Talk:Rorschach test/images/2009-06 Arguments Con

Arguments Con

#1 - It may harm a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient.

former title: It may harm people

I think the connection between the preamble and section 9.11 of the American Psychology Association is sufficiently integral to make the argument that the "welfare and protection" of the patient is at risk if the security of test materials and stimuli are not maintained. I think this provides an ethical reason to not show the images. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that some sources say the test is bogus (and some even say dangerous, as rather benign answers can be used for justification for rather serious conclusions unsupported by any scientific evidence), it is also arguable that letting people take the test is harmful. Even among its supporters I've only seen a small minority try to make the claim that seeing the images is actively harmful in any way. It's purely a WP:FRINGE view, and we don't take sides in such "ethical" arguments here anyway, per WP:NPOV etc. DreamGuy (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I didn't mean to imply direct harm. Let me change the title to reflect your point. As to your other point. The APA is not a fringe organization. "Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide." [1] If the APA says that the security of tests should be maintained, then we can say that this is not a fringe view. By publishing the images, Wikpedia would be interfering with the goals of the APA Ethical Code, which "has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work..." [2] The question then becomes: "Do we share this goal?" Others here on this discussion say that we are not bound by the APA's code of conduct. What they mean is that we are not members of the APA and are not subject to their internal rules and discipline. But I think we all share the same goal as the APA: The welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work. The question is, do we trust the APA as a reliable source for information? I'm not saying it's the only source of information, for to do so would be WP:UNDUE weight. But is it a credible one? Of course it is. If we accept that the threat is credible, then the question is this: Are we willing to take the chance of engaging in behavior that might harm the "welfare and protection of individuals with whom psychologists work? Speaking for myself, I don't think so. Speaking for Wikipedia, I think the recent article in the New York Times shows that this organization favors not taking chances with the welfare of individuals. And because 80% of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services utilize the Rorschach, and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach it, [3] the chances are not slim that what we do will have an effect somewhere. I don't relish the idea of rolling the dice on matters like these. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that we document what reliable sources say, but we don't obey them. Just like how we document that many Muslims find depictions of Muhammad to be forbidden, yet we still show the images. This article already covers the APA mandate. Our goal is not to protect anyone, but rather it is to create an encyclopedia. People make a choice to learn about this test when they look it up, we will not deny them this information for their own good. Chillum 06:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

True, we need not obey them. However, we are informed by them. If someone says that showing images of the Rorschach test is forbidden, and here's why... And then we show them, we are not only choosing not to obey, we're also choosing to ignore the reasons why the images are forbidden, aren't we? That's what we should be talking about here: The reasons. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First off the "reasons" the images are forbidden are not covered by the source, that is speculation on behalf of Wikipedians. Secondly, the source only prohibits psychologists from spreading test materials in general(no mention of this test, no mention of people who are not psychologists). Thirdly, we are not ignoring the fact it is forbidden for psychologist to show the material to the public, we are documenting it in the first paragraph. We give a point of view attention by documenting what sources have said, not by obeying them. Chillum 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

While I would accept there may be some value in a comparison with Mohammed, in that both of the discussions revolve around the use of images, I still suspect that this line of comparsion may cast the Rorschach as an example of religion rather than of human science. Use of terms such as "forbidden" may only serve to amplify this slant. Surely organisations such as the APA, BPS and so on, don't typicallty try to "forbid" anything, but are motivated by an ethos of protection of individuals and those who provide healthcare for them. Furthermore, I would also suggest that the BPS, just like the APA, really cannot be viewed or fairly described as a "fringe organisation". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The APA source does not say why it is forbidden, and it specifically refers to psychologists only. I don't accept that every rule in the code of ethics is a health decisions, see the section on how to bill patients. What is more, while psychologists have the goal of diagnosis, we have our goal of providing relevant, informative, and verifiable information. We can't very well compromise our goals to protect the goals of others, not if we intend to remain neutral.

Telephone psychics may have their ability to counsel their customers damaged due to are explanation of how cold reading works, but we are not going to take that down either. A cop may have trouble finding a lie in the suspect if the suspect has read Polygraph#Countermeasures, it is not our problem if they need that information to be kept secret to do their job. If a profession relies on public domain information being kept secret, then it is going to have problems in the age of the internet, not our fault. We can't start compromising our project due to this. Chillum 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, while the sources are not fringe, the view being presented is a) fringe, and b) not supported by the sources. The APA is a fine source, it is just not saying what is being claimed. Chillum 13:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're argue on two fronts: First, you reject that the APA Code section 9.11 falls under the coverage of the preamble. And second, you believe that the goal of Wikipedia is to provide relevant, informative, and verifiable information, and that that goal is exclusive of the goals of the APA. I disagree with both assertions. Let me address them one at a time.

First, let me begin by saying that the same degree of VERIFICATION that we apply in our articles need not apply here. I'm not trying to convince the world. I'm only trying to convince you with consensus building, and good faith discussion. Wikipedia is governed by largely by consensus. And there is no rule that requires you to be wiktionary:obdurate. That is your choice. As the poet wrote:

“ But custom maketh blind and obdurate the loftiest hearts. ”

Okay, now that I've softened you up a little, let me return to the cold, hard facts. The section of the code that deals with proper billing procedures, also falls under the preamble with its goal of protecting the welfare of the patient. I will concede that one is a health concern and the other financial, but I argue that financial welfare and mental and emotional well-being are very similar. Therefore the integrity of the code is unbroken. The preamble is not unconnected to the rest of the document. And finally, I submit the evidence of common knowledge and common sense. It's common knowledge that the administrator of a Rorschach test instructs the subject to provide "the first thoughts that come to mind." It's common sense to assume that these instructions might be included in the reason for Section 9.11 of the APA's code. I'm not asking for much. You're free to to make the deduction. That is within your discretionary powers. Not every source needs to be laid out in a manner so clear as to leave no question. Judgment can be applied. I'm using mine, right now, and it tells me that the APA wants to protect test materials so that they can be used well in the manner in which they were designed. Is that a fringe argument? Did I make a leap of logic? Yes. Was it a big leap that took me to the fringe (your assertion, not mine). I don't think so. And my source to support that is the letter from Schluep Degen They represent the distributors of the Rorschach test which is taught in 80 percent of psychology graduate programs [4] They are not on the fringe. When they say that the Rorschach test should be removed from an internet site because it damages the test result, this makes the opinion not fringe. It is, therefore, a valid concern.

Second, your statement of the goals of Wikipedia is lacking something. I've been reading the five pillars of Wikipedia and I can see that it is not just the provision of relevant, informative, and verifiable information. It is also, in large part, self-governing (See WP:NOTANARCHY and ruled by consensus. In fact, there is a great deal of policy that is aimed at giving editors the freedom to speak their mind without fear of reprisal or ill-will. I promise you, no one will think ill of you if you should decide to change your mind and let ethical considerations influence your decision. You are a human-being, after all. As are we all. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If I sincerely felt that Wikipedia should remove these images due the ethical considerations presented to the point where I would want to advocate the idea, I would recuse myself from the discussion in the interest of having a neutral point of view. I have recused myself from debates where I had strong beliefs not based in Wikipedia policy before. Contrary to popular belief a consensus to violate neutrality is not binding. Rather a consensus to violate neutrality should be discarded as invalid. I honestly believe the removing the images due to these concerns would be a significant departure from the neutral point of view. Once again, we document points of view we don't follow them. Our only point of view should be neutral.

From WP:NPOV:

""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."(emphasis added)

So no, consensus cannot override neutrality, no original research, or verifiability. These are non-negotiable features of the encyclopedia that consensus is not welcome to change. These ideas are part of the fundamental goals of are project and are not to be deviated from even if there is a consensus to do so.

Ethics are subjective, many feel the suppression of information is unethical so we will never satisfy everyone ethically. We can document the APAs position, without creative interpretation, as we already have in the article but to obey it would be a violation of our neutral point of view. Chillum 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the way you're using WP:NPOV You're confusing being neutral with being compliant because, rightly or wrongly, you're placing Wikipedia at odds with the APA. I know because I did the same thing in Argument Con #4 below, but surprisingly, I came to the opposite conclusion as you. I believe that when the actions of two parties are in direct conflict with each other, the most neutral posture to take would be the most passive one. So it seems that we're both using the same neutral argument and coming to different conclusions. Wow. That's confusing, isn't it? (See below).

But back to Argument Con #1, am I applying an ethical point of view to the decision to publish or not publish the images? Yes, I am. Is it subjective, varying from person to person? Only insofar as the Golden Rule is not somehow incorporated into every law and religion on Earth. I think what I'm doing here is applying a universally held ethic. I apologize if I'm not being more forthcoming about exactly which Wikipedia policy or policies are involved, because I think I've found more than one. (see other arguments below) You're right to call me on the use of an ethical argument. My only excuse is that the ethic is a universal one.

You seem to be saying that to agree with the APA is the same thing as "obeying" them. I disagree. I think you're adopting an unnecessarily adversarial position. Is it not possible that Wikipedia and the APA could, independently, come to the same conclusion for the same reasons? Of course it is. Rather than adopting an adversarial position, you could adopt a more neutral position by merely considering the merits of the case. That's what I'm trying to do with this argument. You're free to do the same.

So what do you think about their reasons? Do they have reasons? If so, what are the merits (if any) of their case? Please give us your thoughts on this. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a universally held ethic, if it was then nobody would be arguing with you. We don't use a passive point of view we use a neutral point of view. A passive point of view tries to avoid stepping on people's toes, a neutral point of view tries to cover all significant viewpoints even if they contradict. We don't obey the viewpoints of others, we document them. Nothing stops us from documenting the images, and the APA's objection to psychologist showing them to the public. We don't have to choose.

In order to be at odds with the APA, the APA would first have to take the position that Wikipedia should not be showing these images, that is just not so. The APA source says that psychologists should not show the images to the public. It does not say anything about non-psychologists, nor does it say anything about the reason for this prohibition. Original research is needed to get the interpretation of the source that you are getting. We have documented the APA's prohibition on psychologist against spreading test materials in the article already and that is all we can do. Even if their code of ethics mentioned Wikipedia by name we would not obey it, simply cover it.

