Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Rorschach test. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

A more general discussion ?

It seems clear that the current discussion will go nowhere (and by the way, I have seen in the last edits before the page was protected that a consensus had been reached in the past, but this is very unclear to me — looking at the discussion pages, I don't really see any convincing consensus on this topic). In this discussion, policy was mentioned many, many times, so I'd think a logical step would be to move the discussion to these policy pages, so that we can get the opinion of people of other people who are interested in similar question. If this discussion has already happened on one or another policy page that I missed, sorry about that; otherwise, to me, the two most relevant pages would be Wikipedia talk:Options to not see an image and Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles, so I'll probably ask for opinions there. Schutz (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that many have appealed to the a literal interpretation of the policies instead of their spirit. If we continue on the policy discussion instead of focusing on common goals and communication I am afraid we will never reach consensus. For effective communication we first need order, we should agree on ground rules. For example: each side should either agreed on what they want to say first or put forward a representative. I know it's more work on the short term to be organized but it should pay on the long term. After all we all win when we reach consensus. I still believe that the best alternative is mediation. But it requires that we agree that all policies no matter how clear they might seem to us are subject to interpretation, and in many cases the interpretation itself is the crux of the matter.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to shift on display of the images and neither are any of the other anti-censorship wikipedian editors. We can discuss it til the cows come home but there is paradigm incommensurability in this argument, it's not like it's changing the wording of a paragraph, images are displayed or they are not. The bottom line is that we don't have common ground on this issue and are not going to unless one side goes against it's core principles. I don't bend on my principles, I am indeed entirely inflexible in their application. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies our problem, we have a big philosophical difference. You think that we do not have common ground, while I believe our common ground is that consensus through discussion makes the wikipedia better. I think that is why we read everywhere to assume good faith and write in good faith, because once we own up to this principles they take over any preconceived position we may hold or policy interpretation we may have. Owning up to this good faith principles should allow us to understand policy interpretation as part of the discussion instead of a roadblock to consensus. How can we own up to consensus if we don't give ourselves the opportunity to believe we might be wrong? A concern of mine is that the more we dig in behind an inflexible stated position, the more difficult it becomes for us to save face in case agreement doesn't fall on our side. And the not even mediation will help but only arbitration will patch the issue. I personally think arbitration is a kludge, consensus is the real objective.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's one reason I keep asking for evidence of actual or potential harm. Then we move from a bunch of random people quibbling into actual professional opinion on the matter. And I'll take this opportunity to once again point out that you've yet to provide any evidence of that sort, despite my having asked for it numerous times. Yes, I'm a broken record. Yes, this is intentional. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We have attempted to cover this before, but we have not been successful. Let me try another angle. The evidence is that "it's a test", just like many tests that you must have taken in high school were the teacher would not let anyone see the questions ahead of time. The basic premise under which all the research has been made is that the subject does not have the images available. Some of your high school teachers may have let you see the questions of a thermodynamics test, in those cases the teacher did not formulate the test under the premise that you would not see the questions ahead of time. The Rorschach test is taught in doctoral clinical psychology programs all around the world, it's generally accepted. I personally think that just like in the global warming case, what matters are not individual's opinions but the scientific community opinion. In the global warming case, researchers were able to conduct several surveys to give undeniable evidence of what was current scientific thought. I am not aware of such surveys for our case, but I don't think they are necessary. Certainly they have not been necessary for thousands of other wikipedia pages with scientific information.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with every think you have said, but I'm entirely anti-censorship in this matter and it would be wrong for me to lie to you and the other good faith editors such as Faustian and say that I am willing to bend on this matter because I'm not. However, I edit this project on the understand that my principles come second to the will of the community (because nobody is forcing me to edit) and would abide any consensus view that was reached, so yes I think on the matter of consensus we have that agreement. However, the issue of "face" doesn't really concern me - I don't edit under my real name, it's impossible to work out who I am, Fredrick is my avatar, he's not me (if you follow me). let me just conclude by saying while I disagree with both you and Faustian that I think your conduct on this issue (under a quite strong barrage of criticism) has been exemplary and the intelligent argument you both bring to the field must be maintained (because while I believe I am right, I know that's a natural product of my own ego). Having said that, I'm going to be busy in the next few weeks so it's unlikely I'll be involved in any discussion in any serious way. warm regards --Fredrick day (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider the sole action of removing information from the wikipedia to be censorship?--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should consider a little bit of the history of censorship to put this case in context. Censorship has been a tool for manipulation and control user by political and religious groups. And it's also a form of imposition. It also prevents the free flow of ideas that is widely considered as an element of progress. When printing presses emerged, these groups pressured printers not to print information that could hurt their position of power. Religion and politics have arbitrary ideologies, even when a few are based in scientific knowledge. I think it's safe to assume that the concepts put forward in such ideologies are for the most part arbitrary. I think that it is that arbitrary nature the one that makes forced adherence to ideologies (censorship) a negative thing. Science in the other hand seeks truth by nature, sure there is a big human factor. But that factor is taken to it's minimum when we listen to the scientific community instead of individual scientists. Even then we can make mistakes, but I think we will make much more mistakes if we use the personal perspective of a few wikipedians (me included). So back to the issue, I don't consider the use of scientific thought to remove information from the wikipedia any more censorship than the removal of information according to the wikipedia's own policies.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Noone replied to my message at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles, so I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Request for comments: removing information for medical reasons. Schutz (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the article itself ?

I just read something that made me think of a question related to the image controversy, but I am asking it mostly out of general interest (sorry if this was already discussed previously — too much to read on this page).

Wouldn't the article itself be at least as damageable to a potential patient than the description of the test ? I am thinking for example of these paragraphs:

As the patient is examining the inkblots, the psychologist writes down everything the patient says or does, no matter how trivial.

In the Exner system, responses are scored with reference to their level of vagueness or synthesis of multiple images in the blot, the location of the response, which of a variety of determinants is used to produce the response (i.e., what makes the inkblot look like what it is said to resemble), the form quality of the response (to what extent a response is faithful to how the actual inkblot looks), the contents of the response (what the respondent actually sees in the blot), the degree of mental organizing activity that is involved in producing the response, and any illogical, incongruous, or incoherent aspects of responses.

A patient who has read this description would probably be very careful about not saying anything until he had thought long about it; would it be any less damageable than seeing the image itself ? Schutz (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Schutz makes an excellent point. If anything that information seems more damaging than the image. I feel the entire article would be damaging to anyone who would be taking the test therefore hiding an image should be pretty moot.--Garycompugeek (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you said it perfectly. нмŵוτн τ 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you've administered as many Rorschachs as I have, it's clear that the brief descriptions in the article on the administration and interpreting process shed little light on the complex response process. It's very difficult for someone to translate a phrase like "the degree of mental organizing activity" into specific responses to specific inkblots. Can you tell me how that phrase changes how you might respond on Card I (the image we are debating)? More importantly, can you tell me how all of those descriptive phrases together change how you might repond to Card I? And most clinical patients have no desire to try to second-guess the test anyway. They want good test results so they can get good diagnoses and treatment; they are not trying to figure out details about taking the test before they actually take it. Seeing the actual blots prior to testing, however, instantly evokes images and thoughts in the examinees mind, without any intent on the part of the examinee. And when the usefulness of the test depends very much on first impressions, seeing the blot prior to the test wipes out that first impression. Ward3001 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So why do you say As I'm sure you know, some variables have high test-retest reliability, so obviously prior viewing in those situations has little effect. But if the examinee is trying to engage in impression management (e.g., a forensic case), prior exposure could make a big difference. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a private communication between two psychologists. Not that I mind anyone else reading it, but Faustian knows specifically what I'm talking about. He knows the specific studies, the specific intervals and research parameters. Can any of you who are not experts give me a detailed explanation of test-retest reliability, how it is obtained, how the statistics are calculated, and the difference between those statistical analyses and the statistical analysis of an individual Rorschach? I can, and Faustian can. So I didn't have to explain all those details to him like I would here. That's not to belittle non-experts opinions on this talk page, but it is an explanation of why viewing statements to another expert out of context can be misleading. Test-retest reliability is done with research subjects, not clinical patients. There is a huge difference. It was not intended to address the issue raised in this section of the talk page. Pulling my statements (or anyone's statements) out of the context in which I address them can lead to a conclusion that was not intended. I could go through anyone's private communications with a fine-toothed comb, pull snippets out, and easily give a wrong impression. But I will assume good faith and not assume that anyone is trying to put words in my mouth from a private communication. And I ask that other editors assume good faith that I am not trying to be deceptive and misleading by posting information on this talk page that I don't believe to be true. I stand by my post in this section above, unchanged. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

some mistake somewhere - you seem to misunderstand "community talkpages" for 'private communication', if you want private communication use email or the phone, not community owned and read pages - let's be very very clear about this not a single word you post on wikipedia is private communication, not a single word, every single word is there for the community to read and remove as it sees fit. as for "pulling them out of context", my quote provided a direct link to your statement, so how that's out of content, I'm not sure. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite aware of what people can and cannot read on Wikipedia. I am also aware that comments intended for one editor may not be understood by another editor, which I believe to be the case here. I'll ask again that editors assume good faith that I am not being deceptive in my comments on this talk page. If you want to push this "pulling out of context" issue, how about if I go through some of your posts on other editors' talk pages, piece them together and post them here (with links of course)? Don't force me to conclude that you are trying to put words in my mouth. If you want a detailed explanation of test-retest reliability I suggest you read about it before concluding that it has anything to do with the issue in this section of this talk page. This discussion has strayed from the topic. I don't need to justify my comments to Faustian. This is my last comment on that particular issue. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

who's putting words into your mouth, my comment provided a direct link to your full comment, please don't slander me in such a way again - I asked about your statement, you seem to want to attack me as a person and my moral character. At the same time, you tried to rely on claims of expertise to suggest that the rest of us editors should just leave you experts to get on with it. Of course, wikipedia frowns upon claims of expertise because of some of the terrible frauds that we have had in the past (not suggesting you are a fraud, just explaining why we don't take such claims on face value), that's why we rely on verification not "truth", so please stick to sources in future rather than trying to use your claimed expertise and accreditation to try and belittle your fellow editors. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked about my statement to Faustian. And I gave an answer above. Test-retest reliability with research subjects has no bearing on my statements above about the issue of the relative effects of the text of the Rorschach article and exposure to the Rorschach image in a clinical patient. There's your answer. Ward3001 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Point. User:Ward3001 states by his own medical professional admission "And most clinical patients have no desire to try to second-guess the test anyway." Implying the majority of test subjects have enough commen sense not to query Rorschach inkblot test on the internet before taking the test.--Garycompugeek (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, in the same comment Frederick day linked above, "I'm not sure if I have actually read that prior exposure jeopardizes test validity, or if I was just taught that." Given this is a very important aspect of the current debate, I'd appreciate clarification on that point. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Luna Santin, I don't question your sincerity, but I am not accustomed to having my statements on another talk page copied onto a different talk page and parsed the way an editor (not you) has done. So please know that I don't intend any offense in my response. I just wish to be careful with my wording in this legalistic environment that I find myself in. Since expertise is frowned upon, or so says Fredrick day, I'll give a non-expert answer. I can't remember if I read it in one of Exner's book, or if Exner himself told me, that prior exposure jeopardizes test validity. That is not to say I didn't read it. Nor is it to say that if I didn't read it in Exner that I didn't read it by another author. Nor is it to say that if I read it from another author, that it is not in Exner's writing. It is also possible that I read it in Exner and Exner himself told me. It is also possible that I read it in Exner and elsewhere, or that I read it in both Exner and elsewhere and Exner himself told me. I can check my books and journal articles, but that would require some expertise, and I assume that's not welcome here. Thanks.

