Jump to content

Talk:Rey–Osterrieth complex figure

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarification request?

[edit]

The page is marked as unclear, but I'm not sure what the main concern is. Is the problem with the technical language, or something else? How non-technical do we need to get on highly technical subjects? Mirafra (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing

[edit]

Amazing how much the article has developed in just a week. I have formatted references, added minor clarifications and created the image (its not a true copy, I did it myself and mistakes were on porpouse... but I think is good enough). --Garrondo (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image

[edit]

Wikipedia has it's own policies and guidelines which do not have to be the same than those organizations. To make a content elimination which does not break copyright or law you have to provide reasons which you had not done yet. It would also be a good idea for you to register so people can address comments to an specific individuals. If it is true that some organizations have reached an agreement on the specific theme here touched you should provide some references. Finally you should specifically defend why is it different to put such image in an encyclopedia compared to scientific articles. There are also a psychology project and a medicine project in wikipedia and it would probably be a good idea to debate the current issue there. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC) (I could be an anonymous editor but I prefer to sign, I have nothing to hide).[reply]

Reply: To the best of my knowledge, it is not "some" organizations that have reached this agreement regarding the maintenance of test security, it is most if not all international professional psychological associations which have done so. Certainly both the American and Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists have clauses regarding maintaining test security and the responsibility of the psychologist not to release raw test data (including test items) to those who would be unqualified to interpret them. For example, the APA Code of Ethics has two relevant scetions:

9.07 Assessment by Unqualified Persons Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when such use is conducted for training purposes with appropriate supervision. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others.)

and more directly to the point:

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.

Your own code (IIRC, this would be Spain) has the following statement which would be applicable:

Section II. Of professional competence and the relationship with other professionals:

Article 19

All kinds of strictly psychological material, both in terms of evaluation or intervention/treatment is reserved for the use of Psychologists, and are not made available to others not competent to interpret them. Psychologists ensure proper custody of psychological documents.

To my mind, the best reason for not posting protected (aka copyrited) neuropsychological/psychological test materials in a public forum is that to do so invalidates the test (given that the standardized administration conditions are violated if someone has previous knowledge of most tests, particularly tests designed to assess memory), and the test is then no longer able to be used in evaluating the individual. This has implications for patients, as it means that they can not be thoroughly or accurately assessed if important parts of the test battery cannot be validly administered. This is not a service to them and can result in misdiagnosis, poor treatment recommendations, and a loss of opportunity to improve quality of life as a result.

Posting test items in public forums also means that new and alternate forms of each test must then continually be developed, which costs thousands of dollars and months if not years of effort to develop appropriate norms for each new version. This renders testing materials extremely expensive, and this cost is passed on to the consumer (i.e., the patients). Factoring in the cost of new testing materials on a regular basis onto the time involvement in doing a thorough neuropsychological assessment would rapidly make the cost prohibitive for most people. I personally do not think that activities that result in the creation of barriers to psychological services are in the best interests of anyone.

As to your other point: Public forums (i.e., online encyclopedias) are qualitatively different than scientific journal articles in terms of the ease of availability, the intended audience, and in terms of ethical guidelines set out by most (if not all) psychological associations. In addition, you will notice that only tests intended to be within the public domain (such as the CES-D) have their item content disclosed in scientific journals/books. All copyrighted tests require specific permission to be published, and as a result you will typically not find actual item content posted in the public domain (unless someone has messed up).

On a more pragmatic note, posting protected material in a public forum opens one up to legal action on the part of the holder of the copyright (in this case PAR), as well as possible ethical complaints directed against you to your professional licencing body (if you are a psychologist registered with a professional licensing body). So, although Wikipedia may have its own regulations regarding the content of its forum, psychologists must hold to the highest standards of conduct, which include but are not limited to local, national and international laws governing psychological practice, the relevant professional code of ethics to your area of practice, and to the conventions of practice and conduct commonly held by the profession of psychology.

I understand that you have been approached privately regarding this matter, but that you have insisted that the issues be outlined on this forum. While others within the neuropsychological community understandably feel that this is, in fact, not the correct forum to hold this discussion, I felt that it might be helpful to outline at least some of the relevant issues for your consideration. To my mind this isn't just about being elitist and maintaining rigid control over intellectual territory. This is about what is likely to be harmful to those whom we are entrusted to protect (namely our clients and our future clients). It is also about the violation of our contractual obligations to the companies that develop these testing materials on our behalf (you may or may not have noticed that when you use your professional credentials to order a copyrighted test, there is an agreement that you enter into regarding the maintenance of appropriate test security for that test), and it is about maintaining the integrity of the profession of psychology.

