User talk:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences

Invitations to this Discussion Extended to the Following Places:

1. Wikimedia General Counsel - User_talk:Mike_Godwin
2. talk:Rorschach_test
3. talk:Photosensitive_epilepsy
4. Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer#Photosensitive epilepsy
5. Village Pump (Policy)
6. Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not

You should drop a note at WT:MED and WT:PSYCH as well, asking them for input. –xeno^talk 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. From the outset, this proposal has been made with no attempt to run or hide from any interested party. Any accusation to the contrary is based solely on an assumption of bad faith. These accusations serve only to taint the process. If you love Wikipedia, as I do, then you should respect the process. There are no vandals, here, only reasoned arguments with verifiable sources. If at the end, someone wants to adorn my user page with a medal, you may do so, but I want one that says the following "In the face of opposition, he assumes good faith and puts his trust in the process." If there is a version of that in Latin, that might be interesting, but I prefer the clarity of the English. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danglingdiagnosis (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Where should this policy reside? Legal or Content?

I'm uncertain how this proposed policy should fit within the categories listed on WP:LOP. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered that too. A lot of the discussion over the Rorschach inblots to date has revolved around the notions of "public domain","copyright" and "freely available images". But I can't shake off this nagging doubt over how fair it really it can be to publish 100% of the test materials of a test (one that is still being very widely used today all over the world) and then simply expect the test originator (who has now been dead for 87 years and who is no longer protected by copyright, seemingly) to come up with a replacement. And to do this just in time to stop a misdiagnosis having seriuous consenquences. But perhaps the notion of fairness does not feature in the remit of corporate legal matters? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Content. The argument, "Well, your silly little law doesn't apply to me, and neither does your ethics code, so there!" seems thin and vulnerable to precisely the sort of legalese nitpicking that seems to have taken up a lot of space on the original talk page. On the other hand, the notion that, "Some forms of content might actually have good reasons for being limited because of the specific nature of the content," seems a better match here.Mirafra (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there is no law, and the code of ethics only refers to the actions of psychologists. Chillum 04:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Flexibility

The essay, Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance suggests writing policies that are flexible. I'm wondering if this advice can be applied to this proposed policy. I don't wish to create an unworkable, hard-to-police policy, if it can be avoided. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Promotion to policy

This new page looks like forum shopping to me, judging by the fact that its writer was recently involved in a dispute at Talk:Rorschach test over this very and the outcome of the dispute seems to have either been against this, or at least no consensus. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the outcome is no consensus and has been no consensus for over 3 years. I joined the discussion 28 days ago and am, hereby, offering ideas that, to my knowledge, have never been proposed before. This is exactly the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. See Consensus can changeDanglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to the "Psychological test information" section, also based on the outcome of the Rorschach test discussion. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely forumshopping, and should be deleted as such. → ROUX ₪ 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think deletion is necessary; why not just move it to Danglingdiagnosis' userspace and convert it to a user essay? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. I am just not terribly comfortable with the idea of enabling this sort of forumshopping by allowing it to stand in any way. → ROUX ₪ 03:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I followed all the rules for proposing policy. And I have not hidden my efforts or attempted to run from my critics. Instead, I've invited them, as they instructed me to -- as the rules instruct me to. I'm happy to put this page anywhere as long as we can continue to receive comments. Speaking of comments... Do you have any concerning the proposed policy? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave my opinion at 11:24EST, above. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. → ROUX ₪ 03:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But there have been exceptions to WP:NOTCENSORED

