New York Times writer and longtime Wikipedia observer Noam Cohen wrote up a story on a dispute on Rorschach test, which revolves around whether posting the ten original (public domain) inkblot images will cause patients of psychologists to game the test, making it useless. The publisher of Rorschach's work said it was looking into a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation, about which Mike Godwin, the Foundation's general counsel, seemed unconcerned. The story was picked up widely, with coverage ranging from the straightforward to the mocking.The Globe and Mail published an extensive account of the kerfuffle, while Newsweek and Science Daily used the controversy to emphasize that the Rorschach test is not considered particularly effective.Discussion among Wikipedians is ongoing.
Eric Felten of The Wall Street Journal wrote an opinion piece on the DCoetzee (Wikipedia) – National Portrait Gallery copyright dispute (see previous Signpost article). Felten criticized the museum's argument, stating by comparison that "museums don’t go around claiming that by touching up the odd Rembrandt they’ve created something original with a shiny new copyright."
Litblog The Millions unearthed the second deletion discussion for journalist and writer Ed O'Loughlin, in which the subject himself characterized the article as "a starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character which is based entirely on highly partisan sources and falsehoods." O'Loughlin's profile has been raised since his first novel was put on the longlist for the Man Booker Prize on July 28th. The post, picked up by other literary blogs, does not mention that the article was deleted and salted in January 2008.