Jump to content

Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13


Streisand effect

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/14/1829231/Wikipedia-Debates-Rorschach-Censorship –xenotalk 21:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

yup...that's how I got here. Now I'm tainted for life by seeing the images. Oh noes! Thomas Dzubin (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I got here from Reddit. I'm going to get a set of the blots, have them framed & hang them in the lobby of my home. I think they're quite pretty. Stroller (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's the reddit thread http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/917us/editors_on_wikipedia_are_engaged_in_an_epic/ --Skofo (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Rorschach.png

Why all the Bickering Pals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.251.6.76 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion is becoming infamously. They might just start showing the ten inkblots on the evening news yet if we all keep this up. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick reality check

As usual with calls for censorship all the pro arguments are utter shit. There is *always* someone claiming damages but it's not the world's responsibility to take care of them. Besides, it's clear that the only useful longterm solution is to develop an open-ended test where new images can be created rather than rely on a system of secrets. It's clear not because I'm writing this from a position of such great understanding but because the problem is so obvious - secret images that are available to every professional aren't secret. Pretending they are is not only unprofessionalism of the highest degree but just plain bad security design.

But reality though... You can't censor the images. As has been noted, this discussion has brought them to the attention of more people than if this hadn't come up. Had the article just quietly included the images only a few people would have seen them, now the images are forever available in many torrents of banned images - amusingly, to the very people the medical community would least prefer had them. Anyone who honestly believes these should be secret had best shutup now before they draw even more attention to this.

Do the sensible thing, mention the dilemma to the reader above the link and make the thumbnail small enough that people will have to click-through to see anything meaningful.

But finally, you don't have the right, assholes, to make this choice for me or anyone else. I appreciate spoiler warning where they aren't obvious, but I absolutely protest any form of restriction on this or any other content. Like deletionists, censorers are a plague upon wiki and world. I am an adult, and *must* if I am to function, decide issues like this for myself. If you take away my ability to read about this here, and that there, pretty soon I can't find anything but lawyer-approved market speak even in a "user"-edited site.

How am I supposed to tell the difference between an E-meter and a Inkblot test if the article on either has been neutered to please a special interest.

I now return you to your debate already in progress, but I'd like to remind you that you're talking about DENYING THE RIGHT TO READ to people. If you can do this and talk about their own good with a straight face you're a sick person.

74.198.110.39 (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The importance of having a leg to stand on

Thank you Chillum for reorganizing the page, but I did not put my comment (A quick reality check) at the top because I was mistaken about convention. The top is the place for the most important issues, and this one is it.

"Who the fuck do you (collectively) think you are?"

Wikipedia policy my ass, and potential damage to the medical field regardless, this is a call for censorship and should not be entered into lightly as it is the first step to tyranny.

By making a Yea vote in here you are stating that your opinion is more righteous than someone else's ability to inform themselves. While it is all well and good that you have an opinion, as respectfully as this can be said, it is all you are entitled to have - certainly not an effect.

We all rightfully decry China's policy of censorship, not because they don't have good arguments but because they simply don't have the moral right to make these choices for other people even if it was objectively "for the best". (A point they make asses of themselves, as are many of you, trying and failing to prove.)

The only reasonable solution, other than dropping this issue, is putting the images behind a small thumbnail and giving the choice of self-censorship to the user. Not only is this all that is our right to do, but as the images are out there it is ultimately an issue of individual choice anyways.

Frankly nobody needs your sorry-assed help, all you do-gooders. Simply coming to this article is proof enough of a user's intent to see, or at least have the option of seeing, the images. They (people) are the reason for Wikipedia, currently you're just deadweight arguing about which portions of wiki you can keep others from using...

Nobody legitimately gets a vote except the people being censored. If you disagree say so, here, but leave this comment atop the trivia and under the images.

74.198.102.17 (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You. And Doc James, Chillum, Faustian, and everyone in here (pro or con) who thinks that their attitude matters. The only one whose does is the reader. You're all trying to make this decision for someone else or validating those who do.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS. Asking this question is akin to saying you have the right to choose an answer. How fucking clear can I make myself? Your only qualification for being here are your ever-running mouths. No argument is good enough, you may point them out for users to read if they wish, but nobody asked you to get up in the morning and censor anything.
That you're in this conversation IS the problem. Your only contribution here is in taking options away from others. You ARE the problem.
I don't care about your thoughts. Not only are they likely stupid, but they weren't asked for. None of yours, thanks, even those on the 'show' side. It's not like it's the type of question that's open for debate. There is only one issue - you're arguing to keep information from others.
It doesn't matter that the images are technically here meanwhile, what matters is that many of you wish to make this decision for people who don't want you to be their protectors.
You're right that this isn't an issue for a vote, or majority rule. One single person wishing to see these images is enough reason to leave them up. That standard is obviously met, yet you meddlers keep circling like vultures, looking for an option to force your consensus on others for whom a black and white answer is the only reasonable solution. Censorship? None, please.
We don't do research into the physical sciences by vote because it's ridiculous. But when you're trying to decide how others can run their lives suddenly these methods (poll the pool of retards) becomes accepted policy?
I've been told out-of-band twice since this started that this is how WP works, and I and others must adjust to it. No. Hell no. Fuck no. This is how the world works and YOU must adjust to it. If you try to tell me what to do, or limit my actions, you're the intrusive asshole. You have NO CALL to be here. You could just as easily go edit some article on Care Bears, as be here, acting like you have a clue let alone a say.
The only reason WP exists to have all these rules, like CIVIL, which I am breaking, is because it operates on the assumption of basic civility. One can't rightly expect the lamb to remain polite to the wolves debating its future, nor can you expect niceties like posting in the proper place and placating the meddlers when an issue like censorship is on the table. You're proposing very uncivil outcomes and need to understand that you're not going to be treated very civilly.
Pack up, go home. You aren't wanted here. This page, this site if you keep acting like this, or the world at all if you think other people are yours to control. 74.198.104.110 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
WP::NPA doesn't apply, this isn't a personal attack, it's an answer to "To whom is vitriol directed?" It's not personal because the answer is everyone, and it's not an attack because it's not aimed to hurt. It is merely an impolite comment to those who would be my captors. 74.198.127.61 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, we don't plan on removing the images regardless of what slashdot says. What they call an "epic battle" is practically over, the images are staying. Chillum 15:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
One almost suspects the slashdot story was intended to bring random IP editors here to remove the images. The "battle" was over before I got here. Verbal chat 15:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That was not the intention at all. Gigs (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The IP dose make some good points even if in less than a freindly way. I think if I am correct there is something call freedom of speech in the USA. And attempted sensorship of these images is atttempting to controvein this. I agree that we do not want to become intelletually restrictive like China.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Slashdot doesn't seem to support the removal. More comments on the story appear to support the display of the images than not, though both points of view are there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not surprised. Most slashdotters are 'hackers' at heart. (i.e. Information wants to be free). –xenotalk 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What would actually be wrong with including the gallery of all the images in a collapse box with some kind of a brief comment about why it's in one? I see this was proposed by someone above, but it never got consensus because it "violated" the no spoilers policy, or was "censorship". I seem to recall in the distant past Elonka, or somebody, got their head handed to them on a platter for suggesting something similar in the Mohammed article, so I do this with some trepidation, but I'm just curious why such an easy compromise is a bad idea. Not from a "it's against policy" point of view, or references to "no spoilers" or "no censorship", but from an actual "here's how it harms the encyclopedia" point of view. Probably neither side would be thrilled, but wouldn't it give everyone a chance to go do something else? Those arguing against inclusion would no longer be concerned that people could be exposed unwittingly. Those arguing for inclusion would only need to click "show". It stretches the definition of "censorship" to the breaking point to say that putting them in a collapse box is censorship. The information would be easily available to everyone who wanted to see it. Aside from being unwilling to cave in to the demands from the other side, why is this wrong? Compromise is at the heart of consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think of the main unresolved argument used against this was the issue of content in drop-down boxes not printing properly. It's been suggested several times in the history. –xenotalk 18:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's one problem I hadn't seen up there (I admit to not having the intestinal fortitude to look thru all of the archives). That's a shame, otherwise it seemed like a good solution to me. I think I can think of a similar solution, but it would no longer be as elegant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced it will solve the debate. If one is searching for this test by name they expect to see the images.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it appears moot now, but the idea was not to hide them so only clever people could find them. The idea was that people make a conscious decision to view them. I'm fully supportive of people being able to see them if they so choose; I'm only thinking that it might be nice if people understood that looking at them would evidently alter the efficacy of the test before they did. Anyway, I'm aware that printability is a big WP:Usability thing, so the collapse box probably won't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Some (probably masochistic) person made an effort to summarize most of the positions here. –xenotalk 18:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The willingness of that person to wade through all of the previous discussion in order to summarize it says more about their precarious mental health than a Rorschach test ever could... I salute you and pity you, in equal measure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Wish I'd seen that before reading for over an hour... oh, well... killed a boring lunch hour anyway. --Raukodraug (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

redacted post

  • Hm, if we don't have the right to remove them (because we'd be deciding for people), what gave us the right to put them there? For that matter, what gave us the right to make an encyclopedia in the first place? Maybe people don't want a free online encyclopedia, why should we force it upon the world? You're talking complete nonsense, 74.x.x.x. –xenotalk 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Listen to the tremendous arrogance in your words, as if YOU had anything to do with building any of this. But even if you did, would that give you the right to kick it down later on the basis of seniority?
How can you ask these questions and expect to be treated like an adult. People of the world show they want a free encyclopedia by coming to Wikipedia. They show they want THIS information by coming to this page. If there is an issue with seeing these images we need to inform them, lest they merely look elsewhere, and having done that, have no reason to hide them.
This couldn't be clearer and that you're fighting it says something that I'm sure everyone who knows you would strongly agree with. You are deadweight. If you ever cared about improving wiki then you should realize why you must leave. The world does not need more censors and that's all you've become - try to not delete any articles on the way out, thug. 205.205.172.20 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually not fighting, nor trying to censor, anything. I'm asking questions. I don't think 74's method of argument is helpful here. All sides are acting in good faith. The strong language being directed at various parties (on both sides) isn't going to bring a peaceful end to the debate. Telling them to "Pack up, go home. You aren't wanted here." is especially peculiar because if these folks hadn't built this article, there wouldn't be a "here" in the first place. The articles don't write themselves, you know. In fact, until a short while ago, it only had one picture [1]. –xenotalk 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
205.205.172.20 You seem confused. You are lashing out at the wrong person. In fact, lashing out in general is not how we do things. Please be very sure of your facts before making any sort of accusation. Chillum 01:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

data on scientific status

1) The article has a lot of words about the validity and scientific status of the test, but nothign really concrete. are there any numbers or other objective data available ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.64.105 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

2) Although critique against anything sold under the robe science (e,g, the Rorschach test) it is important to try to give a more comprehensive picture of the scientific status. The main reference used in a major part of the "Controversy" section of the article is Wood, James M, M Teresa Nezworski, Acott O. Lilienfeld, and Howard N. Garb. "What's Wrong with the Rorschach?". San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sones, Inc., 2003. ISBN 0-7879-6056-X. It is weak to criticize with one voice - please improve the article by adding good sources. There must be more.

I agree we are lacking objective analysis on this. The Controversy Over Exner’s Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak is a document that may yield some hard numbers. It directly references studies done on the effectiveness of this test. Chillum 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It's the same critics that are a minority within the field...Faustian (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
How significant a minority? Being completely honest on this question, do you see it as a significant minority, or only a fringe theory? Resolute 00:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It's more of a small, but significant minority, than a fringe theory. Kind of like, global warming is caused by natural processes rather than by humans (versus global warming is caused by aliens).Faustian (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you support that statement? Has their work been debunked by any other studies you can refer to? The primary author Dr. James M. Wood is the professor of psychology at the University of Texas and has worked in the field since 1987, that sounds like a reliable source. Chillum 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Does the study "Rorschach Comprehensive System Data for 100 Nonpatient Children From the United States in Two Age Groups" by Hamel, Shaffer, & Erdberg 2000 also suffer from the same minority issues in your opinion? If not then do you have any references to studies on the accuracy of this test? Chillum 23:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Multiple studies have shown that in their writings Wood, Lilenfeld etc. play games with studies, such as describing 2 studies that support their view (i.e., poor reliability) and ignoring 10 that support the Rorschach. An example: [2]. Another example, from an article by J. Reid Meloy, just one part of Wood et al's "What's Wrong with the Rorschach" (Journal of Personality Assessment, volume 83, pp.344-346) addresses their claim that (p.251 of Lilienfeld's book on the Rorschach) "ten replication studies examined the relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. Nine of the ten found no significant relationship."
This may sound impressive. However, eight of the ten studies were doctoral dissertations that had never been peer reviewed and had never been published in scientific journals. Meloy wasn't familiar with all of those unpublished dissertations, but was on the committee of one of the ones cited by Wood et al as showing no significasnt relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. The dissertation did not include enough participants who were psychopathic to make this comparison. It therefore wasn't a valid study to use by Lilienfeld. It is thus mistaken (at best) or misleading (at worst)to use it as a counterexample.
The only study that was peer reviewed and published in a journal was the one that found a significant difference. The tenth study, one of only two published ones, appeared in a book chapter. It did indeed fail to find a significant difference between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths on reflective responses. Although the psychopaths produced three times as many reflective responses, this did not quite meet significance (p value was .07, just a bit higher than the .05 necessary for significance). Of course, none of these details were mentioned by Wood et al. Their absence confirms the conensus within the field that Lilienfeld are more interested in scoring polemic points than examining evidence objectively.
Those are just two studies debunking Wood's and Lilenfeld's work; there are many more.
Dr. James Wood's CV, btw, is not all that impressive: [3] (you have to click on it and download the MS Word program). Compare that to his critic J. Reid Meloy, considered a foremost expert in the field in terms of forensic work: [4].
This stuff is all confirmed by the fact that the the Rorschach continues to be very commonly used and commonly taught in the field.Faustian (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, this is brief, but will at least give you someplace to start, and it is extensively referenced. (2005). The status of the Rorschach in clinical and forensic practice: An official statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment 85:219-237. [5] Mirafra (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. As long as copyright laws are followed, Wikipedia has no reason to censor these images. Besides, many, if not most, of these images have appeared in psych textbooks for many years. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A new look at old arguments

Some of the arguments that others have made center on the harm that might come from a posting of the images. From my perspective, the harm has clearly been established. The norms for the test in question were collected at great expense, time, and effort. These norms are based on individuals who have not previously seen these images. By widely disseminating these images, the Rorschach Test page on Wikipedia is contributing to the invalidation of those norms. This is, in effect, harming the legitimate financial interests of corporations who invested in those norms, but more importantly, the scientific community who uses them to perform basic research on issues related to the greater societal good such as the assessment of suicidality and thought disorders (i.e., psychosis). I will point out that relatively few tests exist that have been validated for these uses--the Rorschach has. Now, I believe that this is strong evidence for the harm that may be caused by continuing to post the images on Wikipedia. Because of this, it seems to me that the onus is now on those who would see them posted to prove that there is in fact no harm. The logic for why the potential for harm exists is enough for them to be removed in my opinion. It is now an empirical question as to whether they do, but until there is conclusive evidence that posting them will not cause harm, I would vote for caution and go with removing them.

The argument made by some that they are posted elsewhere on the internet is not really worthwhile. Most mothers, in raising their children, addressed this point by referencing the hypothetical situation of having all of your friends jump off a bridge. In case that is too cryptic, the point was, "Just because someone else is doing it doesn't make it a good idea (or correct)."

Finally, and I think this has to do with ethical issues as well, I would analogize this issue to what I imagine the issues are for the Wikipedia page for Pornography. Why does that page not include graphic images of pornography? Why no links to videos of pornography? An argument might be made that images of pornography would enrich the page and the coverage of the content. As it stands now, a user may not get an adequate notion for what they are talking about when they discuss pornography? Don't you think that a large number of people would like to see explicit images posted on that page? My assumption is that the some members in the community are offended by the posting of these images, right? I don't think that quoting some Wikipedia policy on nudity here would suffice to rebut this point, in fact it would merely augment it. The Rorschach images are exactly the same. A portion of the community, psychologists and allied professionals, are offended by Wikipedia's refusal to curtail the posting of what we see as protected test material. It is as if there has been a gross exposure of images that should remain outside of the public view, for ethical reasons I might add.