1. WP:IINFO
2. Photosensitive epilepsy

Why not psychological tests, especially when the issue encompasses such a primary concern of Wikipedia: the issue of choice? The core of Wikipedia is about choice. So is this. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have no idea what you're going on about with the link to photosensitive epilepsy. Are you saying that we don't use images/video that can trigger it? Well yes, that's good; causing seizures is probably a bad thing for Wikipedia to be doing. Showing Rorschach blots cannot impact the health of anyone to that degree. And I have even less idea what you're going on about with WP:IINFO. Yeah, we don't include everything. And? Rorschach blots are integral to an article about same. I don't believe I have ever read any text or encyclopedic article about blots that does not include an exemplar. → ROUX ₪ 05:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually no encyclopedia (Encarta, Britannica, etc.) other than wikipedia includes the actual inkblots from the actual tests. They all use simulations of them. The current wikipedia article is the sole exception.Faustian (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Further, there is no existing (project-wide) epilepsy exception, and Wikipedia:General disclaimer explicitly warns of the possible presence of epileptic triggers. Thought I admit it would be probably be unwise to add examples. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I respect you for admitting that. You and I agree, therefore, that Wikipedia should censor itself when it comes to photosensitive epilepsy. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And further, being censored would means we keep out stuff that applies, not that we keep out stuff in general. There's a huge difference. Keeping a picture of a penis out of penis would be censorship. Keeping one off of banana would not be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I take your point as valid. But no one is suggesting that seeing a penis has any health consequences. Remember the title of the proposed policy. There is nothing in this proposed policy that negates the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. It still stands. There's no reason to think that this will have a huge effect on most Wikipedia articles, just the ones about psychological test materials and photosensitive epileptic images. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So Roux, your argument is about a matter of degree? Okay. Let's pursue that line of thinking. Can you say that the degree of harm from a photosensitive epilepsy seizure is any worse than the harm from remaining undiagnosed with schizophrenia or bi-polarism? How about the sources in Rorschach test that show the efficacy of the test in detecting suicidality. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy you're willing to consider the degree of harm. There are two or three Wikipedians I've met who have no qualms admitting that they don't care about the issue of harm, no matter what degree. To them WP:NOTCENSORED trumps all other considerations. So welcome. I'm glad you're bringing your ethics to the discussion. Even if, in the final analysis, you think that WP:NOTCENSORED carries more weight than the potential harm of releasing the Rorschach images, at least you brought your whole value system to the debate. Glad to see it. I'd hate for you to deny yourself behind some veil of policy. The only way to get the attention of someone like that is to... well... bring the discussion to where they live: To policy. Which may be a good thing, after all, because any solution found there will likely be more stable. So here I am with this proposal, in the hopes that this maybe the best place to have the discussion. What's the adage I'm looking for...? about taking the ________ home to where it resides.

About the images being integral to any serious article about the subject, I can point to a 2001 Scientific American Article that refused to print the images and showed only a facsimile. Also, in the top 3 items of a google search, only Wikipedia shows the actual test stimuli. S.P.A.R.C. and www.inkblot.com do not. Poundstone, in his book Big Secrets thought he was doing something very scandalous in revealing the images, but even he did not show the actual images, only the outlines. These are the top sources for the images, and none of them deny what the APA and the BPS say about pre-exposure changing the results of the test. They're only defense is that the test is not as good as some claim it to be. That's like walking along the street, seeing a car with only 3 cylinders in the engine, and then letting the air out of the tires saying, "Oh well, it's just a 3 cylinder car. It can't do what a 4 or a 6 cylinder car can do. So let's sabotage it and make it an even worse car."

You asked about my thinking with WP:IINFO My dictionary defines indiscriminate as being "not properly restrained." If we can restrain ourselves to not publish the lyrics of songs and the plots of books, then why not test material from a psychological exam? It's another example of Wikipedia censoring itself in policy. This proposal would be another. One that is very limited in scope.

I have 3 sources that say that pre-exposure to the images is bad. I don't know of any source that supports a view to the contrary. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The only relevant questions are:

1. Do the images serve an encyclopedic purpose? Yes.
2. Do the images cause harm? Only for the incredibly small subset of readers who may at some point in their lives undergo psychoanalysis involving the specific Rorschach blots shown on Wikipedia. Unlike photosensitive epilepsy, which causes immediate and significant danger to susceptible people viewing the right sort of visual stimuli, publishing Rorschach images can only cause a maybe potential harm to a very few people.