I am not being adversarial, I am simply taking the same position Wikipedia has had for every subject since its inception. Cover the subject as completely and neutrally as possible. All day long people want some form of valid information suppressed for some reason or another, the answer is always a firm no unless the reasoning is based on Wikipedia policy. This issue is not any different. The reason I am opposing you is because your position is in direct opposition to our project goals. Chillum 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So as long as no psychologist gives the public the answers to any psychometric test, everyone's happy. Wikipedia can go ahead and publish them all, without reproach, since it has an over-riding (and more important) duty of care to to its "project goals" to be "neutral"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

By providing the images here, Wikipedia is giving the answers of _this_ psychometric test to the general public.jonathon (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The information in American revolution contains the answers to many history tests. Encyclopaedias are supposed to give answers. Chillum 21:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Rorschach has a single set of pre-defined "answers" like most other other psychometrics, but displaying the images here, we are advised, may mean that the ability of the subject to answer in future, may be compromised. But the principle is the same - displaying test materials which ought to remain as the diagnostic tools of the test developer and/or test administrator. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned psychologists can add whatever information they want. I don't know what makes the APA happy. But yes, we can go ahead and publish relevant, informative, verifiable, and public domain content in the furtherances of neutrality and our project goals. I am sure some people will criticize us, but that is business as usual. Chillum 14:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite so, but that's unethical business. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That is one opinion. Ethics are subjective. I find these attempts to suppress information unethical, but that is yet again just my opinion. Chillum 14:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the word "subjective" appear here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a whole article on the subject: Ethical subjectivism. Chillum 14:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. So that proves that "ethics are subjective"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. You asked where the word subjective appeared in the ethics article and I answered you. There is a link to Ethical subjectivism in the ethics article. Chillum 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the people who wishes to draw authority from these ethics, the burden of proof would be on you as to why they are not subjective. Chillum 14:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll await your (non-Wiki) proof that "ethics are subjective"? Glad it won't be a burden. In the meantime I'll just stick to my opinion. Ethics aside, do psychological tests work as well if everyone has seen the questions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the burden or proof is better in your hands. In my hands, I'd have to show that everyone agrees that it's unethical to harm a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient. In your hands, the burden of proof is to show that just a fringe group of people disagrees that it is unethical to harm a pspychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient. So why don't you go ahead and prove it. Show us that this ethic is not universally held. Give us just two people who disagrees with the title of this section. That's an acceptable burden of proof. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, consensus currently favors the current image layout so I really don't have anything to prove. If you are trying to convince other people to come around to your point of view then just sticking to your opinion is not enough, you actually have to support your point of view with convincing arguments that will sway people's opinions towards yours. Regardless of consensus, it must be in line with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV which all supersede consensus. Any consensus that violates these policies should be discarded. Chillum 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You find "these attempts to suppress information unethical", but that is just your opinion. I do not construe the limit on display of images here as "attempts to suppress" but rather as "attempts to limit the harm to a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient". That's the topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is my opinion. That is the problem with ethics, it varies with opinion. That is why we base things here on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy instead of opinion. Chillum 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have any ethics? Do they vary with (your) opinion? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We have policies and guidelines on behavioral issues, as well as many essays. I am not really sure what you are getting at. This all seems to be getting a bit philosophical for a content discussion. Chillum 23:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is harm, which most people would think of as "unethical". What I was trying to get at is whether or not Wikipedia has any agreed concept of "ethical behaviour" that the notion of harm might fit into. For example, that even an encyclopedia has some duty of care to its readers? Or even to other people in the world who may never read it. But apparently this is "getting a bit philospohical". Apparently all ethics are subjective, because there is a Wikipedia article called "Ethical subjectivity", and so ethics count for nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article that Xeno found. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html?_r=2&ref=business In the situation described in this news article, it looks like Jimbo stepped in and suppressed info that could cause harm. The first time Jimbo could suppress it because it didn't have an RS, but later it had an RS and didn't seem to violate Wikipedia policy and was suppressed anyhow. So it can be done if there is sufficient justification. I suspect that the situation with the inkblots is not dire enough to be treated similarly. But who knows what might happen if the head of the APA called Jimbo to request that it be kept out. He might suggest that someone write a new policy, or he might say sorry, no can do. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the word "ethical" is offensive to some people because it raises concerns about those who use the word to describe certain ethics that are very subjective, varying from person to person. I certainly don't want anyone thinking that I'm arguing for Wikipedia to open it's doors to everyone with an ethical argument. Religious, nationalist, sexual-orientation, vegetarian, or otherwise. I understand this objection, and I can imagine a fictional scenario where the mere introduction of the word into talk page discussion could be seen as setting a dangerous precedent. So I'm willing to forego using the word in favor of one more specific to this argument. I like what Martinevans123 said about "harm." That's more specific to this situation. I'll concede that and refrain from using the word ethical as much as I can. I'll even forego the dissertation I had presented about the universality of the Ethic of Reciprocity otherwise known as "The Golden Rule". (you lucky, lucky people.) However, be warned, my desk thesaurus provides little in its place. I'm working under a handicap. But that's okay. The argument speaks for itself, doesn't it? It's the right thing to do. It's not WP:FRINGE, it's not pseudoscience, and it may be applicable to the discussion about how to restore balance to the WP:UNDUE weight violation. (see argument #4 below) I feel at liberty to use the argument in "the final analysis." Because we are talking about something that is not very subjective, aren't we? I can only think of four situations in which harming others can be subjectively interpreted as appropriate: war between states, boxing and martial arts, capitol punishment, and certain cancer treatments, none of which is in any danger of being applied to our situation. So I guess my answer to defending the subjectivity of the "do no harm" ethic is that I'm not trying to apply it to anything other that this talk page. No one here's trying to apply it universally. Oops. Sorry. The word "ethic" slipped out. I couldn't help myself. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I do appreciate your desire for the rule of law and policy. It's can be good to run ethics through such a process. But I also feel that ethical arguments can inform and some cases, encompass the totality of a civil discourse. Of course, if two people differ in their ethics, then law and policy can provide a good tool to use to weigh the differences and come to the best solution. But in this case, I don't think anyone disagrees with the ethical argument presented in the title of this section. Do they? You don't, or else you would have explained your reasons by now. I gave you three opportunities, and each time you didn't respond. Maybe you're protecting someone else's ethics? I wouldn't do that if I were you. You'll overextend yourself. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors who have not seen it may wish to be aware of the 2006 correspondence from Trudi Finger at Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG [5] which appears on the Talk page of the French wiki article, and which concludes with the following statement: "You may not be aware of the fact that the Rorschach Test is of high scientific value. It is of great damage to the test if the stimulus material is exposed in such a way. It is of disadvantage to the psychologists and psychiatrists as well as to their clients." I would be interested to see a translation of the responses made by the editors there.Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was interesting, pretty much the same kind of thing talked about here. First copyright, and then on to potential harm to the results of the test the reader may take. Some showed a desire to heed the concerns, some not. The Google translation is passable. [6]. –xeno^talk 04:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes "the planks of these tests" etc. haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I said passable, not perfect ;p I must admit, I do often have an audible chuckle when reading machine translations. –xeno^talk 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad someone's still laughing here! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought Canada was a bi-lingual country. What are you doing using a translator?  ;) My high school French is sadly lacking, too. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful to reintroduce the debate about whether we should accept the APA as a reliable source. I think consensus is movable on this, because much of the objection was attributed to WP:NOR which says:

"To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

But a policy essay WP:NOTOR says that simple deductions are allowed.

"For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. "

If that is simple syllogism, then so is the idea that the Rorschach test would be included along with other test materials referred to in section 9.11 of the APA code of ethics and the BPS statement of conduct The Rorschach is a highly popular test. In a 1995 survey of 412 randomly selected clinical psychologists, 45 percent said that they use the Rorschach frequently and 89 percent said they use it occasionally. To imagine that the code writers could have overlooked such a popular test when they wrote their code is incredible. Equally incredible would be to think that the preamble of the APA code is not integral to the rest of the code. The function of the preamble is to give words that are to applied to the rest of the document. Therefore "the welfare and protection of individuals" (health and financial welfare) can be applied to section 9.11 and to every other section of the document. In another document, Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data (1996), the APA states

"Such release imposes very concrete harm to the general public – loss of effective assessment tools. Because there are a limited number of standardised psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose (in some instances only a single instrument), they cannot easily be replaced or substituted if an individual obtains prior knowledge of item content or the security of the test is otherwise compromised." (emphasis added)

I take this as attributable evidence from a reliable source that the concern in valid. Furthermore, since there is no argument that controverts this source, (I looked at at a few web-sites and they all merely repeat what the APA and BPS say), we should write our article describing only that view, Right? Unless we can find a source that supports the opposite point of view... Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

These are no longer copyrighted images, and to suggest that they comprise a valid psychological assessment is both inane and immaterial. Immaterial because everyone in the general public is quite aware of the inkblot test, and very few administrations of it are objective. The subject invariably knows what kind of assessment is being given to him, and responds not as he truly feels, but with the answer he wants to give, which he thinks will best serve his purposes. Inane because this test is not only subjective on the part of the subject, but also entirely subjective on the part of the administrator. The administrator brings his own sets of ideas, prejudices, preconceived notions and desires to the test, and applies them subjectively as he sees fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.167.122 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 July 2009

... and you were trained in Rorschach administration where? And you've administered how many Rorschachs?Daveandmicasmom (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

#2 - It violates Wikipedia policy

I find section 9.11 sufficiently compelling all by itself to show that maintaining the security of test materials or stimuli, such as that of the Rorschach test, is important to the American Psychology Association, and that a failure to do so will significantly alter the way that its members practices medicine. This, I think, violates the policy that Wikipedia should not "substitute for the advice of a health professional." See WP:MEDICAL Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The medical disclaimer is directed at the reader of wikipedia articles, not to the editors. (reprint by DanglingDiagnosis of a counter-argument recently made by Chillum) Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a presumption. Here are the counter-arguments:

1. I see nothing in the disclaimer to support the idea that the intended audience are people who don't edit articles. Can you cite a reference?
2. Could it not be directed at both readers and editors, since the line separating the two is nearly non-existent in Wikipedia?
3. I suspect a lawyer could successfully argue that a notice of disclaimer becomes invalid when the party giving the notice does not respect and abide by it.

I'm being more argumentative than I would prefer, so let me be less combative and more genuine. Regardless of the intended audience, embedded in this disclaimer is a Wikipedia policy that nothing in Wikipedia should "substitute for the advice of a health professional." The intent of the disclaimer is to convey that policy to everyone, and I think it succeeds in doing so. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of order re: #3; I would advise against advancing positions that might be (reasonably or unreasonably) construed as WP:NLT violations. I'm not saying this is, but "It could be argued" should be enough without bringing the L-word into it =). –xeno^talk 18:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. I intended no legal threat. If this argument makes anyone uncomfortable to the point that it harms the collaborative spirit of discussion, I will gladly remove it. Gladly! Instead, for the purposes of discussion, I was imagining a scene in which we were receiving legal advice from a lawyer that we (as Wikipedians) retained on our own behalf for our benefit. That's all. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ping User talk:Mike Godwin and to have him come provide his thoughts on this. –xeno^talk 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a better idea than the one I had. I was going to put double braces around a RfC|policy tag and invite the watchers of the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies page. Instead, I'll take your suggestion. Is now a good time? Or do you think that the current work on the main article is still bearing good fruit? I don't want to distract our good editors from what they are doing. A lot of good references are coming forth. Good edits, too. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would probably ping him asap; I'm sure he's busy and won't respond right away. –xeno^talk 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I know what pinging is, exactly. Mike's user page directs us to email. So for the purposes of transparency, is my email to him.

June, 25, 2009

Dear Mr. Godwin,

Your name came up during an interesting, good faith argument forming over at the Rorschach Test/talk page More than one administrator is watching this with interest. One of whom, Xeno, suggested that I ask the general counsel to weigh in. So here I am asking for your help with the following four (4) questions:

Given that prior exposure to the images of the Rorschach Psychological assessment test forcibly influences the way that a psychologist will treat his/her patient, the questions needing your attention are these:

1. Does the publication of the Rorschach test stimuli by Wikipedia invalidate or otherwise cause a problem with the medical legal disclaimer? and if so, would that increase Wikipedia's liability or exposure to a lawsuit?

