Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images

Threaded responses here, please.

Productive

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

Pictures very likely to remain on Commons

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

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

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

Just a general comment: There is a policy to assume good faith, but there should also be a policy not to assume too much. Your replies have nothing to do with my post and you are fighting windmills of your own fabrication. Samulili (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That they are on Commons is completely irrelevant to their use on Wikipedia. The two projects have entirely different scopes, even if the former serves to support the latter. They are on commons because that project aims to collect freely licensed media. Given the plates are public domain, they fit Commons mandate. That is in no way, shape or form an automatic endorsement of their use on Wikipedia. Resolute 15:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Image galleries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Display only some"

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also agree especially as all 10 images are already out there anyhow thanks in part to the APA themselves (how about we just pull the image the APA themselves put up on their web site and have then supporter explain if the blot were that improtant by the APA put the entire plate up on their own blast website!)!--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not, as far as I can find, currently on the APA website. Could you provide a link? Mirafra (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The link to an Internet Archive of the APA website was provided in the talk pages which is how I found about it though it wasn't labeled in the best manner. This is why I call people who don't do proper references for their links lazy because it creates these kinds of problems later. It is a lot easier to look for Internet Archive of APA site then this link here or [2] especially if there has been a lot in the talk pages. It also helps later editors looking at previous references and the links no longer work. It is being courteous to those who will edit this page in the future. Some editors haven't grasped that that taking the easy way out on talk pages cause problems later on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in internet archives. You're claiming that the APA doesn't actually care, because they put the images up themselves. I think the fact that they have taken them down suggests pretty strongly that they do care (as does section 9.11 of the ethics code), and that the posting was made before the not-very-internet-savvy-folks there realized the consequences of what they were doing. If you live in a small town and left your door unlocked, and someone stole something from your house, and then you locked your doors after that, this would not be evidence that you wanted the theft when it occurred, nor would it be evidence that you now want theft to occur. (To be clear: I am not claiming the use of the images as theft; I'm saying it's a violation of boundaries -- sometimes metaphors aren't perfect.) Mirafra (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, your three APA links above led me to the same APA website front page. Does one have to be a member? Am I missing something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanding scope of RFC

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

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

Considering that a http://images.google.com/ search produced scholarly papers in which the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test image is included this is clearly a non starter:

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

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

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

Because the average user of the Internet is not going to read a highly-technical journal article. They're going to go to Wikipedia. The scientific community discusses things within itself -- if they didn't, you'd accuse them of being secretive and tricksy. But that does not mean that we think that everything that could compromise test security should be published on a highly popular general-reader-audience site like Wikipedia. Mirafra (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra, you totally missed the point here. I found those articles though a "rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure" search] through images.google.com and the very first picture I got when I did the search was from Nature Protocols. If the journals hadn't put the rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure in the articles and put those articles on the internet then http://images.google.com/ wouldn't have been able to find them and I wouldn't have been able to point your way to them. Simple logic and even told you how I found the articles in the first place above.

The same is true of the internet archive of the APA site. Showing that the APA once had a picture of the entire Rorschach test image plate in a resolution good enough to make out what the separate images were on its own web site would make their current claims look totally hypocritical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Showing that the APA once had this image on its own website would simply suggest that they had now removed it to avoid appear hypocritical, But they never have had this, or done this, have they? Their current statement still stands for what it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Censored