For these reasons, it is clear to me that the debate should end, consensus or not, and the Rorschach images should be replaced with non-official exemplars of what an inkblot looks like. Dolphinfin (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to develope norms in people who have already seen the images. That would be the most responsible and ethical thing to do. Hopefully this controversy will promot this.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a serious misconception among those who do not understand psychological testing that a set of norms solves most of the problems associated with improper exposure to the Rorschach images. It has been argued (unbelievably) in another section of this talk page that a new set of inkblots could easily be normed and all the problems will be resolved. Now it is being posited that a set of norms for those who have prior exposure to the image will effectively eliminate the problems with test validity and prior exposure. The reality is, to those who have had a modicum of training in psychological testing, norms only scratch the surface in the development of a useful psychological test. Exner developed his set of norms on the Rorschach, but those norms had little meaning if there was no research base for interpreting the meaning of the test scores. That only came about after many years of research that used those norms and applied them to hundreds of behavioral and personality characteristics. The Rorschach (nor any good psychological test, such as the Wechsler intelligence scales) did not suddenly become a valuable psychometric instrument simply because norms were collected. If that was the case, we could easily produce hundreds of new psychological tests at very little cost. Norms only start the process. The real value of the test only develops after lots and lots of research that comes after the norms. So no, it's not true that a set of norms on those who have prior exposure to Rorschach images would do very much to improve the Rorschach. That would only come after several hundred research studies based on those norms. As for the statement that this controversy on this talk page will prompt collection of another set of norms ... dream on. A number of major researchers involved with the Rorschach have been laboring intensively for more than a decade trying to develop a new set of international norms, as well as a new set of norms for children. It has been an excruciatingly difficult process because collecting norms is very challenging and very expensive and time consuming. So this discussion's impact on whether any new norms will be developed will, at the very most, be a drop in the bucket. Ward3001 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Dolphinfin, you make a few points I would like to quickly address...
  • That harm has been clearly established: The fact that reasonable people disagree would seem to disagree that it is clear. While, yes, the presentation of the images on the related article page may "[harm] the legitimate financial interests of corporations who invested in those norms" the financial interests of corporations are not a realistic benchmark. If it were Wikipedia itself could be considered doing harm to encyclopedia publishers and many articles about numerous subjects could be considered harmful to one entity or another.
  • The onus should be on those to prove there is no harm: It is a logical fallacy to prove a negative. More so, in discussions of censorship the norm is to place the burden of proof and harm on the side of those that wish to remove or censor the material.
  • Rorschach images vs. pornographic images: That is, for all intents and purposes a closed debate (and also a classic example of the censorship debate I mentioned above). Those that believe pornography should be censored have proved their arguments in the public sphere and Wikipedia operates under that consensus. The debate we are having here is (hopefully) moving toward a consensus about these images, but until that consensus is reached, comparing what Wikipedia does with pornography to what is being done with the Rorschach test images is apples and oranges.
  • Psychologists and allied professionals, are offended by Wikipedia's refusal to curtail the posting...: While psychologists and allied professionals may be offended about this issue, I'm sure I could find an article here on Wikipedia that would offend me. If all "offensive" articles were edited to make everyone happy, then this would be a very small Wikipedia, indeed. That said, the offense is not a slur or attack against psychological professions, but a presentation of fact, the dissemination of which causes upset. No where in Wikipedia's rules is there a clause for removing factual information because someone or some party wants to keep it secret.
  • ...of what we see as protected test material: While you may see it as protected test material, the copyright on the images has, in fact, lapsed. The APA, nor any other professional organization, has any right to use these images any more than a member of the public. They are in the public domain. While psychological professionals may not like this fact, it is the crux of most of this argument, that a portion of the test materials (the images, but not any other related materials that may still be under copyright) is freely and rightfully accessible to the public, and, as such, can be used responsibly in academic and informational settings, or they can even be used irresponsibly in any number of fashions.
In the end, from everything I have ready here over the last few days, I believe that this argument at Wikipedia likely will rest on the grounds that: because the images are in the public domain, and because there is not a consensus, or even vigorous public debate, in the society at large (as one does find in the discussion of pornography), these images will end up remaining on the related article page. --Raukodraug (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Social Irresponsibility

Is Wikipedia a socially responsible entity? Here is the intro to the Wikipedia page on Social Responsibility: Social responsibility is an ethical or ideological theory that an entity whether it is a government, corporation, organization or individual has a responsibility to society. This responsibility can be "negative", meaning there is a responsibility to refrain from acting (resistance stance) or it can be "positive," meaning there is a responsibility to act (proactive stance).

I believe that the display of these images, at the insistence of relatively few individuals operating on this page, constitutes a socially irresponsible stance towards this test and the images. I believe that it is socially irresponsible because it is at the expense of a marginalized and often persecuted group of people (i.e., mental health patients).

Whether policy or Wikipedia rules exist to support the presentation of the full set of images on this page is irrelevant, the choice to do so is socially irresponsible, and we as members of society, often agree that certain behavior can be prohibited based on this criterion (e.g., yelling fire in a crowded theater, it harms no one directly, but there is a potential for harm).

I would ask those who are in favor of maintaining the images on the page, is your curiosity (or whatever it is that is motivating you) worth more than a parent's ability to have their adolescent child validly administered this test as part of a difficult differential diagnosis assessment? If so, please let me hear your arguments below. I would be interested to know what you see as more important than that. Dolphinfin (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ISNOT your socio-culturally localised idea of appropriate behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Those who actually administer difficult differential diagnosis assessments are no doubt aware that the images can be obtained at libraries. I'd assume that most of us agree that teenagers should be chased there wherever possible? Although many local libraries are suffering from budget cuts, thankfully almost all now at least have means to obtain online access to provide some resources that would otherwise be unavailable. Then again, I suppose some libraries (and perhaps some who try to administer difficult differential diagnosis assessments) may differ in their policies. Steveozone (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If someone is on the internet then the images are already well available to them. If they typed Rorschach test into google then would have found the images. You can't put an egg back into the shell. Chillum 13:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, by all means, let's reduce Wikipedia to the lowest common denominator on the internet. If something is "already well available" then it certainly belongs in Wikipedia. The previous gold standard (producing a quality encyclopedia, such as Britannica) should be replaced by the new gold standard: let's emulate the vast number of useless, incompetent, and/or dangerous websites that are now abundant on the internet. Ward3001 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the point could be argued that presenting the images in context with documented, verifiable, and vetted information about the test is, in fact, a more responsible way to present them than the way the may be found elsewhere, be it on the internet or in the library.
In other words, the images are out there and, if someone is looking, they will be found. I would much rather have the interested party learn about the test as a whole than simply find the images elsewhere on the web and draw incorrect or ill-informed conclusions about their use and importance.
As for the general points about social responsibility, I would look at the points in context of the Wikipedia project. When someone is searching Wikipedia they are looking for information about a topic. Removal of the images would remove valid information about the topic (while some argue the value of the images as information, their validity in connection to the Rorschach test isn't really in question). If the Wikipedia project is tasked with, and expected to, present valid and verifiable information on a topic, then it could be argued that it would be irresponsible to suppress the inclusion of the valid and verifiable images.
To directly address Dolphinfin's point about having the test validly administered to a adolescent, let me ask another question... as a parent of two children, if a psychologist were to approach me about administering this test to one of my kids, shouldn't I, as a parent, be able to research and find good information, including the images, so that I may make a responsible decision about the proper care for my child? And wouldn't removing the images be socially irresponsible in the context of Wikipedia being a source of information for many casual researchers and interested parties. --Raukodraug (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Raukodraug, if your adolescent (or for that matter, an adult member of your family) was suicidal but not telling anyone, and if the Rorschach could detect that (which in some cases can occur), and if your adolescent was hesitant to take the Rorschach, would it be a good idea to show the images in the Wikipedia article to your adolescent so that he could see that it's only harmless inkblots? Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Would I show my kids? No. Would I want to see for myself before it was administered to one of my kids? Hell yes I would. It is my job to protect my children and, to do so, there is information that I learn and do research on that I never show them, but that still effects the decisions I make to protect them.
More so, the fallacy here is that if they are suicidal and not telling anyone... then who's administering the test??? Really, if the Rorschach test were the only tool psychologists had to diagnose mental illness then this whole argument might be turning a different direction, but it's not. In fact, it's not even close. If Wikipedia were printing the contents of the DSM-IV then I might question the idea, but these images are near 80 years old and the scoring system is nearly 50 years old.
In fact, if a psychologist wanted to use the Rorschach test on one of my girls what would I say? I would probably ask the psychologist why he/she is using a test with such questionable validity on my child? And I'd expect a damn good answer. --Raukodraug (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"Would I show my kids? No. Would I want to see for myself before it was administered to one of my kids?": OK, what if an adult who is in treatment but not acknowledging his suicidal thoughts? If that person is curious about the test, is it a good idea for him to look up the images in the Wikipedia article?
"More so, the fallacy here is that if they are suicidal and not telling anyone... then who's administering the test??? ": Sorry, but this comment makes little sense. People with suicidal ideation (and sometimes intent, acknowledged retrospectively) often are administered psychological tests when they show up in a psychologist's office because of depressive or other serious mental health symptoms, even if they do not acknowledge suicidality. I see no "fallacy".
"if the Rorschach test were the only tool psychologists had to diagnose mental illness then this whole argument might be turning a different direction, but it's not.": Does that mean that if we have one diagnostic tool that might do a fair job of identifying serious mental illness, then we don't need to worry about the value of another tool that could add to the diagnostic precision or effectiveness? Does that mean if a simple interview can sometimes lead to an accurate diagnosis, then we don't need psychological tests at all?
"If Wikipedia were printing the contents of the DSM-IV then I might question the idea": Do you believe the DMS-IV does a better job of identifying all important aspects of mental illness than the Rorschach? Do you believe that DSM-IV has never had any serious challenges to its accuracy and effectiveness in diagnosis?
"the scoring system is nearly 50 years old": A gross inaccuracy. Take a quick look at the Rorschach literature over the past 30 years. The coding and interpretive system have been under constant revision, including within the past four years. Ward3001 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


The images themselves are not necessary to answer client questions about the purpose, adminstration, use, and interpretation of the test. Professionals talk with clients all the time about the tests they plan to use. But we do not show them the tests themselves ahead of time. We explain what the items are like, or we use sample items that are not on the test. To show them actual items would be unnecessary and could potentially interfere with the usefulness of the data the tests would yield. You don't demand that the College Board let you see all the items on the SAT before you sign up, do you?
Raukodrag, the current system is very current, with the most recent edition of the scoring system being published in 2005. Oh, and the diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV-TR are available (by permission from the publishers) on the Internet already.
What does a professional say? Personally, I say that I find that the Rorschach is a very useful tool for understanding people in a holistic way, and that my experience and that of my colleagues, as well as that of a very large body of scientific research, has been that, although it has rotten face validity and seems almost silly, it turns out to be extremely useful for actually answering the questions that brought that person in for assessment in the first place. No one forces anyone to take any test -- if the kid refuses to participate in the process, then fine, we'll work with the information we can get through other means, and we'll do our best. But we don't generally ask our auto mechanics to explain what wrenches they use -- if you don't trust the professional, find one you do trust.
Hm. I've been restraining myself from explaining more fully about why psychologists want to keep tests secure, but it doesn't seem to be getting through to many folks in this discussion what the nature of the harm is that we're talking about and why we think that WP should conform to the usual encyclopedia practice of not publishing protected tests. Psychologists use tests, not just the Rorschach, but many protected tests, to make high-stakes decisions about individuals. Some of those individuals are seriously mentally ill, and some of them are dangerous to themselves or others. They're very often the folks behind scary or tragic headlines. Test security is protected in order to increase the likelihood that the psychologists can make good decisions, preferably before the headline stage.
Some common examples... 'This individual has a history of violence against his children. He is now petitioning the court to regain custody of those children. The court would like an expert opinion as to whether that is a safe bet.' 'This individual has been hospitalized for suicidality. The insurance company wants her released soon, but we need to have a clue as to how likely it is that she is still a danger to herself.' 'This individual is on trial for a crime, and his attorney contends that he does not understand the charges against him and cannot participate effectively in his own defense. The court would like an expert opinion as to whether he's competent to stand trial or whether he's just faking it.' 'This individual has been convicted of repeated counts of sexual violence. However, he has served his term and is due to be released to the community. The court would like an opinion as to whether he remains dangerous to others and what level of supervision would be appropriate.' Often, what the psychologist finds helps create a more compassionate plan for the individual. While it's never possible to make these decisions with absolute confidence, having more secure instruments helps the process a lot. I'm not trying to raise scare tactics here -- previous attempts to make this point about the nature of the potential harm have not been heard. Mirafra (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Raukodraug, If you are actually concerned about a test, I would suggest discussing it with the practitioner who is proposing it. This is what you might do with an oncologist or gastroenteroligist who is suggesting a colonoscopy. This test is a useful clinical tool, and has shown effects sizes for some things that are higher than tests you trust to work quite well, like the Pap smear (here is the link [6] you can compare the Rorschach and other psychological tests to common medical tests by their effects sizes in that PDF. As others have pointed out above, you do not need to see the images to evaluate reliability or validity of the test. I would again admonish you to discuss any test you are taking with a professional first. I would agree that they should give you a good rationale and discuss any dangers or concerns. You do not need to see the blots for that purpose. The analogy to the SAT above is the correct one. We agree that these test times can remain secret because they serve a society purpose. Others may think that the SAT can be used to keep worthwhile kids out of college, but that isn't the point. As for the DSM (I through IV-TR) these never have been, nor ever will be secret. These are diagnostic criteria and have no strong reason to be protected.Dolphinfin (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanity Check

The Rorschach image debate has went on for years. Repeating the same arguments will never change community consensus. Please check the archives first to see if your idea has been discussed. Unless new points are brought up about a subject consensus on the matter will not change. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, Gary. When new voices appear on this page, the consensus can most certainly change without any new points. It's not just the points that lead to consensus; it's also the weight of opinions. That point was made repeatedly by the proponents of displaying the images before the images were placed in the article. I would agree that there is no need for endless repetition of the same arguments, but when editors who haven't weighed in raise old issues, that's how a new consensus can emerge. Whether or not that will occur is yet to be seen, but please don't try to stifle free expression of opinions here, even if those opinions have been expressed in the past. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong Ward. New points = New weight. We do not assign more weight (logic) to an argument simply because it is repeated. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
While that's certainly true to an extent (to a big extent, per WP:VOTE and WP:CONSENSUS), it's hard to say it's entirely true: if it were, no one would ever cast, say, AfD !votes "per [previous poster]'s reasons", and things like that. Consensus is not in numbers - consensus is, in theory, agreement among all parties involved - but numbers also count, if nothing else because agreeing to disagree is the only reasonable options when virtually all opinions differ from one's own (not saying that's the case here). --LjL (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
To Gary: We don't assign any weight to any argument. If we did, arguments such as "show all the images because the test is complete rubbish" (clearly based on a fringe view, and thus "weightless") which are not uncommon among those calling to keep all the images would strike out the opinions of those who voice them. Yet such opinions are given equal weight to thos eof experts in this field, psychologists.All opinions count. New people have a right to be heard and to share their concerns. Past discussion aren't set in stone. Particularly in this case, where despite your repeated claims of "consensus" there is not consensus because, as LjL has pointed out, consensus is agreement among parties invovled (not all, it's not unanimous, but most). There is no agreement, so there is no consensus. It almost sounds like you're trying to stifle newcomers with whom you disagree. Well, at least you don't try to get them blocked on a false accusation of sockpuppetry as dreamguy has done.Faustian (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly pushing things contrary to policy, Gary. If you were right, the images would not be in the article right now. There were no new points made that resulted in the images being placed in the article. There were more voices that favored adding the images (and even though consensus is not determined by voting, it is influenced by the weight of opinions). And I never said that more weight is assigned because the same editor repeats an opinion. But if dozens of new editors express an opinion (or even fewer in some cases), then consensus can most certainly change. You really need to thoroughly read WP:CON. Stop telling new people here on either side of this issue that they can't express their opinions, even if their opinions have already been expressed by editors who have been here a while. It's insulting to the new editors as well as the spirit of free discussion on Wikipedia. And stop telling editors who have been on this page for years (which includes me) that we can't express agreement when a new editor expresses an opinion that has already been made. You can push your strange idea all you want that other editors should not be repeating opinions, but that's not going to stop it because that's not how things work on Wikipedia. And you can keep telling yourself that new voices cannot change consensus, but that will not prevent a new consensus from emerging if the weight of opinions shifts as a result of these new voices. Your attempt to unilaterally rewrite policy will have exactly zero effect on the way things go here. Let me suggest that you bring up your self-styled revision of discussion and consensus on the talk pages for WP:CON and WP:TALK before trying to shove it down everyone's throat on this talk page, especially the newer members of this discussion, some of whom are new to Wikipedia and may take your false claims seriously. Ward3001 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just stop Ward or bring it to my talk page if you have a problem with me. I a merely trying to forestall endless repetitive arguments that already have consensus. Nothing less. Nothing more. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, no consensus. Hence the "repetitive arguments." that inevitably crop up when there is no consensus.Faustian (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
My problem is not with you personally, Gary. It's with your comments that are directed at suppressing free expression of opinion. So, no, I will not stop if you continue, and I will address my concerns here where they belong because you made your false claims here. Editors, especially new editors, on either side of this issue need to be encouraged to express their opinions, so I will clarify any misleading comments you make here, not on your talk page. And so far, I don't see that anyone here agrees with you that any editor is not entitled to express an opinion, even if that opinion has been expressed before. Ward3001 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Good. I encourage everyone to express their opinions too and hey feel free to bring up old arguments but its my opinion your just spinning your wheels unless you have new points to address. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You, just like everyone here, are entitled to your opinion and to express that opinion, so if you want to think of the rest of us as "spinning our wheels" while we continue a legitimate and (hopefully) productive discussion, no problem. Ward3001 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus can change, but to say there is not a consensus now is simply living in denial. A few people may deny that there is a consensus, but there is and we will follow it regardless of denials. Chillum 22:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You should have written, "A few people follow consensus policy, most choose to ignore it and go for majority vote instead, and will go for what they want regardless of policy and the few who actually want to follow it."Faustian (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You have been telling us what we should and should not be doing for far to long now Faustian. I wrote what I meant to write, exactly what I should have written. I don't tell you what to write. It is clear that no amount of reason is going to sway you, you have your mind set on something and you are not going to give up on it. This argument we are having yet again about consensus has been going on for weeks now, I am tired of it. There is a clear consensus regarding the images, that is why their state has not changed in weeks, that is why they are not going to change.
I have suggested this in the past and I am suggesting it again now, seek further scrutiny towards this debate. If you think consensus is being ignored then draw in outside attention, but don't just keep stating that consensus is being ignored. If consensus truly is being ignored then scrutiny should reveal that. I think scrutiny will only confirm that which you will not accept, that there is a consensus to keep the images. Chillum 01:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As an only-recently-involved party here, I can say I don't see much of a consensus, really. But I don't think "consensus is being ignored", either - there simply is no consensus yet. --LjL (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, since the slashdot article things have gotten a bit less clear. There was a clear consensus before that, but now we have to wait for the dust to settle to see again I suppose. I agree with you that there certainly is no consensus that the images are not appropriate. Chillum 01:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Slashdot article? Now I see why discussion here seemed to be more than a bit frantic. Myself, I came to know about this discussion because I was recently administered a Rorschach test, and being curious, I went to the Wikipedia article, after the test (seriously, it doesn't take so much to realize it's probably not a good idea to look at it beforehand - I certainly did avoid it on purpose!). Anyway, now that I know this, I suppose I'll wait coming back to to this discussion after the noise has settled a bit. --LjL (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
When I first arrived at this article on approx. June 16th, I brought some new ideas and found a few new attributable sources. But I didn't feel much interest. Only disdain and heavy reliance on previous discussions. If this situation is ever to improve it can only do so by first, better recording of the current arguments, and then better listening to the fresh voices of people who join us. They are more objective. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and most of the fresh voices disagree with you... and, frankly, your views are not fresh, as, based upon your edit history and worded, it's clear you're a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of one of the editors who had already been posting here. Your comments are the least fresh of anyone here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are off base with that idea DreamGuy. There are certainly sock and meat puppets around, but I doubt Danglingdiagnosis is one of them. Danglingdiagnosis has been contributing to medical articles since October 2006. This article was young and this talk page had not even seen this debate in October 2006. Chillum 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Chillum. If DreamGuy continues to make unfounded accusations about sock/meatpuppetry about editors on either side of this issue, I plan to make a WP:ANI report. That kind of slander is insulting to all of us and contrary to everything about AGF that Wikipedia is based on. Ward3001 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of attention

The recent Slashdot article, and the several spin-off articles that followed it have generated a significantly larger amount of traffic to this page: Graph of hits per day.