2. Is there an existing underlying policy embedded in the medical disclaimer? If so, who formed this policy and does this person or persons have the authority to convey said policy to the readers and writers of Wikipedia?

3. If there isn't a policy to be found, should Wikipedia enact a policy that forbids activities on Wikipedia that can or will "substitute for the advice of a health professional?"

4. If the answer to Questions #2 or #3 is in the affirmative, then is this policy applicable to the discussion on the Rorschach talk page? If so, how would you advise us to apply it, here?

Question #1 arose from my suspicion that a medical disclaimer applies to both parties: the author of the disclaimer and the reader. The argument is this: If the author of a legal notice does not follow his own advice and abide by the provisions of the notice, then the reader can justly question the commitment or _________ (insert proper legal term here) of the party giving notice. It introduces uncertainty. That is: Perhaps this commitment does not extend to all situations. Maybe it's okay to do it here, but not there. Maybe it's wrong for one person but okay for another.

Question #2 is distinguished from question #1 by an interesting idea. Has something been missed? Is there a important wikipedia policy that has been inadequately posted? Is this a situation like the The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics , assumed, but not codified until long after the First, Second, and Third laws were published? I'm not sure, I thought the disclaimer was satisfactory, but apparently, it doesn't satisfy at least one Wikipedian. Perhaps more. I'm not sure.

I don't think you need to weigh in on the given assumption that a patient's previous exposure will influence the actions of a psychologist, however, it's your choice if you wish to do so. I'll leave that up to you. Historically, there has been much controversy surrounding the difficulty of finding a reference that shows

1. Potential harm to the patient, and 2. Corruption of the test results, and 3. The correlation between #2 and #1

Recently, this controversy has lessened. The lively discussion has produced some references which have found a fairly stable, if new, place in the main article. The discipline of editing the main article page helped focus our efforts and some good work has been accomplished, recently. Of these references, I think the reference from the American Psychiatry Association is the best. I think that reference is quite adequate to show that experts in the field believe that it is important to the practice of their profession to have the security of the test images maintained. Other references also support this idea, and seem to be preferred by other editors:

1. Scott O. Lilienfeld, James M- Wood and Howard N. Garb: What's wrong with this picture? Scientific American, May 2001 http://www.psychologicalscience.org/newsresearch/publications/journals/sa1_2.pdf

2. Dawes, Robyn M. (1991). "Giving up Cherished Ideas: The Rorschach Ink Blot Test". IPT journal 3. http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_4_5.htm. Retrieved on 2009-06-23. "American Psychological Association rules of ethics prohibit my presenting an example of a Rorschach inkblot. (Presumably, prior exposure to these blots would contaminate the validity, if there were any, of any subsequent use.)".

3. American Psychological Association, Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data, 1996

I appreciate the work that you do. Thank you for doing it, and thank you for helping us build consensus.

Sincerely yours,

DanglingDiagnosis

obligation? good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this interpretation of the medical disclaimer to be contrary to its spirit. The whole point of the disclaimer is that we are not doctors, we are not giving medical advice, and we should not be interpreted as such. For one thing it says our content "cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional". In this case we aren't even giving advice, I fail to see how showing images could be seen as advice, or as a substitute for advice. We are not substituting anything, we are giving information about a test. If a doctor chooses to substitute a test for another that is the decision of the doctor and not Wikipedia. The argument seems to be a non sequitur. If there are any legal issues with us showing public domain images then I am sure Mr. Godwin will point them out, and I urge you to seek this clarification if you have not already. Until then I find this argument uncompelling. Chillum 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(no comments since 25 June 2009 - remove this line when restarting conversation)

#3 - It interferes with the workings of another profession

To force a health professional to substitute one procedure for another is to interfere with the practice of medicine. We have no right to do so. We've heard expert testimony (sourced?) that says that the Rorschach test has been carefully calibrated over a period of many years. This calibration changes when the patient has been exposed to the images, perhaps to the reduction of confidence in the test result, perhaps not. If you'll forgive a little humor: I used to work for a municipal engineering and surveying company. The manager of the survey department had a cartoon on his wall showing an elderly woman wearing a scarf over her head bending over a piece of wood with a red ribbon sticking out of the ground. The caption read, "I wonder how many people know that as tax-paying citizens, we have the right to move these survey stakes if they don't look right to us." That's what it sounds like to me when I hear people here claiming the right and responsibility to show the test images on Wikipedia. I think it's interfering with another profession. To what degree, is a little uncertain. But it's still interference. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We aren't forcing any professional to do anything. They can substitute or not. And allegedly "interfering with a profession" is not a valid argument on Wikipedia, as lots of articles arguably interfere with tons of professions. People can educate themselves so they don't need to hire consultants, info on potentially misleading sites can educate people to avoid certain people, etc. Frankly, Wikipedia itself is the poster child for interfering with the workings of the profession of publishing encyclopedias. DreamGuy (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly can they substitute? Could you tell us what are these "tons of professions". And how do you propose that people "educate themselves" to be the psychologists who then administer projective tests to themselves, by reading Wikipedia articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, your example shows Wikipedia competing fairly on a level playing field. But that is not the case here. Here we are actually sabotaging the work of someone else. See the letters of complaint from Schluep Degen in 2009 and 2006 So, even if I were to accept the proposition that the test should not be taught in 80 percent of graduate psychology programs because it's value is small, I still can't condone sabotaging the work of professionals who believe differently. Doing so violates the ethic of reciprocity and WP:NPOV. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're making the incorrect assumption that psychologists have tons of other tests of equal utility to the Rorschach just sitting around waiting to be used. Which, of course, then WP will then also publish. This isn't about protectionism (publishing the content of the test is not going to make people bypass psychologists), it's about trashing a perfectly good tool. Mirafra (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you describe how seeing the images on Wikipedia once is different from having had the test administered to you once, that makes it interference? If someone administers the test to you, are they interfering with other professionals who may administer it to the person in the future? Since the test is so common, one might surmise that someone being subject to the test, has already been given the same test before (with high probability) --Mysidia (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on that issue above.Mirafra (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument - in order to see these images, one must search for `Rorschach test' or something closely related. Once the person is doing that, they will know the purpose and methodology of the test as well as what a tester will be looking for. The test is therefore now invalid for this person, from the moment that they start researching the subject; seeing the images themselves will make no difference to this. 144.173.5.197 (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See response at Talk:Rorschach_test/images/2009-06_Arguments_Pro#.2301_-_The_cat.27s_out_of_the_bag Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

#4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.

According to WP:NEUTRAL, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." The action of publishing of test stimuli is, in effect, engaging in a dispute about the publishing of test stimuli. It engages quite fully, indeed. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The full name of WP:NEUTRAL is WP:Neutral point of view. The above excerpt is from the section Impartial tone of that policy page. AFAIK, the only dispute is on this talk page, regarding whether or not it should be in the wiki, like disputes occurring throughout talk pages on the Wikipedia.

If there is a dispute going on outside of Wikipedia regarding publishing test materials, it would be very useful if we could see that discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a conflict. I see the APA with their statement in their code of ethics as the protagonists in the conflict. The antagonists would include people like William Poundstone in his 1983 book "Big Secrets" published by Harper Collins with the tagline "the uncensored truth about all sorts of stuff you are never supposed to know." I see conflict brewing between the two. I can't imagine the APA taking a stronger stance than the one they took. And Mr. Poundstone makes his book sound quite scandalous, doesn't he? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an excerpt, with page number, from Big Secrets where it advocates dissemination of the material that APA wants to keep confidential? Or are the secrets simply displayed to make an interesting book, somewhat like Wikipedia is simply displaying the inkblots to make an informative article. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Any comment by the APA on the disclosure of the "secrets" by Poundstone's book would also be useful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary that both parties refer to the other party by name in order for there to be a verifiable conflict? Isn't it enough that representatives from each side have acknowledged the conflict in general terms? Many people in conflict will try to avoid finger pointing unless absolutely necessary. That doesn't mean the conflict is any less real. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any dispute. The APA directed its Code of Ethics section 9.11 only towards psychologists, presumably because it realizes that those are the only ones that it has influence over. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed in your discussion with Chillum that you mentioned a dispute regarding copyright, where the APA was not mentioned as a party. I commented below on that copyright dispute. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument Danglingdiagnosis. Wikipedia is not taking a stand one way or another about the test, it is simply publishing existing verifiable information about test. We have even included the point of view that it is presumed that prior exposure to the inkblots would contaminate the validity of subsequent tests. The act of publishing the images is not engaging in a dispute, however the act of documenting some doctors objection to this practice describes it. If anything that section would prohibit us from censoring the images based on the dispute. Chillum 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Publishing the test images shows by our own example that we condone the practice of publishing test stimuli. This asserts a strong bias in favor of the viewpoint of people such as Mr. Poundstone. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The question then becomes how do we show a neutral point of view to both parties? That's an interesting question. I'm not sure I have the best answer to that question. But I am sure that showing all 10 images, just as Mr. Poundstone did, would be a very strong bias in favor of him. We need to do better than that in order to make a good encyclopedic article. Don't we? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Poundstone released images that at the time were not available to the general public, so the comparison is a bit flawed from the start. The fact is that many public sources of information show these images. We are not engaging in a dispute with the APA simply because we are not obeying rules that were intended for psychologists. We are not doing anything new here and we are not breaking any rules, we are simply documenting accurate and verifiable information. Chillum 02:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To address your other point about both parties, all we need to do it get some reliable sources and document them. What we do not do is obey them. We document to what extent who disagrees with what to the extent that reliable sources provide. We also document the images. Neutrality has never meant that we must remove information based on the beliefs of an outside group, it simply means we document those beliefs too. Chillum 02:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case, showing the test stimuli would be reproducing the same behavior that is at the heart of the conflict. We can't do that and remain neutral at the same time, can we? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Our Earth article does not say that the Earth is 6000 year old and was created in 7 days. Does that mean we are engaging in a dispute with creationists? What about showing Muhammad in his article, are we engaging in a dispute with Muslims? For on thing, I don't see any evidence of this dispute... where in reliable sources is this dispute even documented? Chillum 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, and it goes to WP:UNDUE and PSEUDOSCIENCE. I'll ignore the pseudoscience aspect and focus on WP:UNDUE, because I think most will agree that the APA has clearly earned the right to be represented in this article. I'm just concerned that we've given undue weight to Mr. Poundstone's point of view. The images just leap out of the page, don't they? It's hard to read the article and avoid them. I appreciate the recent work that went into the main article. Indeed, I think that using a combination of discussion pages AND the main article is in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS. But after seeing the results, I haven't changed my mind about the agreement to use a hide/show button, or if that causes technical problems with certain browsers, then perhaps a simple link to a separate gallery page. As WP:NEUTRAL states, "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." In every scenario and example described in WP:NEUTRAL, this core concept is maintained. In our case, I'm not sure we've done a good enough job of doing that. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to use neutrality as an excuse to delete something I don't like. Instead, I'm trying to add something. I'm trying to maintain the CORE PRINCIPLE of neutrality, which is to give the reader an informed choice. That's the compromise I propose. For you and me, it's a compromised position, but it's not one for Wikipedia. Instead, I think it goes to the highest ideal of Wikipedia. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