Please note, I actually feel extremely uncomfortable posting about these issues in such a public forum. I genuinely hope that if I have misrepresented any of the issues, or am in error in my understanding of the relevant codes, that others will feel comfortable contacting me so that I may correct any inaccuracies.Cmd2 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't fight any more... I still don't think that an image of ficticious patient violates copyright or ethical issues but I have other better things to do than fight against it. Nevertheless I prefer your reply to a private one since this issue will probably appear again in the future in wikipedia. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image is widely available

[edit]

I should note that the original figure is readily available online as the top hit on a quick Web image search, from Nature Protocols, without subscription.[1] It is also posted by a professor at Amherst University,[2] and in publicly accessible articles at the Jornal de Pediatria[3] and the Journal of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology.[4] Those are from results 1-60 of 421. Apparently there is not such unanimous support for censoring the figure as some might suggest. Perhaps it is not regarded as a breach of confidence to reprint the figure from a scientific article or other source which has not transmitted it under terms of confidentiality.

The issue of copyright is taken quite seriously by Wikipedia, but if you believe a violation has occurred, you need to direct your objection to the image itself (File:Rey-osterreith example.jpg). If the file is a copyright violation, it would still be one whether it is displayed in the article or not, so removing the link to it cannot be justified on this basis. My feeling is that a pen and ink line figure redrawn from memory shouldn't be protected by copyright (no more than the classic "stick figure" of a man could be copyrighted), but I'm not a lawyer. I encourage you to raise the objection if you wish at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Mike Serfas (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not about whether the image can't be gotten through some other means if someone is sufficiently motivated. It's not even about copyright (I don't know the copyright status of this specific image). It's about test security. We don't have a black-and-white view of test security. You seem to be saying that if a test is discussed in the technical scientific literature, then there is zero point in attempting to maintain any kind of security on a high-traffic website designed for the general public. But by your logic, test in formation could not be published in the scientific literature, which would prevent scientists from developing and improving tests.
The point here is that the image is not needed to make a good article about the test. Relax. Let us improve the article itself, and accept that the consensus here appears to be to not show the image. Mirafra (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go to www.google.com. If you temporarily allow scripts from that site (or otherwise do not restrict Javascript), when you type the four letters rey- it will automatically provide a menu of options, the first two being "rey-osterrieth complex figure test" and "rey-osterrieth complex figure". The first of these only provides text links, but the second provides you immediately with two copies of the figure, which you can click to enlarge.[5] You don't even need to know how to spell the test to see the figure, at the first place most people look. (Of course, the figure is even more easily accessed at images.google.com)
I think by this point it is appropriate to ask if you're quite certain you're interpreting this code of ethics correctly. What is a disclosure? I would say that, for example, the administrator of a nuclear power plant might disclose that there was a release of radiation last week, but a newspaper (or a child writing for class) only reports it. The APA code parenthetically describes release of test materials as a "disclosure" in section 9.04, referring people to section 9.11[6]
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.
Now I would say:
  • Prohibiting people from copying data that is quickly and easily found on the most commonly used search engine on the internet is not "reasonable".
  • Denying people access to public domain or non-copyrightable information is not "consistent with law".
So I have to wonder if the real meaning of the code is closer to the situation for a trade secret. To quote from that article, (I don't represent this to be comprehensive legal advice, but since I'm not a lawyer and this isn't a lawsuit it should be good enough...)
The test for a cause of action for breach of confidence in the common law world is set out in the case of Coco v. A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd, (1969) R.P.C. 41 at 47:
  • the information itself must have the necessary quality of confidence about it;
  • that information must have been imparted in circumstances imparting an obligation of confidence;
  • there must be an unauthorized use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.
By that analogy, the person following the APA code would be expected to avoid disclosure of test materials that are a) not already available to the public, b) obtained under a condition of confidentiality (i.e. not copied from a Google search, nor from a public access journal, nor any journal not requiring that subscribers agree to APA ethics), c) thought by the APA to be potentially detrimental if released.
I should add that consensus has not been reached on this issue. Someone at WP:IHC recently claimed consensus in the opposite direction, and the prevailing opinion at Rorschach test seems to be favoring inclusion of the inkblots more than not. Mike Serfas (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that the topic seemed to have been settled on this page and on the other relevant test pages for quite a while, that seemed to indicate that folks were willing to go with the agreement that test security be respected.
The thing I think you're missing is that we're not claiming that it's illegal for WP to show the images. It's clearly legal. It's just obnoxious. This is a situation where WP has succeeded in its goals so well that it has now become the go-to place for all sorts of casual information-seekers. On this topic, protected psychological tests, the disclosure of test content here has a bigger negative effect on the world than it does on other less well-trafficked websites. We're not "demanding that WP take the content down because we're gonna beat you up." We're saying that, as the people who actually use these instruments to perform a professional health care service, we would really like to be able to (1) participate in the process of offering clear and factual and helpful information (2) with some confidence that doing so will not contribute to the social harm of destroying the usefulness of the instruments that we are using. Essentially, we're saying that it would be nice if y'all would play nicely with others. And we'd like to play, too, because psychologists can be encyclopedia editors too -- we're not some weird alien beings.
With great power comes great responsibility. Perhaps some of the cultural difference is that we deal in secrets all the time -- we protect the secrets of our clients' lives. Test security is another kind of secret we work with, and we accept that test security cannot be perfect. But we cannot contribute to its destruction, nor can we cheerfully stand idly by while other people do so. I would hope that WP editors would come to recognize that, by being so good at writing an encyclopedia, they have gained a measure of responsibility, perhaps one they did not seek, but one that has come to them regardless. Mirafra (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that has been settled is that this policy has failed. Wikipedia will not be censored and we disavow responsibility for said information. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An RFVC is ongoing here. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images Support as of now is for showing images and providing information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search via [[7]] produced a paper in which the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test image is included:

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

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

If professionals don't consider it secret then why should we?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply / Comment: The very front of the professional manual and on the reverse of the stimulus card states: “Copyright © 1995 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form or by any means without written permission of Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.” . That makes this a very simple matter. Please post a copy of your written permission that I am sure you requested and obtained prior to making your post. Just because you drew the image with your hand and made it a bad copy does not release you of your obligation to the owner to obtain permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taneumann (talk • contribs)
I'd hardly say this makes it a "very simple matter". The article states that the test was developed in 1941. Is the article wrong? If not, then a copyright claim for 1995 seems at least dubious. What are they claiming copyright for? Their latest revision of the image, like the Rorschach publishers do? If so, that's irrelevant. Is the original figure actually under copyright? A copyright notice like the one you mention does nothing to answer this question. --LjL (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Making the determination for oneself concerning the validity of a copyright seems very caviler and foolhardy in this litigious society. The test was in fact developed in 1941. The card I inspected was old and worn, I was incorrect concerning the back of the stimulus card in that I left off the following:

“Reproduced and adapted by permission. Copyright © 1941 by Teresinha Rey, Switzerland. American edition Copyright 1995© by Psychological Resources Inc. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form or by any means without written permission of Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. This form is printed in black ink on card stock. Any other version is unauthorized” .

Challenging the validity of Copyright is done in a Federal Court not on a Wikipedia page. This image should be removed and replaced with a novel complex figure as an example of what one might see if given the test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.7.64 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already rejected

[edit]

The idea of censoring test materials to protect a test has already been roundly rejected by the community: User_talk:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary_health_consequences. There is no need to repeat such a debate, Wikipedia is not censored, period. Chillum 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that roundly, Chillum. The "community" includes minority opinions, doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was very much rejected. Policy need wide acceptance. Also, any other time this idea has been suggested in other areas it has been rejected. A minority can try to change consensus, but if it does not succeed then they will likely not get their way. Chillum 23:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many of these "suggestions in other areas" have there been and what exactly were they? Why are they relevant to test materials? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be added to the page

[edit]
Example of a copy of the Rey-Osterrieth figure similar to those performed by children or neurological patients.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you care anything about patients with head injuries. Assessing their visual-spatial memory can be important for their rehabilitation. Displaying images like this means that neuropsychologists will be unable to use this test and will have to use other, more expensive, better copyrighted tests, thus increasing the cost to the patients in the end, or reducing the number of patients who can receive services. Is it really necessary, or is it part of an anti-psych campaign?. --Vannin (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)s[reply]

