor has any idea what he/she is doing, but I'm afraid I can't change that. And I can't change the ethical constraints on me. But I can point out the problems with the article, which, as they arise, I will continue to do. Now, that's probably my last word on this matter because I don't want to get into an endless argument, especially one virtually identical to the ones in some of the sections above. Ward3001 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you keep repeating "Exner Exner Exner" (not saying that's not a good source, it certainly is), may I point out to you that Europe, for one, by and large does not employ the Exner system? --LjL (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You got that tidbit from the Wikipedia article. It's a misleading comment. Other systems are more widely used in Europe than in America, but the Exner system is the most extensively used system worldwide, including Asia and Europe. With respect, your very comment reflects a profound lack of knowledge. I don't expect someone who hasn't studied the Rorschach to have much knowledge about it, but please don't assume you know what you're talking about just because you read it in the Wikipedia article on the Rorschach or you read a few pages out of a book. Ward3001 (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not really, I got that from the many sources I've read through these past days. I barely noticed it being in the Wikipedia article. I'm Italian, and the Italian version of this article also says the same thing (and one would assume it'd be written by Italian people more or less familiar with Rorschach), for what is worth. Also, keep in mind that, while no disrespect was taken, starting a sentence with "with respect" doesn't really add any respect to it. --LjL (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're wrong about the relative frequency of Exner compared to other systems in Europe, and I'm not arguing any more about Exner in Europe. That's my last comment about that particular point. And I'll use "with respect" when I choose to use it, whether you understand my meaning or not. Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed, "with respect" did not really help that comment avoid sounding incredibly condescending Ward. Chillum 00:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, you're probably the least constructive contributor to this debate I've encountered. --LjL (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting into name calling and other personal attacks, as LjL has now successfully made a personal attack, which I'll again dismiss as done in a somewhat heated discussion. But my caution stands. Stop making personal attacks. And, Chillum, if you consider my comments condescending, all I can say is that they were not intended to be, as I don't consider it condescending to point out why I think someone who does not understand a topic (including me) would find it very difficult to make good edits on a topic. And that's my last comment on the "condescending" and "with respect" issues. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And mine was not intended to be a personal attack. You're simply not being at all constructive, and that's hardly an attack but a sad observation. --LjL (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not giving in to argument-baiting. Ward3001 (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you even start this thread if you don't want to discuss it? Chillum 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that most threads are started. To point out issues, in this case problems, with the article. Arguing is not the same as discussing. I'm not arguing, including with you about this particular point. Ward3001 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, fine. If you are willing to discuss but not argue, will you use the art of discussion to enlighten us to what specifically you object to? Simply casting dispersions vague criticisms on what had been done by other editors is not helpful if you cannot offer a solution, or at the very least be specific about what you are referring to. Nobody can help address you concerns if you do not properly communicate them. Chillum 02:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean "aspersions". I have not cast aspersions, and I would ask that you not characterize my behavior with that description (I won't say "with respect" since you find it offensive when I do, but I honestly intend no disrepect). It is not casting aspersions to point out a problem in an article, and to point out the underlying basis for the problem (i.e., one or more editors making edits without adequate knowledge). Note I have not said that anyone is stupid, dumb, or other derogatory term; I have simply said that it does not appear that someone making some edits has the adequate knowledge to do so; that's not an aspersion; as I said, I don't have adequate knowledge to edit many articles, but it would not be casting an aspersion to point that out if I made problem edits. And I would make the same comments if Jimbo made the edits, or if Freud came back to life and made the edits. It's nothing personal about the editor; it's simply a fact of someone making edits that have problems. This point, however, is not something that I will argue with you about; if you consider it casting aspersions, then we simply disagree. Ward3001 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I did use the wrong word, though I also did not mean aspersions. My point was than your criticism lacked a constructive element. You are clearly objecting to something, but it is not clear specifically what. There have been a lot of changes recently and all you are saying is that we don't know what we are doing. That is not helpful towards improving the article. Please just be specific with your concerns so that they will at least have a chance of improving things.

