Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 4

→

The discussion

I'm basically staying out of this debate at this point, but I would like for Xeno to clarify two points so that they are not later misrepresented. I hope Xeno will make his statements here crystal clear:

Xeno, are you expressing your opinion in your capacity as an administrator on Wikipedia? Other editors have made comments that "admin Xeno" said this or that, so I think everyone needs to know whether your above comments in this section are as an editor just like the rest of us, or as an admin.
If you consider yourself a disinterested party in this matter, does the fact that you have previously taken positions in this debate entitle you to claim "disinterest"? In other words, if you're completely disinterested, you're simply summarizing the discussion and stating what you think the consensus should be, without having a prior opinion on the issue. Do you consider yourself to be completely disinterested, or are you somone who has expressed opinions on this issue (and thus not 100% disinterested), but you are trying to bring closure to the consensus process? Please note that I am not criticizing you either way. You certainly are entitled to try to bring closure, but do you feel that you had no opinion on the issue prior to this "review". Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have drafted this review and submit the results to the community to do with as they wish. Before I drafted this report, I wasn't willing to rubberstamp my edit as "adminly", because I hadn't made a full examination, but now feel that based on these findings any reasonable admin would come to the same conclusion. So yes, this review, and this edit I see Faustian has already reverted, can be considered as executed in the capacity of an administrator and I will submit the reports to WP:AN for review if editors still disagree.
Last week I had a rough assessment of community consensus, so I made a single edit to place the image in the lead with a comment as to my assessment. After I made the edit, I engaged in talk page discourse as any good editor should after making an edit that could be deemed controversial. In this report I have excluded those discussions. Thus, other than that brief discussion, I would consider myself uninvolved and disinterested except insofar as I want to see community consensus enacted and put an end to the long running disruption to the same. –xeno^talk 03:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is clear (42/13/3). I have re-applied the consensus edit and submitted the report to AN for review. –xeno^talk 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I say this with no reference to the issue of image placement, and with all due respect to Xeno, I do not consider you (Xeno) to be an impartial, disinterested party because you formed an opinion and expressed opinions prior to your writing this review. I cannot address whether it is proper for you to function as an admin in this situation, but (and again no offense intended here) I personally think it would be best to have an admin who has not had any prior experience on this issue to fill that role if it is needed. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I made a rough determination of consensus absent of my input as of 21:00, 21 May 2009. This review is simply the written form of my determination at the time of that edit. Afterwards, I engaged in talk page discourse, as any reasonable editor or admin should. However, I invite you to raise this concern at the appropriate venue, the Administrators' noticeboard: Wikipedia:AN#Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review. –xeno^talk 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the massive effort you made. A few points of my own:

You stated correctly that "consensus is built upon the voices of the many, not the voices of the few (or the two) - especially when over half[14] of those few freely admit conflicts of interest. We must not compromise our ethics as encyclopedists for the ethics of an exterior body." However, nor is consensus a majority vote. Wikipedia:What is consensus? states that "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Furthermore, "[1] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." As you have clearly demonstrated, we have a situation in which, according to the talk pages, the opposing sides have a ratio of 13:42 (with a further 3 arguing for a compromise position only). Consensus of course does not require unanimity, but on the other hand nor is it strictly a majority vote. The voices of 24%-27% of the editors involved ought to count for something and ought to be incorporated into the article. Where is the balance of competing views when they are not? I have initiated a discussion on the talk pages of consensus and am awaiting others' opinions: [2].
Your counting seems to be off somewhat. At least one of the 42 people you listed as arguing against having the image hidden were not opposed to having it moved to a different section of the article (indeed, he is the one who first proposed moving it into the test materials section which you are reverting):[3] "...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) This is one person, at least, who should be moved from the show the image in the lead section to the compromise section. Not everyone who objected to the image being hidden also opposed the version that you have reverted and insisted that the image in the lead was the only way that this could be done. You seem to be mixing up people opposed to hiding the image, with people who want the image in the lead, and inaccurately presenting it as one group, which clearly it is not. While it is safe to say that all of those wanting the image hidden or replaced with a fake one oppose having it in the lead, one cannot assume that every person who doesn't want it hidden insists that it must be in the lead and nowhere else. We already have one example above. The high number of 42 you repeatedly list is therefore somewhat misleading and the total is probably not as lopsided as you suggest.
Your numbers do not include those editors such as this one [4] who are not involved in the discussion but who have nevertheless removed the image. Presumably they ought to count also, no?
You bring up "wikipedia ethics." Wikipedia is not amoral, and indeed a proposal to claim that wikiepdia has no moral code failed to achieve consensus: [5]. Wikipedia editors are supposed to "negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." There is nothing wrong with taking ethical considerations into account when writing articles. While certainly ethics codes - whose essential purpose is protection of the public good - ought not have veto power over wikipedia content, that does not mean we are obligated to ignore them entirely, either. One of the people on the "show the image" side wrote: [6] "We really shouldn't care (in our capacity as wikipedians) how many 15 year olds commit suicide because of this article; preventing the suicide of 15 year olds is not part of the mission goals, nor any consensus approved guideline I can remember. What IS our goal, however, is to create the best articles possible." I hope that this is not your view also.
You seem to disparage the fact that one side happens to include several psychologists, based on conflict of interest (see my next point). Psychologists writing about a psychology-related topic should be considered a plus, not a minus. Is it wrong when actual biologists contribute to biology-related articles? When physicians write about medicine-related articles? If the goal is to have the best articles possible, one would hope that people in the field contributing to the articles on topics of which they are experts would be embraced, not driven away or their opinions disgarded when the actual article is created. One would think that the opinion of experts in the field would carry more weight than that of people who know little or nothing about it.
You claim a conflict of interest among many of those seeking to not place the image at the top. If someone crosses the line from letting his or her background inform his edits to causing them to compromise his edits I agree. I have not certainly not crossed that line. I have striven to balance ethical concerns (which everyone, not just psychologists) should have with the goal of being as informative as possible. Knowing more about a topic and editting accordingly is not a conflict of interest. An admittedly rough analogy that comes to mind: some creationist putting a lot of stuff into the Darwinian article and then complaining that the biolgists opposing him are doing so out of a "conflict of interest."
You seem to frame the debate in non-nuetral terms by referring to one side as seeking to "suppress" the image.

Xeno, the version you are reverting is the one based on compromise. If there is no compromise, there is no consensus. We know that more people prefer to have the image up at the top; however we do not know how many people actually oppose the compromise and insist that there is no other acceptable way. These are two distinct points. Remember Wikipedia:What is consensus?: "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority." (bolded parts mine). Your numbers do not address that point.

We ought to see how many people refuse to compromise, and then seek mediation if there is no resolution. I am restoring the previous version, which takes into account the opnions of both those who want the image in the lead as well as thjose who want it hidden, per these comments but will not get into an edit war with you over it. I hope you read and address my concerns before reverting. Faustian (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read your arguments with respect to consensus, and the rebuttals. I am still of the opinion that consensus, broadly construed, holds this image should go in the lead.
Wikipedians are, on the whole, nice people. So they often say things diplomatically, and speculate about possible compromises. When I placed those 42 editors in the column it was because they argued against suppression. As the support base grew, less and less people were willing to entertain compromises. If you would like to voir dire these numbers, I will ask the editors I've placed to re-affirm or clarify their position succinctly in light of the ongoing erosion of the various compromise versions towards the seemingly logical choice of showing the image in the lead.
I have not as yet examined article space edits, though I am interested to see how those data shape up. I'm hoping someone cleverer than I might be able to run a query rather than me having to go through it by hand.
I'm not particulary swayed by the hypothetical. I agree that there are certain ethical standards we should hold to as an encyclopedia - one of them is not allowing outside influences to inform our editorial decisions. I agree with you that our goal should be to create the best articles possible.
In writing this, I was of course concerned that it may be viewed as such. I have no problem with expert attention to the article; I'm sure it has benefited greatly from it, however, they must bring with them an encyclopedia editor's hat.
Fair enough, I'll accept in good faith that you strive to be impartial while editing the article.
Suppress is simply the most accurate word I can think of to apply to the following actions taken on the image: deleting, removing, hiding, replacing with false or re-touched images, moving below the fold.

As I said I don't believe we should compromise our editorial integrity in this regard and framing consensus to suggest we should isn't a compelling line of argument. Some time later ~~today~~ I will send a note to the people I've referenced in the review and ask them to affirm or clarify their position at which time I will move and/or annotate accordingly.

I feel that consensus is sufficiently clear. Even if a couple of the 42 were to fall into the 3, it wouldn't change the landscape that much. I've said my piece, I won't be making any more edits to the article. I may, however, seek advice on other forms of dispute resolution. –xeno^talk 05:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to Faustian's #2: I see what you mean. This should fix that, it was a mistake borne of lack of red bull =] I've also left Black Falcon a note. –xeno^talk 06:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my points. I really do appreciate the considerable time and effort you put in, and the fact that you have definitely shown that the majority who have taken part in discussions prefer to have the image unhidden versus hidden. I've never doubted that, and indeed had mentioned that this was the case many times, but it's great that we now have it concretely shown. And indeed, the version I have been defending recently includes the real image, unhidden, in the test materials section. With regards to ethics, I think that wikipedia policy is clear in supporting a balance - putting on an editor's hat doesn't mean leaving all ethics outside the door. I find it unfortunate that others don't feel that way. Three problems still need to be addressed:

We have no data on the extent to which the group wanting the real image unhidden refuse to accept any placement other than in the lead. I hope that when you ask those other editors, you frame the question appropriately - not "do you prefer to have the image in the lead" but "do you refuse to have the image anywhere but the lead", "are you open to image placement other than in the lead, such as the test materials section", etc. The former position indicates refusal to compromise in any way, the latter does not. Getting the answers to such inquiries would go along way to clarifying how people feel. Until we do, it is premature to declare based on number of opinions that consensus is to put the image on top. So far, we know only that a large majority are opposed to using a fake image or hiding the image. That's all we know concretely. The version that has been reverted does not have a fake or hidden image.
As noted, we don't know how many people "vote" by editing - by removing the image altogther. This data would seem to be important. I'm waiting to see that.
With respect to consensus, could you please outline your reasoning on why we shouldn't take the minority view into account? I've outlined the reasoning based on appropriate policy pages and essays about why we should. I'd be interested in your reasons why not.Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to clarify what position my comments advanced, so here goes: I oppose in principle any form of suppression of the image undertaken for the purpose of suppression itself. Therefore, I oppose altogether any form of "hard" suppression, by which I am referring to actions taken to hide, replace, or remove the image from the article. That being said, I do not necessarily oppose "soft" suppression, by which I mean placing the image "below the fold", if there is a reason to do this that does not rely solely or primarily on a desire to suppress the image (for instance, if the image is more relevant to one particular portion of the text than any others). In other words, I think that the image should be placed where it would best serve to improve readers' understanding of the topic; if that happens to be below the fold, then so be it. I hope that this explanation helps to clarify my position.

On a side-note, I noticed that the article has seen about 12 reverts in the past 72 hours. While there does not seem to have been a technical violation of the three-revert rule, having so many reverts in such a short time does go against the spirit of the policy. I think that the best chance for positive dialogue aimed at resolving the issue would be to focus on having/continuing a constructive discussion and, for now, to pay less attention to the current location of the image in the article; the consensus reached in the discussion will ultimately determine where the image goes. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The test is about much more than the inkblots; it is about the person's perceptions and the analysis of those perceptions. This article is about the test, not the inkblots. The inkblots themselves are necesary but are simply test materials, not test. The article on Astronomy does not have a telescope in the lead. If this were an article about the inkblots themselves it would be a different story. The idea of the test being simply about the inkblots is a popular misconception that is perpetuated by placing an inkblot in the lead. The purpose of placing the inkblots at the top is that they are "iconic" of the test and most easily recognizable. However, a google image search reveals that by far the most common and iconic image is the black-and-white version of the image rather than the actual image: [7]. I think that someone mentioned the possibility of having the black-and-white version at the top, indicated as such, and the actual one in the test materials section. It seems noone followed up on that.Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Responding to Faustian's 1,2 & 3 above at 14:21, 28 May 2009)

I've pinged them, however if you feel they require additional pinging to break or vocalize their silent consent per your comments below, feel free.
[8] Feel free to harvest these data. My off-the-cuff thoughts on this are that talk page comments are more relevant and compelling than edits alone. See also this request of mine to make this data into a human-readable table format, however you would have to coax someone into writing the program (or harvesting it manually - a laborious task no doubt) if you still feel its a relevant line of argument.
Answered at Talk:Rorschach test#Preference Versus Compromise Regarding the Image: The Evidence [9].

