Talk:Rorschach test

Recently moved image discussions

Moved to /images#All 10 images

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

Moved to /images#New arguments go here

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

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

Moved to /images#Comments from a designated representative

Utterly cool-headed correction

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

Recently archived discussions

/Archive 9#Perhaps Citizendium could help?

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 9#Merging from Exner scoring system

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 9#Another kind of damage

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 9#Clarification About the Rules of this Debate

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 9#General agreement to move the inkblot debate to a subpage

if necessary, continue discussion below

/Archive 9#plagiarism?

if necessary, continue discussion below

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)

Extended discussion on style of above suggestion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

On ethical concerns

• I don't think the section needs to be archived ^{(I've collapsed it, though)}, 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) ^{strikesuperscript added about 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)}

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)

I understand your ethical concerns and why you feel you can't edit the article directly. Please don't take this the wrong way, but have you considered the suggestion above, to fork the article (without the images) to a wiki with a compatible licensing system? In this regard, you could create an article that you felt accurately represented the Rorschach test as it is used today without worrying about it causing harm due to misinformation and/or too much information. Of course, with proper attribution, editors here would be able to import your work. I'm not sure if this would still present an ethical dilemma for you. Other than that, I think formal mediation may be helpful, which I've suggested below. Perhaps someone with a background in psychology with the time to read through these sources and help ensure accuracy is being maintained and expert opinion is given consideration in the article. I simply do not have the time to research these volumes and make an informed comment about your editorial concern.

The unfortunate thing is that anyone with an "expert" level of expertise in this subject is likely going to share your ethical concerns - even to the point of withdrawing their voluntary service to the article. I wonder though - is it better to have an article that harms any future tests the reader may take doubly?... both because they have been exposed to the images and misinformed about the test and the way it is conducted? It would compound the harm exponentially. It seems to be in the interests of greater good to participate in the editing process directly to mitigate the harm of misinforming the reader, even as other editors have made the decision to show the images. Jmho. –xeno^talk 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I did notice your earlier suggestion about Citizendium. I can't claim to have much knowledge of Citizendium, but some things concern me (if I am mistaken in any of this please let me know). First, Citizendium requires actual names to edit. Given the level of animosity on this talk page (my impression of it anyway), I don't care to be targeted personally by some Wikipedia editors who could easily make the connection between Ward3001 and my true identity if I edited Citizendium. Secondly, if some of us create an article without the images at Citizendium, others here could then easily add the images to that article, and we're back to square one.

I understand what you're saying about double harm (images plus misinformation). And it is certainly true that the potential for harm has increased even after the images were added because of bad information added to the article. But my understanding of my professional ethics is that I cannot lend whatever credibility I would to an article that has so much potential for harm. I do, however, think it's appropriate for me to point out problems on this talk page as best I can, which is what I have been trying to do, despite being challenged every step of the way. I really think someone without formal training in psychology could improve the article if they went to the trouble of reading enough information to understand it. Ward3001 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people will easily be able to add the images (or other content psychologists won't like) on Citizendium, as there is a concept of an expert original editor: see Citizendium#Policies and structure for more information about that. On the other hand, you do need to provide your real name, precisely for Citizendium to be able to verify that you actually are the expert you claim to be; otherwise the whole construction couldn't work. I do think you would like it, though, given the emphasis you seem to place about actual expertize on the topic at hand. --LjL (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, expert oversight (on some topics anyway) in some ways will produce a superior encyclopedia, all other things being equal. Google's Knol also has some potential in that respect. But my concerns about some Wikipedia editors targeting me personally concerns me enough that I doubt that I would edit a Citizendium article on the Rorschach. But that might be something I sugguest to some colleagues. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I figured the desire for continued anonymity would be a major limiting factor. I don't blame you for not wanting to give it up. –xeno^talk 19:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of recent additions

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)

Formal mediation filed

was: Formal mediation?

The heat in this conversation has risen considerably since the slashdotting. I think that pursing formal mediation may be a good next step in this debate. (I realize other forms of mediation have been tried in the past, but perhaps this time we'll actually follow through on it?). Unless someone objects to mediation in the next little while, I'll see about having someone lend us a hand. –xeno^talk 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with an outside perspective. I'll also point out that the slashdotting is not the only thing that brought additional opinions to this talk page. The Society for Personality Assessment picked up on the problems (and not by any suggestion by me); SPA has a good communication network. That has undoubtedly brought some editors in who have not commented in the past. Thanks for all your help here, Xeno. Ward3001 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully welcome any outside perspective on these series of debates. We really do need some sort of structure for these debates so that we can get to the other side of them. A debate is fine and well, but it should reach a conclusion at some point and I think mediation may help that. It is clear that without any sort of outside guidance that we are not making much progress. Chillum 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and filed the mediation case, I think it's a useful next step: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test. Since so many folks have participated in this debate, I've only named as parties those with 10 or more edits to This talk page in the last 15 days. But if anyone else wants to list themself, please do so. –xeno^talk 20:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in formal mediation very much, but I do welcome outside opinions. I have a question for Xeno about whether this is an appropriate issue to include: "Is it acceptable for experts (call us "self-identified experts" if the term is objectionable) to point out specific problems edits, the general nature of the problem (e.g., minor details are overemphasized that can lead to erroneous conclusions), and possible reliable source(s) that address the problem(s) identified, BUT without the "expert" violating his/her professional ethics by giving specific details about how the problems should be fixed? Or, on the other hand, are "experts" not allowed to point out specific problem edits if the experts cannot (because of ethical restrictions) give more details than what have just been described?" (Basically what I have done recently but met with resistance.) If that is an acceptable issue for mediation, how should it be added to the mediation page? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither have I, Ward. I'm not even sure if it can move forward at this point; one of the participants I added has already declined. I did include Other concerns related to disclosure of test material, as a "catch-all" to the issue you described. Though, I'm sure people won't mind you pointing out problems you see as long as you can be somewhat specific. i.e., a layperson should be able to follow the evidence and fix the problem. –xeno^talk 20:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest adding SPADoc as well, and sending him information about what this all entails, since he's very much a newbie. Although he's not a high-volume contributor, he's someone whose voice should really be heard.

Ward, I think the issue of how you would like to involve yourself or not in the editing of the page is a very specific thing. I would also respectfully suggest that the process you're suggesting (you tell people where the problems are but refuse to fix them) is going to be seen as against the culture of WP -- not that I'm much of an expert on that, but it seems that it's not being very well-received. Plus, I think it does get very easy to get drawn into 20 questions. Anything you could say that would be clear enough for a layperson to follow up on would be perilously close to simply making the edits. I know, it's tough to have to sit here and watch this happen, especially to something one is passionate about. (Puts a new spin on "security through obscurity," eh?)

Also, I would like to formally request that Dreamguy refrain from name-calling and other verbal abuse, especially if he's going to participate in mediation. Everyone he's accused of being a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet recently (since I've been in this dicsussion) has been shown not to be. I have found the tone of many of his comments to be offensive, putting a strain on my ability to assume good faith. Mirafra (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If SPAdoc wishes to add themself as a party, they can do so. –xeno^talk 03:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Who has been shown not to be? Chillum 03:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't follow? –xeno^talk 03:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mirifra has said "Everyone he's accused of being a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet recently (since I've been in this dicsussion) has been shown not to be", I was wondering who has been shown not to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I know we are assuming good faith for a few people, but I don't know of any suspected account to have shown themselves not to be a sockpuppet with the exception of danglingdiagnosis who is clearly not a sockpuppet(has been editing medical articles since long before this debate in 2006, should never have been accused). I think the jury is still out on a few of these new accounts. Chillum 03:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a wide net, that. By Wikipedia's definition, a meatpuppet could be any psychologist who joined the debate strictly to argue against display of images whose colleague mentioned it to them. And with the case of Zeitgest and Psychology12345, we know that colleagues are discussing Wikipedia's decision to display Rorschach images (sometimes getting misidentified as sockpuppets!). Maybe even on a board or mailing list somewhere. I don't think there's any sockpuppetry going on, though. –xeno^talk 04:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't share that confidence of yours. I do think there is sock puppeting going on, and I think it has been demonstrated that there is meatpuppetry going on. Regardless, it does not really matter in regards the mediation. Chillum 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the continual attacks along the lines of, "Well, I can't answer your substantive points, so I may as well claim that you don't have a right to an opinion," have really gotten in the way of having any real dialogue. Walking into mediation with that attitude openly displayed is not great for either showing that one is assuming good faith nor for evoking a desire to assume good faith in others. When doing, say, family or couples therapy (which has a lot in common with formal mediation in that the goal is not to impose an outside solution, but to encourage the warring participants to engage in real dialogue with each other so that they can move forward), one of the first things a therapist would do would be to put a moratorium on open and implied personal attacks. This is an article about a professional topic. The psychology professionals should not be getting told that they have no right to an opinion just because there are more computer geeks than shrinks editing this psychology page.

Glancing back through the archives, what it looks like has happened is that a large number of professionals have come here, tried to talk about issues, and been driven away by the process- and policy-oriented nastiness. The "consensus" you keep speaking of seems to have been, in part, engineered by virtue of the technique of yelling at earnest and well-intentioned people who disagree until they give up and go away. I know, people are entitled to stay or go as they please, but most people, especially those whose jobs are such that we don't get to sit on computers all day, will tend to have limited tolerance for an environment which does not welcome thoughtful dialogue.

Meanwhile, the fact that the goalposts keep getting moved is just not good for any kind of feelings of good faith. I note that recently, the argument was over the presentation only of Card I, while now the presentation of all ten cards plus various information purporting to be about common answers is the facts-on-the-ground. Mirafra (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that (the last part) to imply that, if you had it your way, we'd have to get your "permission" or "approval" before adding any content, including textual content, to the article...? If so, that's a slightly unreasonable expectation in my opinion.

Also, i "like" yhow you put it as "purporting to be". It doesn't "purport to be anything" but what it says: frequent responses, or, as the source says, the "table of Beck's populars" (want me to change it to state exactly that?).

--LjL (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not fair to imply that we have not given due consideration to those who wish the images removed, we as a community have heard out their arguments over and over again for about 2 years now. We have addressed each of their points more than once, more than twice. You may find the reaction to these points souring as they are presented a third, fourth, fifth, and even nth time. Nobody likes to eat the same meal every day, and the same debate can be just as tiresome. It has been weeks since an original argument has come about(other than fork to citidenzium(sp?)). The only people who have been chased off are those who cannot deal with not getting what they wanted. Those capable of dealing with not getting what they want are still here.

Many of the people who have come here and left were single purpose accounts created for just this debate, when they don't get what they want in this debate they have little other use for Wikipedia, you can also assume some of these single purpose accounts are the same person. Also, several of these professionals have left due to their own private ethical concerns.

Regarding the increase in content on this page, that is a good thing. At Wikipedia we want the informational value of the article to increase. You say "purporting to be about common answers", do you have any indication that this information is not correct? I have seen some people post objections to it claiming a lack of context, but is it actually wrong? Chillum 13:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I cannot play 20 questions. I have already said that there are numerous incorrect and misleading statements on the page, and that I do not feel comfortable making any statements identifying which ones those are. I continue to feel that the quality of the page to inform any reader would be increased (and its obscurity would be decreased) if the professionals were allowed to write within our ethical guidelines. Actually, from my point of view, the whole thing is kind of funny.

Regarding chasing people off, it seems to me that if you keep hearing the same arguments over time and keep running the people who make them out of town, that those arguments should also be considered as a form of serial consensus. Consensus shouldn't be formed on the basis of who is willing to take the most frustration and abuse. There's been a large "professionals not wanted here" sign put up on this page, and I've said I'll respect that, even while thinking it ludicrous that people who couldn't even get my jokes could write a decent page on the topic. Wandering around, I see that this is not a novel problem for WP. There's this weird "us" versus "them" dynamic, where professionals are being seen as not part of the community -- that quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mirafra (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think Ward said he could not play 20 questions, not you (although I suppose it might be relatively clear the same would apply to you). --LjL (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your insistence on not being specific with your concerns makes it unreasonable for us to address them. Also, who exactly has been chased off Mirafra? Nobody has ever said "professionals not wanted here", you are basically making that part up. What we have is a situation where we are not obeying the commands of professionals, we have not been swayed by their arguments, that is very different than not welcoming them.

When did you say you would not play 20 questions? Ward said it a few times, but I don't remember you saying you would not play 20 questions.