If people are studying neuropsychological test on Wikipedia I am sure 1) they already now something about the topic 2) they must not have a serious head injury. Discussing psychiatry is not an anti-psych campaign. I agree complete with Bruce above. If it is in the literature we should be discussing it. Now should we remove the answers to the Glasgow coma scale because people may cheat? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you sure about either of these conditions? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What an extremely unfortunate choice of phrase. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What an extremely gratuitous comment. --LjL (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comparison is to medications. We put information about medications out there, but we keep the medications in a locked cabinet. Discussing the test is one thing - putting the test materials on is another. It is not necessary for the purpose of the discussion. As to the argument, it is already out there, I would say that Lyrica and Oxycontin may already be on the street but my personal ethics tell me that I do not have to be the one to put more out. Imagine that it is your daughter who is anoxic after falling into a pool, or your son in the wrong place at the wrong time in a fight, or your wife who fell to the floor when the dog's lead got tangled and the dog saw a squirrel and now has a longer wait for rehab services because the hospital has used up its budget on test materials? James, I gather you are on a mission but do you really want this to be your legacy? The ER doctor who put the boot into rehabilitation services, just because he could? --Vannin (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Support. I am not sure about the copyright of this image, but the way it is sent to me via the testing companies explicitly states that it is forbidden to reproduce the image in any format (i.e., draw, photocopy, etc.). But I want to get to another point. James, you mentioned that if someone has suffered a head injury, they wouldn't be on wikipedia. This is decidedly NOT true. There are numerous patients who have suffered from concussions, MVA's, etc. who have very mild cognitive impairment. They often do very well on more global cognitive measures (IQ testing for example), but struggle on more sensitive measures. And the Rey-O is one of those. The thing is, yes, even if the person doesn't reproduce the image exactly, even if they get a few more pieces correct than they would have otherwise, that directly impacts their score on the measure. And if you want evidence of people trying to "cheat" the tests (and as with the Wisconsin, i feel that posting the image in this case represents a CHEAT SHEET - which I understand is NOT wikipedia's stated purpose), I give you this example - the high school athlete who has suffered a concussion and desperately wants to get back onto the field. Such individuals often do have the capacity to get onto wikipedia and find out about possible tests they are to be given. So do you wish to be complicit with such an individual, possibly having been cleared by a neuropsych batter, later suffering from a second and more damaging concussion (and i have seen a kid who talked his way through a brief mental status exam with the team physician only to suffer from such a fate soon thereafter to very sad results). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These far fetched made up scenarios amaze me. This is something I might consider using in said patient. Good thing Wikipedia now contains it so that other physicians may come across it and us it too.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