Now, in response to Garycompugeek's interpretation of my statement "most clinical patients have no desire to try to second-guess the test" to mean "the majority of test subjects have enough commen sense not to query Rorschach inkblot test on the internet before", I have two comments. First, you can infer anything you wish from my statement. But to say that I have implied something assumes you know what I was thinking when I said it, which is POV. Secondly, by the standard that expert opinions are not acceptable on Wikipedia, it's a moot point anyway because I was presuming my expertise in saying it, so the statement that "most clinical patients have no desire to try to second-guess the test" is not acceptable on Wikipedia because it presumably comes from an expert's opinion and is not sourced. Ward3001 (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry to be a bother. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me go ahead and assume that other of my words written to Faustian will be analyzed and possibly copied to this page. I wrote "We might be hard pressed to find a source besides Exner to support potential invalidity from prior exposure". That does not mean that Exner did not consider prior exposure to jeorpardize test validity. Faustian (if I understood correctly) was requesting a source besides Exner because he didn't want to violate professional ethics by providing information from a manual writtern by Exner for psychologists. So he was asking for another source (likely based on Exner) that provided the same information. So a critical word in the phrase "hard pressed to find a source besides Exner" is "besides", meaning that the information is in Exner. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh

you got ward to have to try and explain his actions but because this is a non-expert audience this makes him look like he's talking down to people and telling them to butt out. Then You get a chance to reinforce that he's falling back on his expertise and that's a discredited concept on here and means that every time he mentions it, that the peons will take offense and think it's an attempt to shut them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.133.150 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (personal attack comments removed)

This was a clear attack on User:Fredrick day. Pure POV and certainly no contribution to resolving issue. User:Ward3001 has reformulated this to his POV. I will be reverting all of this shortly but posted this for clarification. Please let us stick to the subject at hand.--Garycompugeek (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack if the attack part is removed, which it has been removed. You accuse me of reformulating by removing the attack part; do you prefer that it not be reformulated and left in its original form? You can't have it both ways. You reformulated by deleting it entirely. The talk page is for opinions. This is not the article; it's a talk page. POV is acceptable on talk pages. The edit makes statements about the role of expert opinion on this talk page (and thereby in the article itself) in reaction to previous edits. That is perfectly acceptable on a talk page. Any attack has been removed. I did not reformulate any of the editor's opinions except for the personal references to another editor. Now, I suggest that we remove my comment here (which is OK with me) and Garycompugeek's immediately above (if that's OK with him), which takes out any remnant of an attack, but leave the part of the original edit that is commentary on the issue of expert opinion. You can't remove a talk page comment just because you disagree with it if the edit otherwise does not violate policy. If someone had simply made a comment about expert opinion and did not contain any reference to a specific editor, I doubt that anyone would be jumping to delete it. In fact, I think if someone did so it could be considered vandalism. If you wish to force the issue, I can rewrite 193.35.133.150's statements as a quote within my own edit, minus the personal attack part. What's the difference? Ward3001 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how an anon attack on User:Fredrick day is constructive to solving the discussion at hand. You have reformulated the anon attack based on what you consider relevant but this is a POV of a POV. I am not willing to start another edit war on such a trivial issue as all of this plays into the trolls hands.--Garycompugeek (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the attack part has been removed. The other opinions not relevant to the attack remain. Tell me specifically how I have reformulated the editor's opinions. Give me specific ways I have changed what the editor said except for removing personal references to another editor. If needed I can post a side-by-side comparison of the original edit and the way it is now for you (or anyone) to tell me what I changed in the editor's expression of his opinions, but I don't think that will serve any purpose. So please give me specifics on how I changed what the editor has said. And please don't remind me again about the attack part; I know it was originally in the edit because I'm the one who removed it. Just tell me which specific words in the editor's statements about expert opinion and asking another editor to defend expert opinion that I changed in meaning. Remember, specifics. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You wish to dissect the anon comment into what is considered attack and what is relevant to issue? Unbelievable. Please disengage from this digression and return to topic.--Garycompugeek (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I've already dissected out the attack part. I'm asking for you to tell me, of the remaining, non-attack part, what I refactored; how did I change the meaning? Again, the non-attack part, which is the part that is above right now. Please disengage from this digression and return to topic. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, this discussion page is not long enough yet, and discussing a comment made by an anon which say nothing about the Rorschach inkblot test is probably the best way to solve the problem at hand. Schutz (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It says plenty about the discussion above and relevant issues about expert opinion and above commentary about expert opinion. It's quite common on talk pages for one editor to comment on the logic of another editor's statements. That's what the edit in question is about. If the talk page is too long, we have this handy technique call archiving. There is no prescribed limit for talk pages, unlike articles. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

unbelievable - the best way to take this forward is for you to refactor an attack on me to support your POV? I've been at this wikipedia business for a while but that's some dirty pool. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, accusing me of dirty pool is a personal attack. I could say the same thing about some of your tactics, but I won't. I'll repeat what I have said over and over. All I did to refactor the attack was to remove it. If you wish for it to be restored, that's your choice since it apparently was an attack on you. Secondly, as I asked Garycompugeek to do, please give me specific information from the non-attack part at the beginning of this section (the attack part has been removed), about how I refactored the editor's comments; how did I change the meaning? The attack part of the edit has been removed. I removed it. We are only dealing with the remainder, which addresses issues relevant to this talk page. I'm getting the clear impression that the real agenda here is not to remove an attack, because that was done long ago. I believe the real agenda is to remove the comments about expert opinion, because no one has answered my question about how I refactored that part. So far all of the comments have focused on the attack part, which I removed and consider irrelevant to this discussion. It's others, not me, who keep regurgitating the attack part. So again, give me specifics about the non-attack part (which is above), and tell all of us how I refactored those comments to support my POV. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This was a sarcastic comment, there was no real need to reply to it... What I was really implying is that we still have a protected page and an unresolved controversy, and I don't see the current discussion helping much here — mind you, I am not saying it should not take place or anything like this, it's just an observation. And I'll stop this particular discussion here, so as not to feel like the target of my own sarcasm... Schutz (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that it was sarcastic, which I overlooked even though it was inappropriate. I spoke to the important issue: the editor's comments about expert opinion. And as much as you might wish that that issue is irrelevant, it is not. It is directly relevant to this talk page, especially the section immediately preceding this one, and relevant to the article itself. Ward3001 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we agree to lift relevant information from this section and then remove it?--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but I'm OK with lifting everything in this section except the first paragraph. On the other hand, if someone decides to delete the first paragraph, then I'll restore everything in this section. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering everything below is related to the first paragraph, I object. Remove the whole section or keep it.--Garycompugeek (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Method

It is extremely irritating that the most specific section, where bullet points are actually used, lists things that Arent used. Stop for a moment and think about that. Why is the most clearly presented part that which lists the very information that is of least concern to any of us. These things are, relevant to the subject, truly maddening.

Outrageous straw man for the straw poll

With no professional axe to grind, any disinterested layman might be forgiven for suggesting the following:

1. Take a sheet of A4 oaper and fold in two. 2. Open out and ddd a few drops of black ink near the fold. 3. Fold paper again to make a blot. 4. If the result looks similar to a Rorsarch, scan or photograph the image and upload to Wikipedia. 5. Add the image to this article as an example of an inkblot.

In this way an example can be given but no ethical considerations are offended and no copright is violated.

If, as is argued, the power of the Rorschach images arises from their randomness/neutrality, there should be no reason why any random inkblot should not have been as useful/useless as any other. The questions of the vaidity/ true randomness of the original images and of the establishment of normalised test data for any given population are separate issues.

It seems unfortunate that useful theoretical discussion in the article itself has now been halted by an argument over the physical images themselves. But of course many contributors see matters of wiki policy and princples here. And, one suspects, even if a novel image were to be used as outlined above, we might then see endless argument over whether or not the image selected was "really like" a true Rorschach blot. But unless anyone is planning to use Wikipedia to test someone, perhaps it would be immeaterial that the image was not bonafide?