I am sad to see that you think our attempts to write the article are ludicrous, and even sadder that your ethics prevent you from being constructive here, it is also a bit of a shame that those ethics don't prevent you from popping by and telling how much you disapprove of us. Chillum 15:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good God Almighty people! Read the damn talk page. Mirafra said he would not play 20 questions. I got the phrase here from what he wrote. The insipidness of this particular point is a very good illustration of what this article has sunk to, and continues to sink. Ward3001 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my ethics require that I take at least some reasonable steps to try to maintain test security. And I've been trying to convince y'all to work with us so that we can write a better page together. I see that you're uninterested, and I hope you enjoy the prospect of teaching yourself everything there is to know about this very complex test and its 90 years of research history, and then explaining it all in clear language for the reader. I think it's a fool's errand -- not that it can't be done, but to refuse to engage in any constructive dialogue with people who could actually help you is ill-advised, and we're seeing the results of that. An introductory course on Rorschach administration and interpretation is generally a year-long doctoral-level course, that comes after one already has other training in test administration and interpretation. Mirafra (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dialog would be wonderful, but you are telling us that your ethics make you not feel comfortable making any statements identifying what is wrong. I can't see why you would accuse us of refusing to engage in constructive dialog when you just finished stating your ethics prevent you from doing so yourself. Chillum 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that I couldn't talk with you under any circumstances. I just can't talk with you under the current circumstances. I'd be breaking the law in my state and jeopardizing my livelihood. If we can come to some kind of agreement that allows me to talk with you, I'm happy to do so. Mirafra (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Letting us know what specifically you think is wrong with the article and how it could be improved would be a good start. Chillum 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've said already that I don't believe I can do that without further contributing to the violation of test security. That's the whole problem here. What I think needs to be done is that the article needs to be rewritten by someone who actually understands the test. But those of us who do are bound by professional ethics (which in many states are also state laws) to protect test security. I believe that the article can be made much better, much more informative, much more clear and accurate, but I cannot contribute to that process while other editors insist that test security cannot be respected. Mirafra (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, make it completely hot air that's well-written enough to trick people into thinking they've learned something about the test when they actually have not?

If this sounds too sarcastic, it's merely because I'm wondering: given that from sources I read, even stuff like the examiner asking "was it color that suggested that to you?" rather than just "which aspect of it suggested it to you?" would ruin the test results... how can we say anything at all real/meaningful/informative about the test without "breaking" it for readers? I'd really like that explained. --LjL (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you are saying Mirafra that we cannot create an article up to your standards because the only people capable of doing it will not? We will just have to use our own standards in place of yours. Chillum 22:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's painfully obvious, Chillum. It has reached sub-encyclopedic standards already (and I don't just mean Wikipedia's standards). How much lower do you plan to go? Ward3001 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep on disparging Wikipedia on Wikipedia, way to go. --LjL (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't refer to Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia has some superb material in it. I was just commenting on the sad decline of the Rorschach article. But, keep at it. We'll see how it looks in a week or two. Ward3001 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the "and I don't just mean Wikipedia's standards". --LjL (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And how is that disparaging Wikipedia? Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the article improve significantly over the last few days. Chillum 01:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. The article sinks lower and lower. You think it's an improvement simply because it has more words in it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You on the other hand are not willing to tell us what you think is wrong. You leave us no route to address your concerns. Until you tell us what you think is wrong and why I cannot do anything for you. I grow weary of your insulting commentary on the hard work of our volunteers. Chillum 02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what you can do for me. It's not about you and me. I'm talking about what has been done to this article. You grow weary? I grew wearing of the flashing neon light "No one who understand the Rorschach allowed" long, long ago. Weeks and weeks ago, Chillum, you predicted that other psychologists besides Faustian and me would rush in to fill the void. So now it seems that LjL is your "psychologist". Congrats! Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think LjL is doing a fine job. The only complaints about his work are inarticulate due to a complete lack of detail. Chillum 02:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you think his edits are fine. You understand the test about as much as he does. Like I said, he's your "psychologist" now. Tell me, are the two of you planning to seek university positions teaching personality assessment? I'd love to see your resumes. Ward3001 (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you almost done belittling us? Do you realize how obnoxiously condescending you sound? I would far rather have a non-export that actually improves the article than an expert who while refusing to contribute still shits on everyone else's work. Way to go. Chillum 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He refuses to contribute because you've set up a situation that forces him not do. Rather odd that you complain that he doesn't, having insured that he cannot. Obviously in this case the only way the article is being improved is that it is becoming bigger.Faustian (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing anything. It is his own choice not to edit. We are simply not obeying commands, and if that is the condition for him to edit that is his problem. Chillum 23:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting logic. You create a situatuion where no expert can controbute because no expert will controbute to ana rticle that harms people. Then you say it's the expert's choice not to controbute. While your decision to make those conditions is what...not your choice? So there are two deicsions here. Yours - to force an environment where experts do not lend their expertice. And the experts - to not contribute to an aticle that causes harm. Whose problem is this? Well, it's wikipedia's problem and the article's problem when experts don't contriobute. And this is reflected in the article's poor quality.Faustian (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm criticizing the edits, not the editor. I avoided mentioning the username of any specific editor in my earlier criticisims, except some here kept pushing and pushing for specific details. So I gave the link to a specific problem edit, which unavoidably of course reveals the username of the editor. Now I'm told that I'm "belittling" editors. You can't have it both ways, Chillum; you can't ask for specific information and then get upset when I give it to you. If I had given you even more specifics (such as how to fix the edit), I have no doubt you would have become even more upset. The game you play is to give anyone who has more than a superficial knowledge of the Rorschach a clear message that their opinions about the test are not welcome here, then when an inferior edit is made and we criticize it, we're told that's not acceptable either. The message: the non-experts will edit this article as we please (even though you have little knowledge of the test), but don't dare criticize us; just let us keep pretending we're doing a good job. Do you realize how obnoxiously arrogant you sound? And I also would like to have a non-expert improve the article, so I'm still waiting for that to happen. I've even gone on record in an earlier edit by saying that it might be possible for a non-psychologist to fix some of the problems IF that person would go to the trouble to find and read to appropriate sources. And by the way, where are all those other psychologists that you said months ago would step in and improve the article. I was bracing for the stampede, but all I hear is silence. Ward3001 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. I'm the only one who's edited the article lately, so it was obviously clear to everybody you were referring to my edits. And that's also quite clearly not what Chillum was referring about with the "belittling", but you should know that already, too, if you just re-read your comment.

And let me guess: Chillum would be upset if you told him "how to fix the edit", because that would involve removing the edit or anything that gives any actual information about the test which you deem would "taint" it - is that it? (considering basically anything correct said about the test could skew its results according to literature, I guess so.) --LjL (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of info that could taint the test, either correct or incorrect information would do so. More relevent here, the test would be tainted whether the information was properly integrated/described or if this was poorly done. No insult meant towards you whatsoever - I think you are doing a good job given your lack of expertise. Your additions are what one would expect from a very intelligent person with no professional knowledge about a subject dealing with sources largely written for professionals. They're probably better than what would happen if I got a bunch of textbooks written for physicists and tried writing an article about particle physics or whatever. If improvement equals volume, then there is improvement as Chillum seems to feel there is. What seems to be happening is that this article will eventually consist of pieces of accurate information mixed up and misdescribed in a way that results in an inaccurate picture of the test. This info will add up until the article will reach a respectable length of semiaccurate realistic-sounding stuff that will seem to be quite encyclopedic for people, some of whom contribute to the talk pages here, who have no clue about the test. Doc James has noted that physicians often check wikipedia for stuff. There is apparently a group of physician-editors on wikipedia who check and fix medical articles. What a wonderful thing. Here we are doing the opposite - creating conditions that insure that no psychologist will fix or edit this psychology related article, even less use it in any meaningful way. The Rorschach entry will be strictly for readers with no clue about the Rorschach, who after reading the article will still not have much of a clue (although taking some of the inaccuracies at face value they might think they do) but whose tests will nevertheless be compromised in some way because the test is harmed whether the person gets accurate or inaccurate information. Improvement, indeed.Faustian (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll add to Faustian's comments. Not only have conditions been created that insure that no psychologist will fix or edit this psychology related article, an atmosphere now pervades that psychologists are not even allowed to criticize non-psychologists' edits. This unfortunately deepens the illusion over time that the article has a lot of accurate, properly contexted information to the naive reader. Ward3001 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But look, it's as if an expert politician and government officier from Foo (a prominent country) came here and told us that some of our articles about politics are woefully incorrect; however, he's only prepared to help us fix them if we remove all information about Bar, a rival country that his country won't recognize (and that maybe he genuinely believes harmful for people to know about - after all, the very ethics of his party plainly tell him it's harmful). Would we do that? Of course not. It'd be unfortunate that an expert cannot help us, but the requested price would be way too high to pay. --LjL (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. In the case of the Rorschach, harm is genuine, no need for quotes (unless you believe that the consensus within the field is utterrly wrong about the field itself). And although the images are obviously accurate the other stuff the experts object to is not. And the inaccurate stuff is much larger in volume than is the stuff that ought to be removed. So the expert politican would ask that you remove a little bit of information in exchange for fixing a much larger amount of infromation, with the result that the net amount of accurate information will be much larger. Sounds like more than a fair trade.Faustian (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's really where we don't agree. I'm not willing to "trade" censorship of information (however you want to define it). As to the harm, I've already made a comparison (which you interpreted the opposite way than I intended - but that's hardly surprising since we aren't quite in agreement) with computer security. Revealing information may to harm if you only look at the short term; however, I do believe that science progresses, in the LONG term, by revealing as much information as possibly to as many people as possible.

[By the way, I didn't put "harm" in quotes, but in italics :-P]

--LjL (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that psychology works differently than computer science. The nature of the beast is that advances take a long time. Psych tests take years to develop and the knowledge is cumulative. Meaning, a discovery made in 1970 results in further inquiries and discoveries in 1972 based on what was found in 1970, etc. until you have hundreds of studies representing accumulated useful knowledge. If you reset it by spoiling a test all that work (and the beneift derived from it) is wiped out too. You start over. And what for? Not a better test,s ince the utility of a test depends on the amount of research that went into it and you've ruined one that had a lot of research, resulting in the need for a new one which will be much less researched. This is completely different from the case with computer programs and security. As has been described in this thread: [1] by reporting some of this information you render it obsolete anyways.Faustian (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, psychology and computer science aren't the same thing; I wasn't really trying to say that, but rather express my point of view, my philosophic point of view if you like, that science in general benefits from information sharing to the widest possible extent. This is why I totally endorse the way Wikipedia policies and guidelines treat the issue. I don't expect you to come to agree with me about this viewpoint, but merely to realize that it's a pretty natural viewpoint for a Wikipedian; also, while your psychology-specific objections are very clear, and I don't have a direct answer to them, I'd like to point out that even in other disciplines (including computer science, for that matter), people could have - or actually have - made the same reasoning that you do: "we'd ruin this thing that's been carefully built in years by making it public, and there's no way to make a better one that doesn't suffer from this problem". They found out it wasn't really true, because eventually they did find other ways to make things so that obscurity wasn't a requirement; but realizing that did take "destroying" what was previously there by making it public. --LjL (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This illustrates the problem with being inflexible and applying general rules to specific situations. You are absolutely correct that in general science benefits from information sharing to the widest extent possible. But here is a specific case where it doesn't. On the contrary, it is harmful for the reasons outlined and in this case the general rule of "as wide open disclosure as possible" and advancement of science are mutually exclusive The reason for this is that psychological tests are in their essence experiments and follow experimental conditions, which have the general rule that the test subject does not have full awarenesss of the experiment. By following the general rule of full awareness you are forcing a violation of the rule of experiment subject blindness, essentially rendering that specific type of experiment (psychological test) useless. Most of the information that it has produced previously has become obsolete and the test ceases to have the ability to add more information. This obviously is all very detrimental to the advancement of science. This is true in direct proportion to the amount of information distributed and the accessibility of that information. The type of information that is harmful is rather limited - the test stimuli and specific answers for the test. Is it worth destroying a test for the sake of describing these specific and limited aspects of it?Faustian (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But is it really that limited? Is "full awareness of the experiment" limited to that? I have my doubts. If a potential subject reads that color may be an important part of responses, my logic tells me they'll be more likely to give color response; and some psychologists seem to reach similar conclusions. Seriously, the Rorschach isn't really a controlled blind experiment if someone knows anything (true or untrue, accurate or mistaken, as you pointed out) about it beforehand. And we darn sure are going to tell a thing or two about it on Wikipedia. --LjL (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Whether the information is right or wrong, it will ruin the experiment (psychological test). Given that the people adding the info are, with all due respect, intelligent amateurs, a lot of the info is put together in a way that is wrong anyways (half accurate is wrong in my book). So for the cost (ruining the test) we don't even have a very accurate article. The information that ruins the test is quite limited however: the test materials themselves and the answers (right or wrong).Faustian (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, I think you sort of missed my main point there (the information being right or wrong was an aside). What I was saying is that I don't really think the "information that ruins the test" is limited to test materials and answers, given that specifying such things as there being a concept of a "color response" may easily bring people to give one when they otherwise wouldn't.