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

Good point. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that even WP:NOTCENSORED is not an absolute. The Biographies of Living Persons policy explicitly says it exists not just to avoid lawsuits, but because of an understanding that social responsibility needs to be considered. Mirafra (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How does WP:BLP go against WP:NOTCENSORED though? The BLP involves removing anything libacious that isn't backed up by a source or anything private (not public knowlegde, etc). How is removing that info at all censorship? The word 'censor' doesn't appear on the policy page, at all. Also, the main page isn't article space, so keeping porn off it isn't censorship either, it's good judgment. I just find it entirely bizzare how wrongly people use the the concept. Not having a picture of a penis in penis is censorship. Not having said article as today's featured article -- especially when one considers that there's more FAs than there are days -- is simply common sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth actually reading the whole page. It clearly states that WP has a responsibility not just to be accurate and non-libelous, but also to consider the real lives of the human beings who are being affected even by stuff that could be published legally. The section "Other considerations" talks about things like not publishing information, even if true and well-sourced, that could affect, for example, the children of celebrities, or the victims of crimes. It represents a voluntary restraint on the idea of all info all the time on any topic anyone wants, because of ethical considerations. I'm not the one introducing the word ethical -- it's used many times in the policy itself. Mirafra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

Our policy on not being censored has only the exceptions: Neutrality, Biographies of living people, and Florida law. The "other considerations" section of BLP mentions: Privacy, a figure being known or unknown, a person's level of notability, personal information, privacy of names and marital status. Nothing relevant. None of those three exceptions apply in this case. It is indeed a very creative interpretation of policy to read anything out of it that indicates that there is an exception to our censorship policies related to these images. Chillum 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the "whole thing" and as Chillum points out WP:NOTCENSORED has NO relevance to the issue of Rorschach test as Rorschach himself has been dead since 1921, the images are public domain so no violation of US law has occurred with regards to copyright, and the image description can be had through WP:RS so NPOV is not violated either. All we have had has been WP:SYN in one shape or another or OR out the wazoo.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is not that WP:BLP applies here. It's that WP has recognized that social responsibility is something that does need, at times, to be considered. We just disagree on whether the notion of social responsibility applies to this type of situation, destruction of test security. (To quote the old joke, we've already established that WP is that kind of woman -- now we're just haggling over price.) Mirafra (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Then please by all means, go propose a policy to that effect. Others have done so in the past and failed outright(See here), but perhaps you can convince people of such an idea. For the record I would oppose such a proposal. Chillum 15:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also add (although it's just my unsubstantiated opinion) that WP:BLP primarily exists to avoid legal issues; it contains rules very much unlike quite a few principles that Wikipedia generally applies. --LjL (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispensing test-taking advice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

We don't give medical advice, we describe medial information then use a disclaimer to make it clear that this is not advice. Chillum 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not even worth considering

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

Sort of. Art LaPella (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I thought my stance on that should have been clear when during that discussion in the Rorschach talk archives I removed a disclaimer (WP:NODISCLAIMERS) from an article that contains a video claiming to have caused seizures. It was more than clear enough from the descriptive, encyclopedic caption (something like "This is the video that caused seizures in some people") there was a slight risk in viewing it. It doesn't take rocket science to realize, seriously, and same for Rorschach. If you don't want to view them, you won't. --LjL (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to that edit you mention. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[3]. --LjL (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your stance is clear, I did take the time to look at the video which does not play automatically. Just be open and state what you think in plain english.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not censored and uses no disclaimers in articles. My statement is perfectly consistent with policy here. If the video is relevant to the subject matter of the article, it should be included. --LjL (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians creating own scientific stance independent of the scientific community

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

Actually the question at hand has not been resolved by the scientific community especially regarding subjective potentially cultural biased tests like the Rorschach test. The following papers show a large amount of variance regarding the Rorschach test:

Adcock, Cyril J. and James E. Ritchie (1958) "Intercultural Use of Rorschach" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 60, No. 5 (Oct., ), pp. 881-892

Boyer, L. Bryce; Ruth M. Boyer, Charles W. Dithrich, Hillie Harned, Arthur E. Hippler, John S. Stone and Andrea Walt (1989) "The Relation between Psychological States and Acculturation among the Tanaina and Upper Tanana Indians of Alaska: An Ethnographic and Rorschach Study" Ethos, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 450-479

Edgerton, Robert B. and Kenneth Polk (1959) "Statistical Problems in the Intercultural Use of Rorschach" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 1092-1093

Hallowell, A. Irving (1945) "The Rorschach Technique in the Study of Personality and Culture" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1945), pp. 195-210

Mensh, Ivan N. and Jules Henry (1953) "Direct Observation and Psychological Tests in Anthropological Field Work" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 461-480

Moon, Tae-Im; Bert P. Cundick (1983) "Shifts and Constancies in Rorschach Responses as a Function of Culture and Language" Journal of Personality Assessment, 1532-7752, Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages 345 – 349

Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach."