But if anyone managed to produce a very close copy of a blot for themsleves I don't think this would be breach of copyright or forgery would it? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with your proposal; unfortunately the copyright does not stand anymore. But there is still a scientific argument of harm produced, that points to not showing original inkblots. I personally think this case could be used as yet another proof of why copyright is broken, copyright law seems to have distanced itself from the public interest. Among other things, the current law conflates plagiarism and illegal distribution. But that is a different discussion.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why copyright is involved. The suggestion above seems to side-step it entirely, whether it's there or not. But at least it can't be harmful, can it? I'm not sure about the `harm may arise' argument anyway. Presumably this is harm to the purety of a psychometric test. But seemingly this would arise only in the case where a candidate for assessment, consciously or unconciously, sees a real ink-blot here, self-elicits their own responses, remembers them and then remembers again when actually assessed in order to give deliberately different responses (all the while not knowing how the responses are interpreted). This seems a little far-fetched. Other psychometrics, for example those used for more widely in employment selection, seem to be far easier to compromise, and thus more worthy of protection. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to throw another monkey wrench into this discussion, but let's not forget the issue of original research. See comments above. I personally don't have a problem with using a homemade inkblot, but I think it's safe to say that some editors who are insisting that the actual Rorschach blot(s) be used will make the OR argument. So let's go ahead and fight this one out again while we're at it. Ward3001 (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no conflict with WP:OR. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Objections?--Garycompugeek (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me make sure that I understand the idea correctly. So we would have a copy of the inkblot for everyone to see, and a disclaimer saying "click here to see the real image" for people who want to see the real thing, right ? Schutz (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea was that the homemade inkblot is as real as we ever want or need to get. Monkey wrench? that shows extreme psychopathic tendencies (apologies Ward3001, but I agree with Garycompugeek there seems to be no conflict). Wow, article = 2,611 words, talk = 33,760 words. Is that a record yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is we will use a simulated image to protect test with nothing hidden and no need for disclaimer. Its understood our article will not be used for testing purposes. Personally I would rather have the original unhidden (Google Rorschach and the image is all over the place) however I'm willing to compromise to bring this matter to close.--Garycompugeek (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you.Faustian (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry to be a spoilsport, but to me, having only the fake version is definitively the worst solution that has been proposed so far (well, except for not having any image, obviously). We are telling our readers "sorry, we don't want you to see this image, and now, even if you willingly chose to see it, we do not care, but hey, look at this, it's just as good, you won't even notice the difference (<start joke>and special for you today my friend, I'll only charge half of the normal price if you buy it</stop joke>)". To me (I insist on the emphasis), this goes against what I see as the core principles of Wikipedia. Now, I won't rehash the reasons why I don't like the idea of the hidden image, but this is much, much worse. Having both images (a fake one visible, the real one hidden) is better than the current situation, so if I have to pick between the two outcomes, I'd go for the former (I would still prefer not to hide the image at all, but I would not pursue this discussion any further unless something new happens). Obvisouly, this all depends on what the fake image will look like. Schutz (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more natural flow to accurately title the image as "Non-Rorschach inkblot", there is no more necessary disclosure. I think otherwise we are leading the wikipedia reader.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are still telling the readers that we will not show them a Rorschach inkblot even if they would like to. Personaly, seeing a Non-Rorschach plot on this page will cause a kind of mini-Streisand effect: I would probably not have looking twice at the real inkblot, but if you insist on telling me that I should not look at it, I will look at it much more carefully... By the way, did you mean "misleading" instead of "leading", or did I just misunderstand what you wrote ? Schutz (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did mean "leading", maybe it's not the best choice of word, but It seems to me that a link is inviting. I'd prefer if we keep it simple.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I get it now, sorry for the noise. Schutz (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Schutz makes excellent points. Once again since the image is all over the internet, why is Wikipedia hiding it?--Garycompugeek (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Gary it is bizarre/ ironic/ unfair. But I remain unconvinced - Schutz, we don't show the 16-PF items or those in the MBTI and yet we can discuss these psychometric tests quite rationally. It's a bit like saying, "Show me the Ace Of Spades from that one pack of cards and then I'll know more about the rules of Bridge." And Dela, how does the Non-Dead Sea Scrolls sound? Because you won't actually find them there. There are lots of images on the internet that we would not want (and may not need) to show on Wiki. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't really talk about 16 PF and MBTI, because I don't really know what the material looks like (it seems to be text rather than an image, right ?) and what the constraints would be (copyright ? is there only one version of the relevant material ? In any case, I did not see any discussion on the respective talk pages). Of course, we can rationally discuss any topic without an image; it does not mean that the article would not benefit from having one. In the present case, the whole test is based on a patient's response to a set of images (the inkblots), so it is obvious, I think, that the article would be lacking if it did not have at least some kind of image. The comparison with the Ace of Spades is a bit similar to what I wrote above about sex positions: there is no unique, canonical, image of an Ace of Spades — any would do (it's no wonder the discussion happens here and not on Talk:Ace of Spades...). We know that this particular set of inkblots has been used for decades, and that it can not be replaced with another set of inkblots for medical practice — well, for the same reason, any approximative image would not be able to illustrate the article as well. Schutz (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, maybe not to show an inkblot is the correct solution. I'm somewhat concerned how future editors who have not taken part of this discussion might react. But maybe I shouldn't be concerned. Maybe we should use the solution we think it's best now, and wait until disagreement comes about. I admit this is pretty difficult stuff, I wish we could all have a beer when this is over.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Schutz - I think your analogy may be closer than mine, although I guess it's a bit eaasier for the novice to get the jist of the sex postions just by looking at the pictures (without the years of psychoanalytic training!)?. What about other picture-based tests like the Thematic Apperception Test? I don't see quite the same level of frenzied debate on that talk page. Dela - I sympathise with your reservations, but I'd argue that any kind of agreement now would be preferable. Who knows how thoughts (or wiki policy) will change in the future. One last thought - would a simple public voting procedure allow concensus more easily, without the need for arbitrartion, in this and many other cases? But I know of no such mechanism. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is just a personal opinions, but when I look at Thematic Apperception Test and see a sentence like it uses a standard series of 30 provocative yet ambiguous pictures, my first reaction is: why isn't there an example of such picture in the article ? We are teasing the reader, without providing him with the information that would help explain what "provocative" and "ambiguous" refer to (note, by the way, that there is such a comment on the talk page, but no real discussion — in this case, the pictures are likely copyrighted, which changes the problem a bit). As for the vote, I think it is a good solution if we can get outside people to participate (but don't forget WP:DEMO — we don't want these outside people to just say "yes" or "no"). Schutz (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Schultz, If the original inkblots were canonical, what is it about being canonical that is important for this issue? Trying to find and answer I did some reading. And after reading the canonical article I'm even less sure that I understand your rationale. It reads "canonical: reduced to the simplest and most significant form possible without loss of generality" the article spends it's time in law, literature, religion and exact sciences. Apparently there are groups of books considered canonical for a particular culture (Western canon). So after all there could be a canonical Ace of spades according to some relevant group. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(no "l" in my name, thanks !). Sorry if my choice of vocabulary is not clear. What I mean is that (as far as I know) there is one set of Rorschach inkblots; we can not wonder if we should choose the 1934 version, the 1957 version, the Swiss version of the American version. If you display a fake inkblot, I can say: "no, this is not the real one". There is no such thing as the Ace of Spades: there are as many versions as the number of different decks printed, and nothing forces us to choose one or the other. Obviously, as you say, there could be only one American version or one Swiss version of the Ace of Spades, but it does not change the big picture: if you decide to display one version rather than another, it will be difficult to pretend that you did not display the real one, since such a thing does not exist. I hope this is a bit clearer. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Our article will not be used for testing purposes. Why can't we (back to the beginning) make an inkblot, upload it with caption "ink blot". This gives an accurate representation of what an inkblot is without inferring anything. Is it really necessary to show the actual test images? The article is about the Rorschach ink blot test in some level of detail and we give a graphic stating this is an inkblot. I feel like I'm being redundant but I'm trying to lay this out logically.--Garycompugeek (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Far from redundant Gary. I fully agree. "Afrad pob afraid", as they say in Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To address Schutz concerns, we could do what Gary proposes, at least temporarily. We could then mark our calendars and revisit this talk page a 3 or 4 months from now and re-engage on this discussion. This would allow us to see how people react.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't really address my concerns, quite the opposite. We have argued above about whether hiding the real image was against Wikipedia's policies (see above); while I believe it is, I think there is little doubt that not showing it at all (and showing only the fake image) is censorship ("we don't want you to see the image because we know what is good for you"); I stand by my point that this is not acceptable (let's remember also that the straw poll, while not a vote, indicated that people were keener on showing more of the image than less).

Here is my take on the situation:

Having the real image hidden is the current situation (protected page). I am not happy with this situation, but in any case, noone argues that we should go further and simply remove it altogether: people don't see the image by default, and if they make the conscious choice of looking at it, I don't think anyone here would pretend to be in a position to override the reader's choice. So at least, there should be no reason to remove the hidden image.
There is no real point discussing adding a fake image on top of the hidden image is we do not have one handy, that is, if we cannot see if such image adequately represent the real inkblot.
Given the intensity of the controversy, the section explaining why some people believe these images should be hidden (mentioned in Rorschach inkblot test#Controversy) should probably be expanded a little bit and fully sourced (there are no reference at the moment).
(added later) This remains a more general question of policy, in particular since the same question could arise in other contexts; I still hope that we can get a discussion going on the relevant policy pages (as mentioned above), in order to clarify policy in one way or another.

Schutz (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Schutz that a fake image could easily be construed as censorship. The only reason I could compromise would be to view the image as a test answer. Through discussion my original opinion has not been changed. I feel current page violates numerous policies which could be rectified by unhiding the image.--Garycompugeek (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I think Shutz is not concerned on how it will be construed. I understand He thinks it is censoring. Shutz, I don't think your statement is right in anycase it should be "we don't want you to see the image because the scientific community knows what is not good for you". Something I perceive in your original statement is a biased feeling of safety. I say that because the fact that we put an image instead of removing it, makes us feel like we are not making a choice, we are erring on the safe side. But in fact we would be putting ourselves above the scientific community. So we would be saying "we want you to see the image because we know you want to see it, it doesn't matter that the scientific community knows what is not good for you".

Schutz, There are many many reasons why relevant content can be taken out of the wikipedia. I honestly think you are incorrectly using a wide interpretation of censoring. A way to bridge this gap is if you elaborate on what does it mean to censor, and why is it wrong. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(You make a mistake in my username again...) Well, I rest my case. You summarised exactly my point: the scientific community has no business telling people (me included, but especially the Wikipedia community in this particular case) what is good for them to see or not (if only because the scientific community can not pretend to know that). Patronizing is the only word that comes to my mind. Anyway, this was a discussion about the hidden image; it seems that it has shifted back to unhiding the image, so this is moot now. Schutz (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(My apologies for mispelling your username) thank you. I'm not pretending that the scientific community should impose. I think we should listen to it, and maybe I am listening incorrectly. I would not sell a toxic product because textbooks let me know they are toxic, other people might, that is up to them. Did a scientist patronize me, I don't think so. Am I patronizing I don't think so either. It's our choice, and negative or positive decision does not mean we gave it up, on the contrary. I just hope you express your opinion on the mediation poll section.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is already public