(I'll add to that that, while the test materials might be "protected" in some fashion by being published on a very limited number of books, the "right or wrong answers" - i.e. popular content responses - are published on a lot of books you can find for free on Google Books, because the copyright owners have granted permission. I really do believe it's paradoxical to suggest that should be withdrawn from Wikipedia.) --LjL (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Color response" would be an answer of some sort, which is why I didn't address it in my previous message, although it seems to me to be vague enough that it would be relatively harmless. People are probably as likely to produce a response involving color after seeing a colored card as they would be reading that there are such a thing as colored responses. More troubling is putting in specific answers or examples. With respect to your comments on googlebooks - putting together a bunch of info found on googlebooks into a wikipedia article is going a long way towards ruining the test, in direct proportion to the expisure this article has. A lot more people come here than to googlebooks, and gathering the info into one place also adds to the damage. I know I'm being repetative here, but again, the harm exists regardless of whether that information is integrated and described accurately or not. And so far, quality is about what one would expoect from an intelligent person trying to put together info about which he has no experience or knowledge. Pretty poor. So what you'll have is a poor to marginal article full of half-inaccuracies (again, no offense meant), and a spoiled test. The only winners seem to be those for whom this issue has become personal, and who see this as a game in which victory means having their way article quality-be-damned, and those who are somewhat fanatical about one principle (maximum information) which for them trumps article quality, harm and other concerns. The losers are the article whose quality suffers, science involving this test, and those who benefit from its use. I understand that you plan to say "a thing or two". Just don't pretend you are doing anything other than harming scientific research. Faustian (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact I'm trying to write an encyclopedia here, I don't really care what effects it may or may not have on scientific research. When you do scientific research, do you care what effects that may have on encyclopedia? I mean, maybe a huge encyclopedia has just been sent to the press with information about something scientific, and just then you make a new ground-breaking theory that changes everything; the encyclopedia will have to reprint, and lose enormous amount of money. HOW could you not think of the harm done to the poor encyclopedia? :-(

But all jokes aside, above you're seriously saying that, in your opinion, this article should be created by putting together sourced information form books. You do realize that in that case, this article may as well not exist, because that is exactly how articles on Wikipedia are made? --LjL (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you don't care about the effect on scientific research. The problem is that the scientists who would actually make this into a decent article by clearing up inaccuries, intepreting the complex source material, etc.do care. The result is that your approach has a negative effect on the encyclopedia too. You've got an article about a complex psychological test which no psychologist will touch. What would wikipedia articles on complex matters related to medicine look like if no physician contributed to the effort? Kind of like this. It's a bunch of information that is semiaccurate which may impress someone else who knows nothing about the topic but which looks pretty bad to anyone who actually knows the subject (I think that 4 experts at least have already described this article in this way). I'm not sure what you mean by your second point - maybe your lack of clarity in response to my comment is a reflection of my own lack of clarity. What I meant was that an amateur, however bright, with no specialized training or knowledge on a specialized difficult topic, trying to put together complex material gathered from googlebooks, is not going to put together a good product. I know nothing about computer science. If I decided to write an article on a complex topic within the field of computer science based on my attempted reading of graduate level computer science textbooks or manuals I accessed though googlebooks or elsewhere, the results would probably be semi-accurate nonsense too.Faustian (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I don't seem to care about "psychologists not touching the article" is twofold. First, I believe Wikipedia's greater good trumps the good of this particular article, if I may put it this way. I'm really not willing to create a precedent where experts are allowed to "blackmail" other Wikipedians by stating they'll stop contributing en masse unless the content meets some particular conditions on the agenda. Second, I'm pretty confident that some expert or another will eventually just not care about these ethics and contribute anyway (a retired psychologist, for instance?).

As to my obscure second point, it simply seemed like you were saying that an article on Wikipedia (or at least this article specifically) shouldn't be created by putting together information from book sources. But that was probably not what you meant, since I'm sure you know that is how articles are done, and supposed to be done. --LjL (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that there will be a precedent because the reasons the experts cannot contribute here is very specific. I cannot think of a hypothetical situation in which experts in another field would be forced to behave this way. It seems to me that you have a tendency to want to generalize and create Principles or Laws even when some situations are specific. And I'm not sure that "blackmail" is a very nice or fair way of describing the fact that experts committing to helping people and furthering their scientific field will refuse to contribute to an article that harms people and harms the scientific process. If I refused to vote for George Bush because of the Iraq war, was I atttempting to "blackmail" him to do what I want or just following my conscience? I don't think that a word such as "blackmail" should be used so lightly. With respect to some other expert eventually stepping in and contributing - well, how likely do you think it is that upon retiring a psychologist will decide to contribute to something that harms people and science? People don't follow the ethics code just to avoid trouble - there are moral reasins underlying it. This article has already appeared on the wikiepdia psychology noticeboard. No psychologist came to fix it, although a few came to condemn the compromise of the test and staetd that they would love to fix it if the harmful stuff was appropriatly dealt with. The most likely scenario in which a psychologist would fix this article would be if eventually someone in the minority who doesn't like the Rorschach. In that case, the article will come to resemble not the semi-accurate mess it is now and will increasingly become, but one with huge WP:UNDUE issues - the equivalent of an article on Global warming written entirely by the minority of scientists who don't believe that global warming is man-made. Either way, bad for the encyclopedia.Faustian (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's very unlikely a retired psychologist would contribute to the article. As Faustian said, we don't just follow an ethical code to stay out of trouble. The code of ethics is written by psychologists, not by some outside authority imposing it on us. Furthermore, most psychologists don't retire suddenly. Most maintain their license even after semi-retirement. The fact is, almost any psycholoigist capable of making good contributions to the article would see the image as soon as they open the article and immediately conclude that they will not touch it. That's why the inflow of psychologists that was predicted some months ago to step in and work on the article has never materialized. And to make it worse, if the psychologist bothers to read the article, he/she will see the jumble of information that has accumulated in the article, realize things have gone awry, go to the talk page to see what has been going on, and rather quickly see the "Psychologists not welcome" signs that are all over the talk page and archives. Not many psychologists want to step into that mess, regardless of the image. Ward3001 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I concur. Mirafra (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between choosing not to edit, and not being welcome. Nobody is preventing psychologists from editing here, if some decide not to edit because we don't follow their ethics then we will just have to do without. Nobody is being excluded however, no matter how many times you claim so. Chillum 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's as far from the truth as I have ever seen. If psychologists are so welcome here, why aren't they showing up and editing (And please, it's not because they aren't on Wikipedia; I've edited with at least a dozen psychologists, and I'm sure there are many more.) First, psychologists were excluded when the image was inserted at the top of the page. Then, when the text of the article was made worse and we tried to simply point out that certain edits are problematic, we are roundly criticized for even daring to critique anything added by a non-psychologist. It was even threatened that such comments would be removed (and probably that was avoided only by the comments of a level-headed admin). The message, not just to those of us already on this talk page, but to any psychologist who happens to read anything here, is quite loud and clear: "Psychologists not welcome here. Don't challenge non-psychologists. The non-psychologists will do it their way." I was even told to go away and edit somewhere else. So the comment "we will have to do without" is not quite accurate; it should be "we will do it as we please; regardless of what's best for the article, we'll write this article as we wish and everyone else should just go away." Ward3001 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to believe that you aren't intending to say that psychologists aren't welcome. However, I agree with the other psychs that the climate of this talk page is certainly having the effect of having a large neon sign saying, "no shrinks need apply." Looking back through the history of this whole discussion (in the request for mediation), I see that this climate has been fairly persistent over time, and it seems to have had the rather consistent effect of getting psychologist-types to leave. So, consider this friendly feedback, offered both in a spirit of good faith and in the assumption that you are also operating in good faith and are actually interested in having input from psychologists... whatever you think you're doing, it ain't working. Mirafra (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You can say otherwise till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that psychologists are welcome to edit here. Chillum 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That has some accuracy to it. It's true that psychologists can try to reason here until they're blue in the face, and then they're told to go away. Chillum, where are the psychologists you said would step in and edit here? So far I've counted ... none. That speaks volumes more than your trite repetition "psychologists are welcome to edit here". It's one thing to give lip-service to that "welcome". It's altogether another matter to set the tone and atmosphere so that psychologists don't take a look and then run away, which is obviously what they've been doing. Ward3001 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people don't get what they want around here, not just psychologists. If not getting what you want makes you feel unwelcome then that is your problem. If you simply accepted that you are not getting what you wanted and move on like most people do then you would not have these problems. I don't always get what I want around here either, it does not make me feel unwelcome.

You keep asking me the same question, the answer is that it does not really matter. We take what we can get and we write an encyclopedia with those volunteers. I don't go around asking other editors what they do for a living because it is not relevant to how we make decisions, get it? Chillum 01:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All we have done is not obey the commands of a few people, we are not picking on any group of people. Chillum 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, you can't seem to comprehend something about the psychologists here (and I don't want to assume I can speak for all of us, but the other psychologists can correct me if they disagree). It's not a game of what the psychologists want vs. what the others want. What the psychologists are talking about is what is best for the article. The article has sunk to its lowest point in a very long time and doesn't appear to be going anywhere except down. Psychologists would really like to see the article improve, but no one has stepped up to do that. And with the current atmosphere here, I don't think it will unless something changes.

And I keep asking you about your prediction of new psychologists coming in to fix the article because you made that prediction quite confidently when the psychologists first expressed serious concern that no psychologist would edit this article. You quickly dismissed us with your comment that those of us already here aren't the only psychologists who could add to the article. Well, no one has. And I'm sorry, but it is relevant. Because the only way the article will ever show any significant improvement is for someone who truly understands the test -- in its full context, not just bits and pieces randomly strung together -- to do the work to fix it. I've said that could possibly be done by a non-psychologist, but I have to wonder if anyone is willing to put in the tremendous amount of research that's needed to bring this article up to encyclopedic standards. It's a lot of information. I hope there's someone out there who's willing to put in the hundreds of hours of reading, then countless more hours editing and battling those who have taken control of the article. But it's hard to image that will happen. We'll see. Ward3001 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And how am I supposed to refer to an edit without referring to the editor? Do you expect me to criticize specific edits, when you're the only one who has made edits, without revealing that you are the editor? When you figure out how to do that, that will be a nice trick, so please let us know. Oh wait ... I forgot: I'm not supposed to criticize your edits.

"And let me guess ... that would involve removing the edit": Not surprisingly, you guessed wrong. I gave a suggestion about which sources should be consulted to fix the edits, and only if that was not done, the best thing would be to remove the edit. You conveniently bypassed my better suggestion: Why is that? Is it because you didn't want to bother with following the best suggestion, so you instead prefer to criticize my next best suggestion. This game you people are playing (let's pretend were doing a great job despite what anyone else says) is becoming more and more absurd.

By the way LjL, you conveniently moved my earlier question to you higher in this thread? Is it because you consider the question unimportant? You accused me of disparaging Wikipedia (not just criticizing this article). Please tell me how I did that? Be specific. Ward3001 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I CONVENIENTLY put it back to the relevant thread, because it had ended up nowhere near the stuff it was in reply to. In case you didn't notice. I didn't answer because I think it's PAINFULLY obvious that saying "sub-encyclopedic standards already (and I don't just mean Wikipedia's standards)" means that you consider Wikipedia (which is, in case I should remind you, supposed to be an encyclopedia) to have sub-encyclopedic standards (and this article more so than the norm).

Anyway, I ignored no suggestion. I am reading and checking out sources. I am not Superman, and cannot read them all in one second. I do wonder why you would think that Chillum would become upset if you told him how to fix the edits, assuming the fix shouldn't involve removing information. --LjL (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And how is the comment "I don't just mean Wikipedia's standards" a criticism of Wikipedia? Please be specific.

While you're answering questions, you neglected to answer how I could criticize your edits without revealing that you are the editor. Could you please explain how that's done?