The only thing you get out of that mess is that there is no agreement within or across scientific disciplines regarding what the Rorschach test can reliable be used for.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Again you are trying to wedge into a scientific discussion by bringing articles about the validity of the test. The wikipedia is not about picking articles that agree with us to support an opinion. "Ritzler BA del Gaudio AC. A survey of Rorschach teaching in APA-approved clinical graduate programs. Journal of personality assessment. 1976". This is the kind of article you should be bringing forward. Studies that talk about the prevalence and validity of it's use within the scientific community. Feel free to bring a quote to an article that concludes that the test is not in use by the Mental Health community otherwise you are at fault by WP:ORIGINAL. In particular this article states that 81% of the schools place emphasis in teaching this test.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, could you specify which of the above seven sources directly address(es) the issue of reduced test validity caused by pre-exposure to one or more of the images? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering Ritzler, Barry ; Barbara Alter (1986) "Rorschach Teaching in APA-Approved Clinical Graduate Programs: Ten Years Later" Journal of Personality Assessment, Volume 50, Issue 1 pages 44 - 49 DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_6 showed some conflicts with the earlier study. Also both studies gave it "low ratings as a research instrument" (abstract of later study). This is all ignoring the fact that a 1976 or even 1986 paper have no merits on a 2000 that questions the uses the Rorschach test is put to or a July 30, 2009 news report made through the news section of an organization that publishes psychological journals that states that that 2000 report "remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach".--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that people are, for some reason, still thinking that policy (as opposed to article contents) should be dictated by sources. That is not the case, policy is primarily based on consensus, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not cite sources to back up their position. Their "position" is backed up by community consensus alone. --LjL (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The scientific community's opinion does not dictate the consensus of Wikipedians and choice of WP with respect to publishing content. If you cite a source in a policy discussion, then it's only done as evidence supporting a point or claim you are trying to make in the discussion. Wikipedia's editorial choices do not require sources, and they are not dictated or chosen based on what an outside expert community concludes about the appropriatness of publishing information about a subject. Only the article content itself requires sources (for the information in the included content). The Scientific community may very well have objections to subject matter/beliefs described in articles like Astrology and various Pseudo-science articles, since they may describe beliefs that are contrary to the scientific community's, nevertheless, such articles should exist in an encycloepdia. --Mysidia (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly, does this relate to the publication of the images? Resolute 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the main contention is whether the images produce harm or not. I think in a truly open discussion everybody should state their position. That is why there is a circular discussion. Because rather than openness people are withholding their opinions. I can't see how there can ever be closure on this issue in this precarious situation.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, that is only the main contention of the experts weighing in. The main contention on the Wikipedia side is "how many to display and where", given that they are public domain images of direct relevance to the article subject. And "closure" is relevant. The debate on the use of images in the Muhammad article, for example, has long since closed, but that does not prevent about three readers a week from coming in and demanding Wikipedia follow the will of the Islamic community. However, as in this case, the will of an outside community does not determine Wikipedia policy. We note the objections in the articles, but as I noted on the now rejected policy proposal, the supposed potential of theoretical harm being inflicted on a hypothetical person is not going to sway anyone's opinion one way or another on how we determine article content. Resolute 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No answer to a direct question, and you do attempt to engage in yet another chronic circular discussion that are like a plague to the Wikipedia. By avoiding a direct answer you place an undue burden on anyone that depends on rational argument to expose their reasons. What is a reasonable person supposed to do? Chase you and the other 20 rabbits bouncing around or else my words are worthless, I am no newbie. I have seen this many times before, you may be doing it in good faith. But I think it is a shame.--Dela Rabadilla (talk 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The supposed potential of theoretical harm being inflicted on a hypothetical person has certainly swayed my opinion on how article content should be determined here. But who's currently included in "we"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I was, of course, generalizing. On the whole, it has been pretty thoroughly shown that there is little support for overriding policy on a theoretical event. Resolute 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we've gotten away from the original point: The psychological community has made pretty unequivocal statements in favor of preserving test security -- every national psychological association has language in its ethics code about the importance of maintaining the usefulness of all tests through the preservation of test security. A representative from the Society for Personality Assessment came here to make the request in person. While Wikipedia is not legally bound by the professional ethics of psychologists (although the editors who are psychologists are!), for WP editors to be making their own claims about whether the APA and others really care about this, or to be making their own decisions about whether any given test is "invalid enough" or "already compromised enough" to be "not really a problem" smacks of original research. Mirafra (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Not only does this behavior smack of original research, showing the images also smacks of a non-neutral point of view. Neutrality dictates that we take a less-active posture, one that does not "reproduce" results favorable to any particular point of view about the utility of the Rorschach test. That psychological tests are so easily vulnerable to vandalism (see 1996 APA statement is unfortunate, but does not take away from our responsibility to be neutral. If you pick up a carton of eggs, you have to watch your step more carefully. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is, in fact, neither. Pointing out that the images are already widely available is no more original research than pointing out that the APA is not very happy with their publication. If Wikipedia is being accused of causing harm (POV) by making the images available, then yes, one can logically conclude that that ship sailed long ago when the images fell into PD, and are already widely available the internet. Your comments about POV are a red herring. Wikipedia would fall prey to a bad case of pushing a POV if it conformed to the POV of the APA. Neutrality dictates that we present the information available without bias. As the images and common responses are both a matter of public record, we are not in danger of violating WP:NPOV by simply stating what is already freely available. Resolute 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Psychological Association has issued a clear statement about the harm from showing test materials [4]. I think their end point "what is lost by publishing the content of psychological tests far outweighs what is gained" is quite clear.--Vannin (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There you go two national associations, how many do we need. Is the wikipedia going to ignore the consensus of the biggest scientific bodies. And create science on it's own? What is next will wikipedians challenge NASA on whether there was water in Mars. This is a scientific article, if we were talking of paranormal experiences we should also go with the accepted facts by the paranormal community. We would look at the word of the biggest paranormal associations and not create a fringe paranormal community within the wikipedia. Bad for encyclopedic business remember WP:ORIGINAL.--Dela Rabadilla (talk)24.174.8.32 (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove all medical pages as they could cause theoretical harm? Than again maybe we should just write an encyclopedia. By the way all this info and much more is on google books. Why don't the psychologists leave Wikipedia alone and go after google?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a straw man, nobody ever said theoretical harm. Any person that went to high school knows the implication of showing the exam ahead of time. There is no "theoretical" here. Also, your attitude against psychologists puts you in a particularly precarious place. Would you ask Mathematicians to leave you to write whatever you like about the algebra or group theory?--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