I am late to this discussion but I have to say that I think this whole dispute is a tempest in a teacup. That image is already widely known and universally recognized as part of the Rorschach test. It's in pretty-much every Psych 101 textbook and in a vast number of pop psychology articles and books and has been for decades. To the extent that prior exposure to the image compromises that part of the test, any theoretical damage was done many years ago. Having the image on the page adds so little incremental exposure that the damage, if any, is in my opinion trivial. It's certainly not enough to deserve this level of debate and dissent among well-meaning Wikipedians. Rossami (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the Psych 101 textbook or other pop psychology books where the image appears. It is easily accessible on the internet, but so what? One can also easily access pornography, videos of beheadings, etc. that doesn't mean such images should be placed on wikipedia lightly. Indeed, there is no photograph of a beheading in progress on the wikipedia page despite wide availablity of such images.Faustian (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there a number of images at Decapitation that illustrate beheading. While it's likely the case that some degree of self-censorship is responsible for the lack of a video of an actual decapitation (not necessarily of a person), there are also the questions of relevance (does a video add anything to the article?), copyright (is there a non-copyrighted video of a beheading?), and legality (beheading of people is illegal in most jurisdictions -- exception: public beheading as a form of execution by the state; beheading of animals is illegal in many jurisdictions). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, illustrations are comparable to say an all-black outline of the Rorschach rather than the real thing. One could argue that wikipedia needs the "real thing" rather than mere pictures or images from videos taken right before the beheading rather than the actual beheading. There seems to be a double standard at work.Faustian (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that actions must be illustrated through video; in any case, at least one of the images (Image:Judith Beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio.jpg) depicts the process of decapitation, as opposed to the "before" or "after". As for a double standard, I don't think it's there. The fact is that it's easier to depict the "real thing" when it comes to the Rorschach test than when it comes to decapitation, simply because a legal, copyright-acceptable, and relevant image or video of an actual decapitation is difficult to obtain. I suppose it's true that people will have a more intense negative reaction at seeing a decapitation than an inkblot, but that's presumably a general cultural "bias" (for lack of a better term) rather than a double standard that is specific to Wikipedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But one can easily find (say, on Islamic or Chechen websites) videos of decapitations in process with no copyrights, and put that grisly image on the wikipedia page. But it isn't done, even though such an image would more realistically depict the process than would a painting. The double standard is that due to taste and basic human decency we do not to show an actual decapitation, but some propose showing a card in which prior exposure may (according to the consensus within the scientific community) impact people's care, forensic evaluations etc., as if subscribing to what you call cultural "bias" is acceptable but following medical "bias" is unacceptable. Faustian (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument of "may impact peoples care" stlll seems extremely far-fetehed to me (my logic above) and I suspect that the only consensus you would find would be amongst those practitioners who use the test on a regular basis (for monetary benefit, I am guessing). I am also unsure how a Caravaggio painting can really be equated with Islamist fundamentalist videos merely since both are "images". I'd argue that the Rorschach ink-blots are somewhat in a class of their own, their novelty being the very reason they ever became useful. But would one really argue that to show a video of child sexual abuse would help the average user of Wikipedia in "understanding" the subject? I believe that the principles being argued over here may have overtaken the practicalites. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I question whether those videos have a copyright that would be compatible with Wikipedia... In any case, "basic human decency" has nothing to do with it (then again, perhaps I'm cynical). There may well be a social/cultural bias against graphic portrayals of beheadings, but there is technically no reason to exclude a legal (again, with videos of beheadings this is an issue in most jurisdictions), copyright-acceptable, and relevant video of a decapitation, if it can be obtained. Generally, given these differences, I don't think the two cases are comparable... I feel that the example of hiding information about symptoms of diseases to protect and give due notice to hypochondriacs is a better comparison. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Even with the hide template the image still flashes up on my screen for a moment, that near subliminal flash may do more damage than it showing steady. But as an editor that is not my determination to make, just as other editors should not be deciding if the image should be hidden or not based on their opinions about the test. We should just show the image and stop taking these strange measures. I understand the motives as sincere, but this is a place to present information, not obscure it. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that is not the intent, it has accomplished that effect. We are supposed to be working on an illustrated encyclopedia, a scholarly work, not a pop-up book. I will reword my previous statement as I can certainly see how it can be taken as a statement regarding motives, which was not my intent. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To put my point more succinctly, we should be documenting psychological practice not following it. Just like when we document a religion we should not let that religion's taboos influence our content. When documenting a school of thought we cannot follow that school of thought as the basis of our article. When we decide to let the precepts of the subject dictate our editorial actions we are committing original research and deviating from a neutral point of view. This is not something a scholarly work with the goals of this project should be doing. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The unique issue here with respect to the inkblots is that the medium involved is directly related to the medical opinion. To make an analogy, what if exposure to an image of a flu virus was similar to exposing the person to the flu - i.e. a person could potentially get sick from the flu by just by looking at the image of the virus. Would we expose everyone interested in reading about the flu to getting the flu, in order not to be influenced by "medical taboos?" Or in that case wouldn't the best solution be to allow the viewer to click onto the virus at their own informed risk while not forcing everyone to be exposed.Faustian (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Who doesn't think of science as an extension of common sense? I think we are showing bias because we are talking about taking out instead of adding. Science is based on truth while religion is based in faith. I am not asking to have faith, I am asking to follow truth. I am personally frustrated that we effectively we have shifting positions on the side of showing the image. There are several arguments against not showing it, I want to hear them, but I do not like spending time clearing one up, just to jump to another before reaching a conclusion. We are just wasting our time. We either organize ourselves or go to mediation or we are going to be even worse off than now.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Faustian, should when, then, hide information about the symptoms of various medical conditions and diseases? After all, a hypochondriac might encounter the text... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that in the hypochondriac's case with respect to symptoms, the locus of the problem is within the hypochondriac. He (even if unwillingly) is turning information that is in its essence benign, into a problem. In the case of the image, the image is inherently harmful with respect to taking the test. Moreover, we can not be responsible for people choosing to view symptoms. On the other hand, by not hiding the image, we are not giving people the choice to view or not view the image - we are forcing everyone curious about the test to see the image. A hypochondriac looking up an illness can expect to find information such as symptoms. Someone wanting to know more about a test may not expect to be force-fed an image that will compromise the ability to take that test. Faustian (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but hypochondria is medical condition, not (generally) a conscious choice. And regardless of the circumstances, a (supposedly) negative outcome occurs: in one case, a test may possibly be compromised to some extent, and in the other, a psychological illness may be given fuel and psychological distress may be caused. As for the latter part of your comment, I find it implausible that someone visiting the article and wanting to know about a test would not expect to ... well, actually find out about what the test involves. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Black Falcon is conflating the use of the word may. In "I may be an alien" I am saying it's plausible. When I say "HIV may be passed to other people throught sexual intercourse." I say it's probable. More important when something it's probable and we encounter a big number of cases the probablity of it happening goes up proportionally. And we know the wikipedia is in the top ten websites most of the time.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I do realise the distinction in meaning, but ... so? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"...the image is inherently harmful with respect to taking the test.." Faustian, please could you explain how. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The test, like many psychological tests, requires that the person taking it is unfamiliar with the stimulus presented to him/her. For example in IQ tests subtests require analysis of pictures or construction of shapes using blocks (thank God those test materials are still under copyright so that such tests aren't spoiled gratuitously).

In the case of the Rorschach it requires getting a first, immediate impression of what the person sees. Responses to subsequent cards often depend on the unspoiled impressions of the first inkblot. The test norms (see more info here: [1]) were built around this approach to the test, meaning that we can't compare someone's results to the norms and get an objective reading if the person has taken a test not in accordance with the way the normative sample did. So the image is inherently harmful because viewing it makes the viewer incapable of using it. And as noted elsewhere in the discussion page, this test is considered useful in the field.Faustian (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a problem for the field not us.Geni 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Only in the same way that, say, compromising a flue vaccine would be "a problem for the field, not us."Faustian (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight inconvience for one year then no impact?Geni 07:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an endorsement of a disregard for others' well-being (even if "slight") for the sake of...what?Faustian (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding censoring information that people want to acess. Actualy the odds are that compromising a random flue vacine would have no impact whatsoever since the majority ceased to be useful some time ago.Geni 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a straw-,am, because the image wasn't censored. It required a click to see it but was still on the page. Do you consider it "censorship" when a newspaper article is not on the front page but requires someone to turn the page?Faustian (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Faust, I almost agree. What you say about conventional psychometrics and norms is perfectly valid, but I am unconvinced that these apply so easily to the Rorschach. It may not be conscious suppression of the unconscious exactly, but the whole process seems unlikely - one can't pre-construct a good Rorschach score can one? I'd dispute also that this test is ever "used" by any individual. It's used by a figure of authority to categorise an individual whose mental wellbeing has been called into question. There are plenty who argue that such categorisation is wrong, norms or no norms, not least the liberal editors of encyclopedias. I tend to agree with the earlier contributor who argumed that exposure here would constitute only minimal addition to the current public level. Surely the competent psychometricain has to adjust his norms in line with popular culture, not the other way around? It has always amazed me that such modest techniques, like the Rorschach and the TAT, from such a more innocent age, have retained as much credence in the internet age. But yes, Geni, it probably is a problem for the field, so maybe a responsible editor ought to have the decency to ask the advice of Irving B. Weiner? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me give you an example of how a Rorschach can be used by an individual. For example, his treater may suspect psychosis but the individual is paranoid and will not admit to such and there may not be objective evidence other than the treater's hunch. The Rorschach can pick up disordered thinking - even Lillenfeld and colleagues admit as much. Knowing what is going on would impact the type of care the patient would receive, making a difference between appropriate and inapropriate care. In this case, the Rorschach is used by a figure in authority in the same way that an X-ray machine is "used" not by the patient but by the X-ray technician and radiologist, who then categorize the individual in terms of what the x-ray finds. In other cases the Rorschach is not used by the individual but by society - a lot of interesting research has come out differentiating say psychopaths from nonpsychopaths based on certain Rorschach patterns, showing statistically significant differences on specific domains. And yes, all of this research involves norms. But hey, let's all do our part to compromise this useful test based on the shared opinions of 16 wikipedia editors and a flawed understanding of wikipedia policies.Faustian (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Faust. Your example seem both enlightening and valid, although I think in many cases the assessor may not be the treater. Any tool which allows the assessor a better understanding of, or even promotes dialogue with, the assessee must be a good thing. My scepticism of the supposed purity of the test springs from seeing some of the images in a first year undergraduate text book almost 30 years ago and having seen them again many times since. It's regretable that there is not a wikipedia process for consultation with the "experts in the field". It's hard to know who these 16 editors really are, isn't it? I do not have a strong view and I see valid arguments on either side. It is unfortunate that the postulated compromise can never be proven, as it will be impossible to know if a subject really has seen any of the images before or not. I am not in a position to know how large a compromise is caused by seeing only one of the very small pool of ten images. I am simply surprised that the proponents of the test cannot adjust their norms in line with changes in popular culture or even agree new test items which have never been made public (and not just to combat the perceived excesses of wikipedia). How many subjects might now see trolley-buses and steam-ships? How many might see ritual fundametalist beheadings or planes crashing into twin towers? But then the actual content of the subejct's response is largely irrelevant anyway? If the Holtzman test stands up better to public leaking does that make it a better test? And one last question - can the Rorschach be validly administered to an individual only once? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

People can use the information on Wikipedia to invalidate almost any test out there, that does not mean we should hide the information away. Policy is clear and I see no overwhelming reason or consensus to hide the image. I do agree however that it does not need to be at the top of the page. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree somewhat Until, this is a bit of a special case (as is the Holzmann) in that it is meant to work on a user's first (and if you're a Freudian, unconcious) impressions. More conventional psychometrics can far more easily include indicator items to show bias or cheating. We have some interesting informal models evolving here of the typical wikipedia user - one who is interested enough to search for the Rorschach but then not scroll down, even quickly. But this is the same user who will be, by chance, legally required to undertake a Rorschach in the future or be invited at random to contribute to a population norm study. Without user data all our arguments here are based on assumptions and possibly misconceptions. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unhide Picture