The sooner you understand that the first question is in fact the overriding one for all content on Wikipedia, the sooner this ridiculous dispute will be over. Your argument could as easily be applied, to use Melodia's example, to images of penises, or breasts--or indeed uncovered womens' faces, to our more devout Muslim readers. None of those things are censored on Wikipedia, nor should Rorschach images. Get over it. → ROUX ₪ 07:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But people with religious objections to images of body parts and faces have been indoctrinated about this since birth. They may not have seen a breast or a penis, but we can reasonably expect that they know what might happen when they open up certain Wikipedia articles. For them, the general content disclaimer applies well. Not so with Rorschach or any other Psychological test. For that, we need a special policy, I'm thinking. What about the kid who rents the movie, The Watchmen, and wonders what are those funny black spots on the mask of the character, Rorschach. Does he know what to expect when he opens Wikipedia?

If by encyclopedic content, you mean content that is neutral and preserves the right of the reader to make up his or her own mind about the health choices they make, then I agree, it is the only relevant question we should be asking. I just don't think you've fully asked the question, "what is encyclopedic content?" Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Um no, by encyclopedic I mean 'content that educates and informs,' which these images do. Sorry, but you are so wrong here it hurts. → ROUX ₪ 08:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t see that any dispute can be described as “ridiculous” if it involves the possibility of involuntary harm to a reader. Should Backmasking contain a nice clear exemplar? That subject isn't just the profiteering arm of a pseudoscience, is it(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Or what about 100% of all known examples? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The psychologist might get it wrong too. That might hurt the patient. (Or let the patient hurt his or herself). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)But back to the idea of what encyclopedic means, I think its worth asking what is our goal: I think the goal of an encyclopedia should conform to the following:

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

So the information should render a service that improves the lives of future generations. What better service than to be neutral and allow the reader the freedom to choose his/her own course and not have it be pre-determined by those who went before them? Otherwise the encyclopedia just becomes an achor holding him/her back. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break for editing purposes - TL:DR

This proposal boils down to 2 parts - the photosensitive epilepsy part (which appears uncontroversial but as far as I know is unnecessary - I know of no pages in WikiMedia which violate that clause) and an anti-Rorschach part which has failed to gain clear consensus despite years of discussion on that article's Talk page. Trying to make this as a policy decision right now is ill-advised. I do not consider this a supportable proposal. Rossami (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What utter nonsense, you can't consider promoting censorship to a policy. You have heard the wise words of many here. Now withdraw this ill considered policy suggestion before you get shot down in flames, only to be remembered as the one who suggesting censoring Rorschach. Do you propose to go into libararies and rip pages from books on psychology? Psychology can invent new tests if they feel existing ones are compromised. Probably a good thing too as many would consider psychology to be a pseudo-science at best. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So your arguments are thus: displaying the Rorschach inkblots is a good thing because it will cause psychology, which is a psuedoscience, to have to waste its time by having to invent new tests, yes? And that protecting those in need of the test from re-exposure to the images amounts to the same thing as going into libraries and ripping the pages from psychology textbooks, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That may well be the most breathtakingly dishonest argument I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And I have seen some doozies. → ROUX ₪ 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to understand exactly the arguments that Jezhotwells is trying to make in the paragraph above. I thought I had made a fair appraisal of his logic. But was that an unfair exaggeration? Perhaps he could clarify? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am answering every criticism with sound reasoning. Yours, too. About your points:

1. I am not the one who suggested censoring Rorschach; that's been part of the discussion from the beginning in all languages, only one of which I can speak. I'm just the one who wrote a policy proposal, just to see what it might look like. I must say it looks pretty good to me. AND it's flexible, with room for discussion. Censorship comes in many forms: movie ratings are a form of censorship, too. Maybe, just maybe, an encyclopedia that covers every topic under the sun might run into a few subjects that could benefit from some form of censorship. And perhaps in those discussions, there will be people like you who don't understand the value of what is being protected. But that's okay. I'm not arguing that the value is high. So you don't have to go far to meet me in the middle. And if we can make an agreement, we might bring about a solution to this problem that has plagued Wikipedia in all languages. So don't blame the guy who's offering solutions. At least I'm trying something constructive. Or would you rather have to deal with this issue until the end of days? People come and go, but the argument seems to live on.
2. The writers of books on psychology would agree with me that reasonable security measures need to be taken. It's part of their professional code of conduct. (See footnote #2 on project page.)