cheers, –xeno^talk 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, consensus is not a matter of numbers; nor is a matter of breath, which I fear Faustian and Ward have forgotten. Writing more does not make you more right. Screaming longer and louder than others does not make you more right. I've never seen anything to support the ridiculous claim that posting the image is unethical or harmful in any way, and frankly I'm tired of hearing that if you're not going to back it up. As I said before: we have an article, we have an image relevant to that article, and absent some compelling reason I don't see why it shouldn't be right where it so obviously belongs. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting other editors by implying that they are "screaming". The APA deems it unethical to spread tests around. The purpose of the ethics code is to protect the public, thus the scientists involved in this matter collectively deem it harmful to expose the public to this image (along with any other test materials). You may personally feel differently of course.Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the APA have any opinion on this image, specifically? The apparent lack of one seems telling. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The APA ethics code does not mention any specific test but covers all tests: 9.11. Maintaining Test Security "The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code."Faustian (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to thank Xeno for this clear, painstaking and (largely) very fair, summary here of a great deal of debate. Re-reading my early comments it seems that I might more easily fall into a category of `editors who have changed their opinion'. My initial scepticism over protecting the image has largely been replaced by support for the two main protection protagonists, i.e. they have persuaded me with their arguments. But I still feel my most problematic issues (which I must admit are more general) seem to remain unresolved - that test materials should not be shown in Wikipedia and that `Goggle images' shoud not be used as the best yardstick of what is "in the public domain". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But many books written by eminent psychologist also show the blots, such as this, p.1144. which shows much more than we do. Google books finds very many such books. If the APa want them to be secret, they are making very little attempts to enforce that with their membersYob Mod 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they know their work can be accessed on googleimages. Interestingly, usage of fake inkblots isn't a problem for Britannica or encarta: [10].Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The one i linked to is also available in libraries and bookshops (including Amazon and B&N - googlbooks gives links). I have nothing against using "fake" images (at least for the lead - the real one was more useful to me next to the description), but holding wikipedia to a stricter standard than trained and accredited psychologists does not seem a good arguement for it.Yob Mod 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I commented elsewhere, placing images in books is not the same as online. The fact that this is becoming blurred with googlebooks doesn't change it, and I expect eventually something to be done about it. However the authors don't put the images on the cover of the books. Indeed I have one book with a fake image on the book jacket and real ones within the text. Faustian (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Yobmod, I'm sure if we deliberately go to a library, or even search purposefully on-line for a scholarly text, we can easily find examples. And your points about lack of APA action here are interesting. But my problem lies with frivolous, casual, or even accidental, browsing with a ubiquitous image search engine. For me, two (or several) over-exposure wrongs really don't make a right. Surely, poor control on one part of the web, is no justification for poor control on another or, particularly, here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But you have not demonstrated that the APA or any psyhological association considers any exposure to be wrong. The lack of any response from the APA indicates the opposite. While this is obviously not conclusive, without a single cite to show that this is an ethical breach, we only have your (plural) POVs. Wikipedia cannot assume adding any information is a breach of ethics without any proof whatsoever that this is a widely held oppinion, or we could never add anything! Finally, i don't consider Wikipedia to be frivolous use - our not-for-profit disemination of knowledge is less frivolous than yet another psychologist writing a book for money and recognition. YobMod 08:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the ethics code: 9.11. Maintaining Test Security "The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code." And I'm sorry, but the idea that people write books for "money and recognition" is insulting and sad.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me add to Faustian's response to Yobmod. The ethics code has been cited several times on this talk page (although in Yobmod's defense, he is far from being the only person to make this mistake here). And the APA's ethics code does not exist for "money and recognition". Furthermore, it is generally understood among writers and users of information in scientific journals (including but not limited to psychology) that publication is done to advance science for the common good, not for "money and recognition"; very insulting and sad indeed that someone would make such a misleading and uninformed statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward3001 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd certainly write a book for "money and recognition", but I probably wouldn't choose the Rorschach for a subject. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

By "..frivolous .. browsing with a ubiquitous image search engine.." I was alluding to Google Images not Wikipedia. I have no professional knowledge of APA, so I would need to seek advice from those who do. Thanks, Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, regardless of what ultimately happens, I would like to thank you for the mammoth effort you have undertaken in reviewing and summarizing years of discussion Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The arbitrary break

Despite my disagreement with Xeno, I would like to thank Xeno for the painstaking work here.
I have tremendous respect for Luna Santin and intend no offense, but Luna Santin, you have simply made a mistake in your comment that "I've never seen anything to support the ridiculous claim that posting the image is unethical or harmful in any way". Regardless of Wikipedia's policies (which I am not disputing), if you read all of the discussion (including the archives), you will see ample reference to the ethical problems in exposing the image, and by no means is it a "ridiculous claim". I'm not really sure that you really believe professional ethics are ridiculous, but if you do then I would respectfully disagree. But otherwise, thank you for your comments. Ward3001 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I believe professional ethics are ridiculous, not at all; rather, to the best of my knowledge I've never seen you back up your claims of harm. You're doing it again, now: mentioning decisive evidence without actually quite providing it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again with respect, Luna Santin, but your comment (perhaps unintentionally) did include the statement "the ridiculous claim that posting the image is unethical" (italics added), and the APA ethics code has been cited previously on this talk page. As for the issue of harm, if you'll look closely at my edits above, I gave a source that prior exposure to a Rorschach image can damage the validity of the results ([11]) and that tests in general (not just the Rorschach) should have a security level that avoids prior exposure because of compromised validity ([12]). I also provided evidence that the Rorschach can detect suicidality ([13], [14], [15]), and thus if the test validity is compromised there can be cases in which the test can miss detecting genuine cases of suicidality. If you include suicide as a form of harm, then compromising the results of the test can result in missing potential suicide. Now, if you want specific evidence of individual cases in which someone has suicided because he/she saw an image of a Rorschach inkblot prior to taking the test, I consider that an unreasonable demand for evidence because those data will never be available; psychologists do not routinely publish data about individual clinical cases in which test validity might be compromised. And we may not even know the patient saw the image until after the harm is done. But I don't think it takes a great leap in logic to see that if exposure of an image results in an invalid test, and an invalid test can result in missing a case of suicidality, then improper exposure of the image can be a factor in harm to a patient. And that only pertains to the worst case scenario. I have also made comments about less lethal, but nonetheless harmful, possible results from an invalidated test and consequent misdiagnosis ([16]). I hope this clarifies things. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, actually; I'm going to need some time to think on this. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. This can be a lot of info to absorb for those without training in the test. Thanks for your efforts here. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet again Ward I wholly agree with you. And you have explained part of my original scepticism over protecting the image - the "scientifc proof of harm" would involve unethical, impractical and maybe impossible measures. One group would need to be deliberately pre-exposed to images in a randomly assigned but controlled manner (knowing that this might compromise a later test/diagnosis) and one group not. Then a sufficiently large number of each group would need to be tested/diagnosed (double blind) for a statistically large difference to be demonstrated. But even testing for no genuine reason might be construed as unethical in itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In an individual clinical situation (i.e., my patient whom I am trying to diagnose), testing for no reason would have ethical problems, unless the patient and I both are willing for the patient to be a part of a larger study and all the proper protections for research participants are put into place. In that particular scenario, I would not do the testing (another psychologist would), and it would be unknown whether the results would be useful diagnostically until I got them (if I could even get them; that would depend on the conditions determined in advance about release of the data). Much of the suicide research has been done in situation in which patients have been tested for clinical purposes, then the resulting data (along with suicide data) are given to the researcher after the fact (with all the proper confidentiality safeguards, of course). Combine that with the fact that suicide has such a low base-rate, and you can see why such research data are hard to get. And that's all the more reason that we want the data to be as pure as possible (i.e., uncontaminated by artifacts such as prior exposure to a Rorschach image). If even one Rorschach from such a data pool is contaminated, that can be a tremendous loss of invaluable information. The research problems with non-suicide issues are usually less dramatic, but it can still be incredibly difficult to collect such data. The Rorschach is a time-consuming test that isn't always administered in a clinical situation. If we use non-clinical research subjects (i.e., people who aren't being treated or seeking treatment), it can be a little easier to get the data, but then we have the problem of how useful the data are. We might demonstrate that the test is invalidated by prior exposure of an image, but we are not likely then to be able to relate that to "harm" because we cannot (ethically or practically) create situations in which the research subject would experience harm. Ward3001 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My name was not added to the list. I too think that the image should not be suppressed in any way shape or form. A convincing argument has not been put forth to hide it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added you to the addendum at #Additional voices. –xeno^talk 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that my prior interpretation of consensus is in line with this new interpretation of consensus. Sanity checks are always very helpful. Hopefully this edit warring will stop and that image placement consensus supports can remain now. Chillum 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No need for words like "sanity checks", Chillum. There have been legitimate disagreements here, not problems with "sanity" (literal or figurative meaning). If you mean "accuracy checks", don't forget to count your own edits among those that have needed checking. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to a check on my own sanity. I often refer to a confirmation or a contradiction of my interpretation of things as a "sanity check". I certainly was not attempting commentary on anyone else(other than my comment about edit warring). Chillum 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I also want to say that I think this edit is productive and informative. I think putting the significance of inkblots in regards to the test as a whole into the caption for the lead image is the correct place for it as such an image needs qualification to avoid misunderstandings. I also agree that the common interpretations of the image belong in the body of the article for pretty much the same reasons. Chillum 16:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I was active on this page, but the same principle applies: we do not censor images out of deference to false copyright claims, or concerns that the info will somehow invalidate tests (info on other articles could change results on other tests), or because some people want to protect something related to their occupation. And this particular test is highly subjective anyway, and people taking it are supposed to make snap decisions upon seeing it (which wouldn;t be all that affected by having seen it earlier), so the odds of this screwing up tests for anyone to any meaningful degree are so low as to be ridiculous. (And are people even still using these? Seriously? It was a nice parlor game about a century ago, but I'd hoped the field had moved on by now.) DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The above copied here from "The clarifications" as it was trimmed somewhat in that section. –xeno^talk 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A differing viewpoint further (copied from Xeno's talk page)

This debate reminds me of my previous attempts to edit articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group of which I am a member. After consulting with our world headquarters via snail mail, I accepted their view that "fighting" for a particular presentation of information and suppressing information which we believe strongly to be blatantly false or deliberately misleading would be a fruitless endeavor; we (JWs) have specific venues through which we disseminate information about ourselves, and while lies and misinformation exists, both online and elsewhere, our duty is to "defend and legally establish the good news" through the very basic venues recommended by 1st century Bible writers and our own publications. It is up to others to decide from what sources they will acquire information, whether or not such would prove detrimental; it is simply not our call.

The reason that I bring this up is that I feel that these professionals with an interest in suppression that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards need to take stock of the effectiveness of this fight. Such uses of these now-public domain images permeates our culture (see Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song)#Music videos), inasmuch as misinformation and disinformation thrive in legitimate venues despite the real and potential damage such can bring. These professionals may likewise encounter published bad advice, but attempts to suppress it would likely be ineffective. As Jehovah's Witnesses may attempt to reinforce "true" statements about themselves to individuals may come to them already having taken in misinformation, so too psychologists should promulgate their expertise in settings and using means that are in their legitimate control, advising the public to be wary of potentially harmful information, but accepting the reality that no one can effectively "win" in arenas so vast and prodigious. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add that my decision for my own editing practices was to avoid editing articles about which I hold such a strong personal view, as such could compromise Wikipedia's highest principles, not simply because such an effort would be ongoing, fruitless, and unbelievably frustrating. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick comment in response to CobaltBlueTony's comments: Though well intentioned, your comments basically are "preaching to the choir". Most psychologists would agree that they "should promulgate their expertise in settings and using means that are in their legitimate control, advising the public to be wary of potentially harmful information", which is why we have been doing that for many years. But does that mean we should not try to bring to bear our influence in more difficult areas where mental health is jeopardized, such as this Wikipedia article? You're right that it's frustrating, but that doesn't make it less important. Ward3001 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Cobaltbluetony, my efforts here may also well turn out to be `ongoing, fruitless, and frustrating' but none of those are good enough reasons for not making those efforts. I also think there may be important differences between the substance of our respective topics. But thanks for presenting a different point of view, which some may find useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Custody & patrole hearings

I added a fact tag to a sentence in applications. It is entirely possible that the cite for the next sentence mentions this, but if so, i think it still should say the test is controversial in the US due to its use in these hearings (or that it is controversial because it is used in US hearings). I've never heard of custody battles in the UK or Germany using this test, so if the claim is for world-wide use and controversy, more sourcing is needed.

Also, the does the source for the APA ethics of "maintain the integrity and security of test materials" mention this test? Is a separate source not needed to show that some believe that showing the test counts as not maintaining the integrity? Word-association tests do not require that a person has never heard the word before, so it seems a debatable issue (presumable all psychologists agree with the APA ethics rule, but some disagree that this would be a breach of them - otherwise no psychologist would have ever written a book with the images in). Hast there ever been a hearing or loss of licencing from the APA over this?

More questions i had that i don't think the article covers: If seeing the inkblots damages the test results, can a person only be given the test once? Are there alternate blots for long-term patients? "let's try the inkblots again" is something one hears a lot in fiction, implying that this sort of test can be used repeatedly - are there rules for repeated use, or difference criteria to assess responses after the first ones?