This matter has been talked up and down the pike. Consensus and policy clearly lean towards unhiding picture. I move that an admin unhide the picture. Discussion may continue and consensus may change but for now the burden to hide picture is not consensus.--Garycompugeek (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We have not even had an organized discussion. There are many arguments I have put forward that have not been even acknowledged. How can anybody build a case if others don't even give even groung to build from? This is a complete disorder. I said it before that we should go to mediation, there has been very little comunication between the parties. I am yet to see anyone willing to discuss what censorship really means. It's being used just like a curse word, and I think we are just driving to conformism. Or you can prove me wrong, show me one point when anyone engaged in discusing what censorship means. People don't even consider that it takes 3 parties for censorship to take place. We should not avoid discusion we need to let go of our preconceptions and realise that those preconceptions are part of the discusion.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Censorship should be discussed at WP:CENSOR--Garycompugeek (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Less time did I take to write it, than an example to come up. Very little communication, and no acknowledgement of the chaos in this talk page or my argument about chaos.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's time for some type of mediation. Regardless of what the consensus might be (if there is a consensus, a big "if"), there needs to be some sort of order to this choas. I think a disinterested party might help with that. A less formal means of mediation is the Mediation Cabal. If that doesn't seem to get anywhere, the next step would be formal mediation. Ward3001 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Great!! we don't even need everybody to participate on it. Maybe a couple that have the support of several from each side.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone can still see any sides. But in the absence of any simple and transparent voting system I'd also support mediation. (Personally, I can't wait to see the Thematic Apperception Test "canonical Blank card"!) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

and the status quo on wikipedia should be enforced while mediation is undertaken - so an admin should unhide the images and we go from there. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the image should be shown inline per usual practice. {{linkimage}} was a template with a function identical to the wikitable currently used in this article to hide the image. The result of the TFD and the resulting DRV was that the "show/hide" system should not be used anywhere in the project. Prolog (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a request should be made to an uninvolved admin to unprotect the page and this image should be shown normally. If mediation decides this radical departure from how we do things is prudent then we can do it. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Garycompugeek asked me to look at this, and looking over the recent debate, I tend to agree that consensus currently is to show the image by default. I will unprotect and unhide the image shortly, though I would not be surprised if warring over the image resumes. However, I do believe the group arguing against showing the image raise good points regarding the potential impact on how the exact image could undermine the validity of the test that have not been addressed. My opinion on censoring images is pretty obvious from the Muhammad debates - i.e.: I do not see auto-hiding images as a valid solution, but the argument surrounding this image also strikes me as being more than a simple case of I don't like it. The idea of using an outline of an inkblot has been brought up before. Assuming there would be no copyright issues with such, I would ask both sides to consider whether converting the image to an outline would convey the same message to the reader without potentially damaging the validity of the test. If that is not a viable solution, then I would definitely agree on mediation as the next step. Reso lute 03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The question of outlines could only be answered based on actual candidates images for replacement; for my point of view, I am quite pessimistic: for example, the web page at [2] shows outlines, and I don't think they are good substitute for the inkblots (I should probably mention that I was, until a week ago, an outsider to this discussion, although I have been dragged into it in the meantime, and so am now part of one of the "sides"). Schutz (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I am disappointed by seeing that the image was unhidden without consensus. Even the straw poll showed a 33% to 66%. I feel we were pushed aside. This is plain sad.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since hiding the image constitutes a major deviation from established practice and policy, the burden of forming a consensus rests with those who advocate that the image be hidden, not vice versa. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon there was a previous consensus. And it was to hide the image. It was discussed on the talk page and remained as such for about 6 months. I wanted to replace it for a non-rorschach inkblot and because it was called to my attention that this had been debated an it was a concensus decision. I placed the request for comment that got this all started. Just look at the change history of this page if you have doubts. I feel that not only my arguments have been not listened to, but now even the previous consensus in not recognized or even acknowledged. I have to say this is a disappointing situation.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Arguments are made and weighted accordingly.--Garycompugeek (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But 66% is good enough? some countries won't even pass laws with that percent. Notice how by agreeing to talk about what consensus means. I am not placing myself and my interpretation of consensus above you. Otherwise I would tell you that "Consensus should be discussed at WP:CON" just like you told me "Censorship should be discussed at WP:CENSOR"--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to go by vote tally, it was 15 against hiding, and six for, or 71%. More to the point, those opposing hiding the images have policy and guidelines on their side: WP:CENSOR, WP:No disclaimers in articles, WP:Content disclaimer, etc. Those wishing to hide the image are relying on a medical reason that is without merit under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That isn't to say that I don't understand the concern from your end. That is why I asked if an outline can convey the same message without potentially damaging the test, and suggested that you may still wish to consider mediation. However, after reading the debate, including the archives of the previous debates, I am of the opinion that consensus has changed, and that the image should be displayed until a better alternative is agreed upon. Reso lute 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dela I mean no offense but was merely trying to explain. You should understand that your voice has been heard but other arguments have been given more weight. Consensus is not static and may change. You are free to continue to press your arguments or seek other means of mediation.--Garycompugeek (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy is not on either side - as has been pointed out, hiding is not censorship (complete removal is), disclaimers refers specifically to disclaimers about advice and about the advice itself (in other words, stating that advice about viewing the image may or may not be accurate does not belong iont he wikipedia article per disclaimer policy, but the statement that viewing the image could be harmful is as appropriate and worthy of inclusion into the article as would be stating that not washing hands could get one the flu). I agree that consensus seems to have shifted for now however. As I suggested earlier, until mediation happens I will move the image ot the bottom of the article so that it appears after a description of the possible consequences of viewing the card.Faustian (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reso lute, Sure I agree with your outline proposal. I acually proposed "replacing it with an inkblot that resembles the original ones. And the image should be clearly different from the originals when looking at them side by side." since the January, but this is talk page is chaotic. I can appreciate that there is no policy that says we should use medical science to decide on content. But neither a policy that says not to do it, so in absence of policy I have argued in terms of the five pillars of the wikipedia. I think we have a case of positive bias, people think that if we decide to include we are erring on the safe sid, when since we can't avoid making a choice we would actually sidestep a real issue.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Faustian, This might be resolved at mediation. But I think there is huge misconception on what censoring is. In order for censoring to take place, there needs to be an individual or organized group coercing a publisher (in this case wikipedia). This is not happening. Because the very nature of the wikipedia doesn't allow it, since we are making decisions together as a community. Althougth in some Asian countries the wikipedia might be censored as we speak and we might not even know it. By tapping into the internet lines and removing content arbitrarly. What may happen is that particular individuals may have an expectation of censoring much like the one happening in the movie industry. I think the policy was written for those people not for us. One thing that may happen is that the expectation of censorship may provoke a publisher to cut material even before it reaches the censor, that is called self-censorship. And self-censorship is not happening either, nobody is afraid China will censor our content, or at least nobody has expresed similar concern. In other words censorship as our own wikipedia article explains requires a censor. In our case there are just two parties the publisher and the reader.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For me, the issue is not censorship. It's the policy of having no disclaimers in articles. (Incidentally, I don't think that policy has really been addressed adequately by either side...) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a guideline rather than a policy, and I covered it extensively here [3].Faustian (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, the problem has been circular argumentation, every time that from my point of view an issue is put to rest or close to it. An old one comes up, and so on. Incidentally this has helped at least me, to improve on the exposition of my arguments for when we get to mediation. But as far as consensus and the issue at hand, it has been very detrimental. I hope you express your opinion in the mediation poll--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you - this page includes nearly 300 KB of discussion, and much of it is repetition. A more efficient method of discussion would definitely help. That said, I am against the mediation, as I feel that WP:NDA does not leave any room for ambiguity. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your disagreement points to the unfortunate situation this chaos has produced. Because there have been about 5 proposals but you may not have been able to see them in this mess. I think if mediation is carried in order we should focus on the motives first and then evaluate all the options. But unless most editors in this page express they buy into mediation. It's pointless.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on mediation

A) In favor of mediation

Of course I am for it.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Favor. Ward3001 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok.--Garycompugeek (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Bah. Mediation will enforce policy and perhaps avert future edit wars.--Garycompugeek (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes.Faustian (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In favor. I'm late to this, but it's clear that simple discussion isn't working. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can be useful for a more organized discussion. Be happy!! (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

B) Against mediation

Policy is clear, this article will be assimilated. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No disclaimers in articles. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Mediation would be about the problem not one proposed solution.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Not needed, policy is clear, the page shows the image as it should(no need for it to be at the top). Mediation is an option if people are unsatisfied with that, but I doubt the result will be a drastic departure from how we present information. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry _(1 == 2)^Until but I don't agree with just moving the image. I do not want any drastic departure, I just want ordered discussion, after that we'll have strong consensus and this will be over. For mediation to work we need to be committed to it thought.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly won't resist mediation, I just don't think it is needed. The result of it will be that we follow Wikipedia policy which we are doing right now. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I sense mixed signals, wikipedia to me is not just an encyclopedia but also a community of editors. You have fellow editors that feel they are not being listened, and I truly think we represent other people that would feel the same way and have not come here to discuss the issue. I ask to express you are for mediation in favor of the editor community. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipdia is a community only to the end of creating an encyclopedia. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep transparent emotional blackmail/special pleading tactics to yourself. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh freddie. you can do better than that. don't make a personal attack, just use what he says against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.95.146 (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick, purpose is something almost never talked about, but I think completely appropriate given that we clearly have intelligent and honest people in disagreement. The notion that somehow one should prevail over the other one seems rather naive. And out of place too, since we are after all on the wikipedia which is one of the most successful community efforts in recent times.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What is next on mediation

I read the Mediation Cabal page and it says that part of the first step is "you need to write your case in such a way that makes it easy for the other party to cooperate". How should we go about doing this. I have seen many proposals: a)hiding with disclosure b)image removal c)image replacement d)image with disclosure e)image as is f)others. I personally have my preference. An option is to discuss the options and have two parties present them in order of preference. Or form an interested party for each proposal. At first sight less parties seem better, but since consensus is the objective it may actually be beneficial. People with similar proposals could share most of the text of their written case. And we could create sections to start working on the cases. Or maybe just ask the Mediation Cabal if this is makes sense.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "image with disclosure", and specifically how it is different from "hiding with disclosure" or "image as is"? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I actually was not clear at all. I was thinking of the proposal of replacing the image and disclosing that the image is not an original rorschach. "Image as is" would be showing an original rorschach without any warning. In any case each editor may have a best option in mind I think it would be better if each one wrote their idea here and let editors sign on to it, or write their own.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Case for not showing the original inkblots

After doing some thinking I think the best way to go about making this case is to talk about the more general objective of not showing the image. There are several several ways to accomplish this, replacing the image with a non rorschach inkblot, removing it with different disclosures or titles. There are also compromise options like hiding the image, with and without disclosure. But the shared goal is to avoid showing the image. And talking about a particular solution may lead to a misinterpretation of our motivation.

I also think we need to include several references from respected sources to support our claims. I am not very versed on these but we have several people who know about the subject who could provide them. Following is a draft of a case for mediation please feel free to comment or edit in place.