You may have missed the recent edit where I said "Oh please. I'm the only one who's edited the article lately, so it was obviously clear to everybody you were referring to my edits". Anyway, the bolding in my previous edit was more or less intended to mean I've had enough. Please, go on ranting pretty freely. --LjL (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I'm criticizing the edits, not the editor", to which you complained that it was obvious I was talking about you. So again, how do I criticize the edit without revealing that it's your edit? Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not superman? Wow, I studied the Rorschach for about 25 years, read 300 journals articles and every major book on the topic, and administered about 500 Rorschachs before I felt like I could add anything reasonable to the article. You apparently have mastered the test in a couple of months; in fact, mastered it so well that your edits are above criticism. That sounds like superman to me. Ward3001 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not above criticism, but most certainly above ridicule. --LjL (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see ... if someone tells me my edit overemphasizes details and pulls information inappropriately out of context, that's a criticism. But if someone tells you the same thing, then it's ridicule. Sorry, I forgot we have different standards for judging your edits. And please, could you answer the unanswered questions I've posed several times now? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No. --LjL (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't think you could. Thanks for clarifying that. Ward3001 (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I could, but my Wikipedian ethics prevent me from doing so. --LjL (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me. The "Nonpsychologist-acting-like-a-psychologist Code of Ethics": Section 1: "Make lots of accusations, but don't bother trying to justify them." Ward3001 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets keep this about the topic at hand and not about each other. Please. Chillum 13:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do that Chillum. The rest of us would greatly appreciate it. Ward3001 (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really, really, REALLY sick of the claims that no experts are allowed to post here. That's nonsense. The people pushing a POV are just claiming that they're the only ones with any expertise so they can ignore what anyone who disagrees with them says. I am more of an expert on this topic than some of the posters claiming to be experts, based upon being asked about things that should have beenj trivial knowledge to anyone with any genuine knowledge of the history and use of this test. Beyond that, any expert is capable of contributing here... they just have to follow our rules and realize that they're demands don't get to overrule everyone else. All this "no experts allowed" nonsense is really just a catchphrase for "I should OWN this article and they won't let me, boohoo." Whether you are on Wikipedia or working on an academic journal -- or in any situation where anyone who would truly be an expert on this topic would have to have experience with to call themselves an expert -- you have to work with others and deal with the results. The complainers here just don't care about that. And since we can't give in top temper tantrums and rule breaking and other highly immature behavior, they are the ones cutting themselves off from all influence on this article. If you want to be taken seriously, act like a reasonable adult. DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's sad is that I was thinking exactly the same thing (on the other side), although I would have used less uncivil words. Mirafra (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Formal mediation declined

I see that formal mediation will not work. We have reached a consensus of the majority. I do not see anyway that this could be all inclusive. Some will never accept the images on the page. Others will never except censorship / there removal.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd accept moving the lead image if nothing else, I just have my doubts that will change much of anything in the former group's view. --LjL (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there has been agreement that the lead images could be replaced with one more relevant ever since the 10 were placed at the bottom. I just have not seem any good replacements suggested. If anyone can find an image of the cover of the original publication that would be both historical and public domain. Chillum 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the best I could find[2]. It is not high res enough for the article though. If anyone can find a better copy of this cover then I would support it in the lead. Chillum 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[3]? Although the test being administered might mean more to readers. --LjL (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the test being administered might be more helpful, if we can get such an image that would be great. Your version certainly is a lot better, but is still not legible. I am not sure if it is high enough quality, what do other people think? Chillum 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's an easy picture to pose. Mirafra (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With or without an actual Rorschach card being used? ;-) --LjL (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard for a layman to pose it realistically. You'd just have to look up the instructions -- there is considerable latitude, and not a small amount of disagreement as to which variants might affect responses. Most movies that I've seen get it wrong. A professional could pose it such that the card isn't visible, or at least isn't visible clearly enough to cause a problem. Or the card could be blurred. Mirafra (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blurred? Why would we blur it? I don't think you understand, we are looking for a replacement to improve the article, not to suppress these images. We don't censor our pictures. Chillum 12:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We made some headway towards this here: Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 7#We need an image of the test being administered. I think the image should be from the point of view of the subject, so the card would be visible; but in a thumbnail version it wouldn't be that visible anyway. –xeno^talk 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I had thought that part of the original reason for the proposal of substituting an image of the test being administered was as a concession to the request that the image itself not be in the lead. 2. Note that I said "a professional could..." 3. I don't see how this suppresses anything, given that you're insisting that all ten blots remain on the page regardless. Any image of the test being administered is almost by necessity going to provide a less clear image than an image of the card by itself. Mirafra (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No Mirafra, our only purpose on this talk page is to improve the article. I support a better lead image because it would improve the article, not because I concede anything. If the reason to replace the picture is to appease those who don't want it shown then we have no reason to replace the picture. If however the reason(and result) is that it will improve the article then there is a reason. As for blurring the inkblot, we don't modify our images to remove relevant information. The inkblot being small due to its part in a larger informative scene is acceptable. Chillum 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In a decent image of a test being administered, the inkblot would probably take up about 10% or less of the visible area. In a thumbnail version, it's going to be so small that making a pre-exposure impression in the viewers mind is unlikely. As Chillum says, those who disagree with suppression are amenable to such an image because it is a better image in general, not because they are conceding anything. –xeno^talk 13:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blurriness or percentage size of the image or anything at all about "pre-exposure impression" is completely irrelevant. We alreadey have a consensus that those do not matter. And, frankly, a good image of someone taking an inkblot test would obviously have to more than 10% of the image being one of the cards, otherwise it'd be less of a photo about the test and more of a photo about some insignificant person of no consequence to the educational value of the article. Of course I don't care even if it's the front or the back of the card being shown in some hypothetical test-taking photo, as long as it's clear that test taking is going on -- but front would make more sense. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe more than 10% but it certainly won't be as visible as it is now. The goal is not to make it less visible, it's to make an informative image that shows the administration of the test. –xeno^talk 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, so why do you keep bringing up info about how the image would be less visible? In a good image with a front view it wouldn't be appreciably any less visible than the current one. DreamGuy (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, not "less visible" but smaller, and with less ability to make out fine details. This isn't the goal, but it does satisfy, if partially, the concerns of other parties. It's not the goal of putting the better image, but it's a desirable side-effect. –xeno^talk 14:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I was just listing a bunch of options. If you don't like one of them, don't use it. Mirafra (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd quote myself about not wanting this to be a compromise but only an improvement of the article that shouldn't be able to create a precedent even in the most twisted of minds - but I won't, because the reasons why blurring wouldn't be acceptable have been properly exposed by others, and also because my opinion about that is somewhere on this page and can be referred to. There is also the valid point that an image of the test being administered should actually look like the test being administered; whether that can be achieved without having a visible card that is too big, that will have to be seen. --LjL (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting piece from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/27CRASH.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad summary of the state of the post-Wood storm a month after it occurred, but given that the article is about six years old, it is missing most of the debunking of Wood et al. that came later. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can incorporate the point of view of both the supporters and the detractors of this test in the interest of neutrality. Chillum 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that one of the major problems with the page as it stands now (as I said ages ago), and one of the really delicate balancing acts in writing this article, is presenting the various positions about the test with appropriate weights given to them, not just giving "equal time" because you can't tell which is what. There are some folks who think all projectives are bunk, some who think just the Rorschach is bunk, some who think most projectives are bunk but the Rorschach is a neuropsych test that just also happens to have some projective aspects, some who think the Rorschach is great but find it too complex for their own purposes, some who think it's one of their desert-island tests, and probably some other viewpoints I haven't even noted. There are many different viewpoints and nuances to each, and to have a sense of how prominent each one actually is within the field is going to be really tricky. Mirafra (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why can it not be more or less gauged by the amount of peer-reviewed material written about it from these various points of views? --LjL (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Much of Wood et al.'s hype is designed to stir up non-psychologists so they can get press outside of peer-reviewed publications and sell books. There's not a lot of peer-reviewed support for Wood et al. Much of what they've said has been debunked in peer-reviewed publications. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When reading peer-reviewed literature, I think that quantity is one metric, but it's also important to read the literature itself. Lots of more subtle indicators exist (such as which journals something is in, how many different people are publishing on different aspects of the same viewpoint, etc). Also, within the papers, just because something got published does not mean that it is of equal quality (in terms of research design and implementation and rigor of interpretation, etc) with everything else. This is quite an ambitious undertaking. Mirafra (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why we cannot present all significant viewpoints. If there are reliable sources who claim Wood is wrong, then we can include that too. It is common in scholarly areas for people to disagree, we need to cover that disagreement. Chillum 00:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't present all significant viewpoints, just that we should take care to give them no more than their due weight, which sounds reasonable. --LjL (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I am sure the criticisms of the test are due some weight, how much is a question that can be determined through the referencing of reliable sources. Chillum 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

...and another interesting piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html?_r=1&hp (linked above in the press multi). At least now we have a reliable source for the controversy and the positions of psychologists. A little bit of a feedback loop, but useful nevertheless... –xeno^talk 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Positions of psychologists, perhaps, but we certainly have a reliable source for the position of the publisher that licenses the test.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the picture they used any more representative of the present-day administration of the test? –xeno^talk 05:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• The NT article on the controversy has been syndicated... The Toronto Star, in its reprinting of the NYT article is showing plate 10 as an image. –xeno^talk 12:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps our opposition will take a break on Wikipedia and spend some time telling the Toronto Star what not to put in their articles. I imagine their coverage is larger than this article gets, the image is shown much larger and they describe the common answers given to that card. Chillum 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was in the print version, I'll take a walk over to the box a bit later. Their common answers appear to have been lifted directly from here, including the peculiar colon "blue: crab, lobster, spider". –xeno^talk 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah, really? So they took my "answers", which all psychologists here were saying aren't really accurate, and I'd be ready to admit the same since they're straight from Samuel Beck which isn't exactly new, and published them as the actual answers? Now this is getting real fun. --LjL (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is from our article. I am not sure, but I think the colon after "blue" indicates that those shapes are the blue part of the inkblot. It could be more clear if that is what is meant though. Chillum 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Chillum, that is what I meant. Basically, the original table had "W: whatever" for responses pertaining to the whole image, then "D1: whatever" (or D2 etc.) for detail responses. Now, in some cases, detail responses are more common than whole-image responses, so I thought specifying the color like that would be the quickest way to convey that without making those captions as long as this reply. --LjL (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Streisand break

• http://www.myfoxspokane.com/dpp/news/national/dpgo_Rorschach_Test_Controversy_fc_20090729_2709340 (shows plate 1)
• http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/07/29/Rorschach-tiff-The-answer-key-is-online/UPI-88261248881240/
• http://www.examiner.com/x-2108-Love-and-Marriage-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Rorschach-test-marriage-material-and-sexual-politics (plate 9)
• http://gawker.com/5325477/victorian-psychiatrists-upset-at-wikipedia-exposing-their-voodoo-secrets/gallery/ (plate 1 thumbnail expands to a gallery of all 10)

  These guys don't seem to understand the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. –xeno^talk 15:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.cnbc.com/id/32201927 - syndicated the NYT story and used a fake inkblot but called it "Rorschach Test"
• http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=are-rorschach-tests-really-any-good-2009-07-29
• http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/good_day_la/The_Crew_Take_The_Rorschach_Test_20090729 (video; bit of a broken telephone based on the NYT headline, shows inkblots 1,2,4 while one anchor gives a mock test to the other two)
• http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/wikipedia_cracks_rorschach_test_0729200958283838/

It's also trending very highly in the blogs and networking sites like Twitter... Here's an interesting piece I found [4]. –xeno^talk 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/tech/NATL-The-Inkblot-Test-Makes-Its-Way-to-Wikipedia.html
• http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92863
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/29/rorschach-answers-wikipedia
• http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/wikipedia/kerfuffle_erupts_in_psychology_community_after_common_answers_to_rorschach_are_posted_on_wikipedia_123020.asp
• http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rorschach-and-wikipedia-thebattleoftheinkblots/article1235586/
• http://news.softpedia.com/news/Psychologists-Take-Issue-with-the-Publishing-of-Rorschach-Test-Plates-on-Wikipedia-117819.shtml
• http://www.pamil-visions.net/rorschach-wikipedia-debat/23540/ (lengthy editorial on social responsibility)
• http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276688
• http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43436/181/
• http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/rorschach-inkblot-test-cheat-sheet/072071
• http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/51499,news,psychologists-rage-as-wikipedia-publishes-rorschach-inkblots-test-online-censorship

This recent influx of media attention has made the previous spike in traffic from the slashdotting look like a small bump: Usage statistics. Looks like about 187 thousand people looked at the page on the 29th compared to the average of the about 3-4 hundred we normally get in a day. I am glad this article is getting so much attention, I just wish it was not due to a debate that has been long settled. Chillum 13:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. If the debate had been settled, there wouldn't be at least three or four people who keep insisting about removing images and data; if there hadn't been such people, the NYT wouldn't have written an article about it; if the NYT hadn't written an article about it, 190000 people wouldn't have looked at the test cards. Oh well. --LjL (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

But the images that are the subject of the debate have not changed on the page for weeks, yes people are still talking about it, but the debate is clearly settled. We have come to the conclusion to keep the images and it does not look like this is going to change. What we have right now is just people beating a dead horse. If it was a debate it would be moving forward. Chillum 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because y'all refused to allow any such changes. It seemed obvious that anyone who removed the images would be seen as vandalizing the page and immediately reverted. Mirafra (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.inquisitr.com/31251/wikipedia-under-fire-for-publishing-rorschach-cheat-sheet/
• http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/07/30/rorschach-exposed-doctor-posts-test-secrets-on-wikipedia/
• http://momento24.com/en/2009/07/30/testing-times-for-wikipedia-after-doctor-posts-secrets-of-the-rorschach-inkblots/
• http://www.newsweek.com/id/209502
• http://www.rockymountainindependent.com/2009/07/ink-blot-flap-a-rorschach-test-on-modern-life/
• http://www.examiner.com/x-14795-Page-One-Examiner~y2009m7d30-The-Rorschach-blots-Wikipedia-furore

Stale

This discussion has gotten stale, I have been waiting for a fresh argument for weeks. We have a stable consensus and the page has been improving of late, I think we can just agree to disagree with the minority that wishes to put limitations on our coverage. I think instead of arguing we could all benefit by simply pushing forward. It is clear that those who wish the content limited are not going to be swayed and it is equally clear that consensus is against them and going to stay that way. So why keep arguing, lets just stop responding until a fresh idea emerges and concentrate on more productive directions.