It is a pity that controversy is so much more interesting to people than a well written article. Regardless of how it happened, I think it is a good thing that this article has been given so much opportunity to inform over the last few days. More people have seen this article in the last three days than in the last three months. I sincerely hope we educated those people about the test itself, and not just about this tangential debate.

This talk page actually received more attention from the slashdot mention that the article itself did: [7]. It is a damn shame that this dispute is overshadowing the article. Chillum 01:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that the article is about 1/3 fixed, we probably miseducated most of those people. And that is what we will continue to do thanks to the efforts of those who insist on the page being designed in such a away that no expert would ever contribute to it.Faustian (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, if a few of you put half as much effort into improving the content as you do arguing over images, this would be featured by now. Resolute 03:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
No, Resolute, with or without the image arguments, this article will never be featured. It will never be more than mediocre. Ward3001 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Then, frankly, I fail to see why you waste the time with it. Resolute 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't waste my time with the article. That's hopeless because of the mindset here. I comment on the talk page to let the world know why the article is in such bad shape. Your edit summary said "poor attitude". That's exactly right. The poor attitude that has a stranglehold on this article is exactly why it will never improve. Ward3001 (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
To Resolute: Because we want to improve the article. At least I do, and I have done so while a compromise version was in place. But if the article is harmful - as it is now - we cannot do so. I, personally (and never mind ethical codes), refuse to contribute to a harmful article. Any expert would consider this article as is it is now to be harmful. So the editors who have forced all the images to be here the way they are now have basically placed experts in the position where in order to make contributions they must do so to an article that they know has the very real potential of harming vulnerable people who could benefitr from this test. Guess what? They're not going to do it. Thus, the editors pushing to have the images here are sacrificing a wealth of potential good content for the sake of just getting those images in. Which is more important? Faustian (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well said. Except for some additions by Xeno to help readers understand the perspective that viewing the images could lead to harm, the article has not had any substantive improvements in about two months; even before that very little was added to improve the article for a long time. That didn't just happen by chance. Those who understand the test and are in the best position to make real improvements to the article have been driven away. It's not because Faustian and I are the only psychologists who contribute to Wikipedia or who have seen the article. There have been significant contributions by psychologists in recent months to other psychology-related articles. The reason psychologists don't contribute to this article is because no decent psychologist will try to add credibility to an article that can cause so much damage. Ward3001 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Do decent psychologists really resolve disputes this way? I've got a very difficult adolescent at home, and he doesn't respond to claims from authority (certainly not the psychologist). Explain. I'd be interested. With sources, please. Steveozone (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved in the larger debate (as I have more important and enjoyable things to do, such as smashing my own testicles with a sledgehammer), but it's quite obvious that the people who want the images included care very much about the article not being censored and do not agree with your assessment of the level of harm. Unless your intent is to further divide the two sides and make them more unwilling to compromise, repeatedly saying, "Well we are trying to improve the article, but you keep getting in our way with your refusal to remove the images. Why can't you just give into our demands and stop hurting the article?", is just counterproductive and does nothing but add yet another point to disagree over. 24.76.174.152 (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've got an hour before I bail on non article space for a few days, but I do want to say that I find your positions incredibly disappointing. And I find your blaming of other editors is misguided and intellectually dishonest as the lack of desire to improve the content of this article is of your own making. Faustian claimed that since the article is only "1/3 fixed", it is "miseducating most people". Obviously the images do not make up 2/3rds of the issues, yet you find it easier to complain endlessly about one problem this article has, in your view, than to fix other problems and mitigate or eliminate other sources of "harm". Rather than do some good on this article, you prefer to endlessly argue in circles on the talk page. No harm in that, but no benefit either. Resolute 04:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Ward3001, why would you, as a psychology, contribute to an article about the Rorschach test at all? If you believe showing the inkblots can cause damage to potential test subjects, then surely there's a potential for damage by revealing any information about the test. You don't have an "untainted" subject if they know things about the test beforehand, while other subjects didn't. You should push for deleting this article, and other articles about psychological tests. --LjL (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, your question reflects a lack of knowledge of the test and illustrates why the article will always be in bad shape if experts are not allowed make substantial changes. Presenting an overview of a test does not damage its validity. Presenting test items can destroy its validity. The College Board describes the SAT to potential test-takers, and even provides sample items. It does not provide the actual test items. Ward3001 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Comparting a test like the SAT to this reflects your misunderstanding of it all, I believe. Seriously, this is pure nonsense at this point. --LjL (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You completely missed the point. My mention of SAT is an analogy about the effects of prior exposure of test items. I did not say that the SAT is in any way similar to the Rorschach except for the fact that the two are tests. Ward3001 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, why not petition libraries to remove books on the subject? If people went and looked the subject up they might learn about it!

Sarcasm aside. Ward, Faust, if removing these images is more important to you than making a good article then that is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. LjL, you can try a deletion debate but I think the result would be a consensus to keep the pages. Chillum 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Other way around, Chillum: to you, keeping the images is more important to than improving the article. Basically all experts agree that the images are harmful. You are asking the experts to contribute to an article that they know is harmful. Understandably, they don't want to do so - it would go against their ethics and morals. So by insisting on keeping the images you are creating a situation where an expert cannot contribute. We want a good article. You want all the images, including one in the lead. Unfortunately, the two are mutually exclusive due to the harmfulness of the images. Either a bad, poorly written article with nonsense information but images, or a good article with some sort of way of mitigating the harm (I'm not even calling for complete removal but some way of mitigating harm). To LjL: lots of good information about a test would cause no harm to a potential test-taker. General principles, development, places where the test is used, settings where it is appropriate, general and accurate description of what test stimuli without actual items from the test, basically everything other than the test materials and strategies of cheating or faking. The articles about the Thematic Apperception Test and Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure have been, to a greater extent than the Rorschach article, cleaned up by psychologists.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I am personally not interested in starting such a debate; I merely though that Ward3001 and people who shared his point of view logically might be. --LjL (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no valid reason for deletion so it would not be of any value to request a deletion. Chillum 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, according to you, harm is not a valid reason, and improving the article by removing something that is guarenteed to keep experts away from it are not valid reasons.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly how such a deletion debate would end. Consensus to keep. Not according to me, but according to our deletion policy, according to the community. If you think this is just my opinion then by all means file for deletion and get an education on what people think of the validity of your reasoning. Chillum 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a straw man - nobody is pushing to delete the article. Indeed we want to improve it.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume you have not read this conversation, there is indeed someone suggesting the deletion of this article. That is what I was referring to when you responded to me at 13:56. Chillum 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It was me who said that in my opinion, according to User:Ward3001's stance, psychologists should refuse to work on any article describing the Rorschach test (whether it includes the inkblots or not), and push for removal of such information, as it's only reasonable to assume that, if showing the inkblots may result in harm, then any other description of testing goals, methods, parameters and procedure to potential subjects is likely to taint the test results, as well. --LjL (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
"according to User:Ward3001's stance, psychologists should refuse to work on any article describing the Rorschach test (whether it includes the inkblots or not)": Again with respect, but that is such a gross misrepresentation of my comments that it is absurd. I never said a psychologist should not work on any article describing the Rorschach. If you think I did, please give the diff of the edit in which I said that. See my comment above in response to your question as to why I would work on any article describing the Rorschach (not me saying that). I said no decent psychologist will work on a test article that can cause damage, and this article (with the images) can cause damage. I think your comments were made in good faith, but I would ask you to avoid a previous habit of another editor in this discussion of repeatedly mispresenting others' comments or point of view. Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, that assumption is largely incorrect althohgh if by methods you mean a "how-to" guide then that's another story. An article can be encyclopedic and thorough without being a guide on how to get the "right" answers on it.Faustian (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
But I thought the point was not giving clues on "how to get the 'right' answers". Showing the inkblots certainly doesn't tell you anything like that. I thought the point was merely that anything (including the inkblots) which may likely influence the potential test subject, thus invalidating the results of the test compared to the bulk of data about uninfluenced subjects, were to be considered harmful. Otherwise, why the inkblots but not other potentially-influencing information (like just about anything, not merely "the answers")? --LjL (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not an issue of "how to get the 'right' answers". The fundamental issue is whether the test taker is giving a spontaneous response to an image that he/she has not had a chance to examine, think about, and possibly discuss with others. If a test taker is curious about the test prior to taking the test but unaware that seeing the image prior to taking the test can lead to significantly different results, that test taker may likely visit Wikipedia, find the images, examine them in some detail, think about possible responses, and possibly even discuss possible responses with someone. The norms for the test, as well as the decades of research that have made the test invaluable, are based on test takers who are giving a spontaneous response. Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Any such test giver should assume the patient has had access to these materials and ask them about it. It is all over the internet, and in public libraries, and in book stores. If there was a secret to be kept I could sort of understand this point of view, but Wikipedia's use of these images do not create any new problems for doctors. Chillum 16:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, maybe we can agree to disagree here. If I understand your point of view correctly, it is that Wikipedia has no obligation to avoid any harm that its display of the images causes because the images are already available. I (and others) have disagreed by saying that Wikipedia does in fact cause harm (regardless of whether others cause harm) because it is a frequently-used resource for the general public that might be interested in the test. If I've misstated your point, please correct me. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I was, indeed, asked by the test administerer whether I "knew about" the test before taking it. --LjL (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
LjL, forgive my short memory, but I think you said in a previous message on this page that you intentionally avoided looking at Wikipedia's page on the Rorschach because of concern that it might affect your test results (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, that was a wise thing to do, but unfortunately I think many (if not most) test takers would not have that foresight. Ward3001 (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I believe that's their problem. I'm prepared to see other people disagreeing with my view, but I do believe this view is more in line with Wikipedia's principles, including that of not being censored. Something not being censored does, among other things, imply that if you use it, you should do it with a grain of salt. The Wikipedia:Disclaimers say things to that effect. I don't argue that having the images on the article won't ever cause "harm" to test results; I argue that it's not Wikipedia's business to take care of that. Wikipedia's business is providing as much encyclopedic information as possible. Why would I be deprived of information simply because some people can't realize they probably should avoid looking at testing material before taking the test? --LjL (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We are such a frequently used resource because of our coverage of different topics. I am saying that the test has its problems, and those are the problems of the test. Wikipedia cannot be blamed for this problem the test has because Wikipedia is not the cause of the problem. If the test relies on the secrecy of something that is not a secret then it is just flawed in that manner. You can't expect the whole world to stop sharing information because a construct relies on ignorance of the content of these public domain pictures. Chillum 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree regarding Wikipedia's potential effect on test results ("blame" if that's the word you wish to use), thanks for clarifying your point of view. Ward3001 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Perhaps Citizendium could help?

I long ago stopped following the details of this argument since it seemed unlikely to be resolved in the foreseeable future, but some of the above comments regarding a perception of hostility to experts reminded me of a lot of the stuff that's been said by Citizendium proponents. I've never participated in Citizendium myself so I don't know how it really works over there, but I just checked and they don't have any article at all on the Rorschach test. Now that Wikipedia and Citizendium have compatible licensing schemes, perhaps it might be useful to both frustrated expert and Wikipedia alike to write one up over there? The best parts can then be ported back and forth and merged between the two. Note that I'm not proposing a POV fork, of course, both proponent and critical views would need to be given their appropriate weight in both articles. I'm suggesting this as a way to overcome what might simply be incompatible styles of workflow. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  • An interesting suggestion. So folks could port the article over to Citizendium, removing the images in the process, and work on improving the content free of the concern that they are improving an article that causes harm... And then the folks here could import the improvements... (but wouldn't that still have the same concern, as the improvements at Citizendium would eventually trickle down here...) –xenotalk 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It sounds to me like ethical rules-lawyering. Mirafra (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging from Exner scoring system

It doesn't really look, to me, like the Exner scoring system is WP:notable in itself when untied from the Rorschach test. If I am correct about this, then it belongs to the main Rorschach test article, at least for now; if some day the article becomes too long (including detailed descriptions of other non-Exner methods), then it may deserve being split again, since it's common and accepted to split overly long articles even when it results in non-notable offspring; but that's not the case for the time being. --LjL (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the regardless of the notability of the Exner scoring system, that it belongs in this article as it is so directly tied to the subject. If in the future the information on this scoring system becomes larger it can be split out, but what is there right now would make a great section in this article. Chillum 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I've completed the merger, since there don't seem to be strong opinions either way. --LjL (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on improving this article without triggering pages of controversy, this is an impressive accomplishment. Chillum 02:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Another kind of damage

Beyond the damage caused by exposing the images, there is also potential damage creeping into the article by information that overemphasizes fairly trivial aspects of test interpretation (in the Exner system, that is). This Wikipedia article is slowly reaching the level of misinformation that other grossly inaccurate websites have reached that have made extremely misguided and inaccurate recommendations to potential test-takers (such as an infamous website directed toward parents involved in a custody evaluation; if the advice of that website is followed, the test-taker will give a more pathological Rorschach). I'm sure that those on this talk page who really have only a superficial understanding of the Rorschach will scoff at my comments here with the usual refrain that if I don't agree with something then I should fix it. But I don't intend to get into the endless edit warring and absurd discussions, the net result of which will be absolutely no improvement because the experts here are far outnumbered. So the misinformation, quite sadly, will remain in the article. My only purpose in creating this section here is to let the world hear from an expert that the amateurs continue to erode the article. So reader beware: don't think you're getting any good ideas about how to take the test, unless your goal is to produce a pathological or invalid set of test results. Ward3001 (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia does not directly "give recommendations". If one chooses to interpret its descriptions as such, for some reason of their own, that's their problem.
2) Yeah, the answer is "so fix it", and, no, you won't get reverted if you just follow the long and proven tradition of not removing content but instead adding other content that offsets the "POV" with another (putting "POV" in scare quotes since I doubt it's strictly a matter of POV here, but the concept still applies).
--LjL (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at you LjL (although you are entitled to write in the section). As I said, it is directed at the naive reader who may try to use the article to figure out how to provide "correct" responses (and all the Wikipedia policies make no difference to that reader or the consequences of his/her reading the artcle). Quote policy to your heart's content, but reader again beware, these policies do nothing to remove the misinformation that has been added to the article. Ward3001 (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the reader is so naive (no offense to the reader!) to believe there's a "correct" response they can provide by reading a Wikipedia article, then I suspect that reader will be unlikely to come read this talk page, in the first place... --LjL (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how documenting common answers is in any way a recommendation. If we say "these are common responses" and people read "use these answers", then they are not acting on our content, but their own will. If someone is actively seeking out the "correct" answers, that is their issue. We are providing verified data and describing it in an accurate context. Chillum 00:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Again to the naive reader: I didn't make any reference to "documenting common answers". Ward3001 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the more this debate rages on the more attention we draw to these images. http://stats.grok.se/en/200907/Rorschach%20test It seems like the discussion itself is doing harm to the test now :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reader, look in some detail at this talk page, including the archives. Notice the usernames and the comments. Look in their edit histories to see who has made contributions to psychology-related articles. Get an idea about who might know something about the test beyond what could be found by reading another encyclopedia article on the Rorschach. Come to your own conclusions about whether I (or anyone here) know what I'm talking about. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Being an expert in psychology does not necessarily make one an expert on Wikipedia inclusion practices. So I guess it depends on what one means by "know what I'm talking about". Someone can be very qualified in the field of psychology, but in the field of interpreting Wikipedia's goals, practices, and policies can be frequently incorrect. I for one am glad that interest in this article is increasing, and I am also glad that we are not limiting our information for these new readers. Chillum 00:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at "Wikipedia's goals, practices, and policies". This particular section is not about you or me. It's intended for readers who might consult the page for information and then regret it later. For the purposes of this section, Chillum, I don't care if you think I'm a complete idiot when it comes to "Wikipedia policy". As long as the reader gets the message, then think what you wish about me. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between ignorance and apathy. I am sure you know our policies and practices, it just seems that your own point of view is more important to you than them. I would quote a passage from our conflict of interest policy that is relevant, but I know you are not ignorant of that either. Chillum 01:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again reader, reach you own conclusions about who understands the Rorschach. Not who understands the finer points of Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start a blog if you wish to make personal messages to the Wikipedia readership. We present our content to the readers based on consensus here, we are not in the practice of being a web host for personal opinion. Chillum 01:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, consensus is not necessary to raise an issue on a talk page. Now, I have made my points to readers about being quite cautious about reaching accurate conclusions about the Rorschach by reading this article. And I'll also add for the reader that this little debate about Wikipedia policy has done nothing to remove the misinformation in the article; I just checked, and it's still there. So I don't intend to respond here to an intellectual debate here that has nothing to do with the information I have provided to readers. If you wish to carry on a debate about policy without me, be my guest. Ward3001 (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with Ward's assessment of the current state of the article and its apparent trajectory. Have fun with it. As I said before, my understanding of my legal obligations (the APA ethics code is part of the law in my state) and Wikipedia's policies is that at this point, I literally cannot touch this article. I came to this discussion hoping to find a way to balance the two, so that I could help to make the article more accurate and more useful to the reader, but it seems that other agendas are dominating. Sigh. Mirafra (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's good to see you realize there is a WP:Conflict of interest at work here that (perhaps regrettably, perhaps not, not up to me to say) prevents you and others here from getting involved with certain aspects of the article (I'm not sure, at least from the Wikipedia side, it prevents touching the article at all, but if you say it does from the APA side, then I guess it does). --LjL (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the offending picture. Does Wikipedia have to violate criminal law to press a point about a test whose validity is, at best, dubious? Especially when the described points, if used by as naive reader, will give them a more pathological score than would otherwise be the case?jonathon (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you think twice before accusing editors of "violating criminal laws" like this. --LjL (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
More theoretical harm could come from viewing the Snell eye chart than from viewing these images. What if someone was to see the Snell eye chart memorize it, than fool there doctor into giving them a license when they connot see. They could than go out and run over a young girl or something... Should we at Wikipedia be protecting the world from this possible harm?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a good point. Two distinct kinds of harm arrises from the wikipedia images. One kind is comparable to the eye chart. Just as a person can memorize the eye chart and misuse that information, so a person (say, a pedophile - a lot of forensic psych consults involve those people) could actively use this article to try to "beat" the test. According to you, such cases are not wikipedia editors' problem. As the rules currently stand, you may be right. Does that mean we must should follow them in such a circumstance?
There is another kind of harm, however, in the case of the Rorschach images that is not true of the snell eye chart. It is passive rather than active. It is not merely giving tools that enable people may make personal decisions to harm others. Ratherm, they are harmful in and of themselves. Just viewing the image harms results for the test. Not by memorizing them or otherwise actively using them - just by seeing them. This is differnet from the Snell eye chart. Glancing at the eye chart it is not going to impair one's test; one needs to expend the effort to memorize it, and even then one can say whether or not he can read the letter (with my memory, I always know them when I see a line with my other eye). OTOH one cannot "unsee" an image. In other words, if putting the Snell eye chart is handing someone a loaded gun that they may or may not misuse, the Rorschach image in the lead is pulling the trigger on someone just for opening the page.
If the very fact of glancing at the eye chart would harm its usefulness for the individual, would you still want that image in the lead (rather than some other location so viewers would have an informed choice). Faustian (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, for starters, it has been said by the SPA/ISR representative that the problem isn't really casual exposure to the test, so I personally would dismiss the notion. But regardless of that, no; I would be quite ready to move the lead image to another location, under "Method" for instance, because I don't really see a drawback in doing that (we could use the cover of Rorschach's book in the lede perhaps)... BUT as long as that's not taken as a precedent for censoring images or other information, or for using disclaimers, because it wouldn't be one (but I know by experience some people can very easily jump to weird conclusions, so I'm wary). --LjL (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say the the SPA in User:SPAdoc's name stands for "single purpose account" and is likely not a representative of said organization. We really can't let anonymous editors speak for organizations. I recommended that he contact Wikipedia through official channels if he wishes to act as a representative, however I got no response.
Regarding the lead image, I would only support moving it if a better lead image was found. We talked of this in the past, perhaps an image of the test being administered. Chillum 21:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, Xeno did mention that their identity was confirmed. Anyway, I'm sorry, but I didn't think of bringing a camera... and I doubt the psychologist would have been very happy if I had! ;-) How about something like this, anyway? It has the advantage of showing how the blots were actually created, and I believe the whole symmetry-by-folding-the-paper is very much associated with Rorschach in the mind of several people, so that would be a representative image. --LjL (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Replying out of chrono here to confirm that I verified SPAdoc's identity via email. He is who he claims to be. –xenotalk 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be a very good improvement in my opinion...as would be the cover of Rorschach's book. I do not think it would set a precedent because there are two distinct issues reflecting the two types of harm involved. The second type of harm (from passively seeingthe image) can easily be addressed without removing any images from the article: just show the images after the discussion about what seeing the image is all about. This would not be censorship as the images would still be in the article, nor would disclaimers come into play in this case, as the information about harmfulness is encyclopedic.Faustian (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm concerned that some people in other articles (test-related or otherwise) would start saying "hey look, the folks at Rorschach test did manage to get things changed because something shouldn't be seen by people, so we can also change things for the same reason!". After all, comparisons with the Islam, Muhammed and whatnot articles have been made here (perhaps sometimes knowing little about how things actually went in those articles). So I really, really need to stress I'd accept this "compromise" only because, not seeing any drawbacks to it, I don't see it as a compromise. I appreciate Chillum's concerns that the image should be "good", though - if it's encyclopedically "worse" than the current one is, that could easily be seen as a drawback. --LjL (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with compromise as long as no policies (such as censorship) are violated? I have trouble believing that anything other than some sort of compromise with Muslim editors has kept Muhammad's image off the Islam article. Off the entire article - which does seem to violate censorship policy (can you think of any other reason why there is not a single depiction of the founder of Islam on the Islam article?). If we were to move the image of the Rorschach, the change would be much less controversial than on the Islam article - the image would still be in the article, after all.Faustian (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
We're not on the same wavelength; that's what I'm saying, and the reason why I'd accept this solution to begin with: the image would still be there, there is no major drawback (for me). But I'm also saying that I would really hate this "concession" to be misinterpreted. There's nothing wrong with compromise per se, but in this case, I don't believe the "no censorship" policy should be object of any compromise whatsoever, and so I would hate to set a precedent; as you say, it's not a real precedent since there would be no actual censorship taking place, but people are quick to "misinterpret" things like this.
Now, these people are probably in other articles currently thinking about other stuff, so it may seem pointless for me to say this, but... I say it nonetheless; I'd like to be able to quote myself the day someone wakes up and starts censoring things with the excuse that "you agreed to doing that on Rorschach!" --LjL (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification About the Rules of this Debate