Main argument: A fundamental premise of the Rorschach test since it's inception is that the inkblots should not have been previously seen by the subject. As is, this premise poses research problems for retesting. But general availability of original inkblots with no time limit presents a much bigger problem. The mental health community relies on this test to provide mental health services. In the occasions where people had seen the images for a possibly extended period of time the test may be invalid. Because the test is routinely used for diagnosis there is a likelihood that an incorrect diagnosis will be given, the wrong medication provided and harm will be produced. The degree of likelihood is difficult to calculate, we may not find a reference to give us an idea of what it could be. I personally know of case where this has happened. And as of today www.alexa.com does rank the wikipedia as 9th place in traffic ranking. Although we have no direct evidence that this is happening we are confident that it does. Because of this likely harm we would like to replace or remove the original inkblot image shown in the Rorschach inkblot test article.
We have seen several objections posed for this case, the ones based on policy we think are based on incorrect interpretations of those policies¹. We understand there is no policy that says content should be included or removed if the scientific community judges it harmful. The pillars of the wikipedia do say that there are norms of conduct to be followed, but aside from that the pillars mention nothing else that might be related. We also think that a worldwide community effort like the wikipedia has to be in favor of science. And that participating in likely harm it's against the grain of the community. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as shown in the article, the Rorschach is a commonly used test (the second most commonly used) and,a lthough there is some disagrement as there always is among scientists, the consensus within the field is that it is a useful test. Inapproprirate use can mean the wrong diagnosis and theefore the wrong medication, other treatment, etc. So the degree to which the test is compromised is the degree to which people are actually harmed.Faustian (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

References:

¹the objection to the disclaimer is to a particular solution not to the general case.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Case for showing the original inkblots

scroll

The "well you'd need to scroll" to see it assumes we all have landscape monitors.... this is 2008, many of us have flip monitors that we generally use in portrait mode - so moving it based on a "scroll" argument is bogus because we have no stats on resolution, screen size, dimensions etc - it's based on an assumption, I see the image as soon as I log-on. So if you move it to cover landscape editors then you are making special allowances for groups of users - strictly prohibited by policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this unfortunately is the price that is paid for not hiding it. The image can fit where first mentioned or in the section entirely devoted to the image. The latter place at least means that at least some people (those with landscape monitors, I suspect most viewers) reading and learning about the Rorschach can make a decision about reading further rather be forced to see it right away.Faustian (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

which is special consideration for a certain class of viewer, prohibited by policy, we don't make special allowance on the basis of race, religion, class or access to technology. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case another reason for the location is that the later section is devoted to the image. BTW might some people have black and white monitors? If there were, would that mean all pictures would have to be black and white? Would for the sake of people still using dial-up, links to videos be prohibited? Where do we draw the line?Faustian (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::: em.. you prove my point - we don't take into consideration what kit our readers have, that's why "well they have to scroll to get to it" is a bogus argument. thanks for backing up my argument - not sure that's what you intended. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How about, "read about it first before youy look down to see it." Scroling helps but is not necessary. Not all people look at all the pictures before reading everything in the article, you know. Moreover the image itself may belong in the section devoted completely to the image.Faustian (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) As one of the editors referenced in this edit summary, I'd just like to note that my first preference is to have the image under the "Methods" or "Test materials" heading, rather than the "Secrecy of test items" heading. In my opinion, the image would be more informative in the former two locations than at the very end of the article. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Dela when I proposed this compromise a few weeks ago.Faustian (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. :-) That said, would you object to moving the image to the "Test materials" section? In that section, the image would illuminate a number of points including: "the basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless", [s]upporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes", and "recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That would work, too, and I will move it there.Faustian (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Methods" appears most relevant however I am open to any placement to enhance article, not too simply bury image at end--Garycompugeek (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez... this discussion is not going very well. The last few edit summaries of the article make me believe that all assumptions of good faith are gone... Note that when I moved the image, I did not simply move it back to the top of the article without any explanation (as someone who want to "display it where you don't want it, at all costs" (as read in an edit summary) would do; I moved it to the place where the text actually describes the image (There are ten official inkblots. Five inkblots are black ink on white paper. Two are black and red ink on white paper. Three are multicolored.), and where the text is consistent with the legend (The text says The patient is asked to note where he sees what he originally saw and what makes it look like that., while the legend actually describes popular responses). I also made sure, as noted in my edit summary, that the image can not be seen immediately from the top of the page, and does require scrolling (except for people with really big screens, of course). If this leads to edit warring and name calling, I don't know what else to do. Schutz (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion isn't going well because the whole thing is lame. Edit warring over the position of a single picture? There are much more important things to be done on Wikipedia. This is absurd. --clpo13_(talk) 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had spent my professional life refining a psychometric test and still earned part of my living by using it, I don't think I'd find the discussion "lame". And I don't agree that this discussion is "warring". The principlas go far beyond Rorschach. That said, I am supporting mediation as the only available way of bringing the debate to a close. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's one picture in a test that is widely considered to be pseudo-science. Even so, I still fail to see how the picture is a problem at all. I've looked through the talk page discussions and the only thing I can gather is that some people are worried that readers of this article will see the picture, note that the caption says something about a bat and a coat of arms, and then be influenced by that in the rather unlikely event that they take an inkblot test sometime in the future. If that's not correct, then it might be handy if someone outlined the problem so that newcomers to this discussion will know the whole story without having to go hunting for it.

At any rate, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of certain groups. When your livelihood depends on images that are in the public domain, you have to expect that people are going to come across them. If not on Wikipedia, then somewhere else. The image illustrates the topic, and thus it should stay in full view in a position in the article where it is in context. If common sense doesn't work, then I suppose mediation will have to do. --clpo13_(talk) 10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Clpo13, I'm not sure there is a huge overlap between "common sense" and wiki-protocol. But the picture is one of only ten pictures in the test - ten percent of the test maerials. The Rorschach is, apparently, a special case (as is the Holzmann) in that it is meant to work on a user's first (and if you're a Freudian, unconcious) impressions, i.e. it's not a question of contamination by direction (again, apparently). Your argument about benefit to groups is perfectly fair but seems to hinge on whether the pictures really are in the public domain, which is still contentious. If one is that interested, of course, all ten images are available in Wikimedia Commons. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree that the reason that some people can see it right away due to their monitor is because we are not hiding it. It should not be hidden. Almost any test can be invalidated by having access to Wikipedia, I am sure I could have aced, and invalidated, many of the tests I have taken in my life if I had access to Wikipedia, that is hardly Wikipedia's responsibility, nor should others be inconvenienced to avoid this. I have no objection to having the image lower on the page for stylistic reasons, but please understand this is not to prevent people from seeing it. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the scientific community has not even agreed that this test is scientific, with its critics calling it pseudo science, studies finding its results akin to cold reading, I would say it is a serious departure from NPOV to take the side that says the test is effective and thus damaged by displaying the image. It was said above the science is based on truth and religion based on belief, this is not entirely true. Science is based on theory. and when scientists disagree then their school of thought is just as subjective as a religious belief. We should not be following the practices of the subjects we are documents as that would be a violation of NPOV and involve considerable original research. We don't hide content based on others beliefs, and yes it is just a belief. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, Until. Scientists often disagree, that's the basis of scientific progress, but that does not make them believers in some new religion. I'd also argue that, while thorough and useful, Wood et al's article for the "Skeptical Enquirer" is not s scientific study but a popular critique. Meyer et al (2007) is a scientific study. I'd also assert that western science does not have a monopoly on the truth, but then neither does Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. We don't have a monopoly on the truth, so we should not be deciding if the image causes damage or not when there is scientific disagreement. It can be argued that seeing a penis may be harmful to some, but if you go to the Penis article, guess what you see. Our content is provided in an unadulterated fashion and those who view Wikipedia can take care of themselves on the internet.

It was not my assertion that science is another type of religion, I simply asserted that when there is disagreement in a field then that is no basis for excluding images based on a perceived harm. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your logic is that there is disagreement in virtually every field. The Rorschach-is-meaningless group are a minority within the field, analogous to those scientisits who think that global warming isn't man-made. So based on your logic we should do nothing, right? Well, on wikipedia we can't do much about global warming, but reasonable accomodations can be made with respect to this image.

And this article is about the test, not the inkblots, so the implication that one would expect to be immediately presented with the inkblot isn't there, unlike the penis article. We don't expect on the article about the SAT or other test to see questions from those tests on the articles, do we?Faustian (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree Faustian. Apologies, 1==2, if I misrepresented you. Both the proponents of the Rorscharch and their critics argue from within the same scientific paradigm of objective replication, i.e. it must work for the "average person" or it is deemed not to work at all. In general I would agree that censorship is wrong, but with health issues there may be a case for erring on the side of caution. There are many more penises than there are Rorschach inkblots! (but please don't take that the wrong way) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is disagreement in almost every field, but that is not a problem with my logic. We should never let the beliefs and rules of the field we are documenting dictate the content we choose. My point remains. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