I see areas where where we can move forward in a productive manner, areas that have not yet been exhausted. We have the potential for a better lead image. We have several previously unused sources waiting to be explored. We have LjL who has been improving this article and laying the ground work for future improvements. Lets concentrate on productive discussion and start to shun the unproductive discussion.

I know I am as guilty as anyone of getting sucked into this circular drama, but I am ready to try and make a break from it.

Please, nobody use this thread to deny that there is consensus, or to claim that you are being ignored or mistreated, we have every other thread on the page to talk about such things. This thread and hopefully future ones will be about moving forward and improving the article. Chillum 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the article that has gotten stale. It's a bit more bloated with the addition of more words, but its overall quality has drifted back and forth between a standstill, with nothing happening, to drop in the relative amount of quality content. And the "groundwork for future improvements" needs lots and lots of work just to get what's already in the article up to encyclopedic standards. I'm sure my comments will be promptly dismissed; that's almost a given whether the comments are made by me, or Faustian, or Mirafra, or a few other brave souls who have dared question the majority. And the "shunning" of discussion has been well underway for some time now. Ward3001 (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

More evidence that psychologists are not welcome on this talk page: I got this message on my talk page from Chillum (apparently he did not wish for it to be more widely available on this talk page): "You can continue to criticize in the appropriate venues, but you cannot follow editors about into every thread and belittle their efforts, that crosses the line". I have not belittled efforts. Chillum will say I have, but that's because if others criticize me, it's not considered belittling. If I criticize what others write, it's considered belittling. He's accused me of belittling when I went out of my way to avoid naming an editor and just criticized the edits. I have criticized edits to the article and concepts presented on this talk page. And it's an interesting choice of words by Chillum; he tells me what I can and can't do; he's not communicating with me; he's ordering me. Let me encourage other editors, if you get such private messages discouraging talk page participation, please share them with the rest of us so we get an honest impression of the atmosphere here. Ward3001 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This and this are belittling and needlessly sarcastic. This discussion belongs on one of our talk pages if anywhere, not here in a thread about moving forward in the article. You can drop me a line there if you want to bicker, but please don't disrupt this talk page. Chillum 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, just because you don't seem to grasp the meaning of a phrase, doesn't mean that it's belittling. It's not belittling. It's a commentary on a proposed addition to the article; no reference to an editor; no usernames identified. And when I criticized edits in the article without naming editors, you accused me of "casting dispersions [sic]" on editors. I was also told by Ljl to go away and find another encyclopedia to edit. It seems that if the two of you sling around false accusations and discouragement, that's acceptable, but if I comment on ideas, edits, or proposed edits, it's "belittling". Your calling it "belittling" doesn't mean it is, Chillum. The bottom line is, psychologists are not welcome here, not just in the article, but on this talk page. Just our mere presence here to you is "belittling". I'm here because I care about the article and the sad shape it's in, and I'm concerned about some of the proposed additions; I'm not belittling. You're simply trying to drive me away. Ward3001 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your condescending additude is not welcome here Ward. If your concerned with the article then edit it. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't agree that I have a "condescending additude [sic]", that's a moot point. I'm already quite aware that you don't welcome me or other psychologists here, Gary. But I don't care about your opinion in that regard. Ward3001 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Improving the criticism section

Ok. One problem I see with the article is that the "Criticisms" section is very big (bigger than the rest of the article), and while I'm fine with having criticism, it does seem to me like - on one hand - some of the things mentioned are actually descriptive of the test and therefore would be better in the actual descriptive part of the article, and - on the other hand - many of these same things aren't really needed to expose the criticism or counter-criticism. Examples

• "Tester projection": why make this whole argument about form quality, when it's made a matter of statistics in the Exner system? If "tester projection" is still considered an issue, use an actual current example of it, and move the remarks about Exner's way of scoring form somewhere else (they're there already, but they wouldn't mind another reference for sure).
• "Validity": who cares about the specific details of R correlating with this and that? I mean, I do care, it's pretty interesting... but not in the context of criticism, where I'm sure just saying "several scores correlate well with general intelligence (such as R)" would do.

These are the two most striking ones for me, but the whole section does read a bit like it's an argument between two parties (rather than the description of one) and could be trimmed down with a bit of care. --LjL (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section is too long. It both contains material suitable for sections than merely describe the test, and fails outright to mention some of the more prominent criticisms such as The Controversy Over Exner’s Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak by Wood, Nezworski, Garb, and Lilienfeld (2006), this paper also references several other relevant sources. Chillum 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. All that silly stuff about "validity"! Who needs that psychometric babble! And wow! Let's give Wood et al. even more of pop psychology exposure. It'll do wonders for their book sales. Ward3001 (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What do others think? Chillum 03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LjL. Some of the critism section should be combined into the main body of the article as it seems to represent the majority opinion of the psycological community.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for the previous statement. Sounds rather like elevating this user's POV over others, to make it be the supposedly neutral background of the article. Mirafra (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This section Population norms for example should be moved out of criticism into the main section. This ref here seems to imply that this test over diagnosis pathology ( ie false positive ) Diagnosis someone with schizophrenia / pyschosis who does not have it is a big deal. http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring06/practitioner/rorschach.php --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that the test doesn't diagnose anyone. I agree that some people will have a positive score for psychosis who are not psychotic (I had a couple in my work over this past year -- one autistic, one with a severe and lifelong trauma history) based upon other available clinical information. The professional sources do not claim that the test makes diagnoses. The interpretive process creates clinical hypotheses which must be evaluated within the context of other clinical data. This is a straw-man argument. And irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia -- if what you're saying is that you insist that the article be brought in line with your personal viewpoint that the test should not be used, that sounds awfully like pushing a POV to me. Mirafra (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Social impact

This test hold an important place in the psychee of the Western world. I think the article needs a section discussing this. There is even a carton... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, please tell me more. Chillum 02:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iovUDMlEoc

Here is are page on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_(comics)

2009 movie http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0029762/

And even a board game http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36231

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Very fitting. Discussions of cartoons and board games is just what this article needs. You're making my job a lot easier. Go ahead and create lots of information about cartoons and board games. I'll let the people at Britannica know what's going on here. I'm sure they can't wait to see it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia for a general audience. It is not an instruction manual on how one would administer a Rorscharch written by experts for experts. The reason why we are all here debating this page is the Rorschach is one of the most famous and well known bits of psychology and has infact had an impact on Western culture. This impact would be of interest to many readers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is even becoming well known. We may even have to comment on it soon...--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You must be very proud of yourself...from Moose Jaw to the NY Times. All at the relatively small cost of just harming people who could benefit from the test.Faustian (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume that since the NYT has revealed James' complete name and town of residence, it's OK to mention it here on the talk page. It's helpful for readers to know what kind of doctor is making some of the comments here. Ward3001 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Faustian I knew you would approve :-) All in the name of holding back the return of the dark ages. I guess you could call this my little part in preventing 1984. If only this test were better than cold reading than maybe you could claim harm. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant/anachronistic claim about coldreading notwithstanding (people haven't generally used the Rorschach like that in 50 years), the utility of the test is generally accepted within the field (otherwise 80% of clinical psychologists doing assesment work wouldn't be using it) and thus the harm you caused people is real. I wonder if you've hurt as many people through wikipedia as you've helped in your medical practice. Faustian (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say the material mentioned has a strained relationship to this test at best. I suppose a mention that this projective test has become far more familiar to the public than most others would be relevant though. Chillum 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Being an encyclopedia for a general audience doesn't mean we add useless trivia of no overall importance... not here or any other Wikipedia page. See WP:NOT, and. more directly, WP:ENC, for a refresher course. DreamGuy (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is trivia at all. Many articles have cultural impact sections. There's also not that many psychological tests that are household names like the Rorschach. For example, see all these publications using the phrase "has become a Rorschach test" [5] –xeno^talk 13:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Rorschach test itself has, in fact, become a Rorschach test, a reflection of anxiety about mind-reading or mind-control or the possibility of someone else making decisions about you for reasons you don't understand. This page is, if anything, more about that tension than about the test itself. Mirafra (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to a limited mention of how this test is far more familiar to the public than most projective tests. However I don't think we go too deep in our coverage of things loosely based on the idea of this test. Chillum 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that we should add information about the above products. They just show how prevalent some knowledge about this test is. The test does not exist in a clinical vacuum.

There are whole pages on sports scores / teams that have reached FA as well as a good article on Michael Jackson's health and appearance so obviously what is considered trivia is not that broadly applied.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I support some coverage of this area, within reason. Chillum 13:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

James, you've given me some ideas. Just as there is an effort to add "cultural trivia" to this artilce, I hope you'll support me if I try to add it to other medical articles. For example, will you defend me if I add jokes and trivia to pages like Pap test or Rectal examination? If not, then why is it appropriate here? Ward3001 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support you adding relative cultural information to other medical pages. How the pap test is a break through in preventative care. What percentage of women do not have them as they consider them unpleasant, etc would all be appropriate.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If cartoons and board games are appropriate here, would humor (such as jokes) be appropriate on these or other medical articles? Medical jokes are commonly found our culture, so would you support me in adding those to articles about specific medical procedures? Ward3001 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A mention of cultural significance is different that adding cartoons to this page. I have never suggested we add cartoons here or anywhere else for that matter. One line saying the Rorschach has had a cartoon, a movie and a board game loosely based on it and holds a significant place in the psyche of the Western world is an interesting cultural piece of information about this test.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So if I find well-sourced information commenting on jokes, comedic TV shows and films, cartoons, or board games about medical procedures, place a brief summary of that commentary in a medical article, you would support it if challenged, right? Ward3001 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite understand your apprehension, Ward. The Rorschach is arguably one of the most well-known psychological tests. It has definitely had a social impact... As for medical articles... Rabies#Cultural impact ? (Though I would like to see something far less "trivia"-like for this article) –xeno^talk 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say I'm apprehensive. More skeptical that one set of standards isn't applied to this article and another set to other medical articles. Just speaking from painful experiences. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you comment on the cultural importance in NPOV and it is well sourced yes I would support this.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that a thoughtful and neutral and well-sourced discussion of the place of the Rorschach in contemporary culture would be quite appropriate to the page. Personally, I think the combination of absolutely rotten face validity and terrific clinical validity, plus the historical connections to the least-supportable aspects of old-school psychoanalysis and the position that has in the culture, has made it resonate with people's anxieties about having their minds read and/or controlled. But that's just me standing on one foot theorizing. Doubtless there are multiple dissertations already written on the topic. Mirafra (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, in fact I am surprised that there isn't a cultural impact section already. The test is used frequently in popular fiction, and other works. Indeed the term is now used regularly as a metaphor for all kinds of eye-of-the-beholder situations. I think that's significant. It's no different from the fact that there is an extensive socila and cultural impact section for The Pill. Lot 49a^talk 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've usually heard the term "has become a Rorschach test" not so much meaning that "it can be viewed in many different ways," but more meaning that, "how you view it says a lot about you." That's why I'm saying that the Rorschach test itself, and this page about it, have both become Rorschach tests. Mirafra (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Circular Links

Several links in this article are self-referencing. Exner Scoring System is one such example. Can some one please remove these? — 173.3.112.55 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the link you mentioned, if there are others just let us know. Chillum 03:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

no such word as administrating

The word "administrating" should be changed to "administering." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.162.77 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. That being said, administering may be a better word. I am not sure. Chillum 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

An ER Doctor is not a Pyschologist

The article states "...clinicians, including Bruce L. Smith, a psychologist and president of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods, objected that the publication would "render the results meaningless." However, not all psychologists agree. Dr. Heilman compared the publication to the publication of an eye chart..."