Very little of the "methods" section is sourced. All the arguing over image placement seems to have distracted from more important work on the article content and sourcing :-(. YobMod 10:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The APA ethics code does not mention any specific test. The ethics code's purpose is to protect the public; keeping test information secure protects the public, insomuch as prior exposure to the test compromises its usefulness. In terms of retesting, a general rule of thumb is not to retest a person for at least a year, although this isn't always practical. I doubt that the authors of some of these books are aware that the images can be accessed through googlebooks. I don't now about Germany, but the Rorschach is widely used in Spain and Latin America.Faustian (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i agree it is widely used in Germany, just not for custody or patrole hearings. I assume the authors of the books do at least understand that these books are in public libraries - they are certainly not secret in any way. From my (limited) understanding of a APA, any breach of it's ethics code is a very serious matter, and can result in revoking of membership. If this has never happened, in spite of numerous publications of the blots by pschologists, it implies that the APA do not consider it a breach of ethics - hence why it needs more sourcing.Yob Mod 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between placing an image in a book and plastering it on the internet or making it widely visible. none of the books you mention has a Rorschach image on the book's cover or sleeve.Faustian (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, as you seem to admit, those authors have published the test images in such a way that they are readily accessible by the public, without anything in the way of apparent repercussions. Why is that? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They are published in scholarly works typically found in university or hospital libraries rather than public libraries or bookshops. Thus they are not "readily" accessible. This is different from putting something on the internet where it does indeed become widely available. Scholars must and do exchange information, for research and training purposes. This means stuff gets into books. But ethics do call for making reasonable efforts to safeguard information for the public good. In this case, the images are not on the book cover and when these scholars write in popular magazines or general publications (such as Scientific American or Britannica) they use fake inkblots in those articles. If those scholars had put the images on the internet there indeed likely would be repurcussions (and no scholar has done this, not even the ones like Woods et al who have harshly criticized the Rorschach). Googlebooks access to the images seems to be one of those cases where technology moves forward in unplanned directions, not always good from the perspective of public good. It wouldn't be the only case of technological progress have bad repercussions, think of online support groups for unrepentant pedophiles.Faustian (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed where i stated that these books are avaiable in both public libraries and amazon and B&N. The link takes you to the pages that sell them to the general public. Saying they are limited to acedemic or clinical setting is simply not true.Yob Mod 08:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Until the advent of the internet age it was much more difficult to get this information because one had to go to academic or hospital libraries or order them from the publisher (or buy them from the university bookstore if they're used as textbooks). They don't sell these books in Borders or other bookstores and they generally don't have them in neighborhood libraries either. The mass availability through amazon etc, is a very recent phenomenon and as is often the case technology moves forward in unexpected ways, usually good but not always. Putting images into an academic text that can be bought online is not the same as posting ther images on-line.Faustian (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This particular book is available from over 50 used book stores. Not just Amazon.com mind you, they are just the venue. These are independent used book stores, you can also buy it new from Amazon.com, or if you prefer a brick and mortar book store you can use Barnes & Noble. And the image of the inkblot is on the front of the book, at least partially. These books are made available to the general public in the corner book store and do show the images. I don't think Dr. John E. Exner Jr.(Executive Director of the Rorschach Workshops, which he founded in 1968; and Curator of the Rorschach Archives and Museum in Bern, Switzerland) did anything unethical by publishing this book in that manner either, if someone looks it up in the library or at a book store that is the information they will get. I don't see why such importance is being attributed to the medium in which the information is published. Book store, Internet, carrier pidgin, it all makes very little difference from an ethical point of view. Chillum 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a forensic psychologist, so I may not have much to say here. But a couple of corrections, Chillum. Major correction: the image on the cover is not from a Rorschach inkblot. Minor correction: John Exner is deceased. One additional point not in response to Chillum: we need to distinguish between forensic uses (e.g., custody and parole) and clinical uses. Clinical patients generally have no interest whatsoever in learning lots of details about the test. At most, they may have a bit of curiosity. In the 20 years that I have used the Rorschach clinically, I have never known of a patient who would go to the trouble to gain access to a book about the Rorschach, online or elsewhere. Most are too preoccupied with many other problems in their life and desperate for someone to help them; they have little or no interest in trying to figure out the test in advance in order to manipulate the results in some way. If they do have that little bit of curiosity, they're likely to read about it in an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

YobMod, did you mean custody and parole? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So...

Is it over? Is the page going to remain like this? Can I remove the RfC now? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The RFC had already expired (30d). I'm going to shortly notify the participants to ensure I have represented their positions accurately. –xeno^talk 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea Xeno, lets remove any doubt as to the interpretation of other people's stances. Chillum 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. First time using one; didn't know they were set to expire after a month. Thank you for the correction and for your continued efforts. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The notes have been sent, so now we wait. –xeno^talk 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"80% of psychologists engaging in assessment utilize the Rorschach" = dubious

NOTE FOR CONTEXT: This section arose after DreamGuy claimed that the 80% figure was inaccurate (his first claim) and dubious (his second claim)

Direct quote: ""over 80% of clinical psychologists engaged in providing assessment services use the RIM in their work" (p. 402). Ward3001 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE FOR FURTHER CONTEXT: I labeled it dubious because it is inaccurate. I don't know why you felt the need to add that text at the front, but it sounds like you were acting like the statements are contradictory. DreamGuy (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was necessary for me to provide the context because you did not provide any context. And to clarify, you first placed an inaccurate word in the statement contrary to the source (you inserted "personality" before assessment), and then when that was removed, you stated that it was dubious. Someone coming into this discussion without knowing that background could be more than a little confused. Ward3001 (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty self-evident, especially to anyone who would look at the article history. And "personality assessment" is absolutely NOT inaccurate. Personality assessment is a specific kind of assessment, even though you don't seem to understand that there are different kinds of assessments. DreamGuy (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that the source used the term "personality assessment", not just "assessment"? And I'm not asking for your opinion about what "seems pretty self-evident". I'm talking about accurately representing a source cited in the article. So did the source use "personality assessment" as you originally claimed? Ward3001 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you've proven that the line in the article is inaccurate. It says: "80% of psychologists engaging in assessment utilize the Rorschach" Clinical psychologists are only a subset of psychologists. Experimental psychologists and cognitive psychologists assess people all the time, and certainly would not use inkblot tests as a method. We also need to know which psychologists were covered by the survey of "clinical psychologists" -- considering that the survey was administered by the Society for Personality Assessment, it's likely they only surveyed their own members and, when presenting the results, didn't explicitly spell out "80% of the psychologists we surveyed" in every line, assuming that would be understood. And these kinds of posts are better suite for the article talk page, not mine, so all the editors interested in the article can see the conversation, so I have moved them here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. Experimental psychologists don't do any assessments. If someone writes "80% of doctors delivering babies", do you think they include radiologists in that figure? The statement is accurate because it is clinical psychologists who are the ones doing assessments. And the source doesn't refer to what the authors surveyed. It refers to a review of literature of surveys on the subject. Stop splitting hairs to try to make a point, stop tendentious editing, and please read the source if you want to challenge it. Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What bizarre definition of the word assessment are you using here? Experimental psychologist most certainly do make assessments. You can't just define "assessment" to mean "whatever people who use the Rorschach test do" and then say that people who do assessments use Rorschach tests. You're making circular arguments here, and it's slanting the coverage of this topic quite severely. And when I tried to clarify it to mean "personality assessment" -- which is apparently what you as well as the source you cite are trying to claim "assessment" to mean -- you reverted that change. DreamGuy (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And please tell us how many experimental psychologists administer psychological tests (not just the Rorschach; all kinds of psychological tests: intelligence, achievement, neuropsychological, interest inventories, etc. etc.). Of course every human being does an "assessment" as in "I assessed the traffic situation and decided not to cross the road", but that's not the professional meaning of the word now is it? But that is not a "psychological assessment". Once again, you are splitting semantic hairs over the meanings of words that have a clear meaning to the average reader. So tell us which tests experimental psychologists routinely use. Ward3001 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of what DG proposes is original research, but I'll go ahead and change the article to state "over 80% of clinical psychologists". Faustian (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not original research, it's simply understanding the English language and realizing that claims made must be kept within proper context so as not to mislead people. And your change does not solve the problem because we don't know who this very biased source surveyed in order to make that statement. Was it a representative sample all clinical psychologists (presumably limited to a geographic area) or member of their organization? These all make a HUGE difference. Please explain exactly who this survey was aimed at and the methodology involved so our readers can get a fair and accurate understanding of the statistic's relevance. DreamGuy (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, what is this mysterious "their organization" that you refer to? The survey information is from a reliable source, and it is sourced within that source with reliable sources (peer-reviewed academic journals). If you want to challenge a reliable source, find that source and dispute its contents, or find another reliable source that states otherwise. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. A citation to a reliable source stays intact until it is properly challenged with evidence to the contrary. You're the one challenging the information. You need to point out the specific fallacies in the reliable source. Have you read the source? Have you read the sources referred to in that source? If not, you need to begin by doing that, then make your challenges; otherwise you're challenging something without even knowing what it says or what it is based on. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The specific fallacies in the source are that the editor who added it did not give information about the metasurvey and thus is suggesting that it's all psychologists everywhere (which is patently absurd on the face of it) instead of certain kinds of psychologist in certain places. I'm sure you know all about lies, damn'd lies and statistics. This is not some game where you make a vague reference to a book to make a claim you want added to the article and expect other people to go find the context of the source to make the information more accurate, less misleading and not something pushing a POV. You are expected to either provide the proper context for wide-ranging statements or not make such statements at all. And please do not try to tell me how things are done on Wikipedia when you demonstrate very little understanding of the process yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The source refers to a couple of peer-reviewed journal articles? Did the authors of those articles use "damn'd lies and statistics", and if so, what did they lie about? Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The source states that 80% of clinical psychologists performing assessment services use the Rorschach. That's pretty clearly not suggesting all psychologists everywhere. It's those that perform assessment services. It's not those who only do therapy, or those who only do research with animals, etc. And try to be civil, please ("And please do not try to tell me how things are done on Wikipedia when you demonstrate very little understanding of the process yourself.").Faustian (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"That's pretty clearly not suggesting all psychologists everywhere." And the article was written as if it were all psychologists everywhere, and that individual or individuals was guilty of abusing statistics to spread misinformation, which is why it needed to be changed. And, again, I stand by those words because they aren't being uncivil, just an accurate appraisal of your lack of understanding of rules here and your aggressive stance toward insisting other people do what you tell them to do despite not having a good reason to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was written "In surveys, 80% of psychologists engaging in assessment utilize the Rorschach, and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach the Rorschach.[1]" The actual source stated "over 80% of clinical psychologists engaged in providing assessment services use the RIM in their work" (p. 402). I clarified that by stating "clinical psychologists" (even though most psychologists providing assesment services are indeed clinical psychologists). Thanks for assuming good faith by describing me as "guilty of abusing statistics to spread misinformation."Faustian (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How many inkblot images / Discussion about consensus

Now that we very clearly have demonstrated an extremely strong consensus to include one of the Rorschach images in the lead of the article, we should have a further discussion of just how many images should be in the article. Someone above suggested a whole gallery of them. I think we probably could use at least one or two more: one with color, to show that they are not just black and white, and perhaps one of the ones that critics have suggested were selected precisely because they do have shapes that would appear to be phallic in nature. It looks like there is a wide range of images of these inkblots available at Wikimedia Commons, so it would be no problem to drop links in. DreamGuy (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the key question is what information would more than one image bring that one image does not bring? Doesn't the one shown now have color, or do other ones have multiple colors? If a good source can be found regarding the phallic appearance of an inkblot and this has been criticized then I think it is relevant if we have a body of text covering this sub-topic. Chillum 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that dreamguy is just being vengeful for whatever reason: [17]. For whatever reason he's angry and wants to do something that the editors he's arguing with doesn't like. He has a pattern of engaging in conflicts apparently: [18] and [19]. Faustian (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a violation of WP:AGF and inaccurate. But, yes, I don't shy away from conflicts, mainly because some editors like to aggressively start conflicts and throw accusations around and then pretend as if then not letting them continue to violate policies somehow makes me a bad person. But, yeah, so you came to my talk page to try to tell me everyone who disagreed with you was ignorant and acted all aggressive and act shocked, shocked that anyone would decide that that kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a bad person, dreamguy, and my message to you was quite civil and not aggressive whatsoever: [20]. Indeed I was not incivil at all on your talk page: [21]. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. However you felt about my message, it is no excuse for you to act uncivil.Faustian (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As for "extremely strong consenus": 1/3 of involved editors disagree. Somehow when 80% of psychology schools teach the Rorschach it's not an overwhelming majority, but when 66% of editors want a partiuclar version it's "extremely strong consensus." Unless you believe consenus to mean majority rule or democracy rather than synthesis etc. there is no consensus.