_(1 == 2)^Until, your argument hangs from equating scientific belief to religious belief. The first derives from seeking universal truth, and the second from faith. That makes both beliefs radically different. I think is extremely reasonable to base the wikipedia on what we think is universal truth. In fact, I can't even conceive anything else to base the wikipedia on.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I not equating science with religion. Science has nothing to do with universal truth, it has to do with theories that are challenged by peers. Any scientist that talks about truth is a poor scientist. That this test has any value is something science disagrees on, it is a belief held by some that this test is valid, and held by fewer that viewing it prior to the test can be damaging. We cannot allow the beliefs of others to determine what content we can and cannot openly show. To do so would violate NPOV. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument paraphrases the same things about belief and dissent on science and then on religion. Maybe you were not making an argument, but then the comparison is not relevant. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholly agree with your point in principle. I think you would need to see "hard evidence" that prior exposure invalidates the test before you would accept this was not just "a belief"? But don't you think such evidence might be hard to come by if the showing by wikipedia constituted the first "major" public dissemination? cf Q."How do we know how harmful an H-bomb is?" A."Denonate one and you will find out". Or perhaps just anecdotal evidence from a bonefide test user would satisfy you? or an "expert opinion"? By the way, where are the Dirty Bomb recipes on wikipedia - protected by copyright perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dirty_Bomb#Constructing_and_obtaining_material_for_a_dirty_bomb provides an outline. Construction one you have sorted out the radioactive side is fairly trivial. Just pack it around your explosive of choice and connect up to your detonator of choice. Really not that technical. Of more concern might be the information in Enriched uranium or Critical_mass#Critical_mass_of_a_bare_sphere. Throw in our information on gun type nuclear weapons and you are left mostly with the issues of handleing flourine compounds as about the only thing we don't adress.Geni 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a more realistic example, information that is more likely to actually cause harm in the real world? Like a how-to for identity theft, or making and using the date-rape drug? Any wikipedia pages about those? And if so, do you state that this is appropriate and right and that having this information here is worth the cost to people's lives? Where do you draw the line on the extent of suffering you are comfortable with for the sake of your "principle." (you've already told us that exposing someone to hypothetical flu is okay, it's only a minor inconvenience.) Faustian (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the case at hand? Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide for dirty bombs, drugs, identity theft, or anything else... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The flu comment was mostly based on the lack of effectiveness of the flu vaccine in the long term. Most flu vaccines we have created over the years are pretty much useless now. We have methods for makeing explosives Wolfenstein-Boters reaction. For various reasons we don't synthetic routes for rather a lot of drugs since they tend to be rather complex and in any case Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid exists in nature.Geni 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Black Falcon, I actually feel I just had an eureka moment. I just found the perfect example Photosensitive epilepsy. There are people that may have an epileptic attack after observing certain kinds of flashing lights. Videos of such lights could be included in the page, and it would be relevant to the content. Again, the word may is used because it's probable, although many play down the word may as if the sentence was meant to say plausible. Clearly if such a video was on the page given the wide audience of the wikipedia an epilepsy attack would be likely. I believe it was Black Falcon who noted that there is no policy on the use of general medical knowledge to decide on content. And because of that we should look at the five pillars of the wikipedia to figure this out.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Dela, that's the closest example to the inkblot case that I have yet seen. But I suspect an epileptic attack will be much more easily verifiable than contamination of test scores at some indeterminate time in the future. An analogy which sprang to my mind was the inclusion of pictures of crime scenes, e.g. the recent Steven Wright murders in Ipswich, before and during a trial. The immediate effect may be unmeasurable, but if the wikipedia user was later called for jury service, it might be a different matter? Of course the law provides specific protection in this case. But no actual "proof" is required that harm has ben done (to the defence case). I know what you mean about "may probably" and "may possibly" - but in by view "may" inconveniently covers all possibilities in between "definitely will" and "definitely won't". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm finding a copyright free example could be tricky and people tend to overcompess their videos but yeah if you can find such a video without copyright issues in an ogg Theora format why not?Geni 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Geni, because people may have epileptic attacks.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get the idea that this is exactly why some people would want to put the image up? Faustian (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you mean here — I sure hope you are not implying that some people would want to put the image up just so that other people have epileptic attacks. Anyway, looking at the article Photosensitive epilepsy, I see that there would no need for discussion about disclaimers: the legend of the photos is an implicit disclaimer (Screenshot of "Dennō Senshi Porygon", an episode of Pokémon notable for causing multiple seizures in Japan.), so the reader knows exactly why the photo (or a related video) is in the article, and what could happen when viewing it. Furthermore, in the case of a video, the reader would need to explicitly press the "start" button to play it, so it is hidden, in a sense. These questions were discussed in detail above about the inkblot; it seems to me that they are solved naturally in the case of epilepsy, without any need to bend policy. Schutz (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Still on the epilepsy case. What is your objective? To save the wikipedia from lawsuits? To prevent people from being harmed by wikipedia content? ... Dela Rabadilla (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Err... sorry, I am not really following you here, but I'll try to answer your questions anyway. (1) no objective in particular (except maybe trying to understand what Faustian meant with his comment); you compared Photosensitive epilepsy with the present article, and I explain what are, to me, the differences between the two articles, and most importantly, why I think that the present discussion would not happen on Photosensitive epilepsy, because all the contention points (disclaimer, image hidden) about potentially harmful content are moot; (2) no; (3) this is not what I was trying to do with my comment above, in any case. I do not condone putting harmful in Wikipeida just because it is harmful and people may get bitten by it (schadenfreude ?), if that is what Faustian meant above. But, on the other hand, if the content is encyclopedic, it should not be summarily removed just because it has the potential to be harmful. Hope it replies to your questions (although I am not yet sure I understand why you asked them). Schutz (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Schutz, I understand your position better now. But I don't think you examined the whole issue. The problem is that you seem to stop examining when you think of potential. But potential includes a wide range. So I don't think you completely agree with yourself when you say "it should not be summarily removed just because it has the potential to be harmful". If the case was that the potential of an epileptic attack was 50%. You can say that the video saves the day, but that does not address that your general conclusion is based only on some potentials but not others.Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The epilepsy argument is a red herring. This image will not throw anyone into a fit. This image will not effect anyone in the slightest. What some people think it may do is invalidate the test it belongs to. But so would reading the article text as then you would know what the doctor expects. Basically if you choose to research this test then that is your choice. People choose to know, so they know, and if they later take a test that relies on them not knowing then tuff beans. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

_(1 == 2)^Until , I don't think you understand the analogy the way I meant it. I say that such a video should not be part of the wikipedia because it is likely to produce harm (epileptics attacks). Just like I say that original inkblots should not be part of the wikipedia because it is likely to produce harm (incorrect diagnosis)--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out of this discussion, but when someone's incorrect POV jumps off the page, I must respond. Until(1 == 2) is simply wrong in stating that "This image will not effect [sic] anyone in the slightest". Viewing the image inappropriately can impact diagnosis, which can impact treatment, including selection of inappropriate medication. As for his statement "But so would reading the article text as then you would know what the doctor expects": OK, tell us exactly what the doctor expects from reading the article. Give us some Rorschach responses that would be "what the doctor expects". Ward3001 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree Ward3001. I think reading this Talk page is enough to throw most people into a fit. But certainly not a red herring - the epilepsy example is a close parallel I'd say, or at least a very useful analogy. The doctor expects that no-one has seen his blots before! And so would we, back in the days of the text book. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach Images have been in public domain for 50 Years

I sympathize that seeing the images before the test may damage test results. Certainly if Wikipedia was the only place one could easily see the test images the above arguments would have much more weight but that is not the case. Not only have they been in the public domain for a very long time but are lambasted all over the internet. Trying to track down these images and having them removed or hidden seems virtually impossible and going to one particular site like Wikipedia (IF we were to remove or hide them) would also seem a pointless and thankless task. My point is the damage has been done and we cannot put the genie back into the bottle.--Garycompugeek (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair argument Gary, in terms or practicalities. I would not underestimate the pervasiveness of Wikipedia, however, copied as it seems to be onto countless echo websites. Just because people have disregarded possible harm in the past does not mean that we also should be careless. But then again, where is any EVIDENCE that harm has OR HAS NOT resulted over the past 50 years? I suppose it's a question of how significant one thinks Wikipedia is, compared to what has already been published. Maybe we are all psychologists already these days. Martinevans123 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how much influence Wikipedia has on media, we should not attempt to lead media in any direction as it is the job of an encyclopedia to reflect existing knowledge, not put forth novel presentations. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this goes back to a point I made somewhere above: as far as I can tell, the article has about 0 citations about the damage done by seeing the test beforehand (except a general reference to Exner's work, saying that The Exner system of scoring has addressed many of these criticisms with an extensive body of research.[4]); this should probably have been a first step before any discussion. Schutz (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a pretty strong consensus to show the images. While a few people have stuck to the idea of hiding them, they simply do not represent the opinion of the community at large here. We don't hide the information we intend to present, we show it in an unadulterated fashion. The idea that this test is accurate is a belief held by some scientists(I assume at least as I have not seem a citation) and not held by others. The belief that the test can be invalidated by viewing the images is supported even less universally. It is a belief by a group of people, we should not let it effect our content. The current presentation of the article's image seems great. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Page 19. Personality Assessment in America, By Edwin Inglee Megargee, Charles Donald Spielberger. Published 1992 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates". I doubt that we have strong consensus, I think we have many editors who are confident and express strong opinions. We also have a communication failure, the lack of support of mediation sends a clear message that I have been reluctant to point out.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote, (1==2), I just wanted to insist on the fact that the article (in particular this part) is massively under-referenced, which is a problem in itself (especially for a topic that is so controversial). The current presentation is good, as well as the idea of adding Rorschach's picture in the lead. Schutz (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed the lack of communication before. And here we have another example, (1==2) based his argument on the lack of reference. I personally think he was overly dramatic. And I easily found one reference like he requested. Now Schutz, says he completely agrees with him even when the reference was not missing anymore. Maybe I misquoted, or Schutz thinks we need more references. But we clearly have a very poor communication between intelligent people.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that you provided the reference on this talk page, don't worry, but I really meant that the article still lacks references on this topic, not the talk page — adding this reference to the article would improve it (it's what we are all here for !). Since the subsection on "Secrecy of test items" is in the "Controversy" section (yeah, nothing surprising given this talk page :-), I indeed believe that having several references would be good, but having one is a good start. Schutz (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you candor Schutz, but I still don't see much progress on the image discussion that has dragged on for so long.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Candor ??? I am having trouble again following your thoughts here... Schutz (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You told me not to worry, I think there is candor on that. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New lead image

I have added an image of the creator of the test to the lead of the article now that the inkblot is lower on the page. I think the article needs a lead image and that a portrait of the creator of the test is a proper one. Opinions welcome. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, (1 == 2), for a test as individual as this, a picture of the individual who invented it is quite appropriate. But the idea that the test is INaccurate is also a belief, as seems to be the idea that there is harm done by showing an image, and that there is NO harm done. So many beliefs, so little evidence. I see you voted against mediation, but said you "would not resist it". The result was 5 in favour, 3 against. Um, why did we vote? Democracy is a fine ideal, but seems hard to manufacture. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We didn't vote, we got together and documented our opinions and discussed them. Don't worry about the number of beliefs out there, we only need to follow Wikipedia's beliefs in such matters as presentation and style, and we only need to document those beliefs which have reliable sources already documenting them. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it was a straw poll not a vote. But I kind of assumed there would be a decision at the end of it. Thanks for spelling it out, (1==2). The undemoractic process has left millions aggrieved down the ages so perhaps Wikipedia should be no different. But I do hope Wikipedia doesn't turn out to be the new religion that some seem to see it as! We would of course all like to see those sources of evidence which substantiate your own belief that "there is no harm done" etc Martinevans123 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, guys, 1 word in 50 here is being used to discuss my addition of the new lead image. Please try and stay on topic, or create a new thread. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Restructured Talk Page Garycompugeek (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Discussion

This talk page has gotten huge. Easy for newcomers to get lost. Suggest archive. New consensus started to emerge with Fredrick day's "why is there an image hidden in breach of policy on NPOV, discliamer, censorship etc?" archive rest with links?--Garycompugeek (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We have two groups of intelligent people failing to communictate miserably. One group is bigger and claims "consenus", and does what it wants. It sounds like you just want to finish this up by archiving the disagreement. I'm not sure I like that.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the bigger group did what it wanted to, the inkblot image would still be at the top of the article. Also, I don't quite see any encyclopedic purpose of placing the creator's image at the top of the article, aside from helping maintain stability of the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And apparently, neither group is assuming good faith. --clpo13_(talk) 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how I'm not assuming good faith. Nothing is lost when we archive Dela. This page has gotten a bit cumbersome and newcomers may find it a bit daunting to sift through. This is merely a suggestion... As far as consensus goes, it has changed Dela. I understand you disagree and I respect your opinion.--Garycompugeek (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you, since you just archived the talk page. I was referring more to the two sides in the image debate, where one side accuses the other of having an agenda, especially Ward3001 calling people "image-must-be-shown zealots". --clpo13_(talk) 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... OK, if we're going to lift comments not intended for this page, let's try these. I'm not sure which is worse, clpo13 calling another editor "snarky", or calling someone's edit "useless". Ward3001 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The first edit summary was in reference to my own comment. The second was clear vandalism...unless you know where Banana Hamock Land is. At any rate, your comment was directly related to this dispute. It shows your clear point of view regarding those who wish the image to stay visible. --clpo13_(talk) 23:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can copy and paste out of context, so can I. I'm just not whining about it. Ward3001 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not out of context. It was directly related to what's going on here. It was even under a header mentioning Rorshach. --clpo13_(talk) 00:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And your words about other editors reflect your attitudes about them, which is relevant to anything on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black. --clpo13_(talk) 00:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The important point here is this. If you're going to lift comments from another talk page, you can smear someone very easily. Right now, we're both guilty as sin. I admit it. Your denials of your culpability just dig you in deeper. Ward3001 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not denied anything. I admit that some of my comments could be construed as insulting, however, the examples you provided show nothing of the sort. But I see your point, so let's drop it. --clpo13_(talk) 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor does your example say anything accurate about me. Consider it dropped. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the archiving. But it's a shame that practicing contributors like "Rbfeldmanphd" feel compelled to act without discussion. I'm all for good faith, but I just wish that good evidence could now take over from good belief, or failing that, mediation. No problem with an agenda as long as it's informed. And not hidden.Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From all the venting we just did it is still very clear to me there is no communication happening. As much as the burden of proof lies on proving the image should not be shown. The other side has the burden to provide an even ground to build a case from. And I do not believe the other side has lived up to it. Many who believe the image should be shown don't even realize how close-minded it is not to engage or listen discussion on the interpretation on policy. I'm sorry that I get frustrated. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on the venting and bickering, its not likely to help the article in general. Let's drop the conspiracy theories right now (no hidden agendas) and everyone please assume good faith. Dela the burden of proof to hide or remove the images is yours (or anyone wishing to do that) because the action would set a precedent and/or go against policy. I understand your frustration. You may continue to lay arguments on this page or go to the policy talk pages for support.Garycompugeek (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fine Garycompugeek, But do you think the other side has the burden to provide an even ground to build a case from? There has been many instances where we follow a line of discussion that ends without conclusion. In other ocasions people have pre-empted the discussion outright claiming they are right anyway. Objections that were put to rest crop up again someplace else. I doubt that anyone could make a case under such conditions. I even have suspicions that several editors who initially expressed themselves in favor of showing the image and after a lot of discussion started to understand the point, prefered to leave instead of expressing their change in position. Luna Santini is one and MilesAgain is the other, by now they probably forgot anyway. You are in my opinion one of the few that might stay around to see the how this ends.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