I see that someone has added what they are calling the most common responses to the picture of the first card at the top of the page. I saw no discussion of whether this would be an agreed upon addition. I disagree with the addition of this type of material in that I think makes the article even more harmful to the test and individuals who use the test (practitioners and patients alike). I would like to have it removed, but my understanding is that unilateral removal of material gets you sanctioned and attacked. This seems like a double standard. Am I understanding this correctly that one can unilaterally add material but not take it away from a hotly contested page? If so, this seems highly illogical. Can someone please clarify this issue to me. And I also move to take down the numbers and percents of the responses to card 1 down. Dolphinfin (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What exacty are the numbers representing? It is not clear from the caption. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And I (strongly) disagree with the fact that before adding facts about the Rorschach to the article I should consult anyone. Seriously, sue me. The number are representing frequency, I thought the caption did mention that. --LjL (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Do not get me wrong I think it is okay to at info. The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach inkblot test, with the three most statistically frequent mentioned details indicated. is a little vague is all.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did want to keep the caption reasonably short. How about "with the statistical frequency of the most popular details indicated"? (yes, "popular" is a term used in the literature) (and I'm not getting you wrong, I'm just more than a little itchy about people seemingly saying stuff should be censored) --LjL (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but the term "Popular" in the Exner system has a different meaning (with significant implications for interpretation) than the general use of the word "popular". So again reader beware: much of what you are reading reflects an uninformed interpretation of the concepts rather than actual knowledge of the test. Ward3001 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We say that these are the three most popular detail but what are these details?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh... the ones pinpointed by the numbers? --LjL (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
As to your continued "reader beware", Ward: this is a talk page, not a forum or a bulletin board where to advise "readers" of things. It wasn't even particularly funny the first time. If there's inaccurate content, fix it if you want, go find something else to do if you don't want. --LjL (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong LjL. This talk page is a perfectly appropriate place to point out the problems in the article. Read WP:TALK. So, your telling me not to write here is both inappropriate and pointless. I will make comments about the article on this talk page as I deem appropriate. Ward3001 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
But you aren't pointing out any problems, you're just WHINING that there are problems, while refusing to either address them or explain exactly what they are, because you believe (perhaps rightly) it'd be a WP:COI for you. Enough. "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." (WP:TPNO)
I most certainly did point out problems. I pointed out that the use of the term "Popular" is not done in the way that the Exner system uses it. I pointed out that minor aspects of test interpretation are being overemphasized. Those are problems with the article. If you consider raising issues of legitimate weaknesses in the article "whining", then every talk page on Wikipedia has mostly whining in it. Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Dolphinfin, please see WP:BRD. If you disagree with a bold addition, you may revert, and then discuss. The caution against "unilateral removal" mostly pertains to the images. –xenotalk 13:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't need consensus to perform the regular editorial practice of adding relevant verifiable information to an article. Ward, if we are lacking in detail please fill in such detail. I don't see any actual reasons why there is objection to this information other than more vague references to harm and being uninformed. If the information is wrong somehow then show us how with reliable sources. If the information is right but you just want it held back for some reason then a very convincing reason will be needed(hint, "it may cause harm" is not very convincing). Chillum 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't object to anything, Chillum. I simply pointed out the misinformation so the reader will know that it's in the article. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything; that's a pointless endeavor. I'm trying to help the readers understand the truth about the quality of the article. And no, I can't edit the article for both ethical and practical reasons (the practical reason being that I don't wish to repeat several years of edit warring and worthless discussions that will not result in any improvement in the article). So it's up to you non-psychologists to find, interpret, and summarize the reliable sources. Ward3001 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
So leave us alone. If you "can't" or "won't" touch the article (see WP:COI, then feel free to consider this none of your business, seriously. --LjL (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Again LjL, don't tell me to "leave it alone". My comments are appropriate, and as an editor I am entitled to make them. There is no policy violation. Ward3001 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
An "editor"? An "editor" is someone who "edits". You already said you won't edit, so it's no use complaining without either addressing or precisely indicating the issue you're complaining about. And as for policy, I think "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." is clear enough in WP:TPNO. --LjL (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I am a registered Wikipedia editor. I edit articles on Wikipedia. There is no requirement that I edit the Rorschach article in order to make legitimate comments about problems in the article (and by the way, I have made major contributions to the article in the past). Please show me the policy that says I must edit an article in order to comment on a talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There isn't one, but there is the policy that I just mentioned above, which does tell you to avoid forum/board/blog-like comments. But you know that by now, you've only been told three times. --LjL (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And there is the fact that I have not used this talk page as a forum. Your calling my comments a forum does not make my comments a forum. I have pointed out problems in the article (each one several times now, so don't ask me to repeat the same problems again). Ward3001 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ward, this is the page to talk to other editors, not other readers. If you are not talking to us but instead our readership then you are in the wrong place. You are saying it is misinformation, but you are not telling us how or why. This page is for editorial discussion not protesting. If you think trying to convince us is a pointless endeavor then just move one, don't carry a sign up and down the street proclaiming how wrong we are, or at least do that on your own website. Chillum 14:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again, Chillum. This talk page is for anyone who wishes to read it, including readers who decide to read it after reading the article. And I am not protesting. I am writing about the problems with the article, which is precisely what a talk page is for. It's interesting that after the psychologists were driven away from editing the article, now you are trying to stop us from commenting on the talk page. But Wikipedia doesn't work that way. I am not making my comments for you specifically, Chillum, unless you wish to read them. I am making them for anyone interested in the article. If you don't want to read my comments, feel free to skip over them. And the harder those who have a stranglehold on this article try to push the psychologists away, the more obvious it becomes to the world why this article is in such bad shape and getting worse every day. Ward3001 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This talk page is in fact not a forum or soapbox for discussion of a topic, it is only for improving the article which you appear to have given up on in favor of pushing a point of view. Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech rather it is project to write an encyclopedia. At least start your own thread if you are not going to participate in the existing discussion. This debate is difficult enough without one-way off topic declarations in the middle of a discussion. Chillum 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not using this talk page as a forum. I am pointing out weaknesses and other problems with the article. Your calling my comments a "forum" does not make them a forum. Try as you may, Chillum, you will not stop me from making such legitimate comments on this talk page because I am doing absolutely nothing against policy. If you wish to continue objecting to an editor (who in fact understands the Rorschach) from making comments related to the quality of the article, that's fine, but it accomplishes nothing except to show anyone reading this talk page what kind of attitudes of suppressing information exist here. So it's your choice to either ignore my comments, try to fix the problems that I point out, or continue making pointless comments that are an attempt at suppressing legitimate comments. Ward3001 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
For the Nth time - if you're willing to point out which weakness and problems you find, then by all means do. If, on the other hand, you are not prepared to do that, but merely want to say "there are problems" without either addressing them or even caring to specify what they are, then you're treating this page as a soapbox and a place to make irrelevant statements to some undescribed "readers" (this isn't your blog, you know). And that's not OK. --LjL (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And for the Nth time, I did point out the weaknesses and problems: "Popular" is not used in the article as it is used in Exner's system; minor aspects of test interpretion have been given too much weight. Those are problems. I cannot read the Exner volumes and other sources for you, nor can I reproduce them here. If you need more details about these problems, please consult the sources. Ward3001 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Popular" means responses given more than 1/3rd of the times, according to my sources; that term is using only once in the article (and even assuming for some reason that it's used in the "wrong" way, it can very easily be read as a common term without any misunderstanding at all), so I'm really not sure what you're on about. --LjL (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, clearly you're "not sure what I'm on about". Thanks for pointing that out. That's the point I have been making to readers of the article. Many of the recent edits are not based on a full knowledge of the Exner system. Ward3001 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the readers have surely got your point now. What astonishing arrogance, by the way. --LjL (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I assume by "astonishing arrogance" you mean I may have given the impression that I know more about the Rorschach than some other editors on this page. If the fact that I have studied it for 30 years, read about 300 journal articles and every major book on the topic, administered and interpreted about 600 Rorschachs, and taught the topic to medical students, psychiatric residents, and doctoral psychology students, is "astonishing arrogance," then so be it. That's not an attempt to place "credentials over argument", it's simply a response to the accusation of "astonishing arrogance." I'll assume it's not a personal attack, although I myself prefer not to use the term "astonishing ignorance" because I don't expect someone who has not studied the test to know very much about it. I'll let the readers come to their own conclusions. Ward3001 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I obviously don't see anything wrong with you knowing more than others about this test. That's good, of course. I referred to the fact, however, that you aren't sharing this knowledge, but saying - arrogantly, in my opinion - "go read the sources instead", or "it's obvious" (not actual quotations), while being on a place that would allow you to just go and edit the article. But you won't. So the net result is that you're just belittling others with your knowledge, rather than using it to actually contribute. I call that arrogance, and while I certainly don't mean to personally attack you gratuitously, I do believe this has to be said at this point. --LjL (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
So maybe I have misunderstood. Do you expect me to read the Exner and other sources for you? Do you expect me to reproduce entire chapters or journal articles here in violation of copyright laws when the sources are freely available in most university libraries? And please don't respond with a simplistic "summarize the sources". An adequate summary of the sources pertaining to the problems in the article would quadruple the length of this talk page several times over. I have edited articles outside my field of expertise, and if something I wrote was challenged, I never once told other editors to find my sources, read them for me, and give me the information so I could fix the problems. I either let others fix the problems who knew what they were doing, or I did the heavy lifting by actually finding and reading the sources. Remember, I'm not the one adding the misinformation to the article. Those who wish to edit the article (I would hope) need to do the work to improve the article. Go to the sources. Read the sources. Seek advice for what you don't understand. And then fix the article. Otherwise, your choice is to leave the article as it is, or settle for a mediocre article. Ward3001 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I do expect you to provide precise sources and rationales, if you actually want to uphold my sourced additions of content. Otherwise, you may as well keep quiet. WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it's understood that the article as it stands is not perfect and is going to be improved. Summarizing the sources isn't feasible? Well, but yes, it is, it's called "editing and improving the article": you summarize and cite. You aren't prepared to do that, for whatever reason? Then please, leave those who are alone.
If, in the past, your sourced (were they?) edits to other articles have been challenged or reverted without the person doing that providing sources to justify that, then they were in the wrong, not you. If you have been led to believe the burden of proof is on you merely because you are not the "expert" on a topic on Wikipedia, then you have been defrauded. --LjL (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sources that you can start with are already cited in the article, or find any of Exner's volumes. If you don't find what you need in those I can point out other sources you can read.
"Summarizing the sources isn't feasible? Well, but yes, it is, it's called "editing and improving the article": you summarize and cite. ": So now what you're asking me to do is to make the actual edits on this talk page so that you (or someone else) can then copy the information into the article. Well, no. That would put us back to square one. First, that would essentially be me editing the article but letting someone else put their name on the edit. I can't edit the article, whether directly in the article or by letting others take the credit for my edits. And secondly, I really don't think one editor copying what another editor has written into an article is very good (or honest) writing style. So if you or anyone else wants to improve the article, I repeat that you need to do the actual work. Find the sources. Read the sources. Seek clarification if you don't understand. And then fix the article. It's really very simple.
A final word for now: I don't intend to debate whether I have a right to make legitimate comments on this talk page any further. I debated the contents of the article ad nauseaum, but I don't have to get any consensus for commenting here. So I will continue to comment as I see fit. Others can either ignore it or comment on it. But I will not continue to respond to comments that challenge my right to discuss here or that do not pertain to the issues related to improving the article. And I also have no intention of telling others repeatedly to read the sources. The sources are easy to find. Others can read them and improve the article or ignore them and let the article continue to deteriorate. Ward3001 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why, but no, I'm not "asking" you to do anything. You may choose not to edit the article (or feel "obliged" not to edit it). The point is that that's not my problem, and I can easily keep saying "just edit the article instead of complaining on this talk page". You "can't" edit the article? Fine, then leave us alone! For goodness sake! Go find another encyclopedia that you can edit! Meh. --LjL (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Leave us alone"?? My initial comments were never directed toward you or any specific editor; they have been comments about the article. It's only when others tell me I can't say or do something that I continue to respond. So there's no one to "leave alone". If you stop telling me what I can and can't do or say here, then I'll stop responding. "Go find another encylcopedia"?? No, I'll continue commenting here; you can either read my comments or ignore them. Ward3001 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Or I can keep insisting that commenting in these non-constructive ways ("the reader must know", "the article stinks [but I won't tell you how to improve it]", etc.), because you aren't willing to (or in the condition to) contribute the way a normal editor would, is in violation of WP:TPNO. --LjL (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I will not continue defending my right to comment here about problems with the article (clearly not a TPNO vio), or defending the legitimate ethical constraints that prevent me from editing. But I will continue making comments about the article as I see fit. Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Is there a tag that can be put onto the article, like the nuetrality tag, warning the reader that much of the article is nonsense? Or would that be covered in the disclaimers?Faustian (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a "factual inaccuracy" tag, but, given it'd be (if I'm not too mistaken) stuck with respect to sourced material, it wouldn't survive very long unless you were willing to point out what is factually inaccurate and how to make it accurate. "Tag and run" doesn't really work in this case. --LjL (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If everyone could take personal arguements to personal talk pages it would be appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Ward3001 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am personally uncomfortable even with pointing out the specific mistakes in the article (other than the apparent plagiarism I note below), given that a more accurate article would then be even more of a violation of test security. It feels rather like I am being asked to be an accessory to an ethics violation. I would not engage in sabotage, but I certainly am not compelled to assist in the project.

There are, essentially, two options here. (1) A page that is accurate but restrained in scope, that is informed by the knowledge of experts but that gives careful consideration to the ethical issues. (2) A page that is expansive in scope and is as accurate as the amateurs can make it, without help or hindrance from experts. The professionals have repeatedly offered to assist in project (1), but the amateurs have made it clear that they would prefer project (2), believe strongly that it is more within the realm of their vision of WP, and believe that they are up to the task. Certainly, they've taken up a lot of space saying so.

It's quite a lofty aspiration, and I think that, as with many complex subjects, the potential pitfalls of overincorporation are nontrivial, but, well, I think they've given the matter significant reflection.