• To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davis Well they would say that, wouldn't they. End of a nice little earner with flawed testing, see this Scientific American article. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if that "nice little earner" isn't (or so far doesn't seem to be) protected, like most of the other personality assessment psychometric tools, by copyright? Perhaps Wikipedia, free of possible litigation, can simply afford to take the risk? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best to assume good faith. Ulterior motives would most certainly be exposed, and as you pointed out, have been exposed. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Footnote #3 and #4 (quoted in #3) speaks to your point about inventing new test material. That 's a very expensive proposal. If you think the APA is just being lazy and refusing to create new tests... Well, you can make that argument about just about anything you'd care to vandalize, can't you? Hmmm... "Don't worry. They're rich. They can build another one. And then, we can go and sabotage that one, too! Right? "

• I'm not vandalizing anything, but your flawed proposal would be vandalism of Wikipedia. I urge you to withdraw it immediately. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm listening to you. You really feel strongly that all censorship is wrong. Does the strength of that conviction override concerns about the health of the reader? Even if the reader did not voluntarily give his/her consent to the risk? That thinking eludes me. Help me understand that, please. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that censorship is wrong. So does Wikipedia. There may be many things in Wikipedia that might be considered by some to be damaging to readers. But truth cannot be damaging. Your particular instance of using Rorschach images may seem important to you, but it is not more important than preserving the integrity of Wikipedia from censorship. Your proposal has failed, so live with it. Move on, contribute to something else. No one has died. What would be your opinion about an article on an object such as 2007 VK184 which could have a major impact on a lot of people's health? Would you censor that? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the truth of how to make a dirty bomb? or to manufacture dangerous drugs? The truth about the Rorschach test, according to those who use it, is that it works less well with pre-exposure of the images. Or does Wikipedia want to look and sound as if it has the "monopoly on the truth"? And how do we know that "no-one has died" partly because of an ineffective Rorschach diagnosis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 July 2009

The Rorschach is used in many forensic contexts. For example, it is used to determine whether someone is so batshit crazy (not a technical term (grin)) that they can't understand what's going on in a court case and can't be part of their own defense. It is used to determine whether someone is a dangerous and likely to harm other people if allowed out of prison early. It is used to determine whether parents who have previously been abusive to their kids can have custody of those kids safely returned to them. Additionally, it is used to determine the likelihood that a client will commit suicide or homicide if released from the supervision of a psychiatric hospital. Etc. I'm not making up scare tactics -- these are routine situations in which the Rorschach is used. I'm trying to help you understand why the field cares. Sometimes we are talking about people dying. Mirafra (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