But it is not Mr. Poundstone's view, it is Wikipedia's view. I don't see anyone using his views in any way. The fact is that Wikipedia came to the goal of including informative, relevant, and verifiable information on the subject independently of Mr. Poundstone. I agree we should stay in keeping with consensus, which at this point favors the current arrangement of images. Chillum 14:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"It's Wikipedia's view," you say? But Wikipedia shouldn't take a view on controversial subjects, right? That's a violation of WP:NEUTRAL It's not proper for us to align Wikipedia with an author that is taking a controversial view. Even Mr. Poundstone admits that he's taking sides. The name and tagline of his book convey that he's aware of the controversy. Plus, I just googled "Rorschach test" and the second source listed, ironically from a group named "S.P.A.R.C." agrees with Mr. Poundstone that there is a controversy. Their page summary header (submitted for use by search engines) uses the actual word "controversial" and they devote a large part of their page describing the controversy and the position they take in the controversy. They're quite clearly embattled over the issue discussing many of the same subjects that we've covered on this talk page. So I've now provided two sources that show there's a controversy outside Wikipedia. So I repeat: Wikipedia needs to take a balanced view of this controversy, describing it with a neutral tone and not engaging in the actual controversy itself. I think that mean forebearing in publishing the images. But rightly or wrongly, I'm willing to bend a bit to come to a consensus. I'm hoping you're willing to do the same. Of course, I haven't yet tested the waters to see how any of the other editors feel about any of this discussion. I'm a new guy, here. Perhaps something I said has contributed something new to the discussion. If so, I'd like to know. I don't want to assume anything. Decisions should not be made without the consideration of what other people are thinking. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I said. I did not say that Wikipedia has a view on this controversy. I said that Wikipedia came to the goal of including informative, relevant, and verifiable information on the subject independently of Mr. Poundstone. Wikipedia certainly can and has come to the view that it should seek to include informative, relevant, and verifiable information. To remove the images due to the controversy would be taking a side. Not obeying a commandment from an outside organization that not meant for us is not taking a side in a dispute. As to the source talks about how it "violates the copyright on the Rorschach Test" when the test is public domain, not exactly confidence inspiring, meta data aside I see no mention of controversy. Chillum 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The APA is not psudo-science, it is a wonderful source, it is just the APA source does not say what is being claimed. The APA source prohibits psychologists from spreading test materials, it makes no mention regarding the public at large spreading test materials. What is more, it does not mention harm or for that matter anything regarding the motives of that rule. It also does not mention the Rorschach test. It simply does not support the claims being made without undue original research in the interpretation of the source. Surely if this is such a universally held belief that not following it would be undue weight then a reliable source could be provided that supports precisely what is being claimed? I have been asking you, Ward, and Faust for such a source for about a week now. Chillum 14:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I hear you. You want a credible source from an authorized representative of the side of the dispute that is asking people to please not publish Rorschach images. How's this? A letter dated 22 May 2009 from Schluep and Wenger Berger Schluep and Wenger Berger are the legal representatives of the owner of the trademark RORSCHACH and the world-wide publisher of RORSCHACH psychological test materials. They have the authority to speak on behalf of their clients. This letter from one publisher of Rorschach images to another expresses the idea that competition between publishers and prior exposure to the images is harmful to the test results. Sorry for the delay. I'm still new here and I'm working under a handicap. I've been averting my eyes from the images as best I could which makes it hard to read what's going on. Plus, I've been afraid to use Google for fear that I might accidentally come across the images. It's true - I'm not lying about that. I don't want to jeopardize my health. And it would be really, really nice if the Wikipedia article and talk page could better respect the concerns, the valid concerns, of people like me. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that is closer, however are lawyers really credible sources in medical matters? Do either of the people who signed this document have any sort of training in this area? It seems they are claiming a copyright on something that is public domain. They also thought the person was using "all 10 of the official inkblots" when he wasn't. This seems to me to be an attempt to intimidate someone with half truths and outright falsehoods. The credibility of this source is highly in doubt. I was hoping something more a long the lines of a medical opinion than a legal one. Chillum 02:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The war is being fought on legal turf, and I, too, would rather it weren't. I, too, and not accustomed to looking for and finding medical opinions with the legal system, although I understand that medical opinions often find a place, there. I agree with you that Schluep and Wenger Berger's client, as the publishers of medical test material, would be better qualified to speak about medical matters. However, it would be more than just slight incompetence if these lawyers were to so grossly misrepresent their client's position. The letter says that the client received a copy. If the client didn't subsequently fire Schluep and Degen for gross incompetence, then I think we can safely assume that the publishers of Rorschach tests have medical concerns about the competition of, and the prior exposure to Rorschach test materials. They believe it and and I'd like to do a better job of representing their position in our article. I'm open to suggestion about how best to do that. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The lawyers claimed a copyright on public domain works, and they did not even realize the the images in question were not the Rorschach images, I don't think "more than just slight incompetence" is that far off the mark. Chillum 04:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martinevans123 that Inkblot.com "might get my lawyers reaching for their quill pens too." I don't have a reference for you, but I bet I can find more than a few examples of lawyers successfullypursuing copyright or trademark infringement against defendants who were publishing images that closely resembled the original. No, until I see evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to assume that these lawyers are adequately representing their client's position. I'm sorry I opened up this line of inquiry. I was being facetious when I did so, but I guess that's just my hubris keeping me grounded. Just as you are keeping me grounded. Thanks. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, Dangling. All these lines of enquiry help to build the bigger picture. This whole inkblot.com fiasco raises again a vitally relevant question - how is the "fake" image defined? At the pixel level? How many pixels must differ? Or is it just what can (or can't) be distingiushed by the "average viewer"? Is it just the idea of the inkblot? If the real Rorschach inkblots (being "free images") were used in a different way in a differently named test, would that infringe copyright? There must be a good deal of relevant case law from the world of trademarks, I'm guessing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as American law goes, and with my l33t non-lawyer law knowledge: it's a trademark issue if there is the possibility of reasonable consumer confusion between their test, and the trademarked Rorschach Test (merely having a similar test is not enough, it has to appear to be coming from the other party). If they don't use the name Rorschach, that's likely not an issue, unless the Rorschach owners argue (successfully) that the mere image of an inkblot is their trademark. It's a copyright issue if they use copyrighted test materials, or 'lift' a copyrighted test directly, or create a derivative work, without permission. And it's a patent issue if the test process itself is patented, even if they write the new test themselves, so long as the test they create matches that described in the patent. Patents are the only place where methods or "ideas" can be protected, and they've got a 20 year limit. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The KIRKBI AG and LEGO CANADA INC. v. RITVIK HOLDINGS INC., a Canadian case, is the only precedence I can think of as far as the trademark issue goes. Lego attempted to claim that their block's design was their trademark, and thus a competing product, MegaBloks, was in violation. It was rejected as trademarks can not apply to the functional design of something. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Schluep and Wenger Berger, in their letter, seem to be invoking the law of trademark, rather than that of patent, in both USA and Switzerland. What is not clear from the preceeding discussion is whether or not, if the case ever came to court, the notion of harm through pre-exposure would be tested, or simply the trademark. If the notion were to be tested, it seems likely that Rorschach users might well be called as expert witneses - I don't think any court, in USA or Switzerland, would rely on "a reliable source fromn Google". It is unclear who, if anyone has patented the method of computerised Rorschach administration (unless, of course, Schluep and Wenger Berger have confused these terms?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that they object to the use of "Rorschach" in reference to theinkblot's test, which is without a doubt a valid concern, assuming their claim to the trademark is valid. As I said, trademarks are to prevent consumer becoming confused as to who they're dealing with. They also invoke "Swiss unfair competition law", claiming that the competing test invalidates their own test, and thus can't be allowed. This only makes sense combined with the trademark claim; they seem to be a little vague about this, but that's the only way it can be sensibly read. They may have left the ambiguity intentionally, though. The letter does not make any patent complaint that I can see. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So you both agree that Schluep and Wenger Berger are serving their client with some degree of competence? Good. That determination, plus the authority of the power of attorney (enclosed with the letter) makes them authorized to speak on behalf of their clients. So I think we agree I can quote them as a verifiable reference. We began this thread when Bob K31416 asked to see evidence that the dispute we're having about publishing Rorschach test stimuli is also occurring outside Wikipedia. I'll offer the following references to support that:

1. The APA code of ethics (which does not point any fingers and makes no reference to any offenders)
2. The title and tagline of Mr. Poundstone's book Big Secrets (which doesn't point any fingers but which implies another party)
3. The arguments found on Inkblot.com (in which both parties are identified)

I submit that there is a dispute going on. Now it falls to Wikipedia to either take sides in the dispute or to remain neutral. If we remain neutral, the more passive our response, the better, I think. We don't want to engage in the dispute itself. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what? That legal letter has nothing to do with this particular discussion we're having here; it's simply a trademark complaint regarding a novelty inkblot test which is misusing the Rorschach name. There is no such trademark violation on Wikipedia, nor is anyone claiming that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

True. The letter is not directed at Wikipedia. And I haven't yet developed an opinion about trademark infringement. Like you, I'm trying to overlook that. However, the letter from Schluep and Degen is an important source of information, information that is pertinent to our discussion:

1. Unlike the APA code of ethics which asks that the security of all psychological test materials be kept reasonably maintained, this letter specifically asks that the Rorschach images not be published on the internet. Some of us were questioning the lack of specificity in the APA code of ethics, as if the code might not apply to the Rorschach test materials.
2. The letter states why the security of the Rorschach should be maintained: Because prior exposure to the test stimuli is harmful to the test results.

These are important ideas to our discussion, here. The source of this information is quite well-placed, isn't it? The information comes from authorized representatives of the designers of the Rorschach test. I'd say these were expert opinions and shouldn't be overlooked. Now, is there a legal opinion also being expressed about competition? Yes, there is, but I don't know if it's important to our discussion. I'm overlooking that, for now. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there are disputes going on and that by dipslaying images Wiki is taking sides. A conventionally published book can't be much more in the public domain. And while I doubt that the lawyers expected to see one of their letter on the internet, that `dispute' also seems to be a public one? Or perhaps whether or not a dispute is public does not matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Danglingdiagnosis, In your discussion with Chillum, the dispute that you were referring to was one regarding copyright of the pictures. That issue appears in the article in the section Protection of test items. If you feel that section violates WP:NPOV, I urge you to propose changes to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia seems to be careful about not violating copyrights. I presume that subject was adequately discussed here and it was determined that there was no copyright violation regarding the inkblots. If you feel that is wrong, you might consider pursuing your objective along those lines. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just noticed something interesting in the wiki.

The inkblots were first made publicly available by William Poundstone in his 1983 book Big Secrets, which also described the method of administering the test and gave outlines of the ten official images.