I wouldn't object to a second inkblot, but I would think that to include another one just to illustrate that some of the blots include colors other than black and grey would not be a good enough reason. I am quite interested, though, to see more images generally. Can we include some other sort of visual? A graph, a table, or a timeline maybe? Mango juice^talk 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be enough to make a gallery of the original inkblots on commons and simply link to that. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Or better, create a page devoted to the inkblots, how they were selected, etc. and then include a couple of them there. This page, about the test, emphasizes the blots too much already.Faustian (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The blots ARE the test, so this page cannot emphasize them "too much" -- I mean, come on, that's like saying the article on William Shakespeare concentrates on his body of work too much. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the blots are merely the material for the test. They are no more the test than ink and paper are to Shakepsear's body of owrk.20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The fallacy of thinking that the blots ARE the test has only been stated about 15 or 20 times on this talk page. Any first year grad student in clinical psychology knows that there's a lot more to the test than the blots. In fact, most people who take an introductory psychology course as undergrads pick up on that particular fact. As for the incredibly strained logic that "this page cannot emphasize them 'too much'", if we follow that line of reasoning, there would be no words in the article, just a page with inkblots. I suppose that's what DreamGuy is proposing, that we remove any remnant of explanation (not to mention citations to research) from the article and have a page with nothing but ten inkblots. Ward3001 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the ultimate low-maintenance projective article. Or would it be just a bit of a white elephant? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any evidence that Hermann Rorschach (and he's the one who selected all of the images) selected any images "because they do have shapes that would appear to be phallic in nature", but if someone has a reliable source indicating that he did, that would be interesting information. Ward3001 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "extremely strong consenus", um, I thought the consensus review was still ongoing, pending submission of final clarifications from all those invited to give them? Will Xeno than come to a final decision? Surely discussion over "number of images" a little premature before then? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was a bit shocked to see the image moved even before the consensus process was completed. I just got a message from Xeno yesterday, and haven't had a chance to read over the whole summary yet. Also, and apparently this needs pointing out, one person summarizing the discussion and declaring his interpretation of it, does NOT make concensus. LK (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My review has been posted at the administrators' noticeboard since May 28th. If you dispute my interpretation of consensus or have an issue with my actions with respect to resolving this dispute, I suggest you raise your concerns at Wikipedia:AN#Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review. –xeno^talk 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy began this discussion following his threat to do so if I didn't desist from defending my opinion [22]: "I think the compromise is that there's only one image up instead of a number of them. Some people expressed interest in having more images there, and I think that'd be perfectly acceptable. The consensus to have one image was pretty strong, so I suspect editors wouldn't be opposed to having more. If that current situation is unacceptable to you we could hammer out a new compromise, but it might end up being even less desirable to you than the current one.DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Faustian (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't a threat, simply pointing out that the article already leaned too far in favor of kowtowing to the opinions of people like yourself not following Wikipedia policies. Gosh, now I am accused of acting in the interest of what the consensus of editors said they wanted to do instead of promoting the ends of a aggressive minority. Heaven forbid. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

@Martin, the notes were sent out to verify the respondents positions (as the landscape changed over the last four years). Without a bunch of the respondents suddenly making a complete about-face, my conclusion is unlikely to change with respect to the single image. –xeno^talk 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This speaks to the preferences of the majority of involved editors as well as their willingness to compromise or seek consensus. However it doesn't address the issue of consensus itself which is not accomplished by vote. To paraphrase somethng I wrote on my talk page, I asked the "experts" about consensus on their input regarding what consensus means in such a case here on the talk page of the article on wikipedia consenus policy :Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Four people offered their opinions, which seem to have been evenly divided. Two experts felt that limiting the image violates the NOTCENSORED principle, and that this violation trumps any possible consensus. The discussion doesn't make clear, however, if when talking about censorship they are talking about image placement or using a fake image. Two other experts seemed to indicate that a compromise ought to be reached for it to be consensus. One stated "And though we disregard what external organizations want us to write or not write, we do not disregard what our editors want to write and not write." (which I suppose supports a compromise so as not to disregard what some of our editors - 1/3 of the ones invovled here - want). The other states that "Consensus should be, when at all possible, when the concerns of all editors are addressed as much as is reasonable without tilting the individual points too far one way or another. For some topics of discussion this may not be possible (whether a source is valid for example, or whether a subject is presented with a neutral point of view). For yet others it should be possible to work out compromises (designing templates, proposing changes to the MediaWiki software, etc)." In my opinion, moving the image to the methods or test material section would tilt it far in the direction of those who don't want to limit it at all but would still demonstrate some acceptance of the minority's viewpoint, in a way that would probably match the 1/3:2/3 preference for limiting/not limiting the image. It would be a true reflection of what most editors want, and thus actually reflect consenus.

My view is that censorship applies with respect to not including the image at all. However, image placement (in the lead? in the methods or test materials?) is an issue of editorship rather than of censorship. An article isn't "censored" because it's on page 2 of a newspaper rather than page 1. So therefore, IMO, censorship isn't an issue here and thus the rules regarding compromise and taking various editors' opinions apply. If it turns out that your poll shows that the overwhelming majority refuse to want to compromise on this issue, I think that the next step (mediation?) would be in order. But let's see what happens now, first.Faustian (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to use that line of argument, I'd suggest getting a much wider range of opinions than that of those (not necessarily experts) who just happen to be watching WT:Consensus. Perhaps an RFC on that page, added to Template:Cent. –xeno^talk 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Would that attract people who know the consenus policy or just random people who may not? I would welcome input and the opinions of as many people as possible who know something about wikipedia: consensus. However, I'm afraid that a random sampling of people who may have looked at the consensus page for the first time, in response to the RFC, won't produce a very informed opinion. Is there a group out there somewhere classified as experts of wikipedia policy to whom we can turn to for an opinion?Faustian (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It should attract a wide array of opinions. Experts on Wikipedia policy? The only group close to this would be administrators in general, I suppose (and your mileage may vary!). Remember, our policies are descriptive rather than prescriptive; so what can anyone really "know" about them?...except what has happened in the past, and whether policy as written accurately reflects what actually happens in practice. I think your question of whether a few minority voices can be disregarded in light of a seemingly overwhelming majority is an interesting one and would like to see how it plays out on a wider stage. –xeno^talk 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is one or two exceptions than it seems clear that those voices can be ignored - consensus is not unanimous. In this case, however, we have a substantial number of dissenters (1/3 of involved editors), not just a few in light of a seemingly overwhelming majority. Moreover, looking at the background of dissenters it seems that the more someone knows about the Rorschach the more one is likely to be a "dissenter." I know that no one can "own" an article, but still, it's unfortunate that in this case it is exactly the experts whose opinion is disregarded. Xeno, how would one do an RFC on the consensus issue? I'm bad with respect to such processes...Faustian (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFC#Instructions. You've already done step 1, so just add the {{rfctag}} and brief neutral statement as instructed to the top of the section you've already started. Then I'll pop it into Template:cent. –xeno^talk 04:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm getting into a busy period but will try to do this in the next few days....Faustian (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Folks, can we keep the meta debate about who has done what to whom to a thread of its own? The topic of this thread is how many images to use, the topic of every other thread on this page is all that other stuff unrelated to the article. I think consensus is clear enough to at least resume normal editing. Lets put the sour grapes behind us and talk about the content of the article.

I don't think we have yet been given a good reason for showing more than one pictures. If we have a body of text that shows notable commentary on a specific image fine, but until then I don't see the benefit. Chillum 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chillum, but I am still a little surprised that this is a valid topic for discussion at all, before some kind of satisfactory resolution of the main debate. For the benefit of us non-admins with short memories, I wonder could Xeno briefly summarize the steps that should happen next as part of the review process? I'm sure that normal article editing can now resume but "how many images" just seems a bit contentious right now. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You haev to be kidding me. There's plenty of satisfactory resolution to the main debate, and this discussion is an extension of it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, my review is complete and I don't really expect the conclusion I reached to change (especially based on the responses thus far). Next steps? Keep editing as you were: with collegiality, using the talk page to hash out disputes. I believe Faustian is still working up the "What is consensus" angle, and I gave him some advice above on that. The issue of whether to include more than one Rorschach image is beyond the scope of my review. That being said, I don't see more than one person who is arguing for more inkblot images. I note that the commonscat template at the bottom can lead one to more images if the one shown here leaves one wanting. –xeno^talk 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well since we are not sticking to the subject of the thread I will comment on the topic that seems to be dominating it. I seriously think those challenging the consensus now would say there would be a consensus if only 1/3rd of the people wanted the image at the top and the rest wanted it moved or removed. I strongly suspect that those challenging this evident consensus are doing so because they do not like the outcome. There is clearly no consensus to deviate from our normal style of presentation for an article, and plenty of agreement to follow it. Perhaps consensus will change about this in time but it is in clear favor of the image being at the top at this point in time.

I agree that this is probably not the best time to request more images. I certainly think if we do add more images there needs to be a very good reason, and a body of supporting text that is well sourced and justifies the addition. I have not seen that yet. Chillum 04:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as LK (talk) has pointed out, the normal style of presentation for an article in which the image is controversial is to include the image (rather than censor it or hide it) but to move it further down the page. This is how it was done in, say, the articles about Bahá'u'lláh and Muhammad (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively). If the ratio were reversed I would still call for a compromise, although it would have to be one closer to the position of those who don't want the image up to reflect the range of people's opinion accurately. I would NOT just disregard the 1/3 who disagreed with me, which apparently much of the current 2/3 majority would like to do with the opinion of the 1/3 minority.Faustian (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There's no real consensus for handling controversial images in that way, and the kind of controversies involved there are not the same as the false, manufactured one here. And you have been readily ignoring anyone who disagreed with you for years, so to claim you wouldn't if the situation were reversed doesn't ring true. The 1/3 minority seems to be making its opinions based upon personal beliefs and not Wikipedia policies, so, like all editors who want to ignore policies, yes, those people can be safely ignored. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been offering various compromises for years, not ignoring others' views: [23]. Rather than make personal attacks I suggest we stick to the ideas. We have two links to two articles in which images are controversial, in which the controversy was handled not by removing the image or placing it in the lead but by keeping it while placing it further down the page. Wikipedia policy states that consensus involves compromises between various opinions [24]: "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."Faustian (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Though if there is any relevant and reliable information on the significance of color in the images, I must say this is striking: File:Rorschach_blot_08.jpg. Chillum 05:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping with the original topic, I'm not sure how much information an additional image would add. A colour blot might add something, but if any other related media can be found it would probably be preferable to simply sticking another ink blot image on here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who know of my previous contributions might guess my position on this one. The words `wound', 'salt' and 'rubbing' spring to mind, but not necessarily in that order. Do editors really think that, in view of the huge effort expended in the debate over the past two years on the use and location of one single image, and the massive review effort by Xeno, this question is the best one with which to develop the article? Or is this communal "wiping the slate clean" a necessary part of "proving" that a new "extremely strong consensus" really has been established? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who have read other editors' comments above know that the question is valid and consensus has been established pretty conclusively on one aspect and should be further hammered out on some others. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your zeal for better construction here seems just a little daunting. Hammer away, but count me out, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what hammers and sickles have to do with the debate, but I do know that this consensus was reviewed and confirmed by a venue composed of uninvolved people very familiar with our policies: [25]. I find it disingenuous to say that there is no consensus. Of course it is not a vote and of course 2/3 does not automatically beat 1/3, we all know that. But when the 2/3 base their opinion on policy and the 1/3 use opinions outside of policy, and then several independent parties review the consensus and confirm it, then yes that is a consensus.

Your points of view have not been ignored, rather your points of view have been given enormous consideration, we listened to each argument and for months on end we debated these points with you. We have not been convinced of your point of view. I suggest you focus more on trying to change people's minds about the arguments you are making instead of attempting to discredit what is clearly the preferred decision of the community. Chillum 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Our points of view are functionally ignored when the final product doesn't take them into account at all. Consensus isn't just about hearing out all sides - it's about building the article based on the various opinions. It's not unanimity - if one or a couple peole differ we don't have to defer to them. But 1/3 is more than just a small minority. Please read these Wikipedia:What is consensus? carefully, it really spells it out clearly. If you have time, would you mind doing that? With respect to policy, image placement is not censorship; otherwise everything not on page 1 of a newspaper is "censored."Faustian (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you suggest we incorporated the idea of not putting the image at the top of the page with the idea of putting it at the top of the page? Should we perhaps have it on the top on Monday through Friday and give you the weekends? I have read WP:What is consensus? and I have even participated in building its contents over the years. The fact is that your position is diametrically opposed to the position that the image should be at the top of the page. The only way I could see us compromising would be to let the vocal minority get its way and ignore the majority, we would have to put the personal opinions of the few over the policy interpretation of the many. We are not going to do that.

It seems the only people who have a problem with this interpretation of consensus are those whose personal opinions are not in line with that consensus. Why is it only the side that did not get what it wanted that seems to doubt this consensus? Neutral examination of this debate has shown the what the consensus is. Chillum 22:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We got to the point where the choice was "not putting the image on top" vs. "putting it on top" because we compromised between other positions. Some people wanted the image hidden, others wanted a simulation of an image rather than an actual one, others wanted a black and white version of an image. Ultimately we compromised on a version that included the actual image but didn't have it at the top. This position was a way of addressing concerns over censorship while still taking into account the opinion of the substantial minority. It was closer to what the majority wanted than what the minority wanted but still reflected both sides and didn't just disregard one side - a compromise. And this version was stable for about a year. With respect to consensus, on Sunday I'll try to do a RFC on that page. But what do you make of the fact that over and over again the consensus pages emphasize that consensus is not about votes or majorities but about synthesizing and putting together everyone's opinions? There's even a quote there that consensus is not the majority's preference but a version that almost everyone can live with. This is totally different from what you seem to be saying - everybody has the right to convince others but if they fail to do so than the majority gets its way. Faustian (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that there was "no consensus" (although others might, and the whole issue of consensus itself seems still to be under debate here). And I was not consciously trying to "discredit" anything. I was suggesting that the concensus apparently reached may not be "extremely strong". I find it interesting that only 11 of the 61 contributors idenitified by Xeno have offered any clarification of the position he has assigned them. But forgive me for suggesting that consensus may be something reached by mutual consent, rather than by "hammering it out". I was in fact hinting that trying to reach "consensus by force" might be similar to the approach adopted by Lenin's 1917 revolutionary Cheka (although he did at least keep the sickle). And sincere apologies if you have had to debate "for months on end" - I had not realised my arguments had run out of time. 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs)

My point is that is an extremely strong consensus. I don't think it was forced at all, it was allowed to develop over time with debate. . Your arguments have not run out of time, they are still welcome. If consensus changes so can the page. I think comparing this debate to a group that policed labour camps, ran the Gulag system, liquidated political opponents, and put down peasant rebellions is a bit over dramatic. This seems a not so subtle variation of Godwin's law. Chillum 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that would be Mike Godwin, the general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, wouldn't it. Then, obviously, you must be right. But I think the trusty hammer and sickle was probably much more useful than that silly old swastica. And the Gulags only really got going much later, didn't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify my point. I find your comparison to be gross hyperbole, irrelevant, and offensive. Chillum 18:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

But which one? I'd let DreamGuy defend his own hammer, but you seem to have your own readily to hand. Very clearly. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we would communicate better if you spoke literally instead of using metaphors. I am having trouble deciphering your point. Chillum 21:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what additional inkblot images would add to this article. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Luna. It has not been made clear what additional inkblots would add to the article at this point. I also don't see anyone but one person suggesting it at this point. I think we can put this idea on the shelf for at least a while. Chillum 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with Luna and Chillum, but I must stop using metaphors. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to include an image gallery, I think 2 should be the minimum, because 1 would be tacky. One of the color inkblots would probably be a must, because it would be radically different and show how inkblots aren't only black and white. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

We are here to write an encyclopedia. We are not here to represent the organizations we come from / are affiliated with or to push the agenda of said organizations WP:COI. We are here to provide information not to sensor it. It would be interesting to see all the inkblots with a description of each on. I agree however that this should take place on a seperate page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

James, a couple of questions. First, how do you propose providing a "description of each"? I realize that psychologists' opinions don't matter here, so am I correct in assuming you do not prefer using the terms that are generally used by psychologists (Card I, Card II, Card III, etc.)? Do you suggest placing your own interpretation of each (e.g., "This one looks like a bat to James")? Or do you prefer citing one of several non-professional websites that indicate the "normal" response for each card? If you suggest the latter, are you aware that if someone follows the advice of these websites he/she will actually produce a more pathological Rorschach than the average uncoached responses? So which is your procedure for "describing" the inkblots?