Please let us know if there are other pages you intend to treat in similar fashion, because I'd rather focus my time on places where I can be helpful. Mirafra (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to tell us you will not be participating in this article. It is my sincere hopes that you can find an article to edit where your personal ethics are not an issue. Chillum 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra, I understand your concerns about the ethics of pointing out specific mistakes and weaknesses in the article, but I think there's a bit of flexibility in the ethics here. Pointing out the mistakes and weaknesses in the article (1) allows future non-psychologist editors who wish to go to the trouble to find the sources and fix the mistakes an opportunity to do so, thus improving the text of the article and minimizing the misconceptions that are currently promulgated by the article; so far, of course, no one has actually accepted that responsibility, but that doesn't mean some dedicated person might not step in and do so; in any event, however, pointing out the mistakes per se does not worsen the problems already in the article; and (2) it lets readers who move from the article to the talk page know where the problems are in the article so they can reach their own conclusions about whether to trust the accuracy of the article. But I respect your concerns, and I'll certainly listen to anything further you have to say about this matter. Ward3001 (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not meaning to say that any professional coming to a different conclusion about what they feel comfortable doing is necessarily violating the ethics code. I think there's room for difference here. It's just where my personal line is getting crossed. I don't want to be drawn into a game of twenty questions. Mirafra (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have recused myself from articles due to my professional status as well. I sell books. Chillum 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get people to think about a more generalized agreement about secure tests is that, even more so than for the Rorschach (because of the copyright thing), to create good pages for those tests is likely to be at least facilitated by some access to the secure sources. That means putting in some careful thought about how to explain things in a way that is clear and comprehensive to a lay reader (on the logic that a professional reader would go to Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook and the like long before they'd come anywhere near WP) and that also respects test security. I don't think the two goals are necessarily in complete opposition. We can talk a great deal about what a test measures, a certain amount about how it does so and why, and certainly all anyone could want to know about various forms of validity and reliability, without publishing test content. We do it all the time in testing reports. I like talking about tests and how they're built -- it's an area of geekery for me. But if the open hostility towards the tests themselves or to psychology as a discipline (as I saw in this discussion) is going to result in active vandalism of other tests, too, then I'd rather leave the test articles the way they are (most are just stubs or even nonexistent, or what's there is just copies of the information available from the publishers' websites) and work on articles about theory and therapy. My guess is that the Rorschach is, well, a Rorschach, or at least a lightning rod, for various popular anxieties about psychology, and IQ tests are never going to be uncontroversial, but that no one has the kind of emotional investment in most of the other tests. Certainly their talk pages are a lot quieter. Mirafra (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Mirafra, I don't have any specific pages in mind right now (although I've been categorizing psychological test articles a bit lately), but yep, I'm definitely going not to feel restricted in adding encyclopedic content that I feel appropriate and that no guidelines advice against including, to any article, psychology-related or not. I'm definitely not going to restrain myself and avoid adding some otherwise relevant content just in order to not upset the "experts". --LjL (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
As I stated previously almost 50% of physicians use Wikipedia to look up clinical information. I assume the same would apply to pyscologists. So I think it is more likely professional readers will come here before they march of to their local university library to dig through the stakes.
The number of pyschologists who have visited this talk page is also proof of the frequency they are using Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that psychologists don't use WP. But the information a psychologist would want to know know in order, say, to decide which of several competing tests to order, or to understand what is written in a report about the results of a test they're not familiar with, does not require breaking test security. Like I said, there's an overwhelming amount of good information appropriate to an encyclopedia reader that can be shared with no ethical concerns at all. Mirafra (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The part that really turns my stomach is the concept of "appropriateness to an encyclopedia reader". The idea that it wouldn't be up to the reader, but to you (a general "you"), to read or not to read some information, is so totally, utterly extraneous to my mindset. --LjL (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a combination of information for a broad audience. There is information that a general reader would like to know; such as what do these ink blots look like and what do people think they are. And hopefully information that would help refresh the memory of a professional. Therefore censorship and attempts to restrict the scope of this article goes against the purpose of Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes LjL, I agree. The whole concept of "I know that you should not know this" is a rather unpleasant and self-important idea. Chillum 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It does not fit well with the Western psyche. Having a group try to tell use what we may and may not know is sort of big brother / communist like. Reminds one of the novel 1984 (book)
I am sure many are now going out of their way to see these images specifically because a group is trying to restrict access to them. This discussion persists partly because it deals with the question of intellectual freedom. We will never agree to return to the dark ages.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing unpleasant or self-important about seeking restriction of information in certain cases. I wonder if some of the outrage about daring to want to keep some information private has to do with normal rebellion against authority among younger people. In experiments involving new medication, would you support, for the sake of the principle of no restriction of information, informing subjects whether or not they are taking placebos? What would doing so mean to the utility of those experiments? Nothing good. Would you, doc james, for the sake of "intellectual freedom" support someone trying to distrubute information about who is or is not given placebos in experiments also? I suspect not.
By their very nature psychological tests (not just the Rorschach) require unfamiliarity with the material to work effectively. This necessity is pretty narrow, basically limited to the test stimuli themselves and the answers to the test. People seeking to limit the stimuli aren't arrogant in doing so; they want to minimize harm to the test takers themselves should they come across the images, and to society in general. As pointed out, tests are useful in terms of helping predict suicidality, risk to oneself and the community, etc.Faustian (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is deemed unethical to tell a patient they are getting a drug and to give them a placebo even though the placebo may help them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, not in controlled double blind experiments, not really (although I'm pretty sure in those cases the subjects know they may be given a placebo, though they don't know if they actually have).
Faustian, don't you see how there can easily be a difference between the "ethics codes" of a group and those of another? They have different goals. Wikipedia is not about conducting double-blind tests with placebo, it's about providing information and knowledge. And as I said above, you give placebo to subjects who know they're partecipating to an experiment, anyway, not just to any patient who's asking for actual medication. That'd be fraud. --LjL (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
We are not seeking to misinform readers by showing fake inkblots and claiming they are the real ones, so comparisons to fraud are inapropriate here. My point here was not about ethics but about the claims of arrogance on the part of those seeking to limit harmful information or comparisons to the dark ages. And ethics codes are not some sort of game played by people within the field, or buraucratic regulation. They exist for a reason - concrete prevention of harm. Although all psychologists here seek to limit the info not all of those seeking to do are psychologists. Danglingdiagnosis, for example, is not. Seeking to limit information in the form of test materials is no more arrogant than seeking to limit information in terms of telling test subjects they are taking a placebo, or for that matter not putting up people's social security numbers and home addresses, in which case one can eaily argue that it is freedom of information and that if someone wants to do something bad with the info it's not the poster's problem (wikipedia at least has explicit policies against posting personal info, but that's a much less obscure topic than psychological tests).Faustian (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You were the one talking about fraud with regards to this article. I was talking about fraud with regard to the possibility that patients might be administered placebo without them being aware of that possibility.
A comparison I find bogus, on the other hand, is that with personal information. They're simply not encyclopedic in most cases (and when they are encyclopedic, they do get added, that's called a WP:BLP; we have those). But here we're talking about hiding scientific and prima facie encyclopedic results. About limiting research to those already in the field. About making it impossible for curious amateurs to obtain actual genuine (rather than "similar" fabricated) information. Sometimes I almost think it's ultimately a matter of preserving a caste, but I hope not. --LjL (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, you are making statements about "preserving a caste" that indicate that you see the motivation has to do with something other than causing harm. The only results which ought to be hidden are those specifically that would harm people. Results about test validity, on whom the test would be useful or not are not an issue here. For every curious amateur who will never have to take the test, there will be some who will and who came upon the page and were forced to see image that may not have wanted to see (perhaps not knowing, before coming to this page, that seeing the images would impact their test results). There are btw ways of addressing this problem without removing the images from wikipedia. Taking the image out of the lead, where anybody who comes upon the article is forced to see it, would be one step. But there has been no effort to do so on the part of the majority. It's not about arrogant people trying to keep their secrets because they think they're better than everyone. It's about people seeking to limit harm.Faustian (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, although I hate to bring up "national security" (because I think that much of what is restricted under that aegis probably should be unrestricted or at least subject to a lot more public oversight than it has been -- there I suspect that we agree strongly), I'm willing to concede in principle that there are times when that kind of information might be relevant to restrict.
And another example, perhaps the closest analogy. Forgive me if I get minor details wrong, but as I understand it, most computer systems have a set of permissions and privileges. People who have demonstrated the ability to do useful things and not cause too much damage are allowed to gain greater levels of access. Ordinary users don't get that kind of privilege. Sometimes limitations to access are made by a good-faith agreement (you'll note that I made no attempt to remove information from the Rorschach article or from any other testing article, because I recognized that to do so would have been unnecessarily contentious), sometimes they are made by actual forms of lock and key (passwords, etc). And people can often move from one level of privilege to another -- there are different means by which that happens. For instance, WP has a system by which people become administrators and gain additional privileges, such as the ability to block a user who is abusive. In general, people gain access to privileges by demonstrating to those who already have the privileges in some formal or informal way that they are both competent and trustworthy. People who gain access against the will of those granting access are viewed as doing something bad, particularly if what they do is intentionally or unintentionally destructive (writing viruses, etc). It's a guild structure, just like psychology, just much more informal and with much more fluidity of role.
I don't know that there is a huge push to publish all of the passwords and methods by which computer systems could be trashed. Certainly, I'm sure that there is plenty of academic discussion about methods (I seem to recall quite a kerfuffle a while back around some MIT students who published a paper on how to abuse the MBTA Charlie Card system), and I would hope that the folks passionate about exploring psychology's secrets are just as passionate about publishing detailed information about the ways in which computer systems can be compromised. I can see how vigorous dialogue around these things could be helpful in improving computer security over time. But someone who published information (say, a username and password that would give open access) that would easily let someone trash WP itself would probably not be too well-accepted on WP, no matter how many times they claimed that WP is not censored. That's not an academic discussion of methodology, that's just inviting people in to screw things up.
Where the analogy breaks down is this. Computer systems are much more agile than psychological test systems. We can't just "change the passwords" or "rewrite the protocols" when something is somewhat compromised. (We do have a system for blocking users who abuse privilege, but even that works quite slowly by computer standards.) Or rather, we can, but to do so requires many many years, many many dollars, and many many extensive research studies to be re-done, before we can have a hope of restoring the system to its previous state. I've been involved with the relatively simple process of updating and renorming standardized academic tests (revising is easier than writing new, and academic tests are much easier to develop than cognitive or personality tests, because the constructs we're trying to measure are much better understood and agreed upon) -- even that takes several years and big bucks and thousands of volunteers. The process is being done all the time (and there is research being done on how the new position of the Rorschach in the public domain may be affecting things), but it's slow, slow, slow.
The more that folks actively try to compromise tests, the more frequently this process must be done -- that has the effect of bogging the researchers down in the process of continually creating new and potentially unreliable and invalid tests to replace the old ones, which pulls resources away from other potentially more useful research tasks (like, say, doing research into which therapy methods are most effective for helping people get better, once we've used the tests to help us figure out what the problems were). Also, decreasing the useful lifespan of a test has the effect of reducing people's willingness to spend that kind of money to do it at all, thus making the problem worse rather than spurring innovation. That's why we're generally asking people to choose to play nicely, to talk about the tests in ways that can be comprehensive, encyclopedic, critical, thoughtful, interesting, and useful, without compromising the security of the items and answers. Not because we hate you, or think we're better than you, think you can't handle the truth, are trying to control you, or any of that nonsense. We're just trying to be allowed to do our jobs without interference. Anyone who is truly interested is welcome to come study -- it's a field that has many career-changers (I'm one myself). Mirafra (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"I don't know that there is a huge push to publish all of the passwords and methods by which computer systems could be trashed." - here you are very mistaken. In information technology, there is actually a huge push to try exploiting systems and publishing the security problems found; there are whole organizations dedicated to this. Breaking cryptographic systems is actually a key component of the whole research about cryptography, and there have been several prizes in money put up to encourage people to try and break a new system, in order to hopefully gather evidence that it's secure, or otherwise realize it's not before there is damage.
Perhaps it's because I'm much more into computer science than psychology that I see your mindset about this all the more extraneous. I do believe the winning mindset in science is much more like what I have described, though.
(As for national security and the idea that content on Wikipedia should be analogous to security levels in either government stuff or general computer systems, I won't comment on that because I would go way too offtopic). --LjL (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I said "I don't know" because I don't know the details of it. I'm pretty aware that the field of computer security works in the way that you describe. My point is that psychology cannot work that way -- it's just logistically impossible. Mirafra (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Too bad. And that's Wikipedia's problem again, because...? --LjL (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
ethical conduct, or the lack thereof. If a psychological test was a computer, compromising the security means having to re-invent the computer hardware from scratch. Starting with something that preceeds the abacus.jonathon (talk)
That didn't happen to computers to such dramatic extents, but it has to some extent, think cryptography. Computer scientists were generally glad that 1) they had something new to invent (yay) 2) they'd found out about the security issues with what they had. --LjL (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Jonathon has the point exactly. Thanks for making that clear. Mirafra (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, one of the reasons security software engineers make their code publicly available is so that it can be vetted and hardened. Security through obscurity is a myth, it is surprising how relevant this is to the current discussion. Chillum 02:00, 25 July 2009 (

As a Princeton grad in social psychology ('70) I will weigh in that the test is pseudo science and hopefully this publication will hasten its demise. The MMMPI (also now widely available online is the next target to undercut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilo2tango (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 July 2009

General agreement to move the inkblot debate to a subpage

See: Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 8#Propose moving "removed the inkblot" debate to a sub page

My reading of my query regarding moving this debate to a sub-page in the interests of giving this article breathing room is that it was for the most part accepted. I would like to quickly confirm this before going ahead and doing it. I feel this is a neutral move that is in the best interests of the article. Discussion can continue, but it has become so large that it cannot share its space with other topics. Please, just re-iterate your feelings on this idea so that I can take action with the desire of the community in mind. Chillum 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Which threads are you going to move? A lot of them are dormant and should just be archived in the usual way. –xenotalk 15:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the debate actually about inkblots anymore? Unless I'm just overreacting, it seems to me like the (textual) additions I recently did to the article are being attacked with claims that they should be subject to censorship. What do we move? --LjL (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and moved the active discussions to /images. I adapted the top notices from the Muhammad pages, but I think they could probably use some more tweaking. Feel free. –xenotalk 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, the page loads much faster now. Chillum 17:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism?

Parts of the page appear to be copied without attribution from http://www.rorschachinkblottest.com/inktest.php. Mirafra (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Which parts? Chillum 02:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that some of the first paragraph is common in content with the link you gave. It is attributed to "Gacano & J. Reid Meloy 1994", I wonder if perhaps both Wikipedia and this other website share this common source? Does anyone have access to this source to confirm? Chillum 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There may be a lack of attribution, but it's more likely the website not attributing Wikipedia. That paragraph existed in our article since its genesis in 2003 [8]. The website is dated January 7, 2007; here is our article just days prior [9]. Look familiar? –xenotalk 02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me, really, just happened to notice it. The Gacano and Meloy book is highly technical, intended for readers already expert in Rorschach interpretation. Not sure why basic statements like that would be in it. Mirafra (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Lots of sites copy stuff from wikipedia without attributing it to here.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, yes a lot of people copy our work without attribution. 2003, not bad. Chillum 03:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Silly peoples... They just better hope they're not in my classes... I'm a serious hawk on those things. Mirafra (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

More misinformation

For what it's worth to anyone interested, more misinformation, overemphasized details, and information that is distorted because it has been inserted out of context continue to creep into the article. So if anyone in the future wants to fix these problems, look at the time this message was posted and review all edits made in the last 24 hours. Exner's volumes are the best sources to locate the explanations needed to clean up these problems. (And I have no intention of arguing about whether this is a legitimate comment -- it is -- or whether I have an obligation to fix the article -- I don't -- or whether my identification of the problems is accurate -- it is.). Ward3001 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