JMH - this is a distraction. No one is saying all information should be removed. The CPA has said that "publishing the content of tests" - not information about the tests -outweighs the benefits. It is also about your personal actions - you are not a puppet. You, personally, can make choices here. Just because "it is out there already" (or because you have "orders) does not mean that you have to put material on wiki and make it even easier to get to. --Vannin (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you're in the mistaken belief that WP:ORIGINAL applies to the consensus-building process to decide on policy and/or editorial decisions rather than article content. --LjL (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that it is OK to create a separate fringe scientific consensus to discuss about content so long the content does not reflect it? --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The concept of a WP:FRINGE theory doesn't apply to policy, but to content alone (it's a "content guideline" as its header states), so your question doesn't make sense as far as this discussion is concerned. --LjL (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So in the absence of a direct answer, and given the negative tone of your statements. We should assume that the answer is yes. That all the commonsense norms that have been established to guide the creation of this encyclopedia. Are worth zero when it comes to discussion pages, here we can censor, create science, publicize our own products ect ect...--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me clear something up right now: I do not appreciate your putting words in my mouth. I have already very clearly explained that I cannot give you a direct (or indirect) answer because your question makes not the slightest bit of sense. We are not creating any scientific consensus, we are creating Wikipedia consensus. The whole problem here seems to be that people like you are confusing scientific ethics with Wikipedia ethics. I'm not claiming that the test is or is not "harmful"; I'm claiming that doesn't matter here; it is none of our concerns. This is an encyclopedia. How people will use the information they find here is no reason to withhold them. --LjL (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the Canadian Psychological Association states “The CPA’s concern is not with the publication of the cards and responses to the Rorschach test per se, for which there is there is some controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts, but with the larger issue of the publication and dissemination of psychological test content” says Dr. Martin Antony, CPA President." claiming that it relevance to the Rorschach test issue clearly getting into WP:NPOV issue as the paper doesn't say what people are claiming it says. If anything the "controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts" part raises even more issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The CPA says, "There is a large class of behaviors that we are very upset about. We're not 100% in agreement amongst ourselves that this specific behavior is within that class, but we are strongly in agreement that this class of behaviors (breaking test security) is what is problematic." That should not be construed to mean, "Hey, go have fun, break test security on any test as much as you want." Mirafra (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument I presented above is not a straw man. You claim that the harm is not theoretical yet are unable to back it up with any evidence only the position of your associations. One of the many issues is who would decide what info is to be removed and what info is to be presented? Some may say all of medical Wikipedia constitutes advice and others may say none it does. Weather some are in the middle. Who would get to draw this line?