It looks like the actual images weren't disclosed by Poundstone, just the outlines. What a wuss, LOL. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about the conflict at S.P.A.R.C. "Let's google "Rorschach test" and move on and see if we find more conflict. Perhaps the critics there will reveal more about their objection and not just the blunt instrument of their sword. Ah, yes. Here we are: The very next item on the list: The Inkblot.com has a letter from Schluep Degen Attorneys-at-law dated 22 May 2009 that again brings out the sword, but it also reveals something about the source of the conflict, making it a conflict of ideas and not just a copyright violation. It says, and I quote, "The psychological testing of Rorschach only makes sense when the tested person reacts spontaneously and therefore mustn't know the ink blot cards by antipant. Otherwise, the test becomes worthless." The letter continues with more legal sparing, but it is much more revealing of the true objections of one side of the conflict, isn't it? Of course, this is seen through the filter of a lawyer with sword raised, but we're starting to get a picture of the real conflict, aren't we? There's certainly a war going on. Shall I go on to the next Google item or are you satisfied, yet? I think we can see that it's a war of ideas, not just a copyright violation. Or am I seeing things that aren't really there? If it is a war of ideas, then that raises the conflict to a level on par with the lofty purpose and function of Wikipedia. It then becomes Wikipedia's responsibility to live up to its principles and take a neutral viewpoint in this conflict. I see Chillum's point that not publishing the images could be seen as taking sides. However, publishing the images seems to me to be more active and thus, engages more in the dispute. It's undue weight. See WP:UNDUE It requires balancing. The best way to do that, I think, is to give the reader a choice. Of course, I'm open to suggestion, here. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So it seems that inkblot.com runs a computerized on-line "test" using fake inblots. Hmmmm, I think that might get my lawyers reaching for their quill pens too. Wikipedia's use of images seems somewhat less scandalous by comparison. Still not sure why Mike at inkblot.com thinks that Swiss law extends to Sweden. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The editors that included the pictures did what Wikipedia editors normally do for any article. They brought together available information. In my opinion, the deviation from normal editing practices would be censoring the pictures, rather than their inclusion. If you still feel that the pictures are a violation of WP:NPOV, you might want to get other opinions at WP:NPOV/N.

Regarding giving the reader the choice of whether or not to see the 10 inkblots, the reader has the choice because of the need to scroll down before seeing them. However, I recognize that the reader may not have a choice with the one inkblot at the top, except for the choice of whether or not to look at it closely enough to make an interpretation. But then that is for discussing in another section here. Or if you think that is an NPOV issue too, you can get an opinion on it at WP:NPOV/N also. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That choice seems to rest on reading the sentence. (To view them, see The ten inkblots section below.) and then either clinking on the link or scrolling down. I suspect many readers, including Wiki habitués, browse articles by scrolling down, to see the general layout/ content BEFORE reading anything in detail. But of course that is a choice too (even if it is an unconscious one?) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been a comment on this argument for 5 days. Let me refresh things by restating the argument: Publishing the images violates neutrality in the same way that a journalist sent to cover a street protest violates neutrality by picking up and carrying one of the protest signs. He/she can't be both neutral and actively participate in the protest at the same time. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But we are not taking a side in any dispute. We are acting based on our own policies and practices, as we always have. To adjust your analogy this would be more akin to a reporter wearing clothes to a protest demanding nudist rights, he is wearing clothes but not because he is taking a side, but because that is what he always does. If we were to deviate from our project goals in order to take a side on this issue that would be a violation of neutrality. You are proposing a no win situation for Wikipedia where it show the images and have taken a side, or we don't show the images and have taken a side. Instead of that, we should just do what we always do and cover the dispute(though there is not much to cover based on the sources) as best we can without giving authority to it. Chillum 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but we are taking sides. Anyone looking at our article right now will see a biased article, one that is taking the same side of S.P.A.R.C. and www.inkblot.com and every other site that shows the images. And they'll wonder, where can I go to get a neutral point of view? I want someplace where they won't shove an opinion down my throat, so I can make up my own mind about whether to look at the images or not.

Luckily, we're not faced with the all or nothing proposition: as in your analogy. A better analogy would be a reporter covering the conflict between street protesters clashing about the right to wear animal fur and then publishing his story with a byline and picture of himself wearing a fur coat. He could remove the coat for the photo, couldn't he? Even though he normally wears fur, he would have to change. It's a requirement of his job. There are ways to avoid showing bias and still cover both sides of this conflict. I'm open to discussing how to balance the WP:UNDUE weight. But some kind of compromise is in order. I can think of two solutions that I can live with:

1. Remove all of the photos and replace them with facsimiles. Perhaps the article wouldn't have as "complete" coverage as you'd like, but there's no rule that says we have to "completely" cover a topic. Wikipedia publishes many incomplete articles. We even have a policy against publishing too much information. (See WP:IINFO, or
2. Add a hide/show button allowing readers to make a fully informed choice prior to viewing the photos. If their browser doesn't support the javascript button, then treat it like any PDF file and provide instructions about how to download a software that can do the job. Or just use a simple "link" to a gallery page.

I'm open to discussion. But we have an WP:UNDUE weight problem. Both sides in this conflict should be open to compromise. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You say "I want someplace where they won't shove an opinion down my throat" but the fact is that us showing the pictures is not presenting an opinion at all, we are simply demonstrating verifiable information. If you want the dispute covered find reliable sources that show it exists outside Wikipedia and we will mention it in the article, but we will not deviate from our regular practices to take a side.

Adding a show/hide option and replacing the images with facsimiles are both solutions that are a) rejected by the community and b) in violation of our not censored and neutrality policies. You can say we are taking a side in this dispute, but it is simply not true. Our regular editorial practices are to show pictures and we are not deviating from that. If we were to deviate from that for the reasons given then we would be taking a position. Your very arguments go against your proposed solution, you are asking us to take a side instead of using our regular editorial practices. Chillum 13:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please help me understand your position?

1. How is adding a hide/show button censorship? It doesn't remove or delete information. Rather it adds more information.
2. How is adding a hide/show button not neutral?
3. How is displaying the images not taking part in a dispute? Doesn't it just scream that that we don't think there's a problem? Isn't the claim of "no harm done" one of the reasons being used to display them? The "there is no evidence of harm" argument is a prominent part of our discussions. So if experienced Wikipedians assumed that this was a valid argument for presenting the test stimuli, why wouldn't a reader make that same assumption?

If I'm missing something that I should be seeing, then I apologize. But I genuinely don't share your position. I don't see it as Wikipedia's position, either. I don't believe Wikipedia should take a position. But if I must weigh policy choices, I'll take WP:NPOV over WP:NOTCENSORED. Censorship isn't an either/or binary proposition. Censorship comes in varying degrees, and I've demonstrated a willingness to explore the middle of the spectrum. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to comment on something that Danglingdiagnosis said. Censorship isn't giving people a choice as to whether or not they can see the images, it's taking away the images as a whole. Since the images are available elsewhere, why not put them in a place where they won't be seen by someone unwittingly? They do this with certain flavors of movies on television; it's not censorship to make a movie pay-per-view, but it is when you take away the ability for them to be broadcast at all during certain times of day. Censorship has always been a binary proposition. "You can't read this book/hear this word/see this image". It has never taken the form of "You can only if you want to." When you offer people a choice before they see it, you offer them protection from something that might come back to bite them if they're not careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.53.238 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The English language lacks a word for non-binary sensorship. Therefore, many people use the word censorship to describe the controversy surrounding things like the MPAA film rating system. They also use the word censorshiop to describe the proposed compromise to use a hide/show button to warn readers before they see the images. I'm not interested so much in the word as the function, and I believe it is a good compromise because adding a hide/show button does not remove any information (as some might wish that it did). Instead, it adds information. It adds choice. Perhaps I'm wrong not to debate the use of the word censorship. But I grant people the right to use it in the absence of a better word. I suppose someone might make a successful argument that it is not censorship. I confess I have not pursued that argument to any great degree. Someone else should feel free to try. I'm too much of a "function over form" kind of guy, and probably not best suited ( or too tired) to carry forth an argument over semantics. I may not be able to convey the proper respect it deserves. Please, be my guest. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Danglingdiagnosis on this. The harm is done if someone is exposed to the material and forms a preconception on what the images mean. We can easily protect those that stumble "unwittingly" upon the page with a hide/show button and an explicit statement about the test's validity. Then we aren't taking a position, we aren't damaging either side of the debate, and the images are available to an interested party. Seems like the best option. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. And I might relate this to second hand smoke in some ways. In that sense, you can unintentionally harm people, but once you have been told, you no longer can claim ignorance. You have been told that it can cause harm, you are now willingly engaging in harmful web practices. Dolphinfin (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Publishing the pictures does not engage in a dispute or favor one side of a dispute. WP:NPOV does not say Wikipedia articles shouldn't show the subject of dispute, when it is controversial to show it. Even if the Wikipedia article were biased against publication of such images, they could still be included: Wikipedia's publishing pictures is not an endorsment of the practice of publishing the pictures, either.

Otherwise, that would be a loophole in WP policy, that allows any notable figure to censor WP by claiming "pictures of X" or "documents that say X" shouldn't be published.