James, what is "far fetched" about this. I just, for example, was recently talking with a sports medicine doc about concussions, and one of the frequent topics is athletes trying to cheat mental status tests by sharing information with one another. See this is the same thing I talked about previously, when one is NOT an expert in a particular field, they do not see the whole picture (and again a little bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing). I invite you to talk with a neurologist who deals with sports concussions and then make such a statement (or for example, a fire fighter who has fallen and wants to return to work prematurely). By the way, physicians not trained in neuropsychology or neurology should not be administering or interpreting the test if they have not had professional training - and wikipedia decidedly does not count as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes the claim that unless one is in the field of clinical neuro psychology one should not have any access to the knowledge or be aloud to contribute to this topic. Yes I am an ER doc as you stated. I see many patients with concussion and am often the only one they see before return to sports. I did not add this info only re added what someone else removed. This is currently being discussed extensively. Removing verifiable material is considered vandalism.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you so cavalier about people reaading up on meds on the internet and getting them off the black market without consulting with a physician? That's basically what you are doing by claiming that you will be using a neuropsych test on your own:This is something I might consider using in said patient. Good thing Wikipedia now contains it so that other physicians may come across it and us it too."Faustian (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Faustian I am cavalier enough to add information about meds to Wikipedia such that if people want to read up on them than steal them or get them off the street I will not feel culpableness.
I would even leave my CPS unprotected were the general population might be able to read it. I think this is also the stance of the rest of the world. You cannot / should not protect people against themselves.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my comment. You, an ER doc, attempting to use a neuropsych test is the equivalent of some nonphysician on the street trying to self-medicate based on what he read on the internet. Your action is even worse because it puts someone else, your patient, in jeopardy.Faustian (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was being fascious, just yanking your chain Fasutian. Nobody in my profession uses this test not because we couldn't but because we have no need for it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your threat to practicepsychology without a license wasn't a reply to what I said but to what someone else said. So the comment above was dishonest. This excuse is stated 16 days after your threat, after I had mentioned possible consequences.Faustian (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, can you confirm for us that your statement "You cannot / should not protect people against themselves" applies to the whole of spectrum of mental health services in general? And you are a health professional?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use original image, and determine copyright status with certainty. If the image is not copyrighted it can be transferred to Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise it cannot, but Wikipedia permits fair use even for copyrighted images relevant to an article. If the image is copyrighted, the copy is likely a derivative work with the same status as the original. Including the original is more encyclopedic, and as a simple line figure it could be redrawn in the preferred .svg file format. The redrawn figure is not really as useful as it may first seem because it doesn't come with a sourced diagnosis, and it isn't immediately clear from looking at it whether the original was strictly geometric or whether it contains stylized elements such as a "smiley-face". Mike Serfas (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinon, it's a gap in Wikipedia policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a policy proposal for Involuntary health consequences, not test materials. Policy, is seems, cannot accommodate the minorty view. And your responses suggest that neither can "the community" which consists of simply policing rules of policy. (p.s. bullet points??)Martinevans123 (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do sound like you've run out of decent points and are just... I don't know, ranting? forum shopping? I believe you should give up. There is not and there will not be a policy against disclosure of test materials; that seems entirely clear; and Danglingdiagnosis' proposed policy was about that, too (I'm pretty damn sure you read it), don't act as if it wasn't. --LjL (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm "pretty damn sure" I read it too, that's why I am talking about it. It's pretty obvious what it was about from its title? One of it's parts was to do with psychological test materials. Was it rejected only on the basis of that part? It certainly wasn't about test materials in general, nor about test exposure that did not produce involunatary health effects. You sound like someone who is making false accusations. I may believe that you should give up. Why do you assume I am "acting"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That will be obvious to anyone caring to read the proposed policy and its talk page, so I will spend no further words on it. --LjL (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What an extremely gratuitous comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't: I was explaining why I'm not going to waste time answering your question. And I do mean waste time: you're being disruptive at this point. Please stop. --LjL (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, but you seemed to be suggesting that I had not even cared to read the proposed policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't honestly know what's worse - not having cared to read it or chosing to ignore what it says after reading it? With the recent economical crisis, good faith is expensive, and I've just about run out of it. --LjL (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is free. Did I read it or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell should I know? --LjL (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't. But why do you suggest both? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I haven't. You said I "seemed to be suggesting" something but I have no idea what you based that on. Is it even relevant? --LjL (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said: ".. not having cared to read it or chosing to ignore what it says after reading it?" It's only relevant as you accused me of wasting your time. My point is that when Chillum says ".. there was a policy proposed to prevent test materials from being posted on Wikipedia" he was mistaken. 22:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Chillum was not mistaken. Not having read it or ignoring what it says are the only two reasons I can currently imagine for you insisting that he was, but that's just my logic, I definitely don't claim to read your mind. --LjL (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can read his reply, thanks. We have differing interpretations. I read the proposal (did you not see my comments?), I did not ignore what it said. If you can't read my mind, please don't tell me what I did, logic or no logic. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you feel you have to disrupt this encyclopedia because you cannot accept the consensus that has formed in the pages that have been pointed out to you. --LjL (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I am not mistaken, that policy proposal clearly has the sole purpose of stopping test materials from being published. The title is misleading, the content of the proposal and the talk page makes it clear. Chillum 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification of your views, Chillum. In my view any policy aimed at preventing test materisla being displayed ought to be entitled along the lines of "Test Materials Should Not Be Displayed", to avoid confusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Confusion" is not the same thing as deliberate misinterpretation of the bulk of a page's content, based on its title. You are displaying the latter. Please, stop. --LjL (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin you were at all the same discussions I was at. That policy proposal certainly was about removing test materials as is evidenced by the talk page, the title was simply an attempt to frame the debate. You have also been at the debates on the Rorschach talk page where the community has rejected the idea of suppressing test materials. Are you really pretending these huge debates have not happened, and they time and time again they are against the idea of removing test material? Chillum 13:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the problems about this proposal are: who would decide what is and is not test material and who would decide what exposure causes harm and what exposure does not. Have asked for evidence of harm from exposure to the Rorschach and the answer is that there is nothing beyond conjecture because it would be unethical to collect it. But even if this could be ironed out I still do not think the majority of Wikipedian would support it. We at Wikipedia and most of the rest of the world as seen from the media attention this discussion has received support the free availability of all information even that on psychological test material.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum, first LjL accuses me of “acting”, now you accuse me of “pretending”. Please, no more accusations. The failed IHC proposal did not produce any new specific policy. The RfC for the Rorschach inkblot did not produce any new specific policy. They both essentially resulted in a vote for the status quo. Can you show me any debate about test materials in general? In the absence of any explicit policy which says either YES or NO to the display/description of all test materials, each and every article which currently displays/describes (or does not currently display/describe) such materials is worthy of discussion ‘’’in its own right.’’’ Arguments may be similar, they will not be identical. Or are you suggesting that because we have a consensus on inkblots, discussion about any image(s) for this article is no longer permitted? The “Rey-osterrieth” was discussed in the Rorschach RfC, but it was not the subject of that RfC. DocJames even suggested.expanding the scope of the RfC to cover “all psychological testing” but that was rejected. Your tone here suggests that editors such as myself have not yet “leant our lesson” that “dissent is fruitless” and is a “waste of time” for the more serious editor. Oh, and what exactly is the copyright position here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well good luck with that. I would say that no matter which subtle variables you change the fact still remains that Wikipedia does not want to censor test materials. You calling this a "gap" in policy does seem like pretending that the possibility has not been given enormous consideration and rejected over and over. If you wish to make a copyright argument then please do so, at least that would have some basis in policy. Chillum 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to change any "subtle variables" - every article is here to be discussed as appropriate. What you choose to call "censoring" is seen by many as "protection". The Rorschach inkblots may have been given enormous consideration, but what are the other cases of test materials the protection of which has been "rejected over and over"? I was hoping for advice on whether or not the Rey-O figure image (or indeed `copies' of any kind) are covered by copyright law - in a way that the inkblots obviously are not. But many thanks for your good wishes. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding other places the idea has been rejected, there is the policy proposal I already linked you to and this very talk page. Regarding copyright issues, the image copyright would belong to whoever drew the picture(This guy: [8] who has release it into the good old public domain). Chillum 23:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes that's one, isN't it, the one with a misleading title. I was asking about your "over and over" claim. And yes, I see the copyright release statement on this image. I was curious abOut the actual original image and how "very good" copies would be treated, and what would constitute "very good". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of ROCF