There is not even any way to verify the self proclaimed psychologists editing here are even psychologists and none of the guideline accurately distinguish what is considered test material and what is not.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The CPA is very clearly not saying that disclosing the Rorschach inkblots will cause harm. I would say that, unless the APA and CPA specifically object to disclosing these inkblots, we should assume that there is no scientific objection to including them on the WP article. Roger (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But it does not matter in the end what the CPA and APA say. We want evidence that harm significantly outweighs the benefits.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The APA and the CPA are the most likely ones to claim that there is some harm. If they do not claim any harm, then that is noteworthy. Roger (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Until the APA and CPA, even the BPS, disown the Rorschach as a valid psychological test, the advice provided by these bodies about the protection of test materials in general is perfectly relevant. One would not expect these bodies to make separate statements about the protection of the materials from each amd every test. Nor would one reasonably expect statements comparing levels of potential harm when compared with the benefits of wikipedia articles. The absence of a claim about one single technique is not noteworthy at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not obliged to listen to their advice concerning "protection" of their test materials. --rtc (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Even as I know that people may disagree with me they should not shift the discussion from what is it that the scientific community believes to be true. We are not an independent scientific community. By WP:ORIGINAL the Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether harm happens or not. But what is the scientific consensus. We are not going to argue whether quasars are truly galaxies, and publish our own opinion disregarding the scientific community." That's right, we are not going to publish our own opinion on the rorschach test, disregarding the scientific community, either. We do not even publish any new position on whether publishing rorschach test image is okay, we publish the rorschach test images themselves, which are old. And we are creating a new position (that those test images should be included in encyclopedia articles) that is in opposition to some opinions within the scientific community and professional organizations, allegedly the majority of them, and practicing the consequences (that is, we actually include the inkblots). But we do not say within the article that this is the right or wrong thing to do, we simply do it! We are not bound to obey rules made by the scientific community, and we are not bound to reject rules that contradict rules made by the scientific community. PS: It seems to be taken as granted that the question is whether these pictures cause "harm" or invalidate the test, and that if they do, that's a reason for not including them. It is not. The question is whether the pictures should be included in the article, independent from harm it causes! --rtc (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We clearly agree and you bring up a good point that may have been discussed before in the numerous archived pages. LjL seems to concede that the consensus is based on a fringe position, but discounts it because it just so happens that the policies talk about the content not the discussion pages. In any case, the fact that the images and other text is thought to hamper the test is not just recognized by the scientific community. But easily understood by anyone who has taken the test. That should be in the article itself. Not only that, because these are known facts we can write them into the article without incurring in the extra disclosure policy. Because they are just mere known information about the subject. I don't know about you but I feel that this may be a bit of a breakthrough. Let me ask Xeno to read this to see if he recognizes some value on this.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer proposal by Kallimachus