{{hat|Extended discussion on style of above suggestion}}

I do wonder, though, why you think that the readers and editors at large here are so stupid that they won't read this article critically or refer to the sources in case they need validation of the information they find by themselves, without you pointing out such obvious things to them. --LjL (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a lie. If you lie about me again I'll consider it a personal attack. I don't think readers and editors are stupid. And if the problems are "such obvious things", they never should have been put in the article in the first place. Try to bait an argument all you want; I don't intend to argue. Ward3001 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've decided to reframe it as just funny. And an interesting illustration of the power of the Rorschach to reveal personality. Mirafra (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Geez Ward, that criticism is so vague I cannot do anything constructive with it. You say there are things wrong with the new additions but you do not say what specifically is wrong. Is it that the information is factually incorrect, or that you just don't think it should be in the article? For someone who does not want to argue you sure are taking a contrary stance fairly often. Chillum 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll repeat I'm not arguing about this, so it's likely that this is my last comment in this section. Read my comments in the previous sections. I've been through this matter repeatedly in previous sections. I cannot legally reproduce the sources here. I will not read and summarize sources for other people, especially if the summaries would be extremely lengthy. I cannot ethically do the necessary rewrite on this talk page and let someone else copy it into the article. I have stated in general terms that the recent edits add misinformation, overemphasize details, and distort information by taking it out of context. Someone who truly understands the Rorschach, especially the Exner system, can read the edits, read my comments, and very quickly realize what I'm talking about. For someone who has little knowledge of the Rorschach, it could take hours of explanation to even begin to explain it. The very fundamental problem here is that a person who has not studied the Rorschach extensively cannot read a few pages out of a book (and not even know if it is a decent source to begin with) and then try to write something in the article that makes sense or fairly represents the subject matter. And I'm sorry, but I can't help that someone with little or no real knowledge of the Rorschach is attempting to add information to the article. I have very little knowledge of astrophysics, so if I look around for a book on the topic (and have no idea if it is worthy source), read a dozen or so pages (and maybe or maybe not understand it in the context of the entire field), then try to edit the article, it would stand to reason that my edits likely would be quite problematic. That basically appears to be what is happening here, although I can't assume how much any particular editor here has read about or understands the Rorschach. So the only solution, if someone is willing to step forward and do so, is for someone to do what I have repeatedly said needs to be done to fix the article. Someone needs to find the best sources on the matter (in this case, Exner, Volume 1), read the sources in detail, seek clarification for what they don't understand, and fix the problems in the article. But please, Chillum, with respect, don't give me a "Geez Ward" (although that may have been done in good faith) as if I am creating the problem. Don't blame the messenger when the messenger (me) did not make the problem edits to begin with. This is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit. That doesn't mean that an editor has any idea what he/she is doing, but I'm afraid I can't change that. And I can't change the ethical constraints on me. But I can point out the problems with the article, which, as they arise, I will continue to do. Now, that's probably my last word on this matter because I don't want to get into an endless argument, especially one virtually identical to the ones in some of the sections above. Ward3001 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you keep repeating "Exner Exner Exner" (not saying that's not a good source, it certainly is), may I point out to you that Europe, for one, by and large does not employ the Exner system? --LjL (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You got that tidbit from the Wikipedia article. It's a misleading comment. Other systems are more widely used in Europe than in America, but the Exner system is the most extensively used system worldwide, including Asia and Europe. With respect, your very comment reflects a profound lack of knowledge. I don't expect someone who hasn't studied the Rorschach to have much knowledge about it, but please don't assume you know what you're talking about just because you read it in the Wikipedia article on the Rorschach or you read a few pages out of a book. Ward3001 (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No, not really, I got that from the many sources I've read through these past days. I barely noticed it being in the Wikipedia article. I'm Italian, and the Italian version of this article also says the same thing (and one would assume it'd be written by Italian people more or less familiar with Rorschach), for what is worth. Also, keep in mind that, while no disrespect was taken, starting a sentence with "with respect" doesn't really add any respect to it. --LjL (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're wrong about the relative frequency of Exner compared to other systems in Europe, and I'm not arguing any more about Exner in Europe. That's my last comment about that particular point. And I'll use "with respect" when I choose to use it, whether you understand my meaning or not. Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed, "with respect" did not really help that comment avoid sounding incredibly condescending Ward. Chillum 00:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
With respect, you're probably the least constructive contributor to this debate I've encountered. --LjL (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting into name calling and other personal attacks, as LjL has now successfully made a personal attack, which I'll again dismiss as done in a somewhat heated discussion. But my caution stands. Stop making personal attacks. And, Chillum, if you consider my comments condescending, all I can say is that they were not intended to be, as I don't consider it condescending to point out why I think someone who does not understand a topic (including me) would find it very difficult to make good edits on a topic. And that's my last comment on the "condescending" and "with respect" issues. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And mine was not intended to be a personal attack. You're simply not being at all constructive, and that's hardly an attack but a sad observation. --LjL (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
And I'm not giving in to argument-baiting. Ward3001 (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Why did you even start this thread if you don't want to discuss it? Chillum 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
For the same reason that most threads are started. To point out issues, in this case problems, with the article. Arguing is not the same as discussing. I'm not arguing, including with you about this particular point. Ward3001 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, fine. If you are willing to discuss but not argue, will you use the art of discussion to enlighten us to what specifically you object to? Simply casting dispersions vague criticisms on what had been done by other editors is not helpful if you cannot offer a solution, or at the very least be specific about what you are referring to. Nobody can help address you concerns if you do not properly communicate them. Chillum 02:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean "aspersions". I have not cast aspersions, and I would ask that you not characterize my behavior with that description (I won't say "with respect" since you find it offensive when I do, but I honestly intend no disrepect). It is not casting aspersions to point out a problem in an article, and to point out the underlying basis for the problem (i.e., one or more editors making edits without adequate knowledge). Note I have not said that anyone is stupid, dumb, or other derogatory term; I have simply said that it does not appear that someone making some edits has the adequate knowledge to do so; that's not an aspersion; as I said, I don't have adequate knowledge to edit many articles, but it would not be casting an aspersion to point that out if I made problem edits. And I would make the same comments if Jimbo made the edits, or if Freud came back to life and made the edits. It's nothing personal about the editor; it's simply a fact of someone making edits that have problems. This point, however, is not something that I will argue with you about; if you consider it casting aspersions, then we simply disagree. Ward3001 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I did use the wrong word, though I also did not mean aspersions. My point was than your criticism lacked a constructive element. You are clearly objecting to something, but it is not clear specifically what. There have been a lot of changes recently and all you are saying is that we don't know what we are doing. That is not helpful towards improving the article. Please just be specific with your concerns so that they will at least have a chance of improving things.
You seem to be saying that nobody can be qualified to make such edits, so tell me why, tell me what is wrong with them. Yes I know you don't want to argue about it, how about we discuss it? Chillum 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Give me the diff in which I said that "nobody can be qualified to make such edits". Someone who has read and understands Exner Vol. 1 most likely can fix the problems. And see my response to Xeno below as to why I have given the limit of what I can ethically give about the problems without playing 20 questions about each specific word in the problem edit, which is tantamount to me doing the rewrite one word at a time, which I cannot ethically do. I'm not repeating this again: to fix the problems, read Exner Vol. 1. I can't do that for you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
When you listed off how all those people including Freud himself would not have the adequate knowledge to make such edits, I figured that is the point you were trying to make. I suppose it is that Freud did not read Exner Vol. 1? I don't think there is a problem with the additions, so I don't see why the burden of fixing them should be on me. Chillum 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Give me the diff in which I said Freud would not have adequate knowledge. You figured wrong. I said IF Freud made the edit, I would have responded the same way. And beyond that, I was making an analogy; the point is that I was not personalizing my criticism of the edit. It doesn't matter who made the edit; the problem is still there. And I never said the burden of fixing the problem edits is on you. You figured wrong again. I said that anyone who wishes to fix the edits, whether you or anyone else, needs to read Exner Vol. 1. It would help tremendously to cut down on the unnecessary discussion here if you would not assume you know what I'm thinking (e.g., Freud) and if you would not read meanings into my comments that are not there. Now, unless you make some more inaccurate comments about me, I think I have discussed these particular points enough. Ward3001 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving unhelpful sections?

I'd have no objections. --LjL (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Vagueness is not the criterion for archiving. If a section is not edited for a certain period of time, archiving might be appropriate. But it has only been a matter of minutes since this section has been edited. If it is archived within an inappropriate time frame by anyone except an admin, I'll unarchive it. Ward3001 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, archive it. It is completely unproductive and the purpose of this page is only to improve the article. What is the point of that section Ward? You make complaints then refuse to discuss them. Chillum 00:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm revising my point here. If someone wants this archived, seek that action by an admin. Xeno would be a good choice; I trust Xeno's judgment. Otherwise, if it is archived inappropriately I'll first unarchive it, then if the archive is repeated, rather than edit war I'll seek action by an admin. Ward3001 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume that by an administrator, you mean other than R. Baley or myself. I also trust Xeno to make the determination as to if this section furthers the purpose of improving the article(the only appropriate use of an article talk page). It does not now, however if you decided to be a little more specific about your objections it could still be salvageable. Chillum 02:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would not include any admin involved in the discussion because that would be overstepping one's role as an admin. I thought admins knew not to take such actions if they are involved in the conflict, but thanks for raising that point. And you are wrong that this section does not further the purpose of improving the article (that is the very reason I created the section), but this is another point that I will not argue with you about. Ward3001 (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think Xeno is not involved in this discussion(because R. Baley seems far less involved), or is it simply that we both trust his judgment? Archiving a page is not an administrative action anyways. Administrators don't get special authority to decide such things, they just have a few buttons that they use in furtherance of policy and consensus but that is all. Otherwise we get the same say as anyone else. Chillum 04:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's true we both trust Xeno's judgment. But Xeno is not involved in this dispute about archiving. If he were, I would not suggest that he should be the admin consulted about this issue. And I never said archiving is an administrative action or that an admin does not have the same say as anyone else. Ward3001 (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well there is no point in making another two pages of debate in favor of archiving a couple pages of debate. It really is hard to keep this page down to a reasonable size. Much of this talk page lacks content relevant to improving the article. Archive it, don't archive it, but I can't keep not arguing with you about it. Chillum 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right. There's no point in having a useless archive debate subsection that adds unnecessary length to the talk page. And I haven't been arguing. Interesting that I repeatedly have said I don't want to argue and now you conclude that we shouldn't be arguing. Glad you finally agree. Ward3001 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually he said he can't keep arguing, he didn't say anything about you. --LjL (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know what he said because I can read. He concludes that he can't argue. I have said repeatedly that I will not argue. The general conclusion is that we shouldn't be arguing. Ward3001 (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I said "I can't keep not arguing with you". This thing you call not arguing seems very much like arguing to me, but whatever it is called I can't keep doing it as it is not helpful to the article. Chillum 15:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If I have been arguing, it is because you and LjL have repeatedly tried to personalize this section into issues between the two of you and me. I would have been perfectly content to make my initial statement in this section, then let the chips fall where they may as to whether anyone wishes to read the sources and fix the problems. But I have been challenged and pushed every time I point out a problem edit. And if no one responded to my initial statement, most likely in a week or two it would have been archived. As Xeno suggested below, everything that came after my initial statement in this section is pointless. I didn't ask for the arguments or try to provoke them. They were thrust on me; perhaps I should have simply ignored you and LjL. That may be what I do if this situation arises again. So please be aware: if I ignore the two of you in the future, that doesn't mean I agree with you or accept what you have to say as valid. Ward3001 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

|}

On ethical concerns

  • I don't think the section needs to be archived (I've collapsed it, though), but it would help, Ward, if you were a little more specific. There have been a good number of changes in the last 24 hours. I think the pointless arguing could be archived to the page history, i.e. just removed wholesale. For the record, I no longer consider myself to be "an uninvolved administrator" in that I've been editing the article, and also participating in the debates. I have tried to remain neutral, but I would no longer take administrative actions or make edits with an administrators' hat (like the ones I made in late May). –xenotalk 15:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC) strikesuperscript added about 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Xeno. The most problematic edit is this one. By no mean is that the only problem edit in the article, but that is the only major edit in the 24-hour period that I referred to above, which is why I thought it was clear which information I was referring to. I hope you can understand why I can't fix the edit myself (for ethical reasons), and why I can't do the rewrite here so someone else can then copy it into the article, and why explaining the problems with the edit to someone who has not read Exner Vol. 1 would more than quadruple the current length of this talk page. Someone who has read and understood Exner Vol. 1 will quickly know why I consider the edit to be such a problem. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the edit that contains the significant problems and ask anyone who wishes to fix it to go the best source, read it, and fix the problems. If that cannot or will not be done, the only suggestion I can make to improve that edit is to remove it completely. That's about the only way to deal with overemphasized details that can lead to misleading conclusions. Similarly, randomly pulling a few bits of information out of the context of the entire interpretive system and placing them in the article can lead to misleading conclusions; if it wasn't for ethical restrictions, I could fix those problems with a bit of rewriting, but I can't tell anyone how to fix that unless they comprehend the entire context of the interpretive systems. If neither of my suggestions to fix the problem will be done, then the only other possibility is to leave the misinformation in the article, but that doesn't mean that I cannot or should not point out that there is a problem. That is exactly what a talk page is for. It's up to others (either now or in the future, possibly by an editor who has not yet read this) whether they wish to heed my suggestions. The basic problem is that we are dealing with incredibly complex material that apparently has been written about without very much knowledge of the context provided by the interpretive systems as a whole. My analogy of me trying to write about astrophysics applies; I don't understand the field of astrophysics, so if I pull random information from writings on the topic without the proper knowledge to explain it, I will make some problem edits. As Mirafra said, just as it is unethical for me to edit the article, it is unethical for me play 20 questions here simply because others do not wish to go to the trouble to read the sources and fix the problems. And finally, to the others who have repeatedly criticized me here (that does not include Xeno), this message is in response to Xeno (and I'll be happy to respond to inquiries on my talk page from Xeno). I don't intend to respond to others who only make the same arguments with me that have been made above.
And I agree that almost everything that came after my initial statement pointing out that there are problems is pointless arguing. I have no problem if that is removed, but not my original statement at the beginning of this entire section. Ward3001 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand your ethical concerns and why you feel you can't edit the article directly. Please don't take this the wrong way, but have you considered the suggestion above, to fork the article (without the images) to a wiki with a compatible licensing system? In this regard, you could create an article that you felt accurately represented the Rorschach test as it is used today without worrying about it causing harm due to misinformation and/or too much information. Of course, with proper attribution, editors here would be able to import your work. I'm not sure if this would still present an ethical dilemma for you. Other than that, I think formal mediation may be helpful, which I've suggested below. Perhaps someone with a background in psychology with the time to read through these sources and help ensure accuracy is being maintained and expert opinion is given consideration in the article. I simply do not have the time to research these volumes and make an informed comment about your editorial concern.
The unfortunate thing is that anyone with an "expert" level of expertise in this subject is likely going to share your ethical concerns - even to the point of withdrawing their voluntary service to the article. I wonder though - is it better to have an article that harms any future tests the reader may take doubly?... both because they have been exposed to the images and misinformed about the test and the way it is conducted? It would compound the harm exponentially. It seems to be in the interests of greater good to participate in the editing process directly to mitigate the harm of misinforming the reader, even as other editors have made the decision to show the images. Jmho. –xenotalk 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I did notice your earlier suggestion about Citizendium. I can't claim to have much knowledge of Citizendium, but some things concern me (if I am mistaken in any of this please let me know). First, Citizendium requires actual names to edit. Given the level of animosity on this talk page (my impression of it anyway), I don't care to be targeted personally by some Wikipedia editors who could easily make the connection between Ward3001 and my true identity if I edited Citizendium. Secondly, if some of us create an article without the images at Citizendium, others here could then easily add the images to that article, and we're back to square one.
I understand what you're saying about double harm (images plus misinformation). And it is certainly true that the potential for harm has increased even after the images were added because of bad information added to the article. But my understanding of my professional ethics is that I cannot lend whatever credibility I would to an article that has so much potential for harm. I do, however, think it's appropriate for me to point out problems on this talk page as best I can, which is what I have been trying to do, despite being challenged every step of the way. I really think someone without formal training in psychology could improve the article if they went to the trouble of reading enough information to understand it. Ward3001 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think people will easily be able to add the images (or other content psychologists won't like) on Citizendium, as there is a concept of an expert original editor: see Citizendium#Policies and structure for more information about that. On the other hand, you do need to provide your real name, precisely for Citizendium to be able to verify that you actually are the expert you claim to be; otherwise the whole construction couldn't work. I do think you would like it, though, given the emphasis you seem to place about actual expertize on the topic at hand. --LjL (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, expert oversight (on some topics anyway) in some ways will produce a superior encyclopedia, all other things being equal. Google's Knol also has some potential in that respect. But my concerns about some Wikipedia editors targeting me personally concerns me enough that I doubt that I would edit a Citizendium article on the Rorschach. But that might be something I sugguest to some colleagues. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I figured the desire for continued anonymity would be a major limiting factor. I don't blame you for not wanting to give it up. –xenotalk 19:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of recent additions

Like Ward says he's not talking to me, I'll make it clear I'm not talking to him. I'll just ask everyone else, though, if they want, to check the sources I've provided for that edit about determinants, see how there is a "Determinants" chapter in one of those sources (so a whole section about them is hardly unjustified; if anything, more section should be added about other things that are probably as relevant), and ensure that I have not introduced statements that were not actually in the sources. That the sources are wrong is something that I cannot exclude, but it seems to me that they meet the requirements for reliable sources; if Exner contradicts them, though, that might not necessarily mean that they're wrong, because they (and the section I added) are not really about the Exner system specifically. --LjL (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh - those sources are all on Google Books, so it should be easy to check them out. --LjL (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes LjL, I don't see any problem with the sources you have presented. If another source is contrary, or simply provides more context then we can represent that as well. I don't see Ward saying what you posted is wrong, I see he says it is overemphasized and could lead to misleading conclusions. It seems his concerns are more with a lack of context than with accuracy, it is hard to tell since his ethics prevent him from playing 20 questions. Since Ward does not want a response we will just have to proceed without him. I do not object to anyone adding context or alternate reliable and verifiable points of view in the interests of being informative and neutral. While this would improve the article, I also think that the recent additions are an improvement in their own right. Chillum 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Formal mediation filed

was: Formal mediation?