The text of the article is not biased one way or the other. The content of the images is neutral, verifiable, fact. They are pictures of the subject, and thus, very pertitent and central to an article about the subject, not WP:UNDUE weight. An article about the 'Rorschach test' would have a hard time giving undue weight to the inkblots themselves, as they are central to the test, the pictures are definitely relevant. If they violate policy, then so do all pictures that someone notable says you shouldn't publish. Maybe tomorrow someone will say it's unethical to publish pictures of the US Flag. How many notable sources have to agree before WP can't publish it? --Mysidia (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't think publishing the images endorses the idea that it's okay to publish the images? Hmmm... And yet, the reader can look at the discussion page and see that the reason so many Wikipedians are in favor of publishing the images is because they don't believe reports that there are health consequences. Also, the medical disclaimer states that information should not "substitute for the advice of a health care professional." The reader can infer from this that Wikipedia would not intentionally do anything that would interfere with the advice of a health care professional. So the bias is there. It's real. And it's a violation of WP:NPOV AND WP:UNDUE Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, regardless of the presence or absence of the images themselves, I think the text of the article is highly biased. It is currently "reporting the controversy" in much the same way that opponents of the teaching of evolution do. It offers an undue weight WP:UNDUE to the "controversy," spending most of the length of the article in discussing arguments against the test. Accurate information about the Comprehensive System and its scientific support are not presented, and the major authors on that side are not yet referenced. The article reads not like a serious encyclopedia article, but as a thinly-veiled restatement of the point of view of one group WP:NPOV. It needs significant expansion in order to place things in a reasonable context. Yes, I know, the answer is that I and other knowledgeable editors should go ahead and edit the article. And I will, and I will encourage others more knowledgeable than I am to also volunteer their time. But that will take time. And I have to say that I'm skeptical about whether our edits will be allowed to stand, given the flamage I'm reading on this talk page, and the open ad hominem attacks on new editors. Everyone's got to start somewhere. I am having trouble reconciling the question of "meatpuppet" with the call for new editors to join the WP Psychology project. Are we or are we not welcome? Is WP interested, or is this page just the playground of a few people with strong and ill-informed opinions? Mirafra (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please work on improving the article, I will ensure that your reliably sourced edits are given full consideration. –xeno^talk 12:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, someone has protected it. I'll have to wait until the furor and vandalism dies down. (if it ever does.) Mirafra (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that neutrality dictates that we take a less-active posture, one that does not "reproduce" results favorable to any particular point of view concerning the utility of the Rorschach test. (See definition of neutral.) That psychological tests are so easily vulnerable to vandalism (see 1996 APA statement is unfortunate, but does not take away from our responsibility to be neutral. If you pick up a carton of eggs, you have to watch your step more carefully. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But we didn't pick up a carton of eggs. A carton of eggs was placed in the middle of the street (the public domain), only to later complain that cars are crushing it. True, it wasn't the psychologists who placed it in the stre- public domain, but the law, but that doesn't change the fact the psychologists have known for decades that was going to happen. --LjL (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise that we are not responsible for our actions. The problem with your metaphor is that we have spent quite a bit of time next to this carton of eggs. We're not driving 60 miles an hour. We're going quite slow, and our actions are quite deliberate. So, we have to question our neutrality. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That is true. However, I'm pretty sure we have questioned it, for quite a long time (length of these discussions testify it), and the prevailing consensus is that we should go ahead and crush the eggs. --LjL (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition of neutral is something that does not produce (or reproduce) a desired effect, even if that effect is desired by consensus. Neutrality trumps consensus. It's better to give zero information than non-neutral information. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So wrong it verges on ridiculous. Ever read WP:NPOV at all? NPOV is about representing multiple points of view, not suppressing them. --LjL (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but I don't think it's ridiculous. Neither do at least five other Wikipedians. Wikipedia's neutrality should not be compromised by information that cannot be presented in a non-neutral manner. By providing the questions and answers to a psychological test, we are, in effect, invalidating the test and validating the point of view of people, like Garb and Lilienfeld, who question the validity of the test and have called for a moratorium on its use. [7] [8] Garb is, of course, welcome to start a Wikipedia account and contribute, but he must not produce results that reproduce his desired outcome. That would be a violation of our neutrality policy. So if you wouldn't mind, some of us would appreciate it if you took this comment seriously. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I take the comment seriously, I simply find it appalling that people can be Wikipedia editors and have such absurd censorship ideas all while keeping a straight face. I'm dropping the debate at this point, for reasons including apparent legal threats against James. The consensus is very clear and I'm not willing to discuss it anymore, especially with "five other" editors among which are some who used legal threats, which are now apparently put into action. --LjL (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but I don't think the debate we're having here is absurd. I don't think that I am advocating that we violate the WP:NOTCENSORED policy against offensive, profane, or obscene content. Instead, I think we're violating our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neutrality is a core concern of Wikipedia, and to force our readers into a position that limits their ability to choose is non-neutral at the very least. I look forward to discussing possible ways to neutralize this effect on the reader, but I fear the best option is to remove the information. Better to have zero information than information that is non-neutral. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

By that logic we should delete half the encyclopedia. Scary censoreship logic DD. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I see your point. Allow me to rephrase: Better to have a blank article than an article that is non-neutral. If, as in most articles, it were possible to neutralize the effect of the information and allow the reader to choose, I'd be for it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

#5 - It violates Wikipedia policy on indiscriminate collection of information.

I've been listening to Chillum when he says that the goal of Wikipedia is to provide "relevant, informative, and verifiable information." The key word in this is relevant. I've been looking at the at the first pillar and found that says that it says that Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information." My dictionary defines indiscriminate as "Not properly restricted or restrained." So let's properly restrict ourselves, shall we? Surely if Wikipedians can band together and limit the information we provide about the plots of novels and the lyrics of songs, even songs not in copyright, then why not psychological test materials? I propose that this policy be amended to include the following:

5. Psychological test material. Test results are altered when a person has had prior exposure to the test questions and stimuli. This can harm a psychologist's ability to serve the welfare of the patient. Articles about psychological testing may describe test material in order to illustrate a verifiable, referenced point of discussion, but such articles shall endeavor to provide only the minimum detail required to illustrate the point.

The key concept that this fifth item shares with the other four is the issue of relevance. It's not enough to just list lyrics, or plots, or test stimuli without explaining how the lyrics, or plot, or images support the context and issues raised in the article. We can't just list material because it's interesting by itself; we need to also present it in an encyclopedic manner. In other words, "without prose, it no goes." or WPNG for those of us who like acronyms. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You can propose that on the WT:NOT talk page, this is not really the place to propose new policy. I think you will find though that people don't like the scope of WP:NOT to be increased for each specific issue. As for if the material is relevant then I would say that is for consensus to decide. Consensus currently finds the images to be relevant. I do appreciate that this argument is based on policy though. Chillum 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm following the principles of the indiscriminate info policy, and merely extending the list of examples of articles that often violate indiscriminate information policy. The aim of the policy, I think, is to increase the relevance of information. You seem satisfied that the Rorschach images are relevant to the article we're writing. But that's a very insular point of view. Instead, the policy aims to increase the relevance to the real-world. e.g. How did the lyrics of Bob Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind affect society in the 1960's and today? Even though the lyrics may be published elsewhere, without verification of a real-world application, articles with such indiscriminate information are not "encyclopedic" enough. Relevance is verifiable. The Rorschach images in our article are currently listed without relevance. That's indiscriminate. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How can you say they are not relevant? The topic of the article is the test, they are pictures of the visual part of the test. I suppose if you extend policy to include your point of view then you would have a point, but you need to get consensus before extending policy. If you not trying to enforce policy, but rather convince us that the spirit of the policy should preclude these images then you have some convincing to do here. I don't see the images as indiscriminate, they are precisely what the article is about. Without the picture one only gets a vague notion of what the ink blots really are. Chillum 14:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But I wonder if maybe we both have valid points that could by synthesized into something that can improve the article. The plot of Guys and Dolls and Wuthering Heights are relevant to the musical and the novel, but that doesn't mean that we narrate the plots in our articles. For reasons not entirely clear in the policy, (See WP:IINFO we seem to restrict our information at times. Perhaps it's because policy asks us to balance pure information with verifiable real-world context. We need to help our readers understand "why is this information relevant to my life" and not simply assume that the reader comes to the article knowing why they need the information. So maybe we need to answer the question: "Why should the reader know this information?" Answering this question may or may not result in changes to whether to or how many images we present. I'm really not sure. I'm just following the logic without trying to manipulate it toward my other concerns. But it certainly will result in a more encyclopedic article. Of that, I'm sure. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The why is simple, you better understand what the ink blots actually are when you see them, than you would if they were simply described. The topic is better covered. I just don't see the basis of the argument that this information is indiscriminate. Chillum 16:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right and I'm not reading the policy correctly. I think there's a spirit to the policy that may be relevant, here, about how best to present creative works, such as the Rorschach. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic of Vincent Van Gogh would certainly be "better covered" by showing images of all of his paintings. But that's not really the point. Is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:37, 5 July 2009 (talk • contribs) Martinevans123

If the point is not to better cover the topic, then what is the point? Chillum 01:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the existence of many similar images is not reason in itself to use all of them. It's quite possible for an encyclopedia to give the idea of a topic by just using examples. Wikipedia articles should not function as catalogues. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. When I had only seen the first image I assumed they were similar. But in fact they are not similar, they change in style and medium as they go on. I did not know that before I saw all of the pictures. They informed me in a way the text failed to do. Chillum 13:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly surprising you were informed "in a way the text failed to do" if the text doesn't describe them. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Informed you about what? I'm glad for you that you find that interesting. But why should the reader care about changes in color? The point we're trying to make (and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who sees it) is that exhaustive information is not the goal of Wikipedia. So the question that I think should color our decisions is "Why should the reader care?" Asking this question can only improve the article. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

They are pictures of the subject itself, and there are only 10 of them: the information is important and small in amount, therefore not indiscriminate, as it is highly relevant to the subject. There might be a case here if there were 300 pictures, each individually pictured. But the small number of them shows that this particular bit of information is limited, not excessive and indiscriminate. --Mysidia (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you've published the entire test. I don't see similar publications of content on any other cognitive or projective test pages (TAT, WISC, etc), nor a push to do so. A description of the test and a sample non-test blot would be quite sufficient to communicate "what an inkblot is."Mirafra (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this article though is the test though, and it is not just an article about inkblots. Thus showing just a single inkblot as an example could be considered insufficient. As for the thought that other tests are not included in their entirety, that has more to do with the status of the inkblots used in this test now being in the public domain, as opposed to most other mental health or childhood development tests which are still under some form of copyright protection. --Raukodraug (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- "what an inkblot is" was a bit flip on my part. I'll be more clear. On the many other pages covering the many other cognitive, academic, and projective tests in common use by psychologists, in every case where I have checked, test security was not apparently violated in any way. I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I checked a whole bunch of the obvious ones. The descriptions of test structure and item type were well within the boundaries of what is generally disclosed by test publishers or professionals who write reports interpreting test data, and would not raise any hackles under the "need to protect test security" requirements of the APA code of ethics. Whether by laziness or accident or intention, WP editors have thus far respected the boundaries of the psychological profession, rather than setting themselves directly in contradiction.

I understand that the specific legal status of the Rorschach (what with the mess that is international copyright law and treaties) is a complicating factor, but there exist copyright-legal and internet-feasible ways to trash the security of other tests in common use today as well, and I don't see any push to do that. In this case, by contrast, the entire Rorschach test has been published -- the fact that it's a test with only ten items doesn't mean that this is not a potential violation of WP:IINFO, any more than the publication of the complete lyrics of a song is dependent upon the number of verses in the song. This is a different standard of disclosure than is applied to other protected psychological tests on WP.

The purpose of explaining the history and structure of the Rorschach and giving an encyclopedia-relevant level of basic information about how the test is administered and interpreted could be just as easily served with an explicitly fake blot. In fact, it might be easier for the expert editors to give *more* useful information by using a fake example, because then we would be less worried about the problem of extensive exposure to the specific blots themselves and would feel more comfortable in clearly explaining what we *can* explain under our ethical guidelines. Mirafra (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the Rorschach test has any test security; the pictures are definitely available. Any member of the public can actually buy them and possibly look them up in the library. The fact that other articles don't include pictures of the test elements does not mean it's Wikipedia rules not to publish pictures. Other articles are in different stages of development. Take a look at Talk:Thematic_Apperception_Test, note the questions from editors about whether the images are copyrighted. If they are not, I fully expect in the future, the other articles about projection tests to include images, however I wouldn't expect all 30 cards to be pictured, it would be far in excess of what is useful to explain the subject. (5 to 10 pictures seems plenty). If a popular song were very short, for example: 4 or 5 lines long, it would not be indiscriminate information for the article to simply include its entire contents. --Mysidia (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not just any member of the public can purchase the Rorschach images. There are security features in place. Psychological Assessment Resources sells the plates for $100/each to only people with certain qualifications. Qualifications level C requires that you have an

"advanced professional degree that provides appropriate training in the administration and interpretation of psychological tests; OR license or certification from an agency that requires appropriate training and experience in the ethical and competent use of psychological tests."