When you propose using a disclaimer, you seem to forget there is a clear rule on Wikipedia about no disclaimers. It's true that, like all rules, it should be treated with common sense, but I doubt that Wikipedians at large are prepared to make an exception to this one, because of legal concerns among other things.

But there is a way out that is already applied in the article: there is not an explicit disclaimer, but there are factual, sourced (IIRC) statements about the possible harm of viewing the images.

A sane reader will make their own conclusions about viewing the "Ten inkblots" section after seeing that statement, I would assume... --LjL (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, was not aware of that, Wiki newbie here. So, it's not that disclaimers aren't allowed it's that they're assumed to be there already. I went back and looked at Wikipedia's policies, mostly at the spoiler text Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning, which I think is the most relevant here. Based on that, a real (and easily rectifiable) concern I see is that for this spoiler content, having the images plus the common responses plus the analysis under the generic section heading "The 10 Inkblots" does not imply the presence of common responses and psychiatric analysis of responses. From spoiler warning page:

However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

In the spirit of the spoiler policy page, I think a reasonable compromise would be to change "The 10 inkblots" section title to "The 10 inkblots with interpretation and analysis" to better reflect what the section contains and to better imply the presence of spoiler content. The way I've read the debate, potentially the most damaging content is not the images, it's the common responses because it could sway patient's responses. Kallimachus (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a bit complicated a story. Initially, there were only the images on the article that were not wanted by some; then, after I added textual information (including, but not only, the plates descriptions - basically, check all of my edits), there were objections about those, as well. I think this specific RfC is mostly about the images because the textual content is quite vague to limit, but the psychologists who want to "preserve test security" would want to strictly limit the textual content to "safe" descriptions only, too. You should check the talk page archives carefully for the whole story.

I'm not sure whether we should change the section title the way you describe... it's true that the descriptive text was added in a later stage, but it's somewhat natural for a Wikipedia article section to describe what its title says, not merely present it.

For example, If we had an article about aircraft instruments (a random example, just because I've mentioned those lately), would you expect, in a section titled "Altimeter", only an image of an altimeter, or a description of it? I'd say the latter, and without the section being title "Altimeter and its description". --LjL (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is complicated. In fact 'orignally` there was just one image - Plate I, to which equally strong objections were made, for much the same reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In `actual fact' the article started life with no image at all: [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the images, but the images are problematic. Accompanied by the text that purports to discuss not just common answers, but the ways in which answers are interpreted by the psychologist, they become even more problematic. In many respects, the text is worse, whether it's accurate or inaccurate. Mirafra (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Who is going to write the alt text? —mattisse (Talk) 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, can I have a go? [[File:Rorschach blot 04.jpg|alt=Fat chick on a motorbike... no, wait, a sheepskin rug... oh, hang on, it's a butterfly... or is it a flasher with an improbably long manhood...]] – iridescent 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright permitting, many Rorschach User Manuals, such as Bruno and Klopfer (1962) for example, could provide descriptive text which could easily provide the basis for such. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh Jesus... That might be the single greatest question ever asked on Wikipedia! Resolute 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely The Best Rhetorical Question Ever. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Resolute, it might well be, unfortunately. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New policy

Am attempting to create a policy pertaining to suppression of information / content to hopefully resolve this issue. User:Jmh649/Suppression of content Would appreciate any comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

an unwillingness to accept a consensus that you don't agree with is a form of disruption