The way Dr. Heilman's metaphor immediately follows "...not all pyschologists agree" is confusing. It sounds like Dr. Heilman's opinion is that of a dissenting Pyschologist. But the guy is not a psychologist, he's an ER doctor. This could be easily cleared up with a new paragraph after "...not all pychologists agree".Trefalcon (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the comparison to the Snellen chart is not even remotely apt. The normative information for that is not about "which letters in which order," but about the size of the letters on the chart. The usefulness of the eye chart to detect dangerous drivers can be restored by the simple expedient of shuffling the letters -- it's much more analogous to a change of password. In fact, as far as I can recall, the last time I had to take an eye exam to renew my license, it was not on the standard Snellen chart, probably for precisely that reason. Mirafra (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that section as undue weight and self-reference. We only mention Wikipedia in articles if they are a major part of the subject, we are not a major part of the subject. See the thread I started below for details. Chillum 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by what seems to be Dr. Heilman's approval of the fact that his father could use memorization of the Snellen chart to get a driving license that he may not otherwise merit. I only hope that if he gets into a fatal accident, he doesn't kill anyone other than himself. SPAdoc (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it intersting that a man who works in the ER supports having a guy lie on a test in order to enable him to drive a car without being able to see properly. It would be sadly ironic if he or his victims ended up in the same ER where Heilman works. Faustian (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no approval of this lieing. This was an example of how we do not hide / suppress / censor information just because of theoretical potential harm. We do not suppress other info with similar justification provided so why would we suppress this. If we followed what some see as sufficient justification for information removal Wikipedia would not exist. That is why this discuss is important. We do not want to set a precident.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A few points: 1) I didn't mean to imply Heilman was a pyschologist. Bad editing when I was finalizing the text. Sorry about that. 2) The comparison to the Snellen chart may not be perfectly analogous, but it's very understandable, which is why Heilman said it and why the NYTimes writer quoted it (and why I also quoted it). RoyLeban (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Self reference

I have removed the section talking about the Wikipedia controversy. In the subject of Rorschach test, Wikipedia is an insignificant part. I really don't think we need to be covering our own controversy in this article like that. I think it constitutes undue weight. This is after all a rather minor controversy in the scope of both the Rorschach test and Wikipedia. Wikipedia guideline tell us to avoid self references and that we should only mention Wikipedia in an article if Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article. We do not play a major role in this test, in fact I would say be are only tangentially related to the subject. I welcome other opinions on this matter. Chillum 12:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed: one writeup does not a controversy make... but it may yet come. The reference is good for use elsewhere in the article, but I agree the paragraph was a bit much at the present time. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the notion that the self-referential stuff is inappropriate, I think that part of the whole problem here is that WP is indeed either already a significant player, or well on its way to becoming so. It becomes a gathering place for people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that psychological tests (either in specific or in general) should not exist, and provides them with a way to collaborate on imposing that POV not just on WP, but on the field as a whole, by working towards the destruction of the scientific knowledge. Mirafra (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are a significant player. The media likes to blow things out of proportion and that is just what they are doing now. I am happy that we have found common ground in that we both believe we should avoid self-references, perhaps we can build on that common ground. Chillum 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(Caveat: I don't have any affinity with this article.) In my opinion, when the New York Times writes that an organization may be damaging the very test this article is about, it should be written about in the article, even if that organization is Wikipedia. If the objectors are correct, then Wikipedia certainly is a major player. I don't think it's undue weight, though it might be temporal weight -- it seems more important now because it's fresh. Omitting it makes it look like Wikipedia is not willing to link to critical information. As it stands now, there isn't even a link. RoyLeban (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recentism. Undue credence to a mass media organisation with no capacity to comment in an expert manner.Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This just goes to show the cultural importance of the Rorschach. Why play does this down? I am somewhat blown away by it all... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... as I predicted, many more media organizations have picked this story up, and there's been a huge spike in internet search results for "Rorschach". –xeno^talk 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Irrevocable Harm to Authors/Dangerous Precedent

1. By putting the cards onto a large public forum (yes, it many ways, Wikipedia is more akin to a forum than an encyclopedia), not only is the test technique harmed, but so are the many, many authors who have contributed to the literature. Whatever one thinks of the Rorschach, good or bad, there have been many who have put years into writing books and publishing research on it. So while the Rorschach itself is not completely "copyright," the many years of work done by many authors (Weiner for one) is being slowly being deemed meaningless. By the way, Exner's scoring system is absolutely copyrighted material - and that's where the normative data come from (what "typical" responses are and so forth). By placing so much detail as to the scoring of the measure, I would imagine that violates Exner's copyright, no?

2. I fear that placing the cards onto Wikipedia is setting a dangerous precedent. This is a slippery slope; if Wikipedia allows this, what will keep them from basically reproducing other psychological/neuropsychological material. That would be TERRIBLY HARMFUL to not only psychologists and other behavioral scientists, but to children, families, parents - it would affect our ability to accurately evaluate conditions such as dementia, learning disabilities, developmental conditions, etc. It's akin to publishing a contemporary version of the SAT. While some don't like that test, if it were put onto Wikipedia, we'd lose a vital aspect of measuring a very important predictor of college success. Most of the standardized tests are under clear copyright, but the way some of these individuals are acting in this discussion suggests that the "everything should be free and available" ideology pervades much of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What other tests have public domain images that will, according to some, damage the value of the test? Your second argument is a complete red herring. Resolute 18:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the situation is perhaps worse than you realize. The information being used is well within the boundaries of fair use of scientific information and is carefully referenced, so it's not a copyright violation. Precisely the same thing could happen to other tests which are not so freely available -- the scientific process of developing and interpreting tests results in a surprisingly large amount of information being available to those who wish to work hard to find it. When that information is collected and placed in a single easily-findable location -- indeed, the first place most people go these days when looking for information -- that's where the harm you describe takes place. So every test used for psychological evaluation is vulnerable to this kind of destruction. People who believe that these tests are pseudoscience, or who believe that they might have been harmed by the tests, are actively supporting the process. Mirafra (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Takamine45's comments are well intentioned, but their second paragraph is based entirely on false assumptions along with a complete failure to assume good faith. What is to stop us from introducing copyrighted text? Our own policies do. Which is why I asked the question I did. There is a world of difference between a public domain image and copyrighted text. Since Takamine45 has either failed to understand this distinction, or willfully chooses to believe that we have made that failure, the entire argument is invalid. Honestly, I can see no possible way where the posting of copyrighted text in this fashion could pass Wikipedia's non-free content policy, so the slippery slope simply does not exist. Resolute 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the advocates for keeping the images up stated:

"let's assume that, indeed, the test will be invalidated by this page and that that will cause the death of some 15 year olds. We really shouldn't care (in our capacity as wikipedians) how many 15 year olds commit suicide because of this article; preventing the suicide of 15 year olds is not part of the mission goals, nor any consensus approved guideline I can remember. What IS our goal, however, is to create the best articles possible." Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Failing to see how that is relevant to the portion of the argument I have challenged. Resolute 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Although posting copyrighted text won't happen (while the Rorschach's methods are fairly new and constantly being updated, the images they rely on are probably the only ones that are old enough to no longer be copyrighted), someone can easily post cheat sheets and discuss techniques that can compromise any psychological test without actually technically violating copyright. And I suspect that someone will try to do this at some point. Interestingly btw, psychological research has shown that wikipedia editors as a whole tend to be less conscientous than other internet users: [6]. This becomes obvious with respect to this debate.Faustian (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is an entirely different argument though. Posting a cheat sheet would run afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE, and I expect you would find high support for removing such a section - especially given I believe it would likely contain either original research, or be sourced to sites that would not pass our guidelines on reliable sources. This argument can really be summed up as "don't eat these apples because someone else might eat those oranges if you do." Resolute 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to argue that with respect to placing popular responces and such on this page, and was told that the WP:NOTGUIDE is purely stylistic and has nothing to do with content. In other words, reword the guide to sound "encyclopedic" and it becomes acceptable. The function of a cheat sheet remains unchanged. Of course, the WP:NOT page has two seperate sections, one on "style and format" and a second devoted to "content" and the WP:NOTGUIDE was clearly in the "content" section. But this did not deter anybody, nor can it be expected to in the future given the precedent set here.Faustian (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns Takamine, but I'm sorry to say that you are outnumbered (at least a little) by the majority here, and on this particular article in regard to this particular issue, the majority rules here and the minority are given no consideration. It has even been argued by some among the majority that if death of people was a factor that might be influenced by placement of the images, that is of little relevance to the right of the majority to place the images as they please. But thanks for your efforts. Ward3001 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But, of course, Ward, this is precisely the strategy I don't think we should be helping with. Looking back through the archives, I see that well-meaning psychologically-savvy folks have been rather consistently run off -- you and Faustian being the two major exceptions. I'm glad that Takamine45 has taken the time to present opinions in such a clear manner. I agree, it's unfortunate that this perspective is unwelcome here. Mirafra (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

These assumptions of bad faith are ridicules. This is a wiki that would not exist if not for its volunteers. All are welcome as long as our policies are followed. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And your assumption that psychologists are welcome here is ridiculous. And, yes, much of the Rorschach article before the images were added was done by volunteers -- psychologist volunteers. Ward3001 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Psychologists are welcome, as is anyone else, so long as they respect our policies. One of which is WP:CONSENSUS. If an individual views themselves as being "unwelcome" because they fall on the wrong side of that consensus, that is the individual's issue, not the community's. Resolute 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that in this article's case consensus has been misinterpreted by the majority to mean majority dictatorship rather than what it is according to actual policy: compromise. Originally there was a dispute in which 1/3 wanted to suppress a single image in the article body and 2/3 wanted it in the lead. A compromise was forged in which the image stayed but was put in the middle of the article rather than the top, under test materials. This soort of compromise btw has been made in other articles with similar controverises. The article on the founder of the Bahai religion which opposes depictions of their prophet has his image but not in the article lead. The article on Islam has not a single picture of Mohammad, and even the Mohammad article doesn't have his picture in the lead. But apparently Muslims are more welcome than psychologists.

At some point someone in the majority figured that with enough votes compromise wouldn't matter (there is no mechanism to enforce policy when doing so is against the majority's wishes) so they went ahead and put the image in the lead. And then later, put all the images up. Etc. In this case, psychologists are in the minority. Their opinions are rejected completely. They are often disparaged for their opinions. The talk pages are littered with comments such as, "they just care because they want to make money off the test" or "they have a conflict of interest so their words should be taken with a grain of salt" (hmm would someone object to a biologist's presence on a biology related article by stating that he or she has a conflict of interest?) etc. And after all that it's claimed that it's the psychologists' problem if they feel unwelcome!Faustian (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, freedom of information. Let the images go up, only fascists withhold data. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.201.160 (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"the many years of work done by many authors [...] is being slowly being deemed meaningless." This is a strange argument. It might be clearer if you indicated how you thought that was so in this case. But in any case, many things people devote many years of work to are in fact meaningless. Шизомби (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

From the reading of this page http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring06/practitioner/rorschach.php it seems that the Rorschach overdiagnosis people with mental illnesses they do not have. Giving someone a diagnosis of say schizophrenia they do not have and putting them on antipsycotics can increase mortality (ie the chance you will die) Therefore exposing the Rorschach to greater scrutiny will save lives. My ethics rest easy at night.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment reflects some serious confusion about psychiatric diagnosis. And your comment that exposing the Rorschach will save lives not only shows a lack of knowledge of the Rorschach, but a profound misunderstanding of scientific methods. The Rorschach (nor any test) does not diagnose anything. Practitioners make the diagnoses. The Roschach or any other test only serves as a tool in that diagnosis. You apparently missed it when this was said several times earlier on this talk page. Tests do not think for themselves. A competent practitioner is needed for the diagnosis. So to say that the Rorschach "overdiagnoses" anything is equivalent to saying that a stethescope overdiagnoses. And your comment that exposing the Rorschach will save lives is equivalent to saying that because one physician made a fatal misdiagnosis using a stethescope, then destroying all stethescopes will save lives. High school science students know better than that. If there is overdiagnoses, it's the practitioner who is doing it. Your source is written by people who make a living by criticizing the Rorschach. They themselves have never used the test, nor have they been trained in its use. Ward3001 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And moreover have largely been debunked in the literature. Relying on Wood et al too much for this article is a bit like relying on one of these guysfor an article on Global warming.Faustian (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A few comments

• This test however is not used by psychiatric's so you must mean psychological diagnosis.