→ ROUX ₪ 05:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For just a few examples, try Gacono CB & Evans B (2007). The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum. Exner JE & Erdberg P (2005). The Rorschach: Advanced interpretation. NY: Wiley. Gacono DB & Meloy JR (1994). The Rorschach assessment of aggressive and psychopathic personalities. Erlbaum. Ackerman, MJ (2006). Clinician's guide to child custody evaluations. NY: Wiley. Mirafra (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I can see that you think psychologists are pseudoscientists. You're entitled to your bias, and I'm not unsympathetic to that point of view. With a name like DanglingDiagnosis, you can probably guess that I have no particular enthusiasm about the crackerjack diagnostic abilities of any medical professional, and that's partly true. But I try not to let it influence my judgment too greatly. That would be WP:UNDUE weight. I'm trying to see beyond my own point of view. Even if I were to debase myself and engage in disparaging comments about the abilities of a profession, I'm forced to admit that criticism and sabotage are two entirely different things. I would never sabotage someone else's vehicle, no matter what I thought of it or the owner. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the discussion at Talk:Rorschach test, and there's a clear consensus to include the images in the article. This "policy" is just an attempt to subvert consensus through forum shopping. I support userfication. Gigs (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Discussion was stalled. Genuine questions left unanswered. Some were questioning if there was ever going to be an end. That was appalling to see. So when the suggestion was made by one of my critics to move the discussion off the talk page, I thought that was a fine idea. And then I thought, "if the problem is a conflict between two conflicting policies (neutral point of view WP:NPOV versus WP:NONCENSORED or between a policy and a non-subjective ethic, then let's bring the discussion to policy where it belongs? So I followed the instructions at WP:POLICY about how to propose a policy. I think it's an interesting proposal. I've shown good faith. I don't feel that I am subverting any process. I'm just proposing ideas that may hopefully bring about a better solution. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Every one of your arguments and tenuous appeals to policy has been demolished. Please get over it; the consensus has spoken (repeatedly) on that page, and that you and a couple of other very vocal and tendentious editors don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. → ROUX ₪ 20:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you give us, Roux, your defintion of "very tendentious" editors, so what we can steer clear of them? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I welcome you to come and respond to those arguments. There are many questions left hanging. I think the problem is that many people are leaping over the arguments and weighing the argument against a broad interpretation of the noncensored policy. In the final analysis, you are free to do that, but before you can enter the final analysis, you must first give each argument its due weight. That has not yet happened. Many of the arguments are still less than 1 month old. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If by 'questions left hanging' you mean 'why won't people do what a tiny but vocal minority says, against consensus?' then yes, there are questions left hanging. Fortunately, that one is answered here. Please just give it up. Consensus is against you. This happens to all of us here. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Per all of the above. You can't write encyclopedically about Rorschach without some examples, and including them doesn't cause serious harm as argued. Maybe we don't need to show all 10, but taht is a content issue, it doesn't need a new policy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet every other reputable encyclopedia has managed to do so without including the real blots.Mirafra (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, but we have 3 attributable sources showing harm/sabotage to the test's effectiveness: Two from the APA, and one from the BPS. (See footnotes on project page.) There are no sources that argue to the contrary. In fact, web-sites that show the images (those highest in a Google search) all cite the APA's claim of harm/sabotage and make no counter-claim other than to criticize the efficacy of the test. Does Wikipedia wish to take the same position as these saboteurs? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As many people have said, the test's effectiveness is debatable anyway, and if the test can be ruined by publishing one or two pictures then it's not a test worth using. Part of a psychiatrist's job is to be familiar with multiple diagnostics; there's no way of making sure that no person in the world has ever seen Rorschach inkblots, and if someone for one reason or another can't be tested with them then people have other ways to test. Most of these pictures are already very well-known and recognizable, and including them on WP is not going to make a difference.

And besides, that's all beside the point of this page. Arguing about the Rorshach images in particular is only relevant to that article, not to whether or not t his should be a policy. Trying to create a new policy to make you "win" a discussion that you were "losing" is not appropriate, and if that is the only raison d'etre for this proposal then it should be quickly thrown out, as many editors above have already suggested. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Let's consider another psychological test, the MMPI. Here is another psychological test and the same problem occurs here. Wikipedia should not publish the test questions because to do so would damage the results. The policy covers this problem as well and prevents any future conflict. Same issue. Same policy. It still applies.

As for your "the dike has failed and water is flowing" argument: I think anything we do will make a difference. New children are born everyday. 14 babies per year per 1000 persons. For a country of 300 million, that's 4.2 million new faces per year. Plus people don't surf the web with unlimited time and energy like water seeking its own level. Many will read a well-balanced Wikipedia article that provides real-world context with illustrations of example inkblots and be satisfied. They may not be motivated to pursue the subject in exhaustive detail. So not all is lost. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I agree with you that not all 10 images are necessary; the subject can be adequately covered with 2-3. That, however, is a content issue that should be solved on an article-per-article basis, and is not a reason to create a new policy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Weird combination of topics within this proposed policy. Photosensitive epilepsy is unlikely for Wikipedia type content; scientific evidence for such effect unless long term emersion in moving images is rare anyway. The other effect on psych stimuli is hard to read and therefore almost impossible to enforce. Anyway tis seems to serve no clear goal at all (except perhaps censorship). So Strong oppose to making this policy as no unity, both topics irrelevant. Arnoutf (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Response:

1. Photosensitive epilepsy is not rare. An incident involving a Japanese television program in 1997 adversely affected somewhere between 5 to 10 percent of the viewing audience. Dennō Senshi Porygon
2. The concern about exposure to psychological tests is well attributed. See footnotes 2, 3, 4 on project page. You and I are not experts, and should not pretend to be experts.
3. There is a clear goal to this policy and it's stated in the title: Wikipedia should not provide content that has involuntary health consequences. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dennō Senshi Porygon was Mass hysteria, which I guess is still a type of mental disorder. There is absolutely no way that 10% of japan has photosensitive epilepsy. Anyway, it's beside the point. Wikipedia is not censored, as much as you don't like that fact. Gigs (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As others have noted, lets be honest here. This is a blatant attempt at sidestepping the debate at Talk:Rorschach test and to make one person's opinion in that debate policy. I've give you credit for coming up with an inventive attempt at censoring that article, but as with others, I oppose any attempt at creating such a policy. Resolute 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Which one person was that? But I think the point has been correctly made by an earlier editor that this page should not be to debate the display of Rorschach images but to discuss this policy proposal? If any attempt to protect a reader is immediately held to be "censorship" I suspect that the debate here will not get far. Let's be honest here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to argue that this policy is targeted at anything but the Rorschach test article. Especially given your (and Faustian's) very own arguments below focus solely on the display of the inkblots and how that is bad. Joshua made a generic statement about the display of PD images, and you ran straight to the inkblot issue. We should be honest here, and honestly, this is the inkblot image debate under a new name, since that is the direclty targeted article. Given you have been completely unable to form a consensus surrounding the usage of those images, you will never reach a consensus here. People see through the transparent nature of this policy attempt too easily to be fooled. Resolute 00:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the folks who are bound by the APA and BPS codes of ethics (and other similar professional codes of ethics) are coming from "precisely" the position that this problem applies to "all" test materials that could potentially show up on WP. I did find one other test page where there is a similar, although much less heated argument in the discussion, and where the image that is the entirety of the test has been put up and taken down repeatedly (Rey-Osterrieth_Complex_Figure). The editors who have the professional knowledge about the topics that enables us to write informative articles are also bound by these ethics codes, which apply to "all" of the materials related to "all" of the tests we are trained to give. I understand that the Rorschach has a unique place in the popular culture in terms of the intense emotions it often evokes, but from a professional's standpoint, there is no real difference.Mirafra (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those ethics specifically refer to psychologists, not encyclopedia writers. If a writer is effected by outside ethics they need to be careful this does not effect our neutrality. Chillum 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it then your proposal that someone could not be both? I think the problem is that "neutral" itself is not an objective standard, no matter how much you might want it to be. You think you're being neutral, I think you're being highly biased. We're probably both wrong. Mirafra (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim above that there was no consensus is just ridiculous. There was a clear overwhelming and undeniable consensus to include the images, everything else is just sticking fingers into their ears, and this proposed policy is just the latest attempt to ignore consensus by making up some baseless arguments as an attempt to force their own fringe POV down everyone else's throats. It will never happen. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Any comments regarding your false accusations of four users opposed to your POV being sockpuppets? [1] You falsely claim there is consensus, you falsly claim a bunch of people whose opinions you disagree with are sockpuppets and call for their being blocked...Faustian (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If that was aimed at me, then it was a simple miswording on my part... I meant to state that there has never been a consensus to remove the images. Xeno's report from a couple months ago pretty firmly argues the community's feelings on their inclusion. Resolute 19:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The community's feelings are clearly divided in a 1/3-2/3 ratio, with the majority favoring showing the images. Since consensus policy calls for compromise, and the majority refuses compromise, there is no consensus. This proposed policy seems isn't so much the minority wanting to get its way but a way to force, as it were, consesnsus policy to be followed. And although the direct issue here is the Rorshcach, the principle is applicable to any psychological test.Faustian (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers seem a bit out of date, look at this page, look at the Rorschach talk page. The consensus to follow our policies and not suppress the images is overwhelming. Chillum 04:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess the ratio is still the same. People have joined both sides. The three dreamguy falsely accused of being sockpuppets weren't. And then there are several others.Faustian (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus that whole thing about 'compromises that are against policy' aren't actually 'compromises'. This insistence on it is the very definition of tendentious editing and civil POV-pushing. And wikilawyering. And gaming the system. This is the essence of the problem with True Believers of any sort: you have more devotion to your True Cause, and we end up worn down.. so you get your way. It is happening across Wikipedia on a daily basis, and it is one of the major reasons that people in the real world laugh at our alleged NPOV policy and make Wikipedia a punchline. → ROUX ₪ 05:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We tried having the images in the back, having an image illustrating every type of card rather than every card, etc. All compromises shot down. Wearing others down? Chillum (arguing against every compromise) has been much more active than anyone since his arrival. as for laughng at wikipedia - in this debate all the experts in the field about which this article is about - and who actually contributed to writing the article - wanted a compromise. Utterly ignoring experts and trying to drive them off, leaving the article in the hands of those who know nothing about the topic, is the sort of thing that turns wiki into a joke.Faustian (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice all the rejected compromises you mention involve suppressing the images, and thus going directly against consensus? A compromise should increase the number of people satisfied. Even if your 1/3-2/3 ratio was accurate, and I think it is not, then your solution would only reverse that ratio resulting in less people satisfied, and we would be disregarding our policies on neutrality. Chillum 13:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because 1/3 of editors favor some sort of suppression - not necessarily censorship (forms of suppression such as placing all the images at the bottom isn't removing them) than of course a compromise will involve some degree of suppression. So? When people compromise they give up something of what they want, and are somewhat less satisfied than they would be otherwise. Consensus policy is that "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority." So what is your side giving up in the current version? Nothing. What you are doing is demonstrating a glitch in how wikipedia operates - basically, a majority can completely ignore policy on an issue merely because it has more votes. They can claim, "we will only be satisfied if everything is completely our way, and if the minority is disatisfied who cares because it's better that 1/3 be dissatisfied than 2/3 be dissatisfied." Although de jure current policy calls for compromise, in this case we see that de facto current policy is meaningless. The problem, of course, is that the issue never really gets settled, does it? If there were a compromise, I (and I suspect most others) would be arguing against the one or two extremists on the side of suppression arguing for no images at all. I remember long ago Ward actually did so when someone tried replacing a hidden inkblot with no inkblot. But instead we have about 1/3 of editors who are utterly ignored in terms of the article.