The heat in this conversation has risen considerably since the slashdotting. I think that pursing formal mediation may be a good next step in this debate. (I realize other forms of mediation have been tried in the past, but perhaps this time we'll actually follow through on it?). Unless someone objects to mediation in the next little while, I'll see about having someone lend us a hand. –xenotalk 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with an outside perspective. I'll also point out that the slashdotting is not the only thing that brought additional opinions to this talk page. The Society for Personality Assessment picked up on the problems (and not by any suggestion by me); SPA has a good communication network. That has undoubtedly brought some editors in who have not commented in the past. Thanks for all your help here, Xeno. Ward3001 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I fully welcome any outside perspective on these series of debates. We really do need some sort of structure for these debates so that we can get to the other side of them. A debate is fine and well, but it should reach a conclusion at some point and I think mediation may help that. It is clear that without any sort of outside guidance that we are not making much progress. Chillum 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in formal mediation very much, but I do welcome outside opinions. I have a question for Xeno about whether this is an appropriate issue to include: "Is it acceptable for experts (call us "self-identified experts" if the term is objectionable) to point out specific problems edits, the general nature of the problem (e.g., minor details are overemphasized that can lead to erroneous conclusions), and possible reliable source(s) that address the problem(s) identified, BUT without the "expert" violating his/her professional ethics by giving specific details about how the problems should be fixed? Or, on the other hand, are "experts" not allowed to point out specific problem edits if the experts cannot (because of ethical restrictions) give more details than what have just been described?" (Basically what I have done recently but met with resistance.) If that is an acceptable issue for mediation, how should it be added to the mediation page? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Neither have I, Ward. I'm not even sure if it can move forward at this point; one of the participants I added has already declined. I did include Other concerns related to disclosure of test material, as a "catch-all" to the issue you described. Though, I'm sure people won't mind you pointing out problems you see as long as you can be somewhat specific. i.e., a layperson should be able to follow the evidence and fix the problem. –xenotalk 20:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest adding SPADoc as well, and sending him information about what this all entails, since he's very much a newbie. Although he's not a high-volume contributor, he's someone whose voice should really be heard.
Ward, I think the issue of how you would like to involve yourself or not in the editing of the page is a very specific thing. I would also respectfully suggest that the process you're suggesting (you tell people where the problems are but refuse to fix them) is going to be seen as against the culture of WP -- not that I'm much of an expert on that, but it seems that it's not being very well-received. Plus, I think it does get very easy to get drawn into 20 questions. Anything you could say that would be clear enough for a layperson to follow up on would be perilously close to simply making the edits. I know, it's tough to have to sit here and watch this happen, especially to something one is passionate about. (Puts a new spin on "security through obscurity," eh?)
Also, I would like to formally request that Dreamguy refrain from name-calling and other verbal abuse, especially if he's going to participate in mediation. Everyone he's accused of being a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet recently (since I've been in this dicsussion) has been shown not to be. I have found the tone of many of his comments to be offensive, putting a strain on my ability to assume good faith. Mirafra (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
If SPAdoc wishes to add themself as a party, they can do so. –xenotalk 03:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Who has been shown not to be? Chillum 03:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I don't follow? –xenotalk 03:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Mirifra has said "Everyone he's accused of being a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet recently (since I've been in this dicsussion) has been shown not to be", I was wondering who has been shown not to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I know we are assuming good faith for a few people, but I don't know of any suspected account to have shown themselves not to be a sockpuppet with the exception of danglingdiagnosis who is clearly not a sockpuppet(has been editing medical articles since long before this debate in 2006, should never have been accused). I think the jury is still out on a few of these new accounts. Chillum 03:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It's kind of a wide net, that. By Wikipedia's definition, a meatpuppet could be any psychologist who joined the debate strictly to argue against display of images whose colleague mentioned it to them. And with the case of Zeitgest and Psychology12345, we know that colleagues are discussing Wikipedia's decision to display Rorschach images (sometimes getting misidentified as sockpuppets!). Maybe even on a board or mailing list somewhere. I don't think there's any sockpuppetry going on, though. –xenotalk 04:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't share that confidence of yours. I do think there is sock puppeting going on, and I think it has been demonstrated that there is meatpuppetry going on. Regardless, it does not really matter in regards the mediation. Chillum 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
My point is that the continual attacks along the lines of, "Well, I can't answer your substantive points, so I may as well claim that you don't have a right to an opinion," have really gotten in the way of having any real dialogue. Walking into mediation with that attitude openly displayed is not great for either showing that one is assuming good faith nor for evoking a desire to assume good faith in others. When doing, say, family or couples therapy (which has a lot in common with formal mediation in that the goal is not to impose an outside solution, but to encourage the warring participants to engage in real dialogue with each other so that they can move forward), one of the first things a therapist would do would be to put a moratorium on open and implied personal attacks. This is an article about a professional topic. The psychology professionals should not be getting told that they have no right to an opinion just because there are more computer geeks than shrinks editing this psychology page.
Glancing back through the archives, what it looks like has happened is that a large number of professionals have come here, tried to talk about issues, and been driven away by the process- and policy-oriented nastiness. The "consensus" you keep speaking of seems to have been, in part, engineered by virtue of the technique of yelling at earnest and well-intentioned people who disagree until they give up and go away. I know, people are entitled to stay or go as they please, but most people, especially those whose jobs are such that we don't get to sit on computers all day, will tend to have limited tolerance for an environment which does not welcome thoughtful dialogue.
Meanwhile, the fact that the goalposts keep getting moved is just not good for any kind of feelings of good faith. I note that recently, the argument was over the presentation only of Card I, while now the presentation of all ten cards plus various information purporting to be about common answers is the facts-on-the-ground. Mirafra (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Is that (the last part) to imply that, if you had it your way, we'd have to get your "permission" or "approval" before adding any content, including textual content, to the article...? If so, that's a slightly unreasonable expectation in my opinion.
Also, i "like" yhow you put it as "purporting to be". It doesn't "purport to be anything" but what it says: frequent responses, or, as the source says, the "table of Beck's populars" (want me to change it to state exactly that?).
--LjL (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is not fair to imply that we have not given due consideration to those who wish the images removed, we as a community have heard out their arguments over and over again for about 2 years now. We have addressed each of their points more than once, more than twice. You may find the reaction to these points souring as they are presented a third, fourth, fifth, and even nth time. Nobody likes to eat the same meal every day, and the same debate can be just as tiresome. It has been weeks since an original argument has come about(other than fork to citidenzium(sp?)). The only people who have been chased off are those who cannot deal with not getting what they wanted. Those capable of dealing with not getting what they want are still here.
Many of the people who have come here and left were single purpose accounts created for just this debate, when they don't get what they want in this debate they have little other use for Wikipedia, you can also assume some of these single purpose accounts are the same person. Also, several of these professionals have left due to their own private ethical concerns.
Regarding the increase in content on this page, that is a good thing. At Wikipedia we want the informational value of the article to increase. You say "purporting to be about common answers", do you have any indication that this information is not correct? I have seen some people post objections to it claiming a lack of context, but is it actually wrong? Chillum 13:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I cannot play 20 questions. I have already said that there are numerous incorrect and misleading statements on the page, and that I do not feel comfortable making any statements identifying which ones those are. I continue to feel that the quality of the page to inform any reader would be increased (and its obscurity would be decreased) if the professionals were allowed to write within our ethical guidelines. Actually, from my point of view, the whole thing is kind of funny.
Regarding chasing people off, it seems to me that if you keep hearing the same arguments over time and keep running the people who make them out of town, that those arguments should also be considered as a form of serial consensus. Consensus shouldn't be formed on the basis of who is willing to take the most frustration and abuse. There's been a large "professionals not wanted here" sign put up on this page, and I've said I'll respect that, even while thinking it ludicrous that people who couldn't even get my jokes could write a decent page on the topic. Wandering around, I see that this is not a novel problem for WP. There's this weird "us" versus "them" dynamic, where professionals are being seen as not part of the community -- that quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mirafra (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think Ward said he could not play 20 questions, not you (although I suppose it might be relatively clear the same would apply to you). --LjL (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Your insistence on not being specific with your concerns makes it unreasonable for us to address them. Also, who exactly has been chased off Mirafra? Nobody has ever said "professionals not wanted here", you are basically making that part up. What we have is a situation where we are not obeying the commands of professionals, we have not been swayed by their arguments, that is very different than not welcoming them.
When did you say you would not play 20 questions? Ward said it a few times, but I don't remember you saying you would not play 20 questions.
I am sad to see that you think our attempts to write the article are ludicrous, and even sadder that your ethics prevent you from being constructive here, it is also a bit of a shame that those ethics don't prevent you from popping by and telling how much you disapprove of us. Chillum 15:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Good God Almighty people! Read the damn talk page. Mirafra said he would not play 20 questions. I got the phrase here from what he wrote. The insipidness of this particular point is a very good illustration of what this article has sunk to, and continues to sink. Ward3001 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my ethics require that I take at least some reasonable steps to try to maintain test security. And I've been trying to convince y'all to work with us so that we can write a better page together. I see that you're uninterested, and I hope you enjoy the prospect of teaching yourself everything there is to know about this very complex test and its 90 years of research history, and then explaining it all in clear language for the reader. I think it's a fool's errand -- not that it can't be done, but to refuse to engage in any constructive dialogue with people who could actually help you is ill-advised, and we're seeing the results of that. An introductory course on Rorschach administration and interpretation is generally a year-long doctoral-level course, that comes after one already has other training in test administration and interpretation. Mirafra (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Dialog would be wonderful, but you are telling us that your ethics make you not feel comfortable making any statements identifying what is wrong. I can't see why you would accuse us of refusing to engage in constructive dialog when you just finished stating your ethics prevent you from doing so yourself. Chillum 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that I couldn't talk with you under any circumstances. I just can't talk with you under the current circumstances. I'd be breaking the law in my state and jeopardizing my livelihood. If we can come to some kind of agreement that allows me to talk with you, I'm happy to do so. Mirafra (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Letting us know what specifically you think is wrong with the article and how it could be improved would be a good start. Chillum 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I've said already that I don't believe I can do that without further contributing to the violation of test security. That's the whole problem here. What I think needs to be done is that the article needs to be rewritten by someone who actually understands the test. But those of us who do are bound by professional ethics (which in many states are also state laws) to protect test security. I believe that the article can be made much better, much more informative, much more clear and accurate, but I cannot contribute to that process while other editors insist that test security cannot be respected. Mirafra (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
In other words, make it completely hot air that's well-written enough to trick people into thinking they've learned something about the test when they actually have not?
If this sounds too sarcastic, it's merely because I'm wondering: given that from sources I read, even stuff like the examiner asking "was it color that suggested that to you?" rather than just "which aspect of it suggested it to you?" would ruin the test results... how can we say anything at all real/meaningful/informative about the test without "breaking" it for readers? I'd really like that explained. --LjL (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems like you are saying Mirafra that we cannot create an article up to your standards because the only people capable of doing it will not? We will just have to use our own standards in place of yours. Chillum 22:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
That's painfully obvious, Chillum. It has reached sub-encyclopedic standards already (and I don't just mean Wikipedia's standards). How much lower do you plan to go? Ward3001 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep on disparging Wikipedia on Wikipedia, way to go. --LjL (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't refer to Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia has some superb material in it. I was just commenting on the sad decline of the Rorschach article. But, keep at it. We'll see how it looks in a week or two. Ward3001 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the "and I don't just mean Wikipedia's standards". --LjL (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And how is that disparaging Wikipedia? Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I have seen the article improve significantly over the last few days. Chillum 01:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That's my point. The article sinks lower and lower. You think it's an improvement simply because it has more words in it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You on the other hand are not willing to tell us what you think is wrong. You leave us no route to address your concerns. Until you tell us what you think is wrong and why I cannot do anything for you. I grow weary of your insulting commentary on the hard work of our volunteers. Chillum 02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about what you can do for me. It's not about you and me. I'm talking about what has been done to this article. You grow weary? I grew wearing of the flashing neon light "No one who understand the Rorschach allowed" long, long ago. Weeks and weeks ago, Chillum, you predicted that other psychologists besides Faustian and me would rush in to fill the void. So now it seems that LjL is your "psychologist". Congrats! Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I think LjL is doing a fine job. The only complaints about his work are inarticulate due to a complete lack of detail. Chillum 02:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course you think his edits are fine. You understand the test about as much as he does. Like I said, he's your "psychologist" now. Tell me, are the two of you planning to seek university positions teaching personality assessment? I'd love to see your resumes. Ward3001 (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you almost done belittling us? Do you realize how obnoxiously condescending you sound? I would far rather have a non-export that actually improves the article than an expert who while refusing to contribute still shits on everyone else's work. Way to go. Chillum 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
He refuses to contribute because you've set up a situation that forces him not do. Rather odd that you complain that he doesn't, having insured that he cannot. Obviously in this case the only way the article is being improved is that it is becoming bigger.Faustian (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is forcing anything. It is his own choice not to edit. We are simply not obeying commands, and if that is the condition for him to edit that is his problem. Chillum 23:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting logic. You create a situatuion where no expert can controbute because no expert will controbute to ana rticle that harms people. Then you say it's the expert's choice not to controbute. While your decision to make those conditions is what...not your choice? So there are two deicsions here. Yours - to force an environment where experts do not lend their expertice. And the experts - to not contribute to an aticle that causes harm. Whose problem is this? Well, it's wikipedia's problem and the article's problem when experts don't contriobute. And this is reflected in the article's poor quality.Faustian (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm criticizing the edits, not the editor. I avoided mentioning the username of any specific editor in my earlier criticisims, except some here kept pushing and pushing for specific details. So I gave the link to a specific problem edit, which unavoidably of course reveals the username of the editor. Now I'm told that I'm "belittling" editors. You can't have it both ways, Chillum; you can't ask for specific information and then get upset when I give it to you. If I had given you even more specifics (such as how to fix the edit), I have no doubt you would have become even more upset. The game you play is to give anyone who has more than a superficial knowledge of the Rorschach a clear message that their opinions about the test are not welcome here, then when an inferior edit is made and we criticize it, we're told that's not acceptable either. The message: the non-experts will edit this article as we please (even though you have little knowledge of the test), but don't dare criticize us; just let us keep pretending we're doing a good job. Do you realize how obnoxiously arrogant you sound? And I also would like to have a non-expert improve the article, so I'm still waiting for that to happen. I've even gone on record in an earlier edit by saying that it might be possible for a non-psychologist to fix some of the problems IF that person would go to the trouble to find and read to appropriate sources. And by the way, where are all those other psychologists that you said months ago would step in and improve the article. I was bracing for the stampede, but all I hear is silence. Ward3001 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh please. I'm the only one who's edited the article lately, so it was obviously clear to everybody you were referring to my edits. And that's also quite clearly not what Chillum was referring about with the "belittling", but you should know that already, too, if you just re-read your comment.
And let me guess: Chillum would be upset if you told him "how to fix the edit", because that would involve removing the edit or anything that gives any actual information about the test which you deem would "taint" it - is that it? (considering basically anything correct said about the test could skew its results according to literature, I guess so.) --LjL (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of info that could taint the test, either correct or incorrect information would do so. More relevent here, the test would be tainted whether the information was properly integrated/described or if this was poorly done. No insult meant towards you whatsoever - I think you are doing a good job given your lack of expertise. Your additions are what one would expect from a very intelligent person with no professional knowledge about a subject dealing with sources largely written for professionals. They're probably better than what would happen if I got a bunch of textbooks written for physicists and tried writing an article about particle physics or whatever. If improvement equals volume, then there is improvement as Chillum seems to feel there is. What seems to be happening is that this article will eventually consist of pieces of accurate information mixed up and misdescribed in a way that results in an inaccurate picture of the test. This info will add up until the article will reach a respectable length of semiaccurate realistic-sounding stuff that will seem to be quite encyclopedic for people, some of whom contribute to the talk pages here, who have no clue about the test. Doc James has noted that physicians often check wikipedia for stuff. There is apparently a group of physician-editors on wikipedia who check and fix medical articles. What a wonderful thing. Here we are doing the opposite - creating conditions that insure that no psychologist will fix or edit this psychology related article, even less use it in any meaningful way. The Rorschach entry will be strictly for readers with no clue about the Rorschach, who after reading the article will still not have much of a clue (although taking some of the inaccuracies at face value they might think they do) but whose tests will nevertheless be compromised in some way because the test is harmed whether the person gets accurate or inaccurate information. Improvement, indeed.Faustian (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll add to Faustian's comments. Not only have conditions been created that insure that no psychologist will fix or edit this psychology related article, an atmosphere now pervades that psychologists are not even allowed to criticize non-psychologists' edits. This unfortunately deepens the illusion over time that the article has a lot of accurate, properly contexted information to the naive reader. Ward3001 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
But look, it's as if an expert politician and government officier from Foo (a prominent country) came here and told us that some of our articles about politics are woefully incorrect; however, he's only prepared to help us fix them if we remove all information about Bar, a rival country that his country won't recognize (and that maybe he genuinely believes harmful for people to know about - after all, the very ethics of his party plainly tell him it's harmful). Would we do that? Of course not. It'd be unfortunate that an expert cannot help us, but the requested price would be way too high to pay. --LjL (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple of points. In the case of the Rorschach, harm is genuine, no need for quotes (unless you believe that the consensus within the field is utterrly wrong about the field itself). And although the images are obviously accurate the other stuff the experts object to is not. And the inaccurate stuff is much larger in volume than is the stuff that ought to be removed. So the expert politican would ask that you remove a little bit of information in exchange for fixing a much larger amount of infromation, with the result that the net amount of accurate information will be much larger. Sounds like more than a fair trade.Faustian (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's really where we don't agree. I'm not willing to "trade" censorship of information (however you want to define it). As to the harm, I've already made a comparison (which you interpreted the opposite way than I intended - but that's hardly surprising since we aren't quite in agreement) with computer security. Revealing information may to harm if you only look at the short term; however, I do believe that science progresses, in the LONG term, by revealing as much information as possibly to as many people as possible.
[By the way, I didn't put "harm" in quotes, but in italics :-P]
--LjL (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that psychology works differently than computer science. The nature of the beast is that advances take a long time. Psych tests take years to develop and the knowledge is cumulative. Meaning, a discovery made in 1970 results in further inquiries and discoveries in 1972 based on what was found in 1970, etc. until you have hundreds of studies representing accumulated useful knowledge. If you reset it by spoiling a test all that work (and the beneift derived from it) is wiped out too. You start over. And what for? Not a better test,s ince the utility of a test depends on the amount of research that went into it and you've ruined one that had a lot of research, resulting in the need for a new one which will be much less researched. This is completely different from the case with computer programs and security. As has been described in this thread: [10] by reporting some of this information you render it obsolete anyways.Faustian (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, psychology and computer science aren't the same thing; I wasn't really trying to say that, but rather express my point of view, my philosophic point of view if you like, that science in general benefits from information sharing to the widest possible extent. This is why I totally endorse the way Wikipedia policies and guidelines treat the issue. I don't expect you to come to agree with me about this viewpoint, but merely to realize that it's a pretty natural viewpoint for a Wikipedian; also, while your psychology-specific objections are very clear, and I don't have a direct answer to them, I'd like to point out that even in other disciplines (including computer science, for that matter), people could have - or actually have - made the same reasoning that you do: "we'd ruin this thing that's been carefully built in years by making it public, and there's no way to make a better one that doesn't suffer from this problem". They found out it wasn't really true, because eventually they did find other ways to make things so that obscurity wasn't a requirement; but realizing that did take "destroying" what was previously there by making it public. --LjL (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This illustrates the problem with being inflexible and applying general rules to specific situations. You are absolutely correct that in general science benefits from information sharing to the widest extent possible. But here is a specific case where it doesn't. On the contrary, it is harmful for the reasons outlined and in this case the general rule of "as wide open disclosure as possible" and advancement of science are mutually exclusive The reason for this is that psychological tests are in their essence experiments and follow experimental conditions, which have the general rule that the test subject does not have full awarenesss of the experiment. By following the general rule of full awareness you are forcing a violation of the rule of experiment subject blindness, essentially rendering that specific type of experiment (psychological test) useless. Most of the information that it has produced previously has become obsolete and the test ceases to have the ability to add more information. This obviously is all very detrimental to the advancement of science. This is true in direct proportion to the amount of information distributed and the accessibility of that information. The type of information that is harmful is rather limited - the test stimuli and specific answers for the test. Is it worth destroying a test for the sake of describing these specific and limited aspects of it?Faustian (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
But is it really that limited? Is "full awareness of the experiment" limited to that? I have my doubts. If a potential subject reads that color may be an important part of responses, my logic tells me they'll be more likely to give color response; and some psychologists seem to reach similar conclusions. Seriously, the Rorschach isn't really a controlled blind experiment if someone knows anything (true or untrue, accurate or mistaken, as you pointed out) about it beforehand. And we darn sure are going to tell a thing or two about it on Wikipedia. --LjL (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You are correct. Whether the information is right or wrong, it will ruin the experiment (psychological test). Given that the people adding the info are, with all due respect, intelligent amateurs, a lot of the info is put together in a way that is wrong anyways (half accurate is wrong in my book). So for the cost (ruining the test) we don't even have a very accurate article. The information that ruins the test is quite limited however: the test materials themselves and the answers (right or wrong).Faustian (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Err, I think you sort of missed my main point there (the information being right or wrong was an aside). What I was saying is that I don't really think the "information that ruins the test" is limited to test materials and answers, given that specifying such things as there being a concept of a "color response" may easily bring people to give one when they otherwise wouldn't.
(I'll add to that that, while the test materials might be "protected" in some fashion by being published on a very limited number of books, the "right or wrong answers" - i.e. popular content responses - are published on a lot of books you can find for free on Google Books, because the copyright owners have granted permission. I really do believe it's paradoxical to suggest that should be withdrawn from Wikipedia.) --LjL (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Color response" would be an answer of some sort, which is why I didn't address it in my previous message, although it seems to me to be vague enough that it would be relatively harmless. People are probably as likely to produce a response involving color after seeing a colored card as they would be reading that there are such a thing as colored responses. More troubling is putting in specific answers or examples. With respect to your comments on googlebooks - putting together a bunch of info found on googlebooks into a wikipedia article is going a long way towards ruining the test, in direct proportion to the expisure this article has. A lot more people come here than to googlebooks, and gathering the info into one place also adds to the damage. I know I'm being repetative here, but again, the harm exists regardless of whether that information is integrated and described accurately or not. And so far, quality is about what one would expoect from an intelligent person trying to put together info about which he has no experience or knowledge. Pretty poor. So what you'll have is a poor to marginal article full of half-inaccuracies (again, no offense meant), and a spoiled test. The only winners seem to be those for whom this issue has become personal, and who see this as a game in which victory means having their way article quality-be-damned, and those who are somewhat fanatical about one principle (maximum information) which for them trumps article quality, harm and other concerns. The losers are the article whose quality suffers, science involving this test, and those who benefit from its use. I understand that you plan to say "a thing or two". Just don't pretend you are doing anything other than harming scientific research. Faustian (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact I'm trying to write an encyclopedia here, I don't really care what effects it may or may not have on scientific research. When you do scientific research, do you care what effects that may have on encyclopedia? I mean, maybe a huge encyclopedia has just been sent to the press with information about something scientific, and just then you make a new ground-breaking theory that changes everything; the encyclopedia will have to reprint, and lose enormous amount of money. HOW could you not think of the harm done to the poor encyclopedia? :-(
But all jokes aside, above you're seriously saying that, in your opinion, this article should be created by putting together sourced information form books. You do realize that in that case, this article may as well not exist, because that is exactly how articles on Wikipedia are made? --LjL (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so you don't care about the effect on scientific research. The problem is that the scientists who would actually make this into a decent article by clearing up inaccuries, intepreting the complex source material, etc.do care. The result is that your approach has a negative effect on the encyclopedia too. You've got an article about a complex psychological test which no psychologist will touch. What would wikipedia articles on complex matters related to medicine look like if no physician contributed to the effort? Kind of like this. It's a bunch of information that is semiaccurate which may impress someone else who knows nothing about the topic but which looks pretty bad to anyone who actually knows the subject (I think that 4 experts at least have already described this article in this way). I'm not sure what you mean by your second point - maybe your lack of clarity in response to my comment is a reflection of my own lack of clarity. What I meant was that an amateur, however bright, with no specialized training or knowledge on a specialized difficult topic, trying to put together complex material gathered from googlebooks, is not going to put together a good product. I know nothing about computer science. If I decided to write an article on a complex topic within the field of computer science based on my attempted reading of graduate level computer science textbooks or manuals I accessed though googlebooks or elsewhere, the results would probably be semi-accurate nonsense too.Faustian (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason why I don't seem to care about "psychologists not touching the article" is twofold. First, I believe Wikipedia's greater good trumps the good of this particular article, if I may put it this way. I'm really not willing to create a precedent where experts are allowed to "blackmail" other Wikipedians by stating they'll stop contributing en masse unless the content meets some particular conditions on the agenda. Second, I'm pretty confident that some expert or another will eventually just not care about these ethics and contribute anyway (a retired psychologist, for instance?).
As to my obscure second point, it simply seemed like you were saying that an article on Wikipedia (or at least this article specifically) shouldn't be created by putting together information from book sources. But that was probably not what you meant, since I'm sure you know that is how articles are done, and supposed to be done. --LjL (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that there will be a precedent because the reasons the experts cannot contribute here is very specific. I cannot think of a hypothetical situation in which experts in another field would be forced to behave this way. It seems to me that you have a tendency to want to generalize and create Principles or Laws even when some situations are specific. And I'm not sure that "blackmail" is a very nice or fair way of describing the fact that experts committing to helping people and furthering their scientific field will refuse to contribute to an article that harms people and harms the scientific process. If I refused to vote for George Bush because of the Iraq war, was I atttempting to "blackmail" him to do what I want or just following my conscience? I don't think that a word such as "blackmail" should be used so lightly. With respect to some other expert eventually stepping in and contributing - well, how likely do you think it is that upon retiring a psychologist will decide to contribute to something that harms people and science? People don't follow the ethics code just to avoid trouble - there are moral reasins underlying it. This article has already appeared on the wikiepdia psychology noticeboard. No psychologist came to fix it, although a few came to condemn the compromise of the test and staetd that they would love to fix it if the harmful stuff was appropriatly dealt with. The most likely scenario in which a psychologist would fix this article would be if eventually someone in the minority who doesn't like the Rorschach. In that case, the article will come to resemble not the semi-accurate mess it is now and will increasingly become, but one with huge WP:UNDUE issues - the equivalent of an article on Global warming written entirely by the minority of scientists who don't believe that global warming is man-made. Either way, bad for the encyclopedia.Faustian (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's very unlikely a retired psychologist would contribute to the article. As Faustian said, we don't just follow an ethical code to stay out of trouble. The code of ethics is written by psychologists, not by some outside authority imposing it on us. Furthermore, most psychologists don't retire suddenly. Most maintain their license even after semi-retirement. The fact is, almost any psycholoigist capable of making good contributions to the article would see the image as soon as they open the article and immediately conclude that they will not touch it. That's why the inflow of psychologists that was predicted some months ago to step in and work on the article has never materialized. And to make it worse, if the psychologist bothers to read the article, he/she will see the jumble of information that has accumulated in the article, realize things have gone awry, go to the talk page to see what has been going on, and rather quickly see the "Psychologists not welcome" signs that are all over the talk page and archives. Not many psychologists want to step into that mess, regardless of the image. Ward3001 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I concur. Mirafra (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a big difference between choosing not to edit, and not being welcome. Nobody is preventing psychologists from editing here, if some decide not to edit because we don't follow their ethics then we will just have to do without. Nobody is being excluded however, no matter how many times you claim so. Chillum 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That's as far from the truth as I have ever seen. If psychologists are so welcome here, why aren't they showing up and editing (And please, it's not because they aren't on Wikipedia; I've edited with at least a dozen psychologists, and I'm sure there are many more.) First, psychologists were excluded when the image was inserted at the top of the page. Then, when the text of the article was made worse and we tried to simply point out that certain edits are problematic, we are roundly criticized for even daring to critique anything added by a non-psychologist. It was even threatened that such comments would be removed (and probably that was avoided only by the comments of a level-headed admin). The message, not just to those of us already on this talk page, but to any psychologist who happens to read anything here, is quite loud and clear: "Psychologists not welcome here. Don't challenge non-psychologists. The non-psychologists will do it their way." I was even told to go away and edit somewhere else. So the comment "we will have to do without" is not quite accurate; it should be "we will do it as we please; regardless of what's best for the article, we'll write this article as we wish and everyone else should just go away." Ward3001 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to believe that you aren't intending to say that psychologists aren't welcome. However, I agree with the other psychs that the climate of this talk page is certainly having the effect of having a large neon sign saying, "no shrinks need apply." Looking back through the history of this whole discussion (in the request for mediation), I see that this climate has been fairly persistent over time, and it seems to have had the rather consistent effect of getting psychologist-types to leave. So, consider this friendly feedback, offered both in a spirit of good faith and in the assumption that you are also operating in good faith and are actually interested in having input from psychologists... whatever you think you're doing, it ain't working. Mirafra (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You can say otherwise till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that psychologists are welcome to edit here. Chillum 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That has some accuracy to it. It's true that psychologists can try to reason here until they're blue in the face, and then they're told to go away. Chillum, where are the psychologists you said would step in and edit here? So far I've counted ... none. That speaks volumes more than your trite repetition "psychologists are welcome to edit here". It's one thing to give lip-service to that "welcome". It's altogether another matter to set the tone and atmosphere so that psychologists don't take a look and then run away, which is obviously what they've been doing. Ward3001 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Lots of people don't get what they want around here, not just psychologists. If not getting what you want makes you feel unwelcome then that is your problem. If you simply accepted that you are not getting what you wanted and move on like most people do then you would not have these problems. I don't always get what I want around here either, it does not make me feel unwelcome.
You keep asking me the same question, the answer is that it does not really matter. We take what we can get and we write an encyclopedia with those volunteers. I don't go around asking other editors what they do for a living because it is not relevant to how we make decisions, get it? Chillum 01:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
All we have done is not obey the commands of a few people, we are not picking on any group of people. Chillum 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Chillum, you can't seem to comprehend something about the psychologists here (and I don't want to assume I can speak for all of us, but the other psychologists can correct me if they disagree). It's not a game of what the psychologists want vs. what the others want. What the psychologists are talking about is what is best for the article. The article has sunk to its lowest point in a very long time and doesn't appear to be going anywhere except down. Psychologists would really like to see the article improve, but no one has stepped up to do that. And with the current atmosphere here, I don't think it will unless something changes.
And I keep asking you about your prediction of new psychologists coming in to fix the article because you made that prediction quite confidently when the psychologists first expressed serious concern that no psychologist would edit this article. You quickly dismissed us with your comment that those of us already here aren't the only psychologists who could add to the article. Well, no one has. And I'm sorry, but it is relevant. Because the only way the article will ever show any significant improvement is for someone who truly understands the test -- in its full context, not just bits and pieces randomly strung together -- to do the work to fix it. I've said that could possibly be done by a non-psychologist, but I have to wonder if anyone is willing to put in the tremendous amount of research that's needed to bring this article up to encyclopedic standards. It's a lot of information. I hope there's someone out there who's willing to put in the hundreds of hours of reading, then countless more hours editing and battling those who have taken control of the article. But it's hard to image that will happen. We'll see. Ward3001 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And how am I supposed to refer to an edit without referring to the editor? Do you expect me to criticize specific edits, when you're the only one who has made edits, without revealing that you are the editor? When you figure out how to do that, that will be a nice trick, so please let us know. Oh wait ... I forgot: I'm not supposed to criticize your edits.
"And let me guess ... that would involve removing the edit": Not surprisingly, you guessed wrong. I gave a suggestion about which sources should be consulted to fix the edits, and only if that was not done, the best thing would be to remove the edit. You conveniently bypassed my better suggestion: Why is that? Is it because you didn't want to bother with following the best suggestion, so you instead prefer to criticize my next best suggestion. This game you people are playing (let's pretend were doing a great job despite what anyone else says) is becoming more and more absurd.
By the way LjL, you conveniently moved my earlier question to you higher in this thread? Is it because you consider the question unimportant? You accused me of disparaging Wikipedia (not just criticizing this article). Please tell me how I did that? Be specific. Ward3001 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I CONVENIENTLY put it back to the relevant thread, because it had ended up nowhere near the stuff it was in reply to. In case you didn't notice. I didn't answer because I think it's PAINFULLY obvious that saying "sub-encyclopedic standards already (and I don't just mean Wikipedia's standards)" means that you consider Wikipedia (which is, in case I should remind you, supposed to be an encyclopedia) to have sub-encyclopedic standards (and this article more so than the norm).
Anyway, I ignored no suggestion. I am reading and checking out sources. I am not Superman, and cannot read them all in one second. I do wonder why you would think that Chillum would become upset if you told him how to fix the edits, assuming the fix shouldn't involve removing information. --LjL (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And how is the comment "I don't just mean Wikipedia's standards" a criticism of Wikipedia? Please be specific.
While you're answering questions, you neglected to answer how I could criticize your edits without revealing that you are the editor. Could you please explain how that's done?
You may have missed the recent edit where I said "Oh please. I'm the only one who's edited the article lately, so it was obviously clear to everybody you were referring to my edits". Anyway, the bolding in my previous edit was more or less intended to mean I've had enough. Please, go on ranting pretty freely. --LjL (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I said, "I'm criticizing the edits, not the editor", to which you complained that it was obvious I was talking about you. So again, how do I criticize the edit without revealing that it's your edit? Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You're not superman? Wow, I studied the Rorschach for about 25 years, read 300 journals articles and every major book on the topic, and administered about 500 Rorschachs before I felt like I could add anything reasonable to the article. You apparently have mastered the test in a couple of months; in fact, mastered it so well that your edits are above criticism. That sounds like superman to me. Ward3001 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Not above criticism, but most certainly above ridicule. --LjL (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see ... if someone tells me my edit overemphasizes details and pulls information inappropriately out of context, that's a criticism. But if someone tells you the same thing, then it's ridicule. Sorry, I forgot we have different standards for judging your edits. And please, could you answer the unanswered questions I've posed several times now? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
No. --LjL (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Didn't think you could. Thanks for clarifying that. Ward3001 (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I could, but my Wikipedian ethics prevent me from doing so. --LjL (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't surprise me. The "Nonpsychologist-acting-like-a-psychologist Code of Ethics": Section 1: "Make lots of accusations, but don't bother trying to justify them." Ward3001 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Lets keep this about the topic at hand and not about each other. Please. Chillum 13:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please do that Chillum. The rest of us would greatly appreciate it. Ward3001 (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really, really, REALLY sick of the claims that no experts are allowed to post here. That's nonsense. The people pushing a POV are just claiming that they're the only ones with any expertise so they can ignore what anyone who disagrees with them says. I am more of an expert on this topic than some of the posters claiming to be experts, based upon being asked about things that should have beenj trivial knowledge to anyone with any genuine knowledge of the history and use of this test. Beyond that, any expert is capable of contributing here... they just have to follow our rules and realize that they're demands don't get to overrule everyone else. All this "no experts allowed" nonsense is really just a catchphrase for "I should OWN this article and they won't let me, boohoo." Whether you are on Wikipedia or working on an academic journal -- or in any situation where anyone who would truly be an expert on this topic would have to have experience with to call themselves an expert -- you have to work with others and deal with the results. The complainers here just don't care about that. And since we can't give in top temper tantrums and rule breaking and other highly immature behavior, they are the ones cutting themselves off from all influence on this article. If you want to be taken seriously, act like a reasonable adult. DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's sad is that I was thinking exactly the same thing (on the other side), although I would have used less uncivil words. Mirafra (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Formal mediation declined