I put this into my statement because I am someone who has not really been involved in the talk page discussions except iirc, an rfc response or two and perphas a couple comments. But I did visit several times over the course of the dispute and read the discussions. There was never a lack of consensus, rather there was a small group who simply would not accept the consensus. Asking the same previously answered questions over and over, raising the same rejected arguments over and over... As an editor on Wikipedia, there simply are times when you are not going to get your way. Posting RfC after RfC after RfC on the same question, for example, is not really dispute resolution, it is disruption. I was somewhat taken aback when someone misinterpreted this as meaning that people should not be allowed to retain their own opinions. Of course that is not what I am suggesting. In those instances where the consensus went against me - well I'm sure the consensus was wrong. But for me to continue to agitate against an established consensus, even one I'm sure is wrong, is counter-productive to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is disruptive. Many of the editors not accepting consensus also state that they will not contribute positively to these Wikipedia articles unless they completely get their way. And then only add the information they deem is suitable for public viewing. This goes again the principles of Wikipedia. specifically number 2 [6]

We are going to reach a point were strong measures need to be taken to deal with these continued disruptions.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that refusing to accept consensus can be disruptive, and in this case has been. This cannot go on forever and the outcome is clear. Stronger measures to prevent further disruption to the article may be needed, particularly against those who are unwilling to actually improve the article. Chillum 21:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be a case for the arbcom if this Rfc does not resolve the issues, which sadly looks like it won't.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No way arbcom will take this. Consensus is crystal clear. Those who refuse to accept consensus will be dealt with. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no chance in hell this will go any further than this RfC. It couldn't actually be any clearer which side is right on this occasion. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, so majority = right, minority = wrong. That's how wikipedia "builds" consensus? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What you should do, if you want to understand how Wikipedia builds consensus, is review WP:CONSENSUS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not without having discussed the issue and considered the merits of every point of view. No one could say this has not been done after seeing the number of bytes these discussions have taken up by now. --LjL (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They do sometimes take on cases even if majority consensus has been achieved. It would be a matter of banning, restricting editors. See here, point 5 "they will hear or not hear", i.e sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope Anyway hopefully the clear consensus will sort things out without having to go to any other steps up the ladder of wiki enforcement.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom cases about the behavior of editors are far more common than ones about content disputes. Chillum 23:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"an unwillingness to accept a consensus" clearly describes a behavior, and is entirely content-neutral. Dlabtot (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was my intention for that comment to support the plausibility of arbcom in this case, not discourage it. Perhaps we will all be surprised by the parties accepting this consensus and it will not be needed, but I will not hold my breath. Chillum 23:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement "an unwillingness to accept a consensus that you don't agree with is a ...(bad thing)" actually is a two way street. The Wikipedia is not that exceptional fairy place where the majority is never wrong. I don't edit-war because that is not something that I do. But if you really want to convince people that disagree with you, then you will have to do it on the merits. I do want to convince people that the current consensus is wrong, but nobody cares to have a rational argument. They have no incentive because they already "won". And nobody wants to lose face after all the time they invested in fighting this. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not turn this around. The writing of an encyclopedia is the default which involved the addition of content. It is our opponent who have to convince use that there is justification in this case to withhold / censor this information. They have not convinced use of the merits of their proposals and this is not do to a lack of rationality on our part.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make something very clear here. If an editor states that he cannot participate in the editing of a page because it violates the law and his professional ethical codes in order to do it, that is not a threat, nor is it disruptive behavior. It's informing other editors of a very real constraint under which we really do operate -- we don't have a whole heck of a lot of choice in the matter. We've been told that if we don't accept your "consensus" we should leave the editing to people who are not bound by law or ethics. Which I at least will do, if with a great deal of sadness and not a small amount of trepidation (mixed with a bit of amusement at the level of hubris). But to then turn around and retaliate against editors for being "disruptive" because we've been disagreeing with you in principled debate is pretty scuzzy (and surprising for people who claim to be in favor of free expression of ideas). You've made it clear. I'll leave you self-appointed experts to write the articles which violate test security, and I'll spend my time contributing to articles where I'm not risking the loss of my professional livelihood by doing so. Mirafra (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long tradition of letting disputes come to a reasonable end and not devoting inordinate amounts of time(that could be spend writing an encyclopedia, remember the encyclopedia?) to it. If consensus changes fine, but it is very clear what consensus is now and until it changes it does need to be accepted. I frankly think that if 8/9th of the people wanted the images removed and 1/9th did not want them removed that you would have not problem accepting the consensus. This is about you not getting what you want and nothing more sinister than that. Chillum 02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"you not getting what you want"... I guess you can phrase it like that. I would say "you disagreeing with the current majority consensus" which also is the way the world moves forward. I think the way this is going, this will not be the last Rfc. And I don't see the reason to complain about that. You are correct in not seeing anything sinister here, this are health care professionals concerned to do their job right, not fishy individuals with hidden political agendas. So if more Rfc are to come, let them come--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus achieved