So we can say that the images are protected. You can't just buy them. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because one seller imposes restrictions doesn't mean others do. Try a google search for 9783456826059. When I performed that search, hit #1 was an online bookseller[9] that has copies of the book listed for sale. --Mysidia (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are relatively unusual situations, that a set of plates (it's not a book) is available in that way. What generally happens to create these situations is that a psychologist dies without leaving a professional will, so that the office and such are cleaned out by people who don't know what they've got, and are unaware that these are not supposed to be sold on the open market. There is ongoing concern in the professional community about this problem, because it affects all sorts of tests. They tend to show up on eBay. Now, eBay does have a policy restricting the sale of "teachers editions" of textbooks, but they have not thus far explicitly extended that policy to psychological tests as far as I know -- the APA and the test publishers were talking to them about it. In general, if a professional lists a test for resale on eBay, they check credentials before completing the sale (that's how I bought my own plates, actually) -- many will list the need to check credentials explicitly in the sales listings. So I think Danglingdiagnosis's point stands -- just because someone can get a random copy of something on what amounts to a black (or at least gray) market does not mean that this is a general "sales policy." For all tests covered under section 9.11 of the APA code of ethics, publishers and licensed distributors of the tests check credentials before making a sale. Mirafra (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The qualifications required to purchase psychological test materials come awfully close to the language of things listed in WP:NONFREE. Not for commercial use is a complicated legal status that I don't pretend to understand. But since Wikipedia is already imposing stricter standards on itself than mere copyrights, I wonder if there isn't some form of status that Wikipedia might recognize and be written into this section of policy? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very good point. The policy says, "free as in cost and free as in freedom are two entirely different things, images freely available on the internet may still be inappropriate for Wikipedia." Perhaps the better thing to do is to propose an edit of the existing WP:NONFREE policy to mention that there is a class of information (restricted-access psychological tests) which should not be posted? Mirafra (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this line of argument totally ridiculous. First First-sale doctrine would shoot down any efforts by anybody to control books once they are sold. Second the Rorschach test images have been published before "The Nuremberg Mind" (1975) and Poundstone's "Big Secrets" (1983) Finally nevermind the dozens of websites and online news articles the images are on including the web site the images came from. I even found one that has had them on the internet since 2003. This horse has been out of the barn for a long time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

#6 - It violates Wikipedia policy on non-free content.

According to a licensed retailer Rorschach test images

1. are sold under license from Hans Huber Publisher, Bern Switzerland.
2. are Copyrighted © by Verlag Hans Huber AG, Bern, Switzerland, 1921, 1948, 1994.
3. may not be reproduced without permission from the publisher
4. can only be purchased by specially qualified buyers that have an "advanced professional degree that provides appropriate training in the administration and interpretation of psychological tests; OR license or certification from an agency that requires appropriate training and experience in the ethical and competent use of psychological tests." ( a.k.a. Qualification C)

All of these things makes the images WP:NONFREE content. Wikipedia has rules about reproducing non-free content. There are 10 of them. We should follow those rules. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The images are public domain. The author has been dead for over 70 years, there is no copyright. The other portions of the test, such as the scoring system may be more modern and thus copyrighted, but the images are public domain. Anyone who claims a copyright on these images is either mistaken or lying. Chillum 13:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The 70-year rule does not apply here -- instead, the old 50-year rule is applicable. If you'll forgive the nitpick :-) -- 77.168.195.155 (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you truly believe these images may be copyrighted and you are not just looking for another reason to remove them then you are welcome to start an investigation regarding these images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. Please post a link to the debate here if you do. Chillum 13:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please show some evidence that the copyright on the images still exists. Tangurena (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the name "Rorschach® ink blot test" is a registered trademark. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So are Sony, Nike, and Wikipedia. Trademark protects identity not content. We can't create a test and call it the Rorschach ink blot test. We can still write an article about it. Chillum 14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering what is the law regarding the use of the Registered Trademark symbol "®" when refering to or describing a product protected by such a mark. And how does wikipedia respond to claims such as that of parinc.com at point (3) above? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We deal with such claims with: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. If you decide to make a post there then please put a link to the debate here. Chillum 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is history repeating. The images are at the commons and have been kept before, so if someone truly wants to claim they are non-free they would have to launch another discussion at the commons, not here. –xeno^talk 15:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Martin, we don't include the symbols. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). –xeno^talk 15:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you once again, xeno, for being such a helpful administrator. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I did not know about the MOS for trademarks or about the distinction between commons vs wikipedia for deletion debates. Chillum 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Something that someone else said got me thinking. And I looked back at the page about WP:NONFREE... and noticed the following prominently-placed sentence. "On Wikipedia, our goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as any content granting the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially." Protected psychological tests are not freely permitted to be redistributed or used for any purpose in any medium. You have to have an advanced degree with specific training in the use and interpretation of protected tests in order to purchase them. If you are not appropriately licensed, you can do jail time for trying to use them. Even copies of outdated tests are supposed to be kept at least somewhat protected, because there are not infrequently reuses of items or item formats between editions. We're not talking just about the Rorschach here, we're talking about all protected tests. WP accepts that some information is not just happy hippie-dippy information dancing with infinite abandon around the intertubes. We're asserting that protected psychological tests fall within that realm, and we've backed that up with strong sources: policy statements from relevant well-recognized professional societies. That's not censorship, that's WP following its own self-description and holding itself to its own standards. (originally posted elsewhere by Mirafra (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2009)Faustian (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia's employs standards that are intentionally stricter than just copyright laws. See WP:NONFREE. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a distinction between "distributing a test" and "distributing the images used in a test". The images are free, although the test, presented in a usable form, may carry restrictions in some jurisdictions under laws other than copyright. — PhilHibbs | talk 19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

#7 - Such vandalism defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia.

I suggest we rename this to "Showing the images defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia"--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A long time ago, someone defined the purpose of an encyclopedia.

Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.

— Diderot, editor and publisher of Encyclopédie 1751 - 1772

Three secondary sources, position statements by major health organizations (i.e. the best kind of sources according to WP:MEDRS), have stated that the security of test material is important to the work of psychologists and should be maintained. It follows that Wikipedia would be vandalizing their work by breaching that security. This is the same conclusion reached by Scientific American in its 2001 article on the subject. Such vandalism is contrary to the purpose of preserving "the work of preceding centuries." I want our children to receive the benefit of the Rorschach test. Too many of them may need it. ( 0.7% Schizophrenia, 1-2% bi-polar disorder, etc.)

Is the test perfect? Are there valid criticism of the test? Yes. And we can and should report those criticisms, for to hide such criticism would be censorship. As Denis Diderot said about his encyclopedia, "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." But even he, I'm sure, would draw the line at vandalism. Just because a car parked in front of someone's house isn't the quality vehicle you may wish, that doesn't give you cause to slash its tires.

Many of us have seen and fought against vandalism on Wikipedia. So you should be sympathetic when the tables are turned and Wikipedia becomes the source of vandalism to the work of others. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word vandalism to describe publishing a thing is a flawwed analogy, there is an extreme dissimilarity between the things being compared. Publishing now-freely available images that were used in a test is no more vandalism than investigative reporting, or other publication of information in the public interest. It's not vandalism if other parties publish things about Wikipedia within their own publications, even if they are harmful, even if Wikipedia doesn't want them published, and that applies to any public object: it's not vandalism for Wikipedia to print images like the ones attached to the article. --Mysidia (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of the images in fact aids in the collection and dissemination of knowledge, and serves to preserve information about the test. It does not defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. Perfect test security would ensure that no information about the test is published, and the result is, knowledge of the test is lost of the centuries.

Therefore based on the definition above, publishing all details of the test would in effect "transmit it to those who will come after us", and be more inline with that definition than not publishing.

The "definition" of an encyclopedia above contains rationale that is not accepted as part of the definition of an encyclopedia.

There is no robust test security anymore. The images have already been available to the public freely for long enough that even if Wikipedia removes them, they will be freely available at numerous online sources, including public archives that exist of older versions of Wikipedia image files. --Mysidia (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. To the extent that previous norms are damaged wikipedia has destroyed that knowledge. For example, if previous research has shown that only 30% of depressed people see a mouse on the first card (this is not true, I'm making up a much less complex hypothetical here) and wikipedia puts this up, it may be that now 40% of depressed people see the mouse. Wikipedia has rendered the previous findings and whatever benefit they could have given, useless. This is the equivalent of describing a house by tearing it apart in order to catalogue where all the pieces are. By the time you're finished, there is no more house and the description is of course obsolete and false.

To the extent that a test becomes less useful due to its publication, wikipedia destroys the ability of the test to add to more knowledge and renders the previously obtained knowledge meaningless.Faustian (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The average layperson doesn't even recognize the name "Rorschach test". It's an extremely unlikely proposition that a statistically significant percentage of the general public actually reads the article and actually looks at the images; so long as Wikipedia doesn't publish the full details of the test, the methods of interepreting answers, or expected answers for each image, the test has not been rendered useless, and the impact is minimal, except maybe for a small number of individuals who have read the article and studied the images in great detail, so they can make contrived answers. I would expect there to be extroardinary proof that the publication of just the images invalidates the results of the test to justify retracting the images fron an article, and those 3 sources are not extroardinary evidence. As always, professionals utilize multiple tests, not just one, and more information about one test being published can be utilized to assist in developing other tests based on it, a net benefit to the collection of human knowledge. --Mysidia (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mysidia, I don't see the flaw in my use of the word "vandalism". You're looking at the word through the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. I'm using the general definition found in wiktionary:vandalism Vandalism is the impairment of property, even shared property which is in the public domain (such as the Rorschach inkblots), such that it does not look or function as it was intended.

Psychological tests are not designed to be generally published. Wikipedia is. They are designed differently. If you put a boat in the lake, it floats; you haven't harmed it any. If you put a car in the lake, that's vandalism.

I understand you have a personal belief that information is best published for everyone to see. But that's just a general rule-of-thumb, isn't it? I have 3 sources that say otherwise. [10] [11] [12] They're good quality sources that say that psychological tests need to be kept reasonably secure. Publishing in Wikipedia defeats that purpose and is, thus, vandalism. Worse, it vandalizes a base of knowledge, something that Wikipedians, such as yourself, should appreciate. We should be guardians of knowledge, not vandals of it. Like museum curators, we should put as much as we can out for public display, but not in a way that harms or destroys the item. Because we want our children to reap the same benefit as we have. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Point one: I see that your definition of "vandalism" is quite valid, but I wonder why some people here (and in other related talk page) insist on using word "not in their Wikipedia-specific definition". I though we were on Wikipedia.

Point two: given that we are on Wikipedia, I am ready and willing to rely on reliable sources to write articles. But nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that any sources should be using for deciding what's ethical for Wikipedia, or what's vandalism. That's up to the community to decide, not sources.