I see that formal mediation will not work. We have reached a consensus of the majority. I do not see anyway that this could be all inclusive. Some will never accept the images on the page. Others will never except censorship / there removal.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd accept moving the lead image if nothing else, I just have my doubts that will change much of anything in the former group's view. --LjL (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, there has been agreement that the lead images could be replaced with one more relevant ever since the 10 were placed at the bottom. I just have not seem any good replacements suggested. If anyone can find an image of the cover of the original publication that would be both historical and public domain. Chillum 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the best I could find[11]. It is not high res enough for the article though. If anyone can find a better copy of this cover then I would support it in the lead. Chillum 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
[12]? Although the test being administered might mean more to readers. --LjL (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the test being administered might be more helpful, if we can get such an image that would be great. Your version certainly is a lot better, but is still not legible. I am not sure if it is high enough quality, what do other people think? Chillum 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, that's an easy picture to pose. Mirafra (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
With or without an actual Rorschach card being used? ;-) --LjL (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't be hard for a layman to pose it realistically. You'd just have to look up the instructions -- there is considerable latitude, and not a small amount of disagreement as to which variants might affect responses. Most movies that I've seen get it wrong. A professional could pose it such that the card isn't visible, or at least isn't visible clearly enough to cause a problem. Or the card could be blurred. Mirafra (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Blurred? Why would we blur it? I don't think you understand, we are looking for a replacement to improve the article, not to suppress these images. We don't censor our pictures. Chillum 12:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
We made some headway towards this here: Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 7#We need an image of the test being administered. I think the image should be from the point of view of the subject, so the card would be visible; but in a thumbnail version it wouldn't be that visible anyway. –xenotalk 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1. I had thought that part of the original reason for the proposal of substituting an image of the test being administered was as a concession to the request that the image itself not be in the lead. 2. Note that I said "a professional could..." 3. I don't see how this suppresses anything, given that you're insisting that all ten blots remain on the page regardless. Any image of the test being administered is almost by necessity going to provide a less clear image than an image of the card by itself. Mirafra (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No Mirafra, our only purpose on this talk page is to improve the article. I support a better lead image because it would improve the article, not because I concede anything. If the reason to replace the picture is to appease those who don't want it shown then we have no reason to replace the picture. If however the reason(and result) is that it will improve the article then there is a reason. As for blurring the inkblot, we don't modify our images to remove relevant information. The inkblot being small due to its part in a larger informative scene is acceptable. Chillum 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
In a decent image of a test being administered, the inkblot would probably take up about 10% or less of the visible area. In a thumbnail version, it's going to be so small that making a pre-exposure impression in the viewers mind is unlikely. As Chillum says, those who disagree with suppression are amenable to such an image because it is a better image in general, not because they are conceding anything. –xenotalk 13:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Blurriness or percentage size of the image or anything at all about "pre-exposure impression" is completely irrelevant. We alreadey have a consensus that those do not matter. And, frankly, a good image of someone taking an inkblot test would obviously have to more than 10% of the image being one of the cards, otherwise it'd be less of a photo about the test and more of a photo about some insignificant person of no consequence to the educational value of the article. Of course I don't care even if it's the front or the back of the card being shown in some hypothetical test-taking photo, as long as it's clear that test taking is going on -- but front would make more sense. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe more than 10% but it certainly won't be as visible as it is now. The goal is not to make it less visible, it's to make an informative image that shows the administration of the test. –xenotalk 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, so why do you keep bringing up info about how the image would be less visible? In a good image with a front view it wouldn't be appreciably any less visible than the current one. DreamGuy (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, not "less visible" but smaller, and with less ability to make out fine details. This isn't the goal, but it does satisfy, if partially, the concerns of other parties. It's not the goal of putting the better image, but it's a desirable side-effect. –xenotalk 14:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. I was just listing a bunch of options. If you don't like one of them, don't use it. Mirafra (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


I'd quote myself about not wanting this to be a compromise but only an improvement of the article that shouldn't be able to create a precedent even in the most twisted of minds - but I won't, because the reasons why blurring wouldn't be acceptable have been properly exposed by others, and also because my opinion about that is somewhere on this page and can be referred to. There is also the valid point that an image of the test being administered should actually look like the test being administered; whether that can be achieved without having a visible card that is too big, that will have to be seen. --LjL (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_9&oldid=1136235711"