[edit]

The issue of weather or not this image is copyrightable has been discussed at length with Wikipedia's legal counsel. It has been decided that the image is of insufficient complexity to be copyrightable. This is little more than a simple combination of geometric shapes. These shapes have been around for thousands of years. One cannot combine them and the claim ownership over that exact combination and anything that looks even remotely similar.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

little more than a simple combination of geometric shapes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.87.139 (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reply: A consensus among whom? International neuropsychological organizations have already decided that the dissemination of images such as those you have uploaded is an unethical practice. Who else needs to be included in this consensus discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.8.210.169 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image2

[edit]

The image is continously eliminated. Privately I have been told that is becouse it is thought that it is a problem against opacity of the test. Unless this issue is disscussed in talk page and consensus reached I won´t stop reverting such eliminations. If this continues I will ask a for the page to be blocked until such consensus is reached.

Reply: {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} This is an illegally posted image. It is stimulus of psychological test. Release of raw data including psychological tests is restricted under Detroit Edison, a supreme court case (Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 1979) in which the high court ruled that release of psychological raw test data is damaging to the public because it's release threatens the test's validity. SO, at least in the US, keeping this image up is illegal. Shelleypeery (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) user:shelleypeery 4/14/11[reply]

Shelleypeery - does this court case extend to other test material images, such as the inblots at Rorschach test? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of things 1) Copyright law is hugely complicated and Wikimedia has a legal department that deals with this ( one cannot copy something that is too simple for example if you put a red circle on a white rectangle such as on the Wisconsin_card_sort the Japanese might have something to say about your claim of copyright ) 2) How about these intersecting pentagons? I wondering what the Greeks would thing about the attempts by some within the psychological community to remove them ( or the math community for that matter ). 3) Are you able to provide a link and a quote from said ruling?
So to conclude the images are not being used under fair use rational. They are so simple to be in the public domain as they are not copyrightable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Perhaps a rather hasty conclusion there. I don't think it's possible to copyright geometric shapes, even if they overlap, and even if you're Greek. But this figure is complex, isn't it? And I think that it might be critical if the designers of the test had made it clear that pre-exposure to the test materials might invalidate their test. And I also think it might be different if one had drawn these shapes, in confidence, as part of a response in a psychological test. But I'm sure that the Wikimedia legal department does a wonderful job - in fact I'd be surprised if they hadn't heard of Detroit Edison v. NLRB (1979); although, if it's a uniqiue test case, perhaps it deserves its own wiki article? But I would still like to know if a US Supreme Court case about psycholgical test materials has any relevance to what appears in Wikipedia articles. Particularly this court case. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rey–Osterrieth_complex_figure&oldid=1208215091"