Second, which of us here "represents the organizations we come from / are affiliated with", and how did you arrive at that conclusion for each? Name each of us specifically who represents an organization, name the organization we represent, and tell us how you determined how each of us was placed into that position of representing that organization. Don't neglect to include any organizations that you represent. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The images are collected on the Commons -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I work for a company that sells books. As a result I may be bias towards informing people about the topic they are seeking information on. Chillum 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just spent about an hour reading this page and some archives, and er, it's amazing how this keeps going and going! Maybe we should follow the lead of the other articles with controversial images in at least one respect, and divert the image discussion to Rorschach test/Image? Or agree that the issue will be discussed only on a regular schedule, say for two weeks each quarter, so that other article development can take place and folks know when to come back and repeat their positions.

My view is that the inkblots are integral to the test, and therefore integral to an article about the test; there have been good and valid reasons given for excluding them entirely, but none have persuaded me that excluding an inkblot image is consistent with the mission of an encyclopedia. (I'm open to such persuasion, as I've argued that information on medication dosing and specifically lethal dosages should be excluded from drug articles). On the other hand, I don't find it necessary that the inkblot be the very first thing readers see when they pull up the article. I wouldn't be opposed to the "compromise" solution of putting the image further down the article, although I imagine few readers will view the article but skip the image. If such a mild step will put a stop to the argument, why not? Absolutism is self-defeating - Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. Nathan^T 23:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments in response to Nathan. First, thank you very much for your comments. Secondly, the current discussion has been about whether the image should be lower on the page in the logical place adjacent to "Test materials" or at the top. So would it be appropriate to include you among those who feel that placement lower on the page is acceptable? I don't want to assume anything about your opinion that isn't true. Thirdly, although I understand why you might wish to move the discussion on the image to a separate page, I prefer that it remain on this page so that any casual reader can see the reasons (or lack thereof) for the decisions that are made about the image. A huge portion of all discussion here and in the archives relates to the image anyway. And I really doubt that limiting when it can be discussed will accomplish very much. We previously had a very stable compromise between the psychologists (and other sympathizers) who didn't want the image at all and other editors who felt that the image should be included. That compromise resulted in placement of the image lower on the page at the appropriate place next to "Test materials". That compromise stayed in place for quite a few months with little disruption. Then recently expert opinion was deemed irrelevant, stability and the compromise were thrown out the window, and we now have the image back at the top. So I don't think limiting discussion will stop some editors from ignoring any agreement and discussing anyway. But thanks for you thoughts. Ward3001 (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Encyclopedia - wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that uses the actual images. Encarta, Britannica, Americana etc. all use fake images. Are they not Encyclepedic? There may be other reasons for including the images but certainly being Encyclopedic is not one of them, unless one believes that wikipedia is the only Encyclopedia. Faustian (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the real question as it pertains to this article is, "Is Wikipedia encyclopedic?" The difference between those encyclopedias and Wikipedia is that on those encyclopedias there isn't a knee-jerk reaction to reject an idea simply because it comes from an expert on the topic. They also differentiate between those who are real experts and those who pretend to be experts. Ward3001 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in limiting ourselves to paper encyclopedias. They simply cannot have full coverage of every little subject like Wikipedia can, it would take too many book shelves. Chillum 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They use fake images. They had the room for an image, and used an image, but chose not to use the real one. Here's Encarta's fake inkblot: [26]. Apparently the people behind Britannica, Encarta etc. don't believe using the real image is necessaary to make their article Encyclopedic. But what do they know about Encyclopedias :)Faustian (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A fake image? I think we can be more informative than that by using a real image. It is not for us to say that other encyclopedias should avoid original research and stick to the facts, those are our goals and our standards. We are not really the same thing as other encyclopedias. Chillum 05:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I said there may be other reasons to use a real image. Just that being Encyclopedic isn't one of them. That particular reason needs to be taken off the table.Faustian (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't have any problem with experts and outside interests including information on Wikipedia. It is when they attempt to exclude information that it becomes an issue. There are just so many groups that want one tidbit of information suppressed in one way or another, we simply cannot accommodate them. The idea of Wikipedia is to be a more complete and free(as in free beer and as in freedom) than the other existing encyclopedias. There are plenty of other websites(and encyclopedias) with more conservative goals. Chillum 05:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I would hardly call the years of consideration that this is issue has been given "knee jerk", plenty of thought has been put into this. This has nothing to do with your credentials, we would react the same to pretty much anyone who wants to suppress accurate and relevant information. Chillum 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has argued against the hiding of this because of an expert opinion. That's a straw man. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, who exactly are these ".. so many groups that want one tidbit of information suppressed in one way or another.." and how exactly are they relevant to THIS article? But could we have the full list? Or are there just too many to count? Thanks, Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect Chillum, but your use of the term "straw man" is hyperbole and itself a "straw man". Exactly how much have expert opinions influenced placement of this image in the article as it is right now? Exactly how much was expert opinion sought in the decision to place the image where it is right now? With a very few exceptions, such as Martinevans123, I don't recall a single instance in which the sentiment was ever expressed that we should seek the opinions of experts in this issue. And that is an altogether different issue than "Anyone can edit Wikipedia". Yes, of course anyone can edit; otherwise the image probably would not be in the article at all (just as it is not in the articles of Encarta, Brittanica, etc. because in those encyclopedia nonexperts contribute but they seek opinions of experts). And in this particular case, "knee-jerk reaction" does not refer to the collective amount of time that this debate has taken (mostly because the experts have had to fight tooth and nail to get their opinions heard); it refers to the reaction of individual non-experts when an expert expresses his/her opinion here. Perhaps a better way to put it is the combination of many knee jerk reactions. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I used the term "straw man", not Chillum. You presented the issue as though people reject the hiding of the image because of an expert opinion. That is blatantly false. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to Chillum for my confusion. OK, Consumed Crustacean, I'll repeat my questions for you: Exactly how much have expert opinions influenced placement of this image in the article as it is right now? Exactly how much was expert opinion sought in the decision to place the image where it is right now? And note my above statement that simply responding "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" doesn't address these questions. Ward3001 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly why you're asking that of me. Is this a response to my point, or a fresh question? If the former: You said:

The difference between those encyclopedias and Wikipedia is that on those encyclopedias there isn't a knee-jerk reaction to reject an idea simply because it comes from an expert on the topic.

I said:

No one has argued against the hiding of this because of an expert opinion. That's a straw man.

There's nothing complex there, and your asking this question makes no sense in this context. If for some reason you're asking this a new question and simply confusing the threading, then: it was not sought, nor need it have been. I'll point you to WP:5P and WP:V and hope you understand how this project works. I'm not going to argue the merits of the way in which this project is meant to function here; this is not the place for it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that expert opinion "was not sought". It's a matter of opinion as to whether it should have been. Neither WP:5P nor WP:V preclude seeking expert opinions for any article, so referring to those policies does not really address the issue. But thanks for your answer. At least we agree that expert opinion was not sought on this issue. Ward3001 (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not seek expert opinions any more than we seek ordinary people's opinions. Our rules on neutrality require that we source our content and as such being an expert bestows only the advantage of knowing where to find the sources and how to disseminate them. We truly do appreciate such contributions. While we do not put extra value on particular classes of people(rather we work based on the weight of their argument), we do value reliable independent published works in that they provide informative content. To my knowledge we don't seek out anyone to tell us what not to put into our encyclopedia as this particular service is antithetical to our goals. Chillum 04:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's useful that an expert has (at least) the advantage of "knowing where to find the sources and how to disseminate them". The only expert opinion offered so far in this discussion, supported by verifiable sources, has suggested that pre-exposure to an image might result in harm. This seems to have conflicted with some "ordInary people's opinions" which, in contrast, Have not been supported by any sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said we seek outside sources for the information they provide for us to include. We don't really seek out any source to tell us what to exclude. If there was a source that said our image was not an accurate representation of the inkblot that would be something, but a source saying we shouldn't use it is not relevant. There are plenty of sources espousing the harm of showing Muhammad, we still show the picture. There are plenty of sources that say cold reading is ineffective if it is explained to a person how it is done, we still explain this in its article despite the phone physics whose careers may be effected. At most we mention this fact and reference it to reliable sources. We cover the information, we don't obey it. Chillum 13:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief note - actually the Muhammad images are included, but not in the lead. Indeed, even though the article is about the man his picture isn't anywhere close to the top of the article (contrast this with the article about Jesus). That's because although we don't violate wikipedia policies on censorship, we do take other opinions into account without violating those policies. It's too bad expert psychologists aren't given the same consideration as Muslims are (or perhaps religion is more important on wikipedia than science).Faustian (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Muhammad article I see 6 pictures of him. If we had 6 pictures of inkblots I would agree to put them lower down for stylistic reasons. If the Muhammad article had only one picture it would most likely be in the lead(as with past versions of the page). Chillum 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this article is about the test not the inkblots multiple images would be inapropriate. The Jesus article has 13 images of Jesus, and one in the lead. The article on volcano has 14 or so in the article and one in the lead. I can add a few hundred more such examples if I had time. Why for "stylistic" reasons would six images mean that one shouldn't be in the lead? BTW guess how many images of Muhammad are there in the article on Islam. Even though he founded that religion, there is not a single image of him on that article (lots of images of Jesus in Christianity). The fact is that the opinions of Muslim editors are taken into account for religious reasons but the opinions of psychologists, scientific ones, are not taken into account in the final makeup of this page. This inconsistancy between the Rorschach page and the one on Muhammad indicates suggests that religion is more respected than science here on wikipedia. How encyclopedic is that?Faustian (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I still have not heard of a better candidate for the starting image. Surely Dr Rorschach himself is not the whole test, or for that matter even part of the test. The inkblot is the best visual representation of the test we have. I don't think we have given into religious pressure. If you look at the talk page of that article you will see that your opinions are being given much more consideration here, they just have not convinced the community. Like I have said a few times before, we given plenty of credence to those that wish to provide information it is when someone tries to suppress it that we object. It is not about who you are, it is about what you are trying to do. We don't like relevant and encyclopedic content being suppressed due to outside concerns, that whole neutrality thing again. Pointing out areas where we have failed to accomplish this 100% in no way justifies further failure. Chillum 22:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no better candidate for the starting image of the Muhammad page than Muhammad himself...and yet he isn't in the lead. That's because there is a balance on that article between showing relevent images and taking into account the sensitivities of other editors. Same goes for the article about Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith. The man's picture is only in the section devoted to the picture: [27]. Wikipedia:What is consensus? clearly states "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time". Such a balance, achieved on the religious articles, seems to be lacking on this article. As for suppression, information not in the front of the article is no more "suppressed" than is the sports section of the newpaper because it's not in the front. Nor is it any more "supressed" than on the Muhammad article (although it definitely seems supressed on the Islam article). As for "outside concerns" it ceases being an outside concern when an editor is involved here. I am not an outsider, nor are the other 1/3 of involved editors who aren't pushing for the image in the lead. We are part of the wikipedia community and our views ought to be taken into account in the article, not just in the discussion page. Faustian (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the calligraphy is a better candidate. File:Muhammad callig.gif is very representative of how Muhammad has been portrayed throughout the centuries. I learned this while participating in the lengthly debates. The debate the lead to using calligraphy as the first image was one of the few debates at that article that was based on encyclopedic merit. I for one did not know that calligraphy was one of the most common representations of Muhammad throughout history until I read the article either. The lead image is very informative. Chillum 01:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. It's unfortunate that the reader will continue to be misled that the test is about more than just the inkblot by the current placement on this article. Now what do you make of the fact that there is not single image of Muhammad at all in the Islam article? Or that Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith, is not in the lead of the article about him as a person? So it seems that we do indeed have precedents of taking editors' opinions into account, although it's nice that in the case of Muhammad representation matches religious concerns..Faustian (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, just as the calligraphy represents how Mohammad has been represented throughout the centuries, so the black-and-white image represents how the Rorschach is most often portrayed:[28]. Your argument would seem to support placing the black and white unshahded version in the lead, with the real version in the testmaterials or methods section.Faustian (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Chillum, for trying to provide some answers regarding how much impact expert opinion had in these discussions. I admire you for your willingness to get involved in a post-mortem analysis that could even have some impact on Wikipedia policy, rather than just walking away after consensus was declared. For those who would argue that this is not the venue for such analysis, Wikipedia policy is built one step at a time, beginning with individual articles. And it wouldn't make a lot of sense to conduct this analysis on a page that has nothing to do with this article. I realize that policy is not made on this talk page, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a look at the policies that were at play in this article on this talk page.