--LjL (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Point one: I agree that some of us are finding the word confusing because we normally use it with reference to Wikipedia policy and not general usage. However, the other options are not very good. I just opened up my thesaurus and found "sabotage." I'm happy to substitute this word, but I don't wish to imply that anyone is intentionally damaging the test. I think what we have here is more a matter of "Oops. Sorry about the problem I caused, but I have other more important things to consider." That sounds to me like vandals who are just doing their thing. Which kind of makes me the old man yelling out the window, "Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!" I swore it would never happen, but it did: I've become that guy down the street.

Point two: If we don't use reliable sources for our information, who do we use? The community? You and me? I think that's just wrong. You can try and make a distinction between information we use solely in our discussion pages and how it trickles up to our articles, but I worry about going down that road. You're saying that policy only applies to what we do on our articles and not to how we discuss them. I think there are plenty of policies for how we are supposed to act in our discussions. Why some and not others? I also think the better we organize our talk pages, the better will be our articles, because one derives much from the other. Think about it... If we don't apply some pretty basic rules to our discussions, like fact checking and attribution, then I shudder to think what will happen as the results trickle up to our articles. At the very least, it will result in articles that change drastically over time, depending on who's doing the talking, which is what is happening here at the Rorschach test.

Which brings me back to the argument in this thread. By going down this road, we've begun to compromise basic principles to the operation of an encyclopedia. I think we need to take a step back and really consider what it is that we are trying to do. I think we should stick to writing an encyclopedia with general articles that inform us about real-world context, (i.e. information that is relevant but not exhaustive) and that does not destroy knowledge or utility. Because, really, what is knowledge without utility? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Why some and not others" - because that is what the guidelines and policies say. You may perhaps like guidelines, policies and talk pages to be reliably sources, but then you're thinking about a different encyclopedia,, because that is not how this one works. Is there any reliable source that says that "consensus" is the Most Important Thing Ever? Maybe, but in any case that's not what was used to decide that consensus was important on Wikipedia. Policy here has never been built based on what "sources" said about policy. --LjL (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages, according to Wikipedia:Talk page are not for discussion personal views. They are for discussing content on the article. In doing so, we are informed by outside sources. This must be so because we are not supposed to rely on our own expertise. Therefore, if a reliable source says that our article is damaging a test, you are not free to disregard this information. You must accept this as verifiable fact, find another source that refutes this, or perform original research. You may hold this fact in dynamic tension with other considerations and apply judgment about weight, but you may not disregard it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, article talk pages aren't about discussing policy, either. If policy says that something should or should not be in an article, then there is nothing to discuss on a talk page; at best, you discuss on the policy page.

I'm not necessarily saying that we should adhere to the above strictly... but the point is that, while we should "not" disregard infrmation such as a source saying that our article is damaging a test, we should, if anything, use that information to put it in the appropriate article, not to dictate policy. I repeat, not to dictate policy. This seems so obvious to me I never thought I'd have to repeat it... If you want, though, we can bring it to a more appropriate venue. --LjL (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, now, where we are thinking differently: I think policy gives us the freedom to use our discretion. You think you are bound by policy to act in a certain way. Of course, you're free to consider policy or anything else when considering the facts. But Let me free you. From Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means:

"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored."

So, I wasn't aware that I was discussing policy. I think I'm discussing content and using some pretty basic concepts about how one should speak and use (or not use) references. Regarding content, let me ask you, how do you regard the information that we are damaging the test? Facts are facts, and I don't wish you to ignore them. Are you okay with the idea that Wikipedia is disclosing information that may harm or destroy the utility of the test? ...because I'm not. Who are we to interfere? We are encyclopedists. We're supposed to observe and report, not influence, and certainly not destroy the utility of information. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it? Yes, yes, YES. It's not Wikipedia's problem whether the information it provides somehow damages the test. Wikipedia isn't sponsored by the APA, it doesn't owe anything to the test. It's not interfering; actually, psychologists are currently interfering with Wikipedia by bringing their conflict of interest with their code of ethics here, and even forcing administrators to full-protect the article.

Wikipedia's purpose is to report, but who said reporting won't have effects on society? I'm pretty damn sure Wikipedia has already had quite an important effect on a lot of people, simply by bringing so much knowledge and information to easy access. Of course that's perfectly fine.

--LjL (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's your arguments not how many times you say anything. The objective of any encyclopedia is to gather knowledge for the benefit of humankind. It's been shown many times that dissemination of knowledge is a good thing. That is our default notion. What you fail to realize is that even simple ideas like the one I just stated have exceptions. History has also shown that our most basic assumptions sometimes have exceptions. Newton's law was fine for most human experiences for thousands of years, today we know now that at high speeds bizarre things happen. There has never been an encyclopedia like the Wikipedia and the images on this article challenges the basic assumption that all knowledge is good for human kind. Because it hampers the ability of our physicians to take care of us. It's a weird case there are few cases like these.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No excuse me, if the question is "are you okay with the idea...?", the answer is "yes, I am". I am being asked for an opinion; and I had given it a number of times.

As to the content of your objections, I'll repeat things I've already said: 1) not all parties seem to agree there's harm in the accidental viewing of the images (more so in deliberate use of the image to "cheat" the test, but it's not up to us to prevent that) 2) no one has demonstrated that disseminating test materials won't encourage scientists to successfully develop other tests that are resilient to dissemination.

What do where do when there are disagreements and incognita? We jump back our "default" stance, which is well documented and which you aren't in general disagreeing with. --LjL (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia does owe something to the test. Every time I write for an article, my responsibility is to the subject. I take great care so that I may pass on knowledge that is correct and useful. I consider my reader and ask, "how will they use the information." But if 5 years from now, nobody can use a Rorschach test, then we will have failed our purpose. Any why? Because we failed to recognize our circumstances. Do you know the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog? You seem to be saying "It's my nature to act a certain way." But there arises special situations in which it is in everyone's best interest if he or she reassesses his nature. The human mind is the most adaptable of any on the planet. Adaptability and ingenuity is the reason for our success as a species and for the failure of other hominid species. But we still get into trouble when we let custom dictate our actions. As the poet Shelly wrote, "But custom maketh blind and obdurate the loftiest hearts." We have a unique situation here. It's best to recognize that and make allowances. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That requires believing the test is useful, the test will be unrepairably broken by publishing information about it, and the test cannot be replaced by a more robust test (the typical CS argument against security by obscurity, and people can keep saying it just doesn't apply to psychology, but I have yet to hear a good reason why). That's a lot of things to believe on their face. I don't necessarily believe they are true. --LjL (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you or I have the authority to force medical professionals to replace the test with another. That you would dare suggest otherwise is interesting, but such opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could write an article as a commentary and submit it to an on-line magazine. Or if you have a medical license, you could submit it to a professional journal. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who can read can see that is not what I said. --LjL (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What you said was that you have trouble believing that a)the test is useful, b) the test will be unrepairably broken by publishing information about it, and c) the test cannot be replaced by a more robust test. Here's my response: Your understanding about these things is not required. You simply need to accept a source (in this case, a statement by a national health organization) and stop relying on your own understanding or your own original research. We live in a big world; even people with encyclopedic knowledge can be forgiven if they must sometimes rely on others for their information. In this case the information tells us that a) the Rorschach test is considered to be useful, b) we are vandalizing psychological tests, including the Rorschach, by disclosing test data, and c) that doing so may invalidate the results and require the substitution of other tests. I believe that such vandalism defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia and should stop. If you continue to have doubts about the appropriate use of the Rorschach test, then I encourage you to present those arguments in a peer-reviewed psychological journal. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that as much as you may insist otherwise, I still don't believe that it's expected (or beneficial) to use sources to decide what to include on Wikipedia (or otherwise what policies to have). Wikipedia uses sources for its content; it uses editor consensus for its policies. You may not like that but I do, and I'm pretty sure a vast majority of Wikipedians do, as well. --LjL (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm using sources to inform my decision about whether content advances the mission of providing a free encyclopedia. If consensus shows that we are harming the subject of the article, then I believe Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're most certainly absolutely free to base your opinion (which counts, like all opinions do) on. You just can't expect others to do the same, because that's not required. I believe, additionally, that the current RfC quite clearly shows that consensus wants the images to stay. --LjL (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please! The RfC was just created, WP:CCC doesn't exist for you to be able to claim that the consensus of 10 minutes ago isn't valid. --LjL (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me back up to something you said earlier. You said you don't believe that it's expected (or beneficial) to use sources to decide what to include on Wikipedia. But I think you're mistaken. We make content decisions on article discussion pages; that is, in fact, the primary purpose of a discussion page. And according the the guidelines for discussion pages, editors are supposed to utilize rules of evidence and verification. "The policies that apply to articles apply also (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies." Therefore, it's entirely valid for me to cite a source to support an argument I make on a talk page. Just as it is valid for you to cite policy. Doing either does not end the debate. On the contrary, the debate can then begin. So let us begin, recognizing the both of us have verifiable sources to back up our statements and that neither of us are engaging in personal opinions or viewpoints when we cite our sources. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the primary purpose of a talk page would be to collaborate in the improvement of the article. And the issue here is we're not really discussing that; you could say we're all at fault. What we're really discussing is policy. I think I've been pretty careful to always say "policy" rather than "talk page", and there's a reason for that - you, yourself, have started a policy proposal about this, so you clearly realize yourself that this is really a matter of policy. It shouldn't even belong to this talk page. After all, the very guideline that you cite does also say "[...] it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements". This one clearly hasn't. --LjL (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am trying to improve the article and bring it more in line with our mission, which is the preservation of knowledge; not the vandalism of public property. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

#8 - How Dare we Not?

I'm sympathetic to my fellow Wikipedians who find the very idea of withholding information to be distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the free flow of information. I listened to you and heard the visceral disgust you expressed: How dare we decide who should and should not have access to information? How dare we, indeed! I respect the place where that reaction comes from.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have the luxury of avoiding the reciprocal question: How dare we not take responsibility? If not us, then who? Can the reader take responsibility? No, because a) we can't assume they know what a Rorschach test is prior to reading the article, b) the consequences are involuntary, and c) we don't warn the reader about the consequences. Can the psychologists take responsibility? No, because they also have no choice but to substitute an alternative procedure. And parenthetically, whether they should've, could've, or would've anticipated this problem and created a copyrighted, alternative test, one that doesn't rely on the good graces of reporting agencies like Wikipedia, is not something many of us are qualified to second guess and is "water under the bridge" at this point. This means that the people who are most accountable for their actions is us, Wikipedians. We can't shirk the responsibility. Other sites may be publishing the images, but our readers are our readers and no one else's. Let other sites do what they will. We gotta do what we think is right.

I know many of you fear doing anything that seems like censorship. The twentieth century saw enough of that with certain despotic rulers. I argue that withholding images is not censorship because we aren't withholding either criticism or praise. It's simply information: the questions and answers to a diagnostic psychological test. "How dare we withhold information?" you say. To which I reply, "How dare we not." Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"The twentieth century saw enough of that with certain despotic rulers." I call reductio ad Hitlerum (and Godwin's law). Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of anything, and I did not mean that sentence in the way that you took it. Please feel free to disregard it. The rest of the post is, hopefully, more to your liking. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)