  The following passage has the psychologist in the equation: Mittman found that when psychologists trained by the Rorschach Workshops classified patients based on the Rorschach CS, they misidentified more than 75% of normal individuals as psychiatrically disturbed.

  Interesting your comment that The Rorschach (nor any test) does not diagnose anything. Actually in medicine many test diagnose many thinks. A blood culture diagnosis a blood infection, an appropraite blood sugar and pH diagnosis DKA, a CT diagnosis a spinal fracture and the list goes on.

  When you say the "rorschach does not diagnose anything I completely agree.

• The comments of "The more the test is known the more possibility there is to game it" and I did not mean that a coached subject could fool the person giving the test into making the wrong diagnosis by Smith sort of contradict each other.-Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. Too bad, for Wikipedia and those you diagnose, that you completely missed the point that the Rorschach can be an invaluable tool in psychiatric diagnosis. Ward3001 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More misunderstanding of psychiatric diagnosis, James. The test doesn't have to be used by psychiatrists. Psychiatrists frequently seek diagnostic information from psychologists. I'm asked several times a month by psychiatrists to assist with diagnosis, often with a specific request for psychological testing. In fact, I spend a substantial part of my work schedule consulting with a variety of physicians regarding psychiatric diagnosis. I know in the past you've said the docs in your practice never use psychologists (if I remember correclty), but your neck of the woods is clearly the exception. I know a number of Canadian psychologists who do such diagnostic consultations. Ward3001 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And I never said that a medical test cannot diagnose. You missed the point (again). I made an analogy with a stethescope. Are you saying a stethescope, absent a practitioner, can make a diagnosis? Ward3001 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Any justification beyond "Your source is written by people who make a living by criticizing the Rorschach." for dismissing the above paper? Just because someone makes a living doing something they are wrong?

And you did say above that test do not diagnose.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they teach in medical school (certainly the doctors I've personally gone to do not appear to consider the tests to be the diagnostic agents), but in psychologist school, it's considered a fundamental principle of understanding how to use and not use psychological tests. Read Sattler, Kaufman, or any other Psych Testing 101 text and you'll see it. Tests do not diagnose. Practitioners do. Tests provide us with useful information to inform our clinical judgment. For most psychological tests (the Rorschach being a notable exception), administering and scoring them correctly is really quite simple. The reason we need lots of training is precisely *because* the tests themselves do not diagnose in a vacuum. Diagnosis is a thoughtful process where multiple streams of data (other tests, interviews, questionnaires, observations, etc) are drawn together for interpretation, and each is given careful consideration as to what it is telling us about the specific person in the specific situation and how much weight should be given to each. Tests create diagnostic hypotheses, not diagnostic conclusions. Sure, some folks are less thoughtful than others, and their diagnostic conclusions are perhaps less accurate. There are klutzy folks in the medical world as well. But to say "the Rorschach diagnoses" anyone is a misuse of the term "diagnose." That is a process done by people. Mirafra (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

::::: Also, the terms "psychiatric diagnosis" and "psychological diagnosis," at least in my experience, are used more-or-less interchangeably. Some psychiatrists (fewer and fewer these days, I think) do use psychological testing in their diagnostic process. But I agree with Ward that it's far more common for them to refer to a psychologist for an evaluation that doesn't fit into a ten-minute med consult slot. Mirafra (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An entire article online debunking Woods' work by one of the top forensic specialists in the country: [7]. His bio is here: [8]. Contrast his bio with Woods' vita: [9]. Woods is not a clinician but a statistician. Another article debunking Wood: [10] and a few abstrracts of other articles: [11] [12] [13]. The basic pattern: Wood et al selectively cherry pick studies that support their POV and ignore others, misuse statistics, etc. This is why their work, while generating some controversy, never became mainstream in the field as shown by the fact that 80% of clinical psychologists doing assessments still use the Rorschach and 80% of graduate programs still teach it, and why in 8,000 cases where the Rorschach was used in court it was only challenged eight times and the expert testimony based on the Rorschach was rejected once (these facts are all referenced in the article). It's why Wood et al turn to the publishing books that are sold to people like you with little knowledge within the field and who therefore become easily impressed with them. Notwithstanding this fact, even Woods claims the test is useful in some circumstances: [14]. But keep believing that minority viewpoint in order to justify your actions. Faustian (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Four quick points, as I don't have the time so many others here seem to, nor do I foresee any of this debate really going anywhere logical.

1. I would like to repeat my statements about any comments or text that take at all from John Exner's material, which is fully copyrighted. Basically, anything beyond the cards themselves, including descriptions of scoring procedures, normative responses, what is a "typical response" all is found solely within Exner's books. Let me repeat, those books are under a clear copyright protection. So basically, anything that speaks of scoring or the methodology used should not be included. By the way, despite appearing to takes bits and pieces of Exner's and placing into the article, the method itself is not being represented particularly well anyway (as is the entire manner in which some seem to believe the Rorschach, and psychological tests in general, are utilized clinically).

2. Maybe this is one of the inherent problems with an internet forum resulting in an "encyclopedia." I have always liked the idea behind projects like Wikipedia, but I must say that I find it problematic that this is all really a "numbers game" when it comes down to it. Ideally, experts within a particular field SHOULD hold more weight in a particular debate. There is an idiom "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" that seems to apply quite readily to this situation.

3. Ultimately, this is not just about the Rorschach. While Resolute was correct in that most of the more sophisticated measures are copyrighted and strongly limited by test publishers, there are several, for example, more cognitively based measures that are in the public domain. Many psychologists and neuropsychologists continue to use (in part) many of these measures (with more recent normative data) in evaluating various aspects of cognitive functioning as they relate to dementia, stroke, epilepsy, etc. In fact, many of these "test" are best described as a set of questions/task instructions; which have far greater clinical meaning to those trained in the measures than a wikipedia editor might appreciate. Having those available would do irreparable harm to those test procedures; and they would have real consequence to real people.

4. I guess my last thought is this: what GOOD does putting the Rorschach cards do for the public as a whole. Yes, yes, I understand that this has nothing to do with Wiki policy. But ask yourselves that anyway. Rather than minimizing those of us who argue against your positions or placing upon them the burden of showing that there is "harm" done, ask what good has this brought about beyond piquing somebody's curiosity. The terribly trite phrase "with great power (as in Wikipedia) comes great responsibility" nonetheless seems quite relevant here, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

point 1. above does not have any merit. Wikipedia cites information from copyrighted sources all the time. Copyright infringement begins only when lengthy portions are copied verbatim.

point 2. shows a poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. Experts in the relevant field do actually hold all weight, not just some, in determining how the topic is represented. This is WP:DUE and WP:RS which essentially says that only publications by experts need be considered in the first place.

ad 3., perhaps it is time for the psychologists to realize that this isn't 1921 anymore and that security through obscurity has been long recognized as a worthless approach by experts.

point 4. is an ideological question. It is Wikipedia's most fundamental postulate, and ideology if you like, that making as much knowledge available to as many people as possible, as openly as possible, will in the long run be beneficial to humanity. You can argue about that, but this is what Wikipedia is here to do.

--dab (��) 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

~ Just a small comment on the claims that the use of copyright material is prohibited in this article: copyright protects the form of expression, not the factual content, of a work. As well, selected quotation from copyright works should be fine under fair use provisions, with appropriate citation. Copyright is not designed to allow ownership of factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.174 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is patently ridiculous, Takamine45. You should know that Wikipedia is completely based on content sourced from mostly copyrighted books, and that it's fine to do that. Please read copyright law and Wikipedia policy to confirm that and obtain further information about it.

Also, you said that some things are "only found in Exner's books". That's obviously incorrect, since if you cared to actually check the sources I've used in the article for those things, they're mostly not Exner.

I'd also like to reply to your point 4: the main reason for me is that it's informative to the reader. It gives direct information about the Rorschach test. Why would they want detailed information about the Rorschach test is the reader's business, but we know that we do the moment they reach the article, and we do our best to provide it. --LjL (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

First all the claimed rebuttals you presented were published BEFORE the article by Wood came out. A statistician is just the profession to show that the numbers do not added up / the data does not make sense. Wood also has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology . A finnally just because 80% of US pyschologist use this test does not mean anything. Take the Trendelenburg position for hypotension. They teach it almost universally to nursing and EMS student and it is used routinely unfortunately it is probably harmful. Science is not done by a vote of the masses.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Faustian's citations above of rebuttals after Wood et al. And you're right, science is not done by vote of the masses, and accurate scientific interpretation of the Rorschach cannot be done by vote of Wikipedians. Ward3001 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not interpreting the Rorschach. We are only providing information. If Wikipedia were published as a book than we would not be here as the information would have been published and you desenting opinion would not be taken into account. It is only the fact the we allow feed back that gives you a plateform to voice your complaints. That the majority has heard you complaint and does not think they are significant / matter / are over blown is were we stand now.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not interpreting one Rorschach administered to a patient. But you are trying to interpret the scientific qualities of the Rorschach. Doing that with quality and accuracy is not something that can be done by a vote of the masses, or by a vote of Wikipedians. (And don't say you're not voting; majority has ruled here for quite some time. To use your words, "majority has heard you complaint and does not think they are significant".) Ward3001 (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In comment to "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing". Yes I agree completely. That is why we are attempting to dispell the mystic surrounding psycological test by writing extensively about them. Wikipedia is a work in progress however and I would be the last one to claim that it is complete or polished at this point. Magicians by the way were up in arms when one of their members started a tv show to expose the secrets of magic. He wore a mask to protect his identity.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I like how an ER doc feels himself to be qualified to pass judgment on a field he knows nothing about (comparisons to magicians) and to weigh sources that he is not even remotely qualified to understand. With respect to the field you know nothing about - yes someone can have a degree in clinical psychology and not be a clinician. Unlike an M.D. a Ph.D. conducts extensive research - called a dissertation - in order to obtain his degree. The Ph.D. is quite versatile, and with it someone can become a clinician (what most Ph.D.'s do), an academic, or both (which is what people like Meloy do). Many stats oriented clinical psychology Ph.D.s never see patients. Woods is not a clinician, as seen in his vita: [15] he last worked in a clinical or applied setting 19 years ago, prior to obtaining his Ph.D. (so he never saw patients on a doctoral level). He's been a stats guy at a university that's off the radar in the field (University of Texas at El Paso - not meaning to knock it, just saying it's not known as a major intellectual powerhouse. It doesn't have a ranked Ph.D. program while Meloy's UC San Diego is number 9, above Princeton and Columbia, according to the National Research Council[16]) who got a lot of publicity outside the field with his article. Your very behavior here - almost exclusive reliance on a small minority of people whose ideas have been largely dismissed in the the field - is evidence of gross lack of understanding about the topic you are trying to write about and pass judgment on. Have you even read the articles I gave you links to? Were you capable of understanding them (this comment is not meant pejoratively)? I suppose the second one might have been a bit complex but the first written by Meloy seems to have been pretty clearly written. The second page of the review outlines some of the specific problems with Woods work. Here it is again: [17]. The author's bio is here: [18]. And Woods' vita, again: [19]. Once again, to make it even clearer, Woods et al generated some controversy and some of their ideas were useful (I may be mistaken but it seems the DEPI scale had to be revised as a result of their efforts), but all in all their work was largely dismissed for the reasons outlined in the papers I posted links to and you ignored. Woods' opinions have carried much more weight among people like you who know nothing about the subject than from those within the field. But as an ER doc from Moose Jaw gaining international attention for comments on a psychological test, I'm sure you can understand the appeal of PR over actual substance.Faustian (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that it would be terrific if we could write an article that explained the current and historical use of the Rorschach in clear language accessible to a non-professional reader, one that would dispel the mystique around the test and help people understand what it is and isn't useful for, what the results do and don't mean, so that they could make more informed choices about whether to consent to evaluations and so that they could better understand the results of evaluations. That's why I came here in the first place, although I feel that I cannot contribute to the article until we can come to some kind of agreement that allows professional input. But I agree with the little knowledge being a dangerous thing comment. You don't even know the most basic things about psychological assessment, and you're coming in and thinking that this is something easy to teach yourself. Some things in psych are easy to teach yourself. This just happens not to be one of them. But you don't even know what you don't know. Mirafra (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess there we have it. Cheers. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage

We state that the test is commonly used in the USA should we mention that it is rarely used in the UK? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/29/rorschach-answers-wikipedia --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The phrase referring to unknown critics ("critics dismiss it as out-of-date and it is rarely used in the UK") is hardly a basis for leaping to such a sweeping conclusion. Identify the critics. They may know little about the test, and they may be only two or three in number. Ward3001 (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment, the quote contains two distinct clauses, the first does involve unnamed critics who "dismiss it as out-of-date" but the second "and it is rarely used in the UK" is not attributed to those critics, it is a statement of fact by a reliable publication. Guest9999 (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Results citations

Can the citation for the popular/common responses be made explicitly clear? If it is Samual Beck, then can we explain briefly who he is, and when and where he said these were the popular responses, and perhaps how he is qualified to speak on the subject? Vivaldi (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We do. Have you checked out the article ("History", last paragraph)? "The test scoring system originally created by Rorschach was improved after his death by Samuel Beck, Bruno Klopfer and others."