I have a couple more questions (and I'm not trying to put Chillum on the spot; anyone can try to answer these questions): (1) In this particular article, if "we work based on the weight of their [experts'] argument", how much weight did experts' arguments have regarding image placement? Was that done by assigning everyone's "weight" in the argument to be equal, so that (hypothetically) if two experts express one opinion and 48 non-experts express an opposing opinion, the "weight" for the experts is 4%? If expert opinion, on the other hand, is given more weight based on the fact that experts have more information at their disposal and can cite it here, how was the weight recalculated taking that into consideration? And following up on Martinevans123's comments: (2) Was there any citation to reliable sources (presumably experts) to counter the well-sourced citations from an expert that prior exposure to the Rorschach image can possibly result in test invalidity and thereby possibly result in harm? Or similarly, was there any citation to a reliable source that the image should be placed at the top of the page? I'm not asking that the entire debate be rehashed here, just some statement as to how much reliable sourcing was done in opposition to the experts' arguments that the image should not be at the top of the page. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A:nd I'm not trying to put anyone on the spot either, but I'd sill like to know who are the ".. so many groups that want one tidbit of information suppressed in one way or another.." and how exactly are they relevant to this article? Furthermore, if we are to look to other articles for some parallel in the use of controversial images, should this article be looked at as `science' or as 'religion' or as something in between - or should this question be irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I did give examples but I will expand on them, religious folks that don't want images of Muhammad, phone physics that don't want cold reading explained, creationist that don't want the age of the Earth in the article, people who don't want shameful acts of their country or group documented, people who don't want it said that a particular sports player was caught doing steroids, and of course medical professionals(enthusiasts?) that don't want publicly available test material posted. Let me know if you want me to expand on these examples more, there are piles of such cases. The groups and their reasoning are rather varied but the end result is the same, neutrality prevents us from giving undue value to their opinion. While we value all of these groups for the information they can provide for us, we don't value their attempts at suppressing information.

Regarding science vs religion, I would say we use both as a source of information but neither as an authority on what to not post. For example I am sure there are plenty of studies that scientifically demonstrate that viewing violent or gruesome images can be damaging to the mind, however if you look up genocide or holocaust(and yes victims, bystanders, deniers, and supporters have asked us to take these down) you still see violent and gruesome images. We don't take down these images because studies show they may be harmful because we respect that the person looking up the topic is trying to be informed in the subject. Chillum 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You have evidence that viewing wikipedia images can be "damaging to the mind"? Which studies are they? I was actually asking quite directly - "should the Rorschach test be viewed as science or religion, or should we not ask?". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, piles, eh? Looks to me more like six (including this one)? I was expecting something more like real examples of actual wikipedia articles? But maybe you should try and answer Ward's questions first? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying. I did offer to find more examples if you wanted, are you saying that is what you want? Ward has asked so many questions I don't know which one you refer to. Chillum 22:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am saying this: "please show us where so many groups that want one tidbit of information suppressed in one way or another have affected the use of images in actual wikipedia articles and then show us how these examples are relevant to this article". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I think I know the question you are referring to, hold on a moment I will attempt to address it. Chillum 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ward's question about sources for showing the image. Would you like a reliable source that shows the inkblot in question is really part of the test? I did not know that was in dispute(rather this point seems to be conceded based on the nature of the arguments being presented). That is really all the sourcing that we need to include content, just enough to verify it. We don't need sources to justify it, just enough to show the independent reliable sources verify what we are presenting. If you are asking for Wikipedia to justify showing accurate relevant information, then the answer is a simple no. Our only justification is that we are trying to inform on the topic people have come here to learn about. Chillum 22:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I also want to say that I am very passionate about certain topics that are either very personal to me, related to my professional career or both. I intentionally avoid editing those article to avoid damaging neutrality. You should ask yourself, are you presenting these arguments in the best interest of Wikipedia's goals or are you presenting them because it is in the best interest of something else? No need to answer here, just ask yourself and answer yourself. If advancing outside interests is more important to a person than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, then that is a conflict of interest. Chillum 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asking you questions about this article and its contents, based on your comments above. I'll ask myself about my passions, and give myself a pat on the back, or not, later. But if I don't answer myself, I don't promise not to tell you. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If the question is "should the Rorschach test be viewed as science or religion, or should we not ask?", then I would say we should ask if it is relevant to the article(not sure that it is, perhaps in the criticism section), if it is relevant we should determine which one it is based on reliable sources. Regardless of the answer we arrive at we should not let either religion or science(nor both or neither) tell us what not to post when the very same sources confirm it is accurate and relevant. The idea is to document these sources, not to obey them. Sources inform us and verify our content, they don't dictate it. Chillum 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Chillum, I have never disputed that inkblots are a part of the test. I happen to disagree that we only need to demonstrate that an inkblot is part of the test to justify including an image of a Rorschach inkblok. If that was the case, this entire two-year debate could have been resolved in a matter of minutes. You have not really responded to my latest questions, but as I said, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I just hope someone will attempt to answer them.

Regarding Chillum's comments about avoiding articles about which we are passionate, there is a substantial difference between passion about a subject and having expertise in a subject, although the two certainly can co-exist. I would not expect a physician Wikipedian to avoid editing medical articles simply because he/she is passionate about the subject. That would be a loss for Wikipedia, which is severely deficient in experts for many reasons that can be seen on this talk page. As I have stated previously, there is no reason a psychologist, physician, or other practitioner should not trying to bring his/her influence to bear on an article that has the potential to cause damage to health or mental health. And in the current debate, no psychologist has suggested violating any Wikipedia policy, only that there are considerations in addition to Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that simply being passionate about something should preclude you. I said "If advancing outside interests is more important to a person than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, then that is a conflict of interest". If you disagree with this you can read the second paragraph of WP:COI(the part written in bold).

WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, and WP:NPOV is policy. What you are suggesting is in violation of policy, I don't think you have actually violated policy as you have only insisted through discussion and not edit warring. Thank you.

You can deny and challenge the state of the consensus all you want, but the fact remains that the only people who disagree that there is a consensus are those who did not get their way. That is including the numerous independent reviewers of the consensus. We have stopped arguing about the relevant point and moved into some meta debate about what is fair.

Xeno went out of his way to contact everyone involved in the debate to confirm their opinions, he posted it at a neutral venue for independent review. The people have spoken, and this has been confirmed by the people. Perhaps it is time to put the stick down, at least for a little while? Chillum 01:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully Chillum, but you are unequivocally wrong that any psychologist in this discussion has advocated violation of policy. It has been discussed in great detail that placement of the image is not censorship, and advocating placement of the image lower on the page is not any more POV than advocating placement at the top. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that where an image is placed violates NPOV. There are many reasons that have been presented to refute the perspectives of psychologists' on this talk page, but censorship and NPOV are the weakest of all of them. That is not to disparage your opinions about image placement, but it is a strong objection to your interpretation of policy. But, as I've said earlier, thank you for your willingness to continue discussing this matter. By the way, there is no "stick" up. I'm simply seeking explanations of how much weight expert opinion was given in this matter. Ward3001 (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, let's go over the actual evidence. Xeno's collossal methodical effort has shown us what most people prefer. We do yet have evidence that there is consensus, unless consensus is simply a vote. Moreover, so far only nine of the 40 editors who expressed a preference for the image in the lead, when asked to clarify their positions, have confirmed that they are opposed to any compromise: [29]. Unless they clarify their positions, we have no idea whether the other ones who expressed wanting the image shown really insist that it must be in the lead and no place else. The number who insist on it being in the lead and no place else is still smaller than the 20 who have stated that they support some sort of compromise. So we know what most people prefer, but we don't know where they stand on the issue of compromise. Indeed, so far at least, it seems that the ones firmly against compromise are outnumbered, 9 to 20, by those seeking some form of limitation.Faustian (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Preference Versus Compromise Regarding the Image: The Evidence

Thanks to Xeno's excellent work we know that 20 editors would like to suppress the image or to make a compromise involving image placement. We know that 40 prefer to have the image unhidden:[30]. A problem with this is that while the position of 20 editors in the first group was clear ("Don't show the image", "hide the image", "place the image in the test materials section for compromise") and requires no clarification that of the 40 is not clear as some of them argued not against placing the image in the test materials section but against hiding it, or against using a fake image. A person who argued against using a fake image or hiding the image canot be assumed to be automatically opposed to placing the unhidden real image anywhere other than in the lead. A question arose as to how many of the latter 40 would refuse to compromise with respect to image placement. For example, one of the 40 stated " "Wikipedia is not censored, which is a policy and you are trying to censor Wikipedia. See censorship: "Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body". How exactly have I missed the point?" Clearly, this user did not want the image hidden. This user did not offer an opinion, however, on where he wanted the image to be or whether he insisted on it being in the lead and no place else. So his opinion cannot be automatically assumed to mean that he is opposed to having an unhidden image in the test materials sections. He just said he didn't want it hidden.

In order to address this question, on June 1st xeno asked the editors to clarify their positions. At the present time, more than a week later, only 9 of the 40 who in various ways oppsed hiding or suppressing the image have clarified that they insist that the image be in the lead and no place else. This effectively means that they are a minority, since 14 have exressed prefering some sort of suppression and 6 have supported a compromise.Faustian (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Their silence is perhaps telling - but if you wish to give them an additional ping, please feel free. I've made some comments at the recently filed RFC, I'm going to reproduce them here as I believe it is the last I have to say on the matter, and wish to hand this off to another uninvolved admin for transparency -

I've listed 14 editors who feel that the image should be suppressed however 5 of those have not edited in over a year and have very short editing histories. You've then got 6 editors who are acceding to compromise for the sake of compromise, half of those haven't edited in at least a year.

Meanwhile, of the 41 editors who disagree with suppression (not counting those who weighed in at the AN thread), only 8 meet the same metric of inactivity.

So, using these numbers, you have 9+3 vs 33 plus those who weighed in at the AN thread which bring the numbers closer to 75% against suppression of the image. I feel also that wide community support is against suppression of images in general, i.e. I maintain that the community's default position is that the most relevant image available ought appear in the lead of the article. As such, my opinion is that the bar at which we should make an editorial decision counter to the default is higher than 1/4 or 1/3 in favour.

At some point minority viewpoints will necessarily have to realize that they have not convinced the majority of Wikipedia editors of their point of view, especially when they are diametrically opposed.

I feel that I've said all I have to say on the matter. At this point, I'm going to withdraw (however feel free to make any additional clarification requests as necessary). When the RFC has run its course, if an uninvolved admin doesn't show up to make a call, please seek one at WP:AN to determine if the decision reached in my consensus review should be revisited based on what follows. –xeno^talk 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again to xeno for a clear summary. While we all know that voting is not concenssus etc, etc, I wonder how many did actually "weigh in at the AN thread". This number seems quite critical to xeno's opinion of the suggested editorial bar, since 12 is certainly more than 1/3 of 33. But perhaps they (might seem) to get double votes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the AN thread just before it was taken away by MiszaBot: [31]. –xeno^talk 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By my count I get an extra 4 definitely against image suppression and 1 who sounds sympathetic but doesn't give a categorical statement (with 2 who express no view either way). So, 36 is certainly less than 37 and a 1/2. But it's a good job we're not counting votes to decide this, isn't it (as my no image at all vote would certainly count for two, wouldn't it). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to the 41 - activity or no activity someone who is opposed to a hidden or fake image cannot be assumed to be opposed to having an image in the test material section versus in the lead. Until they clarify their position we have no idea whether they insist that the image can be in the lead and only in the lead. Just because person X argued we can't use a fake image, doesn't mean that person X argues that the real image must only be in the lead. Thus far only 9 have stated that they feel the position can only be in the lead. In contrast, someone who argued that there shouldn't be an actual image but instead a fake one can be assumed not to want the real image in the lead. So although we can conclude conclusively that most editors don't want the image hidden or replaced by a fake one, so far we have only 9 who insist it must be in the lead and no place else, versus 20 who have argued for suppresion or compromise.Faustian (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, you should feel free to give them an additional coaxing to weigh in if you disagree that their silence equates to agreeance with the conclusion of the review. –xeno^talk 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, coaxing or no coaxing, the number 9 clarified by Faustian makes things look slightly different, doesn't it. And the proportions. When do we decide that those are the only nine? Is there ever going to be a deadline here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are making an assumption that because they are silent, they agree, when it could mean all sorts of things (such as, they don't care, they don't want to be involved, etc.). I could just as easily recategorize them in the compromise position and then ask them. What would silence mean in that case, then? Or I can leave a message stating, if you do not respond we will assume you do not insist that the image must be in the lead and nowhere else. So far we have 9 that stated that they want the image in the lead and nowhere else.Faustian (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If the numbers were reversed, would you still think that the minority should get its way? Chillum 05:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the "silent majority" should be asked to speak, within a month, or be removed (from the vote count we're not using to decide). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for, if we move the expiry too close to today then there are only about 3 people with your point of view. We can count 5 different ways, or weight the arguments against policy, or we can gain third party interpretation of consensus, it still comes out the same way every time. The fact is that you simply have not succeeded in convincing the community of your point of view. Perhaps one day you will convince the community but you will bypass the communities opinion with fancy counting.Chillum 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well what I've asked for here hasn't really happened, but I agree it's wise to be careful. I'd also agree we don't want fancy counting (if I was a beleaguered Prime Minister I might even suggest a fancier way of voting. And yes 12 is more than a 1/3 of 33, but it's less than a 1/3 of 45, and it always will be, maybe until(1 == 2). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about expiry, it's about clarification. Someone who argued 1 year ago that there should be a fake image and that there should be no real image at all can't be assumed to believe that he might actually want a real image in the lead. On the other hand, someone who argued a year ago that he does not want a fake image cannot be assumed to believe that he wants the real image in the lead and no place else and is unwilling to compromise over location. All we know is that he wants a real image. It isn't about expiry or how old a view is - it's about what people really want. There is no expiration for a clearly held belief. The figure of "40" is misleading with respect to not wanting the image in the lead because a few of those people only argued against using a fake image, or using a hidden image. So far only 9 have clarified their position and told us that they want the real image in the lead and no place else.