Now I'm not suggesting someone close this necessarily, although an outsider is welcome to if they agree, but surely consensus has been made here in that there is an overwhelming majority in support of keeping all 10 images. The only remaining problem (correct me if I'm wrong or missing something) is how to display them. At present, I don't think there are many opposed to keeping things how they are. Any comments? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see it remain open for the usual length. –xeno^talk 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If only to avoid the wikilawyering and accusations that would follow. Verbal chat 18:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No reason to close it early. Although, in fact there was no real reason to open it in the first place, since no editor could possibly have in good faith not already have known what the consensus was. Nevertheless, let it run... Dlabtot (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the reason was to make an attempt to determine (or confirm, depending on your viewpoint) community consensus in an organized, rationale venue. –xeno^talk 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it, I just think it was unnecessary. If the goal is to produce a good encyclopedia article, a better path to that goal would have been to simply ban the disruptive editors from the article and talk page, rather than file an RfC to re-re-re-re-confirm an already well-established consensus. But that's just my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dlabtot. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm not suggesting we actually close this just yet, but I just wanted to check the vast majority of people knew what the outcome of this will be. Still Dlabtot makes a perfectly valid point, this should never have come here in the first place. I think it's important to review NOTCENSORED as per Doc James thread above. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions have asked if majority voting equates to consensus. We now seem to have replaced voting on a range of alternatives, with a first past the post result for the most popular statement. One which denies, in this case, any possibility of compromise with minorty views. But perhaps people see no place for compromise in consensus. After all, as we all know, "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked where the goalposts for an end to the dispute were, and based on the responses received, it doesn't seem that the two sides can achieve a mutually agreeable compromise. –xeno^talk 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While the consensus is clear, I suggest we leave it open to reduce the amount of wikilawyering. Dlabtot has also made an interesting suggestion on how to deal with wikilawyering. Chillum 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if anyone thinks the consensus is being abused please by all means seek further scrutiny from outside forums. There are several noticeboards that can be posted to if you think a group of editors is ignoring consensus. I am sure the consensus observed here will hold up to scrutiny. Chillum 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's so important...

If the secrecy of this test is so important to its users and proponents - then they should have planned for the change in copyright status. It's not as if Wikipedia is unique in publishing them - they are all over the web and in books you can find on the shelves of most public libraries. Knowing that the current series of inkblots were due to come out of copyright, they should have produced a new set (it's not exactly difficult) and proceeded to compare the test results from the new set against results obtained with the old ones before the old ones reached the end of their lifespan. That this has not happened strongly suggests that either secrecy is not in fact all that important - or that the proponents don't care either way. The strong - and quite believable - claims that these "tests" don't have much diagnostic value suggests that the latter is the case.

If the results of these tests and the attendant secrecy actually matter to anyone - then they are being delinquent in not replacing them in a timely manner. It is better that the courts and other people who have been relying on these tests become acutely aware of the loss of secrecy.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)