You seem to be saying that nobody can be qualified to make such edits, so tell me why, tell me what is wrong with them. Yes I know you don't want to argue about it, how about we discuss it? Chillum 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Give me the diff in which I said that "nobody can be qualified to make such edits". Someone who has read and understands Exner Vol. 1 most likely can fix the problems. And see my response to Xeno below as to why I have given the limit of what I can ethically give about the problems without playing 20 questions about each specific word in the problem edit, which is tantamount to me doing the rewrite one word at a time, which I cannot ethically do. I'm not repeating this again: to fix the problems, read Exner Vol. 1. I can't do that for you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

When you listed off how all those people including Freud himself would not have the adequate knowledge to make such edits, I figured that is the point you were trying to make. I suppose it is that Freud did not read Exner Vol. 1? I don't think there is a problem with the additions, so I don't see why the burden of fixing them should be on me. Chillum 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Give me the diff in which I said Freud would not have adequate knowledge. You figured wrong. I said IF Freud made the edit, I would have responded the same way. And beyond that, I was making an analogy; the point is that I was not personalizing my criticism of the edit. It doesn't matter who made the edit; the problem is still there. And I never said the burden of fixing the problem edits is on you. You figured wrong again. I said that anyone who wishes to fix the edits, whether you or anyone else, needs to read Exner Vol. 1. It would help tremendously to cut down on the unnecessary discussion here if you would not assume you know what I'm thinking (e.g., Freud) and if you would not read meanings into my comments that are not there. Now, unless you make some more inaccurate comments about me, I think I have discussed these particular points enough. Ward3001 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving unhelpful sections?

• This section begins with a complaint too vague to be helpful to improving the article and descends from there. Should be archived. R. Baley (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no objections. --LjL (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Vagueness is not the criterion for archiving. If a section is not edited for a certain period of time, archiving might be appropriate. But it has only been a matter of minutes since this section has been edited. If it is archived within an inappropriate time frame by anyone except an admin, I'll unarchive it. Ward3001 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, archive it. It is completely unproductive and the purpose of this page is only to improve the article. What is the point of that section Ward? You make complaints then refuse to discuss them. Chillum 00:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm revising my point here. If someone wants this archived, seek that action by an admin. Xeno would be a good choice; I trust Xeno's judgment. Otherwise, if it is archived inappropriately I'll first unarchive it, then if the archive is repeated, rather than edit war I'll seek action by an admin. Ward3001 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume that by an administrator, you mean other than R. Baley or myself. I also trust Xeno to make the determination as to if this section furthers the purpose of improving the article(the only appropriate use of an article talk page). It does not now, however if you decided to be a little more specific about your objections it could still be salvageable. Chillum 02:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would not include any admin involved in the discussion because that would be overstepping one's role as an admin. I thought admins knew not to take such actions if they are involved in the conflict, but thanks for raising that point. And you are wrong that this section does not further the purpose of improving the article (that is the very reason I created the section), but this is another point that I will not argue with you about. Ward3001 (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think Xeno is not involved in this discussion(because R. Baley seems far less involved), or is it simply that we both trust his judgment? Archiving a page is not an administrative action anyways. Administrators don't get special authority to decide such things, they just have a few buttons that they use in furtherance of policy and consensus but that is all. Otherwise we get the same say as anyone else. Chillum 04:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's true we both trust Xeno's judgment. But Xeno is not involved in this dispute about archiving. If he were, I would not suggest that he should be the admin consulted about this issue. And I never said archiving is an administrative action or that an admin does not have the same say as anyone else. Ward3001 (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there is no point in making another two pages of debate in favor of archiving a couple pages of debate. It really is hard to keep this page down to a reasonable size. Much of this talk page lacks content relevant to improving the article. Archive it, don't archive it, but I can't keep not arguing with you about it. Chillum 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. There's no point in having a useless archive debate subsection that adds unnecessary length to the talk page. And I haven't been arguing. Interesting that I repeatedly have said I don't want to argue and now you conclude that we shouldn't be arguing. Glad you finally agree. Ward3001 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually he said he can't keep arguing, he didn't say anything about you. --LjL (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know what he said because I can read. He concludes that he can't argue. I have said repeatedly that I will not argue. The general conclusion is that we shouldn't be arguing. Ward3001 (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I said "I can't keep not arguing with you". This thing you call not arguing seems very much like arguing to me, but whatever it is called I can't keep doing it as it is not helpful to the article. Chillum 15:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If I have been arguing, it is because you and LjL have repeatedly tried to personalize this section into issues between the two of you and me. I would have been perfectly content to make my initial statement in this section, then let the chips fall where they may as to whether anyone wishes to read the sources and fix the problems. But I have been challenged and pushed every time I point out a problem edit. And if no one responded to my initial statement, most likely in a week or two it would have been archived. As Xeno suggested below, everything that came after my initial statement in this section is pointless. I didn't ask for the arguments or try to provoke them. They were thrust on me; perhaps I should have simply ignored you and LjL. That may be what I do if this situation arises again. So please be aware: if I ignore the two of you in the future, that doesn't mean I agree with you or accept what you have to say as valid. Ward3001 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the section needs to be archived, but it would help, Ward, if you were a little more specific. There have been a good number of changes in the last 24 hours. I think the pointless arguing could be archived to the page history, i.e. just removed wholesale. For the record, I no longer consider myself to be "an uninvolved administrator" in that I've been editing the article, and also participating in the debates. I have tried to remain neutral, but I would no longer take administrative actions or make edits with an administrators' hat (like the ones I made in late May). –xeno^talk 15:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of recent additions