As for majority/minority - yes we ought to take the minority view into account somehow. Even if the situation were reversed and the majority opposed having the real image, I would argue that we should compromise somehow.Faustian (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it can't be about expiry, since xeno's ping of 1 June, asking for clarification from editors, was open-ended. Unless or until a deadline is or was set, we are left wondering if outstanding clarifications will or would ever alter the balance. I suppose there may be many different reasons why editors have not provided clarification, not all of which may be to do with what they really want. But I wholeheartedly agree that the arguments offered in a debate should be given at least as much weight as who or how many give them, perhaps more. It seems that xeno was satisfied that consensus had been reached, regardless of pending clarifications? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A fake image is not an option. We don't do original research here. We document what exists. We don't make our own similar version and present it instead, not when we already have the real thing. We are documenting a specific test, not the idea of inkblots. Chillum 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We could take fake images from elsewhere, there are plenty on google, in which case it wouldn't be original research. The point is that arguing against fake images is not the same thing as arguing against putting the real image in the lead vs. in the test materials section. We have 40 people who object to fake images and demand the real image, but only 9 who have confirmed that they insist that the real image has to be in the lead and nowhere else, and refuse to compromise. This number is, obviously, much lower than the number who want the image suppressed or want to compromise by putting it in the test materials section.

To reiterate the actual numbers with respect to people involved over the last few years, we have a healthy majority (40)supporting the real image, but a minority (9 confirmed so far) who insist it must be in the lead and no place else versus 20 who have called for suppression or compromise.Faustian (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A fake image isn't original research in the least, especially if identified as not an actual Rorschach image. Wikipedia has many examples of drawings and images created by editors to illustrate a point. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Still having difficulty with the google image yardstick, even in the judgement of original research. If we are so determined to show a "real image", what about some "real responses" - after all one is useless without the other? Perhaps real responses would be more problematic ethically. But then as llwyrch eloquently suggested at xeon's AN thread, one's immediate reaction to an inkblot, any inkblot, is surely as "real" as anything else. To me it is the idea of logging reactions to an ambiguous image that is the essence of the Rorschach, not the actual blots created by Hr. Rorschach himself. They are test materials and as such belong to the tester. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion it appears that the images is the ONLY thing about the test that matters as the appears to be all that is ever discussed. The discussion of the image placements should be moved elsewhere.

The matter is settled the image stays in the lead even though a very vocal minority disagrees do to some perceived potential harm to the test and their association ethics wanting it hidden / replaced with a fake / moved to an obscure location.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If the number of confirmed people wanting it in the lead and only in the lead remains at 10, the compromise version ought to be reinstated. The methods or test materials sections are not "obscure". But thanks for your opinion.Faustian (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

James, you're quite fond of bringing up the topic of "association ethics" and statements that some of us are here to "represent the organizations we come from / are affiliated with", as if you have some knowledge that the rest of us don't have about some editors' representation of organizations. Yet you never responded when I asked you which of us here "represents the organizations we come from / are affiliated with", and how you arrived at that conclusion for each? I asked you to name each of us specifically who represents an organization, name the organization we represent, and tell us how you determined how each of us was placed into that position of representing that organization. Did you arrive at these truths in the same way that you arrived at your expertise on the Rorschach from reading one journal article? Or do you have some other secret method of divining this information? Please enlighten us how you obtain such vast amounts of information that none of the rest of us seem to be able access, or is that something that we mere mortals can never understand. Ward3001 (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally when someone doesn't ignore the ethical principles to do no harm when assuming an anonymous identity on the internet, this is wrong and evidence of "association ethics" rather than personal opinion. Splitting is cool for some.Faustian (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do physicians still take the Hippocratic Oath? Do they know what it means? Ward3001 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DocJames, how can the matter be settled if we do not yet know whether or not xeno has correctly allocated editors to the appropriate opinion category, i.e. without a much higher level of clarification? In fact are you sure that those categories covered all the opinions? Should we have asked for a series of comparisons, e.g. image vs no image, real vs fake, lead vs lower down? I certainly do not what to appear ungrateful to xeno for his massive effort or appear carping, but the "very vocal minority" deserve to be as vocal as they wish, as does anyone else. Xeno himself suggested further discussion. Consensus may change. I'd suggest that since the image appears in THIS article, its discussion belongs on this THIS talk page. And, lastly, I represent nobody but myself here, except parhaps those who I fear may be unwittingly harmed by wikipedia. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So far the "very vocal minority" appears to be those who want the image in the lead and no place else. What Xeno has done is show definitively that a large majority does not want a fake image, a black-and-white version of the real image, or the image hidden.Faustian (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hows this for an additional ping: "Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate." –xeno^talk 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would add something to the effect of "If you choose not to respond then your opinion will not be counted with respect to the clarification" or something like that. If the numbers don't change significantly, we shoud reinstate the compromise version (and maybe we should do so for now, too, though at this point I'm not insisting). Just to let you know, I probably won't be on the computer tomorrow and Saturday...Faustian (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do... So then I suppose the judgment would then be based on only those that have clarified, no matter their original position. –xeno^talk 14:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? If someone earlier stated, "the image should not be on here" it can be assumed that this person would not want the image in the lead; no clarification is required in that case. The purpose of the clarification is to see how many of those who, for example, argued against using a fake image also oppose placing the real image anywhere but in the lead, versus those who oppose the fake image but who for the sake of compromise don't mind if the image is put in another section, as long as it's a a real image.Faustian (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that consensus ought be determined based on active voices. This runs both ways, so if you want to strike out people who don't clarify we should also strike out the the long-lost echos of those who stopped in once-upon-a-time to make a COI-driven demand to suppress an image. –xeno^talk 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds very sensible and I fully support this good idea. Do you intend to apply any deadline, explict or otherwise? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, if it's supposed to be limited to active voices then why go to the trouble to count everybody from way back when in the first place? The reason we strike out people who don't clarifyis not because their opinions are old but because we don't know what their opinions are. On the contrary, we do know what the opinions of those who wanted to suppress the images are.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the entire history because I wanted to familiarize myself with the whole length of the dispute. Technically, I could have just made the call based on the most recent RFC but I felt that it wasn't entirely clear. Reviewing the entire history made it clear and I think it also showed how many voices continued to pile into the "do not suppress at all" camp while only a few remained in the "suppress, even if just a little bit" camp. Active participants are what build Wikipedia and determine consensus. The notes are sent. I excluded anyone who already clarified in some form, as well as those that opined in the most recent RFC. –xeno^talk 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If nothing changes we should change the page? That does not make sense. The numbers, and policy, and the weight of the arguments as they are based on policy as they currently are, are in favor of a lead position for the image. If those numbers do not change, then why would we do the opposite and not put it in the lead? If consensus changes then you can change the page. Instead of trying to deconstruct the existing consensus why not attempt to convince people of your point of view? People have not yet been convinced that this image needs special treatment.

Please stop trying to move this image via the back door of twisted logic. We all know if the numbers were reversed you would call it a consensus in your favor. Whenever this matter has been put up for review by uninvolved people(and it has several times) the conclusion is always the same, it is just not a conclusion you like. The only people who are disputing this consensus are those who did not get what they wanted. I can count them on one hand without using my thumb.

Instead of trying to bypass consensus with different counting methods, try to change consensus with cogent arguments. It seems you have stopped arguing your point altogether and are instead focusing on how counting and consensus should be applied in such a way that you get what you want. Even if this debate was about who has consensus, it is clear that the majority of people do not share your view of consensus. Your view regarding the consensus on this page itself lacks consensus, rather the consensus regarding the consensus on this page is diametrically opposed to your interpretation of the consensus on this page. Chillum 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are against using a fake image, a hidden one or a black and white not using a real image. With respect to image placement, the numbers are not yet in support of placing the real image in the lead and only in the lead. So far only 10 of the previous 40 have clarified that this is indeed their position. As for policy - placing the image in the test materials section versus the lead does not seem to violate any policy. It's an editorial choice. Moreover we have two examples in which a controversial image is treated by including the real image but not placing it in the lead - the articles on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad. Why should this image be treated differently? Are the concerns of scientists less important than those of religious believers? If so, is that encyclopedic?

Chillim, you made an excellent point about the image of Muhammad that his name, written in Arabic, is more representative of Muhhammad than his image, and that therefore his name is better for the lead whileimages of the man are included further down. Could we not apply the same logic here? Clearly the most representative, iconic image of the Rorschach is the black and white one: [32], which is already on wikipedia: [33]. Could we caption it thus: "The most common depiction of a Rorschach inkblot. The actual inkblot, depicted in the article, is shaded." or "Rorschach inkblots are most commonly depicted in this manner. An actual inkblot, shown below, is multishaded." (feel free to come up with a better caption). Then we would have the actual inkblot in the methods or test materials section. This would seem to parallel the way Muhammad's image is treated. What do you think? Can we compromise and let this issue rest?

I am not arguing to "get what I want" (unless by that you mean that what I want is a compromise version that takes into account your opinion as well as mine, rather than just yours).Faustian (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you know that what you want isn't plausible, and are arguing for the compromise as a more realistic option. Doesn't change the fact that when consensus appeared, consensus was questioned, and when consensus for consensus appeared, the very idea of what consensus is was challenged. How much more meta is it going to get in the quest to reverse this one issue? Will the very idea of an online encyclopedia where people decide the content by using consensus be challenged? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. I've asked about the meaning of consensus on the consensus page twice (includingf once through RFC) and your version (majority preference) wasn't supported by even half of the repsondents - and among those it rested on the issue of censorship which would apply in the case of hiding the image or not using it all but not in the case of image placement. So consensus as defined by wikipedia policy didn't appear (although "consensus" incorrectly defined as majority vote or majority preference did).Faustian (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Any comment on the yet another compromise I'm trying to offer, based on the Muhammad article, Chillum (or somebody else)?Faustian (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted no image at all and would still prefer that. But I see this as a sensible compromise and possibly a better one than the first compromise I agreed to of the real image lower down the page. Maybe xeno's second ping would need to be more detailed? Or maybe it will prove unnecessary? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

I thought I would create a thread for those who wish to discuss anything other than the lead image. It really has dominated this article for a long time now and I think it is harmful to get too caught up in any one issue. It is clear some will argue this point until Wikipedia runs out of hard drive space, regardless the article must move onwards.