Aside from that, if Beck himself is notable enough, I suppose you're free to create an article about him.

And the citation for the common responses is explicitly clear. It's currently citation number 62: Alvin G. Burstein, Sandra Loucks. (1989). Rorschach's test : scoring and interpretation. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.. p. 72. ISBN 9780891167808.

--LjL (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Publicity etc

The Rorschach test has been around for some 80 years - so there will be some familiarity generally with it, given that the images have remained constant over that period.

The Internet has been around for 20 years which will have increased such familiarity.

Society itself has changed over the past 80/20 years ('this time 20 years ago' the Berlin Wall was still up) - so interpretations/cultural aspects will have changed (and consider the claims of cultural bias in IQ tests - and interpretations of the prophecies of Nostradamus).

There is general familiarity with the theories of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung and many other psychiatrists - but this is not considered to invalidate their methods - nor the Ishihara color test.

The Snellen chart and related eye tests, exist in various forms - so why not the Rorschach test?

Whatever the arguments on the other side 'the spread of information cannot be prevented' (which is why study exams are changed every year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The norms are, in fact, updated to reflect changes in cultural norms. And interpretations of stuff not in the norms tables are also permitted to change as needed. Practitioners often consult with each other in order to improve the reliability of that process.

We've explained extensively before why simply changing the blots is not as trivial as shuffling the letters on an eye chart. Short version: For one thing, you've got to recreate the norms tables about what people in different clinical and nonclinical populations see and how they talk about what they see. That's a huge undertaking even within itself, although, as I just said, it does get done periodically. Note that creating norms from scratch typically requires far more extensive investments of time and money than simply updating them. Additionally, you then have to re-do the thousands of studies that established clinical validity for so many more different clinical and nonclinical populations. Just because a certain type of response at a certain level was correlated with a certain psychological characteristic when one set of blots was used, does not mean that this will necessarily be true when a new set of blots will be used. The old data can give us clues as to where to look, but it can't tell us what we might find.

And to make matters worse, some of the most useful information relies on data that is not easy to get -- for example, the Rorschach is frequently used to predict suicidality, to determine whether or not someone is likely to be able to remain safe outside of a hospital environment. To re-create that would require having a large quantity of new-Rorschach results that were administered to people who committed suicide shortly thereafter. So you'd have to convince Institutional Review Boards at hospitals all over the country to let you administer a brand-new test that gives no information because it's brand-new to a population that is highly vulnerable and thus has only questionable ability to give truly informed consent to participation in research. On the hopes that some of them would kill themselves shortly after the test administration so that you could analyze their data. This isn't the 1960s -- standards for protection of human subjects are very high. Oh, and you'd have to train hundreds of clinicians on your new method and compensate them for their additional time. Not that you couldn't do this, but boy, it would be quite an expensive and extensive project, just to get data for one clinical index.

The concern here is not so much that the spread of information must be prevented -- in fact, most of the information is publicly accessible in scholarly sources -- but that the re-presentation of that information in easily-findable and easily-understandable form is changing the playing field. Psychology as a field fundamentally cannot keep up -- our experiments take years to do. The paradoxical effect could well be to push psychology away from academia and towards industry (which has different standards regarding the publication of data) as our creators of tests. (There is some movement in that direction at present.).

It's ironic, the extent to which folks here are attempting to direct the functioning of a field in which they do not work, while also rejecting any suggestions that people who are members of both this community and of the scientific community might have something to say about how the encyclopedia should work. That is, you're happy to tell us what we should do as psychologists and to insist that we have no right to become fully part of you and to make suggestions about what we as a large group of encyclopedia-writers should do. This is not meant as a personal attack on anyone, just as an observation about process. Mirafra (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to interject, whether it is important or not, but just kind of a "for the record"-type thing. The Rorschach Test images were also printed in William Poundstone's Big Secrets about 20 years ago. This is not a scholarly work, rather it's a popular work, and it, too, includes the "right answers" should you ever be asked to take the test. In fact, his "answers" are more in-depth than Wikipedia's. Squad51 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Which probably doesn't take very much since the "answers" on Wikipedia are from decade old Beck and just sketchy examples of the one statistically most common response. --LjL (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How much more irresponsible can we get? A couple of weeks ago I commented that this article is approaching the level of irresponsibility of the amateur websites that purportedly tell someone what the best answers are, but in reality tell you how to produce a pathological Rorshcach. We get closer and closer every day. My advice to anyone reading this who may take the test: try to put everything in this article and talk page out of your mind; tell your test administrator if you read the article and suggest that he read it; he/she may very well conclude that, unfortunately, you cannot obtain the usual benefits of taking the test. Ward3001 (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how we might be getting "closer and closer", compared to your last rant before this one, considering the article is full-protected. --LjL (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think editors are the only people who read talk pages? Consider the comment "includes the "right answers" should you ever be asked to take the test. In fact, his "answers" are more in-depth than Wikipedia's". Ward3001 (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone so chooses to check out a (huge) talk page, that's their prerogative, but talk pages are not part of Wikipedia proper. Yes, the cat is very much out of the bag, but that's not really ontopic for here as long as it's not the article we're talking about. --LjL (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Any issue related to the article or talk page is relevant here. And I never said it's not "their problem". Any time someone is harmed it's "their problem." I asked how irresponsible can we get? And it appears to be quite irresponsible. Ward3001 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The scholar papers challenging it.

Doing a little looking around I found two very potential useful articles critical of the Rorschach test as a diagnostic tool:

Wood, James M. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Howard N. Garb, M. Teresa Nezworski (2000) "The Rorschach test in clinical diagnosis: A critical review, with a backward look at Garfield (1947)" Journal of Clinical Psychology 56:3 Pages 395 - 430

Wood, James M. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Howard N. Garb, M. Teresa Nezworski (2000) "Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool: A reply to Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000)" Journal of Clinical Psychology 56:3 Pages 441 - 448

If the names look familiar they should; they are the SAME authors of "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading". Some quotes out of these articles should prove most illuminating.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And here is something from 2006 by the same author: http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring06/practitioner/rorschach.php --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian article linked above (and linked again) ends with a UK doctor who used it at Broadmoor Hospital, a rather... shall we say intense... place who is openly skeptical about the test as well. --M^ask? 17:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)(fix my link, sorry :) --M^ask? 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone find something written by anyone besides Wood, Lilienfield, Garb, or Nezworski? The writings of those authors have been largely debunked, so it's misleading to repeatedly present them and only them. If that's all the critics here can come up with, I think that tells us something about where criticism of the Rorschach stands in the mainstream of personality assessment. There are some legitimate criticisms of the Rorschach out there, but most of what I've read (written in the past 15 years; anything older is outdated) focuses on specific issues (such as active and passive movement) and do not make a sweeping dismissal of the Rorschach as a whole. As Faustian said, if you want a minority and largely unscientific perspective about global warming, go the the extremist critics of global warming. If you want a minority and unscientific perspective about the Rorschach, go to Wood, Lilienfield, Garb, or Nezworski. Ward3001 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way James, for your PR campaign in the media, you might need a little more than Wood et al. Even some non-psychologists know that a few critics don't make up the entire scientific community? Have you hired an agent? Are you scheduled with Oprah yet? Ward3001 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that one of the major problems with the page in general is the WP:UNDUE weight that is given to this minority opinion. More ironies, really. Mirafra (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure the psychologists hearts are in the right place but trying to keep a secret scientific club going in the 21st century/information age? Is there any other scientific field attempting this? Their attempts are futile and they must know this. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" speaks for itself.

It looks like everyone in the world will have seen these images soon. It is the APA's policy and your efforts to inforce it that has brought the medias attention to this issue. If editors would have allowed wikipedia to add encyclopdic information without attempts at censorship then maybe the Rorschach images would have not made international news but have remained a historical and clinical curiosity.

And another quote "Is it not the responsibility of those we entrust our medical care to be aware of and proactive about concerns such as the corroded value of certain diagnostic tool? Rather than bemoaning the inevitable" [20] ie. welcome to the information age.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WRT WP:UNDUE editors express the opinion they find most compelling. If you think the proponents of the test are not well represented please represent them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Except those who understand the test here are outnumbered by those who do not understand it. And in this particular article, the minority is ignored and the majority makes all the decisions. Hence, regardless of what the experts here say on the talk page, the article has been under the control of those who do not understand the test for several months now. Ward3001 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This page, like all pages, is controlled by wikipedean policies. No original research is allowed and sources are properly documented. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Duh. The problem is that in order to determine how much weight to give to various sides of a highly technical professional debate, it really helps to have some understanding of the highly technical professional issues. There are a few people publishing on one side of the argument. There are many others publishing on the other side. To create a synthesis of both of those sides, giving a neutral point of view that reflects the weight of scientific consensus, is quite challenging. It's like writing the pages on global warming -- "equal time" doesn't cut it. To create that neutral synthesis requires thoughtful judgment and a thorough understanding of the ins and the outs of the topic. It's not original research to write the article. Under normal circumstances, one would hope that the normal process of argument towards consensus would help create the right balance. But here we have an article where one group of editors has declared another group's position (ironically the editors who have the best professional knowledge of the subject) invalid, and has made changes to the page that effectively prevent those who disagree with them from participating in the process. They've effectively subverted WP's policies to serve their POV. Sad. Mirafra (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's lip service, Gary. In the past few days, I have been told to go away and edit another encyclopedia. "Doc" James has said (and this is a direct quote), "the majority has heard your [psychologists'] complaint and does not think they are significant". Give me one example in which an opinion expressed by me, Faustian, Mirafra, or SPAdoc resulted in a substantive change in the article within the last 30 days. If you can't, consider whether the repetitive parroting of the phrase "this page is controlled by Wikipedia policies" serves any purpose to further the truth for this specific article. Ward3001 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)cl

Ward your free to edit the document like anyone else. Endless repetition of the same arguments has cause most to tune you out or bite you in frustration. I understand this is a sad state of affairs for you and believe or not I sympathize with your position but ultimately your goals do not look compatible with the encyclopedia's mission. This is not likely to change. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Missed my point again, Gary. So let me try to simplify. I didn't say I don't have the capability of clicking "Edit" and then editing (if I chose to violate ethics). I said psychologists have been told to "go away"; our comments about the article (not editors) have been threatened with removal; we have been told that the "majority" doesn't consider our opinions significant. And that's just the tip of the iceberg over the last week or so. It's crystal clear that the "majority" (all non-psychologists) gives the "minority" (mostly psychologists) no consideration in the majority's control of the article, despite the fact that the minority knows much more about the subject matter. So your repetitive "according to Wikipedia policy", although perhaps well-intentioned, says absolutely nothing about what's really going on in the control of this article. It's just a reflection of the unfulfilled ideals of Wikipedia, not the true state of affairs for this article. If you disagree, I'll ask you again: Give me one example in which an opinion expressed by me, Faustian, Mirafra, or SPAdoc resulted in a substantive change in the article within the last 30 days. Ward3001 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out, Wood, et al. are a distinctly minority view, as evidenced by the surveys of assessment psychologists on their usage of the instrument. Anyone is free to claim something is "controversial," but that doesn't make it so. Peter Deusberg still insists that HIV has no relationship with AIDS and claims that the HIV "hypothesis" is "very controversial." Others claim that evolution is a "controversial" theory in biology and no more accepted than literal creatioinism. That doesn't make it so. The fact that the earth is roughly spherical is not controversial, despite the claims of Flat Earth Societies. There are few researchers outside of the Wood cohort claiming that the Rorschach is invalid (although as with any psychological instrument, validity depends on the question asked). In an earlier post, I published the URL of the pdf of the Society for Personality Assessment review of the Rorschach literature. That review has many references to studies, including all major meta-analytic studies of the Rorschach validity. Reviewers of the meta-analysis of Rorschach research have all concluded that it possesses validity coefficients on par with other psychological tests (slightly better at predicting behavioral outcomes, less at predicting self descriptions). Read the data.SPAdoc (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SPAdoc. What a great idea for anyone trying to edit article: "Read the data". Ward3001 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Infligment

Why don't they create new test and put them under their copyright? Stop shitting and turn your brain on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.87.173 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep a WP:CIVIL tone. I just addressed this issue about half a screen above here. Mirafra (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And it has been addressed many times in the past. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)