or maybe people like Luna have made their point and don't feel the need to comment over and over again. Please don't project your wishes onto other posters - if you want to know how either of those posters currently feel ask them, don't just "suspect" and then try and make hay for your case off the back of it. It's a cheap trick. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; I've made my point heard by now, I'm sure, and I check back periodically to see if I need to add anything. Discussion seems to be progressing (if perhaps slowly). Unfortunately I'm not sure what you mean by "even ground to make a case," though. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear from you, I'll explain what I mean for even ground with an example. Some of the last postings I found from you explain the argument that the image is already on other websites. Back then you posted it on the Already in other websites objection, section. And I really did not see any conclusion on that discusion. Later a The image is already public section was added which is basically the same argument made by a newcomer to the issue, also with no real conclusion. So we find ourselves discussing different objections in circles never reaching a conclusion. The worse part is that while discussing the Already in other websites objection, the existence of the other objections give a false sense of ceirtainty. People think "Even if this was wrong there are other people arguing other things anyway". So in a world when we need one true objection, we are assuming that from several unfinished objections one must be true. In a discussion with an even ground we would settle each objection before we move to the next one.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia Silence = Agreement with current article. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Garycompugeek, in just seven words you managed to unilaterally rewrite Wikipedia policy and read other editors' minds. I'm amazed. Ward3001 (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ward, silence (no one objecting) is generally understood as agreement. See WP:SILENCE. нмŵוτн τ 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If so, Fredrick's silence on "the lack of even ground to make a case" portion above implies he agreed with me. I personally interpreted that as the most recent example of miscommunication in this talkpage. Actually I had laid out the case for not showing the image back at the beginning of January. At that point I wanted to completely remove the inkblot which was HIDDEN at the time. And for about three weeks nobody answered, Ward pointed out to me that the silence was not enough to remove the image. That was why I placed the request for comment that resulted in the unending circular discussions that persist today. I want to emphasis that I had sections for each objection so people wouldn't be jumping around in circles. If you read those objections they are for the most part the same that have been repeated over and over and over and over... And just like it just happened with Fredrick's miscommunication either I was ignored, I was convincing, I was tiresome etc... I feel the people who want to show the image have not been able to provide the necessary even ground to reach a conclusion. So we have two groups of intelligent people caught talking to themselves for a long time. This is frustrating and disappointing.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

just so there is no confusion - my position hasn't shift, my position will not shift. if it ever did, I'll make a statement here. Stop using the names of other posters to advance your argument - if you think their position has shifted, ASK them. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say your position has shifted. When you get silent on an issue, When you do not put order in your arguments, When somebody else posts the same objection that has been posted over and over and over. When this and more happens, then you along with everybody else are effectively shifting positions. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:SILENCE Dela. It pertains to editing the article not the talk page. You should also realize that repeating the same argument is unlikely to change anyone's mind. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see, it makes sense as far as the policy. I think there is a difference between trying to communicate and trying to force an opinion. You did not try to force my opinion with your previous post. You were trying to tell me something. We see intelligent people on both sides, why are we failing to communicate.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, if everyone in this debate had taken a Rorschach before seeing the image, we might have a lot of insight about why we can't communicate, but not so now that the image has been exposed. This is one example (granted, somewhat trivial) of the potential loss of information from prior exposure. I say this partially with tongue-in-cheek because I think we could use a bit of humor (humour to my British/Canadian friends) on this page. Ward3001 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny how these hotly debated issues tend to get either way set in stone, cf. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (where those editors interested in a constructive dialog have long ago given up on reaching a consensus). A stall here too? 88.148.192.192 (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nine months ago I suggested that the informal vote for mediation should be followed, but was promptly told that "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and to "stay on topic". Unable to offer any evidence to this debate, I have declined to comment since, but I feel equally frustrated that the matter, although politcally less charged than the cartoon debate, remains unresolved. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Make no mistake. The issue is resolved, at least for now (and perhaps forever, or as long as Wikipedia survives). Like some other articles in Wikipedia, it is resolved in opposition to the scientific community. And it will stay that way unless (or until) Wikipedia changes its policies to allow "a content arbcom drawn from reputable reliable institutions that partner with Wikipedia". That will happen when Jimbo gives up the reigns, or hell freezes over. And the odds of those two events are about equal. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

sigh -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an expert in the reliabilty of projective psychometric tests, nor even an amatuer, I have diffculty in imagining how "scientific" evidence could be gathered to prove the claim either way. But if we all agree that reliable population norms are achievable (?) then maybe there is a way ... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is wikipedia policy to remove images arbitrarily

The image use policy says "Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article." How could the judgment of what shocking is be other than arbitrary. What the rule is not specific about, is if the consensus is to override the rule or is the consensus on the shocking or explicit claim. Clearly the rule expresses an intention of restraint from including inappropriate images. Which to me is just common sense.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While it is an arbitrary standard, it is also pretty clear that the image in question here is neither shocking, nor explicit. What is more, even if something is shocking or explicit we still use it if it is the best image to describe an article. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The images are neither shocking nor explicit. If a piece of policy can be found that says:

'images can be removed if somebody thinks they might damage a test result, should the person who viewed the image take that particular test

There is no way they will be deleted. There is much more (relevant) policy to support keeping the images than removing them. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If one is really concerned the image cannot be shown on Wikipedia due to some type of danger, try WP:IfD. It will show the image to a wider group of people beyond this page to consider the arguments against the images. However, I sincerely doubt they will come to a different decision than us. Short of a significant consensus that the image is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, there is simply no existing policy that I see supporting its removal. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Is the neutrality of the Controversy really being disputed on this talk page? The tag has been there since December. I see debate about the image, but not the controversy section. Unless there is an ongoing debate then that tag should be removed. Opinions? _(1 == 2)^Until 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Although you are correct that very little has been discussed besides the image controversy (and in questioning the appropriateness of the tag), that does not diminish the importance of other controversies in the real world of personality assessment. I think editors on both sides of the image controversy have had their hands full dealing with that issue. Given that all of us are unpaid volunteers, we have only a limited amount of time, and the image issue has been so heated (on and off) that there hasn't been enough time to devote to other important issues. During a lull in the image debate, I expanded and added some balance to the controversy section, but it has a long way to go. I think the neutrality tag is appropriate, and I suspect that many critics and supporters of the Roschach would agree. Ward3001 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality tag is meant to show a disagreement about the neutrality of the section by Wikipedians. It is not meant to show disagreement between critics and supporters of the subject. Perhaps I misunderstood you. What exactly is disputed about the section's neutrality, and how can we address it? Unless it is clear who disputes the section's neutrality and for what reasons then the tag should go. Considering you say it has been improved since the addition of the tag, I will wait a while to see if there are any active issues and the reconsider the tags presence. Articles should really only be marred with those tags if there is an active disagreement. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend for my comment to refer only to non-Wikipedia disagreement. I think there is unspoken disagreement about neutrality in the article, although I can't speak for anyone else of course. By definition we are talking about opinions, in regard to both the section topic as well as the tag. My opinion is that some (perhaps most) of the criticisms are based on outdated and/or heavily biased sources. Others may feel that the criticisms aren't strong enough, but I'll let those editors speak for themselves. If I had more time (and I hope some day I will), I would try to add more balance than I already have. That, of course, might spark more controversy. I personally think the tag is OK, but I would not object to its removal unless the section becomes more unbalanced in the future. But my opinion is to keep the tag. Ward3001 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. My understanding now is that you think there are issues of undue weight regarding how the sources are used and that others feel otherwise. If that is so then the tag probably should stay until there is more discussion which resolves this, or if nobody chimes up until you address the concerns you have. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although it is only my assumption that others might agree or disagree with me. Let's see if anyone else weighs in. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag... I see no ongoing discussion. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if a dispute arises it can be returned. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

psychopathy is not psychosis

The article mentions, "It has been employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorder and differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to openly admit to psychotic thinking.[1]",
except [1] is "Rorschach Assessment of Aggressive and Psychopathic Personalities". Psychopathy is a personality thing, and has nothing to do with psychosis! one does not have to admit thought disorder for it to be noticeable (its defined by usage of speech).
One additional thing is that thought disorder has nothing to do with psychopathy as well. I will remove that bit. I hope that by changing "psychotic" into "psychopathic" I am doing the right thing. I don't have the book. Fdskjs (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted. The source discusses psychosis. Ward3001 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Even Psychosis mentions that psychosis is very different from psychopathy. I don't know what to do about this, but I think the source is wrong in using the term psychotic - especially when the title actually uses the word psychopathic. Fdskjs (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand my edit above? Have you looked at anything in the source besides the title? The article discusses both psychosis and psychopathy. The statement "It has been employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorder and differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to openly admit to psychotic thinking" is not an inaccurate reflection of what the source says, and the source's title is not inaccurate. Nothing needs to be done about it. Ward3001 (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Paranoiac-critical method

I'm wondering if anyone has ever drawn comparisons between the Dali's Paranoiac-critical method and results of the Rorshach inkblot test. It would seem that they draw on the same sort of concept, i.e. an ambiguous image that can be interpreted in different ways based on an individuals perception\state of mind\etc.. --Thaddius (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pareidolia

Wouldn't many argue that any comparison with Pareidolia reinforces the common misunderstanding that the Rorscharch is principally concerned with the substance of the subject's projections rather than the style? So maybe it should be removed from the "See Also" section? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)