I for one would love to know more about how different answers are interpreted and which factors influence these interpretations. I would also love to know about the test's reliability in diagnosing different conditions, and how likely false positives are. If this article got a little bit longer then it could support more images, I would like to see an image of the test being performed(though I realize this may involve special permission if the patient is visible, we could get around this by using a non-patient fill-in or simply by taking the picture from the patient's perspective). Chillum 14:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not talk about the image, but then you bring up an image ;> In all seriousness though, if there was a high quality image of the test being administered that looked good in a thumbnail perhaps people would agree that is a more representative image for the lead. –xeno^talk 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I said lets not talk about the lead image, I did not mean to suggest that no images be discussed at all @:-]. That being said, a high quality image of the test being administered would indeed be a great lead image, an excellent representation of the test. If the inkblot itself is only part of the image, it may be so small in the thumbnail as to appease the concerns that exist without compromising on encyclopedic value(I do think it should be visible though, it is a significant part of the administration of the test). Chillum 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeno and Chillum, with respect to the new image you're talking about, I agree 100%. To Chillum, if the opinions of the scientists knowledgable about the test are totally disregarded with respect to the image, I wouldn't expect those people knowledgable about the test to then decide to contribute with respect to other aspects of the test on this article. If the amateurs totally have their way with the image, they can go ahead and write the content too. Good luck sorting out reality from nonsense (and there is so much nonsense out there) on this complex test. I've been one of the ones to have added the most content based on reliable sources (peer reviewed journals, books, etc.) but I'd rather return to editing east European history articles (where, unbelievably, compromise somehow can be found most of the time on some very contentious issues) than stick around on this one if the "consensus" as reflected in image placement is that expert opinion doesn't matter anyways.Faustian (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Faustian, especially the "sorting out reality from nonsense". Chillum, I mean no disprespect in the least because I certainly don't expect someone not trained in the Rorschach to be able to formulate appropriate interpretive questions (or answers), but the very question of "how different answers are interpreted" is not even in the ballpark of appropriate questions. The focus on individual answers to individual inkblots is a miniscule portion of test interpretation. The interpretive process does not proceed along the lines of "Patient gave response 'It looks like a bat' to Card I, so that means he feels this way or that way or he has this diagnosis or that diagnosis". There is already a small amount of information in the article about Exner's interpretive process. To really do it justice probably would involve violating copyright by reproducing huge portions of Exner's volumes in the article. It also might involve ... dare I say this? ... ethical problems by providing just enough information for the non-expert to make a mess of things and misuse the test. That's why the websites that claim to give readers the "correct" responses to particular cards are utter bullshit that, if the reader takes their advice, produce a more pathological Rorschach. That's also why I expressed many paragraphs above my sickening fear that someone would suggest that we provide a list of hypothetical (or real) responses to the images. Now it appears that my fear may be coming to life. None of this is to say that some of the information in the article about interpretation can't be fleshed out. But I think Faustian zeroed in on a serious problem here: If the amateurs have free rein on the text of the article as they have on the issues involving the image, what's the point in an expert spending his/her time adding quality information about interpretation when it's just going to the scrapped, rewritten, and mangled by the amateurs, or even worse, those who only pretend to have some expertise? That's not a criticism of amateurs in general, just a reaction to what they have done to this particular article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So just because the community does not defer to expert opinion on ONE issue (an editorial issue, I might add, which we can all easily understand, rather than a psychological issue in which the experts might have a better point) the experts take the ball and go home, preferring to edit articles where they have not yet gone challenged instead of the ones their expertise could greatly improve in content? I think this speaks volumes of said experts and their relation with the project. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it speaks many volumes. It speaks of experts' reactions to a "project" that places no value on expert opinions (and you can deny that all you want, but any psychologist who reads the talk page and archives would immediately be confronted with that stark reality, primarily on the image issue but also on other content in which ancient sources -- some almost 60 years old -- are given more weight than research for the past two decades). When experts have the choice to repeatedly try to improve an article and then repeatedly be not only overriden by non-experts, but overriden by editors who don't show the slightest interest in seeking expert opinion -- when the expert must choose between (1) a product that inevitably will be dominated by non-scientific standards, non-professional level of knowledge, and disregard for (here's that word again) ethics and (2) avoiding lending even anonymous support to such a disastrous product (I refer only to this article, not all of Wikipedia), I think it's a safe bet that most responsible experts don't really see it as a choice. The principled expert, repeatedly encountering this choice, will soon decide that it is better to let the world see the disaster as it is rather than try to bolster it just to give it a bit of undeserved credibility. That folks, sadly, is the direction that this article has taken over the past several years. Ward3001 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said. And the issue of image placement, although editorial, is informed by expert opinion. If one reads the comments of the ones seeking not to suppress, many of the reasons for doing so are driven precisely by the editors' lack of expertise, i.e. "There are no damage at all by showing a couple of pictures! (...) I'll not censor (by hiding) a picture, because it may damage your unscientific work. (...) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia. Inside every good encyclopedia you'll find the REAL and ORIGINAL images, not a fakes or censored one!" [forgetting that Britannica, Encarta etc. all use fake images], "Quite frankly I fail to see a reason for hiding the image that is not plain silly. It is just an ink spot, after all", "Why do you choose to advocate hiding the images rather than the creation and normalization of another set of blots which would be subject to copyright and trade secret protections that the ten 1921 blots lack? Is the effort of normalizing another set of blots really more, in your estimation, than the effort it will take to keep the current public domain blots hidden?" etc. etc. Any expert reading such comments would be made immediately aware of the authors' ignorance of the subject. So you propose making editorial decisions based upon the opinions of the nonexperts who outnumber the experts, without even attempting a compromise that would take the experts' opinion into account whatsoever.Faustian (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The question of how edits may be influenced by an editors' opinion of the subject matter is a very wide one. Maybe the editor who wrote of the test "I happen to think it is a pile of rubbish" has now changed his opinion? But at the time that appraisal did cast doubts in my mind on the impartiality of that editors' comments. The problem with an encyclopedia that is based on very simple principles is that it may attract editors who are also very simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this way you really have no grasp on this project. The individuals who donate their time do not add any original research. We simply quote already published sources in a style agreed upon by the community. No one owns anything, everything belongs to the project. Any contributions are conformed to our policies. It's really very beautiful in its simplicity. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

None of this contradicts what I've been saying.Faustian (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you choose the sources, Gary? How do you know which parts of the sources to use? Are you going to read all of Exner's volumes and all of the other Rorschach literature? Are you going to recruit a dozen or so psychologists to help you with that, or were you planning to do it all by yourself? Go ahead, Gary. Do your "quote already published sources", and we'll see how it looks when you finish. Wikipedia is already forbidden as a source of information by most colleges and universities. When you finish the rewrite on test interpretation let us know, and we'll see if third grade teachers allow this article as a source. Ward3001 (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia is meant to be a reliable source in and of itself and thus its goal never is to be a source for colleges and universities - or even third grade. That being said, it ought to be as accurate as possible. While experts may not be necessary on articles devoted to, say, celebrities, on more complex issues or topics one would think that experts would be valued. A layperson with access to a book or journal articles or textbooks on the Rorschach or on particle physics or on a medical procedure probably isn't going to be able to produce as accurate and encyclopedic of a product as would an expert in these fields. I am reasonably sure that if an expert comes across the page and sees the image in the lead, he will either try to move/remove it (and be reverted) or simply decide he wants no part of the article and will move on. A funny thing about this debate about the image has been the dramatic discrepancy between the experts on one side and nonexperts on the other. Amazingly, for some the opinion of those not knowing and not caring about the topic at all (i.e., being "uninvolved") more weight. What a way to build an accurate encyclopedia - drive away the experts. The end result will be an article about a complex topic either written completely by amateurs fumbling around with detailed materials or, in the "best" case scensario, written by one of the small minoritry of experts who don't like the test, in which case the article will be the equivalent of a global warming article written exclusively by the small minority of scientiists who believe that people don't contribute to global warming. In either case, wikipedia will be poorly served and the fault will rest with those editors who in refusing to compromise will have driven the experts away.Faustian (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

After all his good work here, xeno has now also had the good grace to present three good ideas in less than one day. I think the image of a tester administering the test (staged or not) with an inblot in view but small, is another useful idea and a route to compromise while preserving a fair and informative article. One other small suggestion (whatver the image) - couldn't Test Materials include a description of the physical nature and size of the real cards on which the inkblots are presented? I'm not sure if such details are deemed significant or not. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're too kind... While I did think of this a week or two ago, I didn't actually propose it - was going to wait for the dust to settle. Chillum beat me to the punch above. =) –xeno^talk 18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Wards point, I would like to clarify. When I said "I for one would love to know more about how different answers are interpreted and which factors influence these interpretations" I meant to emphasize the part which said "which factors influence these interpretations". While I accept the premise that specific answers are not the crux of the test I believe the answers given surely have some influence on the test. I did not mean specific answers per say, rather more general examples(or even just explaination) to help explain how it works. While it is true that I don't really get how the test works in general, I feel this is a sign that the article needs to explain this better.

I don't think that going into detail about the test would violate copyright if we put the already published facts into our own words. You can copyright words, but you can't copyright information itself. As for ethical concerns I will once again voice that this test is not a secret and all this information is already published. We should not limit our depth of coverage because of this. Chillum 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Martinevans123, I agree with your statement "I think the image of a tester administering the test (staged or not) with an inblot in view but small, is another useful idea and a route to compromise while preserving a fair and informative article", with the provision that the inkblot is visible(even if it is small). I have no objection to compromise as long as we are not compromising encyclopedic value. Chillum 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the method itself, developed in the 1970's, is copyrighted so I suspect merely rewording it would also violate copyright, although I'm no expert on copyright. Chillum, I presented an idea based on what you told me about the Muhammad article and how that was arrived at. What is your opinion?Faustian (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources we use are copyrighted. We can still use the information in it, just not the wording.

As for the other issue I would say that when representing a cultural subject one should stick to cultural representations and when covering a scientific subject one should stick to scientific representations. I have no objection to a section discussing the history of the images being held back and an images in that section, however it would need to be well sourced. For example in the Muhammad debate numerous sources were provided showing that this was a) a common method of representation, and b) the representation itself was already published as a representation of the subject in the past by a reliable source.

I wonder if there are any scientific already published fake inkblots where the source clearly indicates it is meant to represent the Rorschach inkblots where copyright would not be an issue. The method being relatively young compared the the prophet makes copyright an issue where it is not for historical images.

Making up our own inkblot is out of the question, just as much as a Wikipedian doodling the prophets name for the lead image would be. Chillum 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

About the Muhammad debate - the references were necessary in order to prove that his name written out was most representative of the man and thus his name rather than image belong in the lead. In the case of the Rorschach inkblot, it can be proven simpkly through a google image search, which clearly shows that black-and-white versions are the most common: [34]. So again, as a compromise, why not keep the actual image in the methods or test material section with a black and white version, the most comon and most iconic, in the lead with the caption: ""Rorschach inkblots are most commonly depicted in this manner. An actual inkblot, shown below int he article, is multishaded." Faustian (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how a fake, bowlderized, or otherwise altered image should be in the lead. If anything it is tangential to the topic and should have a brief mention later in the article. The test itself uses the real inkblots and this article is about the test, not how it is depicted in culture. Chillum 14:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, and the article about Muhhammad is about the prophet, not about how he is represented in the culture. Yet on that article they compromised and used his name written out. Why not using that as a model here?Faustian (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that Britannica and Encarta use fake images. At any rate, to let you know, I'll probably be away from the computer tomorrow and the day after.Faustian (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can also use a break. Chillum 03:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I'm not sure exactly what you mean in the statement that making up our own blot "is out of the question". If it is because you consider it original research, again that is simply not the case. If there was a consensus here to add such an image, it is perfectly within Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has many examples of images created by editors, and, in fact, it is encouraged if it improves an article and no other image is available. There are original paintings/drawings of bio subjects done by editors; science-related articles frequently have images such as molecular structure created by Wikipedia editors; original graphs and charts; the list goes on. Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A truly faithful representation of something that we lack an image for is one thing. Making up something that is not a Rorschach inkblot, and never has been independently published is another altogether. Imagine if in that scientific article instead of the real moleculare structure we made our own similar(but original) structure because the real one was controversial somehow? That would be original research. If we had no photo of the inkblot I would not object to a faithful representation of it. But we do have a photo so that is all moot. Chillum 22:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Chillum has a good point here. But I remain unconvinced that creating a novel inkblot image would be "OR" provided the caption/ description was sufficiently clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Chillum, but you are completely wrong here. There are, in fact, freely available images of molecular structures, but Wikipedians sometimes feel they can create a better quality image and do so. Many (perhaps most) of the flag images on Wikipedia are computer-generated by users, even though there is an abundance of flag images freely available elsewhere. And in our case, as long as it is made very clear that the image is not a Rorschach inkblot, there is no policy violation. Wikipedia even encourages user-made images if they are appropriate and important for an article: "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles". At one time there was a consensus in the Rorschach article to use the image File:Inkblot.svg; by your definition that image would be original research, but the OR issue is not what led to the removal of the image. I'm not trying to force the actual Rorschach image off the page by making a false claim about what is not original research. The current image may very well remain in the article for a very long time. But let's be very careful to separate the other reasons argued for including a Rorschach inkblot (not copyrighted, illustrates the test, etc.) from a reason that simply doesn't hold up when you look at Wikipedia practice and policies. Ward3001 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still a difference between a faithful representation and a made up image designed to not show what the real image looks like. This test is made up of specific inkblots. Making a new one up would be tantamount to using a different molecular structure because the real one was upsetting some group. The inkblots in this test have a specific appearance, that is what we should be documenting. Chillum 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point, as indicated in your statement "The inkblots in this test have a specific appearance, that is what we should be documenting". In this particular discussion I am not arguing whether or not the article should display an actual Rorschach inkblot. The issue of original research can be completely separated from the issue of whether the article should have an actual Rorschach inkblot. My point is that if we as editors agreed to create an inkblot and add it to the article (with or without a Rorschach inkblot), it would not be orginal research. I'm saying that your understanding of original research in this particular case is flawed for the reasons I have given above (i.e., Wikipedia already uses editor-created images when other free ones are available elsewhere; creation of images, including drawings, is encouraged by Wikipedia). You might consider it a moot point because the article already contains an actual Rorschch inkblot; that's a matter of opinion. I don't consider it an unimportant issue because it is important to understand why we have an image of the Rorschach inkblot. There are several reasons that have been presented for including a Rorschach inkblot. Regardless of the merits of those arguments, using a fake inkblot is not original research. Ward3001 (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point looked good, Chillum, but now Ward has convinced me that it isn't. Futhermore, images of such things as molecular structure, although open to a certain level of interpretation seem to be fundamentally different to those of Rorschach inkblots. In one case there is a generally agreed `pattern' of atoms which the image tries to represnt, in the other case the idea is that nothing is generally agreed and the viewer makes his own `mental pattern'. I realise that we are searching only for analogies, but the Rorscharch inblots do seem, to me, ever more distinct as a set of images. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Chillum using a fake would be dishonest. A person who comes here wants to see what the real test objects look like.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that?Faustian (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, James seems to be able to tap into a vast storehouse of knowledge that none of the rest of us can access. Apparently that now includes what people are thinking. Ward3001 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of the page they went to? I would think this would be obvious to anyone who was willing to see it. It is safe to assume people coming here are trying to learn about the subject. At the very least we can assume they did not come here to be misinformed or to have the test contents misrepresented. Chillum 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No misinfomration if it's properly labellled. But see my comments above.Faustian (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all know how well we can all disagree with each other, so I have sought outside opinion on the matter. Chillum 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Chillum. We can get so wrapped up in the complexities of these issues that we sometimes lose perspective. I did, however, clarify your summary of the issue on that page. Perhaps unintentionally, you again intermingled two different issues: Should we use a Rorschach inkblot? -- Is a fake inkblot original research if it is properly labelled as not a Rorschach inkblot? I don't think WT:NOR is the appropriate venue for the first issue, but it is quite relevant to the second issue. Ward3001 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am glad you appreciate my vast storehouse of knowledge. Anyway I am glad everyone is so friendly and understanding here. :-) Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And I appreciate your high commitment to ethics, particularly that doing no harm business. ;)Faustian (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)