Thanks Xeno. The most problematic edit is this one. By no mean is that the only problem edit in the article, but that is the only major edit in the 24-hour period that I referred to above, which is why I thought it was clear which information I was referring to. I hope you can understand why I can't fix the edit myself (for ethical reasons), and why I can't do the rewrite here so someone else can then copy it into the article, and why explaining the problems with the edit to someone who has not read Exner Vol. 1 would more than quadruple the current length of this talk page. Someone who has read and understood Exner Vol. 1 will quickly know why I consider the edit to be such a problem. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the edit that contains the significant problems and ask anyone who wishes to fix it to go the best source, read it, and fix the problems. If that cannot or will not be done, the only suggestion I can make to improve that edit is to remove it completely. That's about the only way to deal with overemphasized details that can lead to misleading conclusions. Similarly, randomly pulling a few bits of information out of the context of the entire interpretive system and placing them in the article can lead to misleading conclusions; if it wasn't for ethical restrictions, I could fix those problems with a bit of rewriting, but I can't tell anyone how to fix that unless they comprehend the entire context of the interpretive systems. If neither of my suggestions to fix the problem will be done, then the only other possibility is to leave the misinformation in the article, but that doesn't mean that I cannot or should not point out that there is a problem. That is exactly what a talk page is for. It's up to others (either now or in the future, possibly by an editor who has not yet read this) whether they wish to heed my suggestions. The basic problem is that we are dealing with incredibly complex material that apparently has been written about without very much knowledge of the context provided by the interpretive systems as a whole. My analogy of me trying to write about astrophysics applies; I don't understand the field of astrophysics, so if I pull random information from writings on the topic without the proper knowledge to explain it, I will make some problem edits. As Mirafra said, just as it is unethical for me to edit the article, it is unethical for me play 20 questions here simply because others do not wish to go to the trouble to read the sources and fix the problems. And finally, to the others who have repeatedly criticized me here (that does not include Xeno), this message is in response to Xeno (and I'll be happy to respond to inquiries on my talk page from Xeno). I don't intend to respond to others who only make the same arguments with me that have been made above.

And I agree that almost everything that came after my initial statement pointing out that there are problems is pointless arguing. I have no problem if that is removed, but not my original statement at the beginning of this entire section. Ward3001 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Like Ward says he's not talking to me, I'll make it clear I'm not talking to him. I'll just ask everyone else, though, if they want, to check the sources I've provided for that edit about determinants, see how there is a "Determinants" chapter in one of those sources (so a whole section about them is hardly unjustified; if anything, more section should be added about other things that are probably as relevant), and ensure that I have not introduced statements that were not actually in the sources. That the sources are wrong is something that I cannot exclude, but it seems to me that they meet the requirements for reliable sources; if Exner contradicts them, though, that might not necessarily mean that they're wrong, because they (and the section I added) are not really about the Exner system specifically. --LjL (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh - those sources are all on Google Books, so it should be easy to check them out. --LjL (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes LjL, I don't see any problem with the sources you have presented. If another source is contrary, or simply provides more context then we can represent that as well. I don't see Ward saying what you posted is wrong, I see he says it is overemphasized and could lead to misleading conclusions. It seems his concerns are more with a lack of context than with accuracy, it is hard to tell since his ethics prevent him from playing 20 questions. Since Ward does not want a response we will just have to proceed without him. I do not object to anyone adding context or alternate reliable and verifiable points of view in the interests of being informative and neutral. While this would improve the article, I also think that the recent additions are an improvement in their own right. Chillum 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)