I suspect this situation is why danglingdiagnosis feels that a seperate policy is called for. The current set of policies don't work, at least on a practical (versus theortical) level.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pointing at the debate and saying there is not a consensus because some people disagree is like pointing at a lake and saying it is dry because there are rocks at the bottom. Some people support this policy proposal, but the majority rejects it, so we will not be making it policy. We won't even compromise and make part of it a policy, or make it a policy for 3 hours each Thursday. Those who support this proposal will not have their opinions represented in the policy. A perfect consensus will satisfy all parties involved, but perfection is unattainable and we go for the best consensus we can get. Your compromises will only result in a less perfect consensus where less people are satisfied.

When a compromise that would result in more people being satisfied was presented, quoting the APA's opinion in the lead section, was presented it made progress because it really was a compromise. It resulted in a greater consensus, not a lesser one. Chillum 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Real Issue

This proposed policy is not side-stepping the debate at Rorschach Talk. Instead, it is bringing the debate home where it belongs. It was an idea that developed naturally, as a result of less than a month of discussion. I am not an old, disgruntled person who was frustrated that I wasn't getting my way. Instead, I am a new guy who brought fresh ideas. This policy is one of them. It arose when I discovered that one or two people at the page were resisting any consideration of the involuntary health consequences simply because to do so might mean a change in policy. To them WP:NOTCENSORED over-ruled all considerations, even the health of the reader. They resisted reasonable and valid arguments, offering their own expert testimony, saying "there is no way that looking at images could affect later health care decisions," this despite attributable and reputable sources that said otherwise. They could offer no sources to support their position, and instead dismissed these sources as "outside influences" and refused to recognize their authority. That is simply not how we are supposed to operate at Wikipedia.

The reason for this dismissiveness, I came to understand, was a strong bias toward the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. When a mere policy becomes an excuse to ignore expert testimony and instead, insert your own expert opinion, then it's time to examine that policy, and if not change it, then make an exception. That's when I realized that we needed to bring the issue home where it belonged. So I simply followed the instructions at WP:POLICY for proposing new policy and wrote this.

So let's confront the issue and ask the question: what is censorship? Are we censoring information? Potentially, yes. But we might also apply this policy in a way that doesn't remove information but rather adds something else: choice. We could apply this policy by adding a hide/show button so that viewing the dangerous information would be a voluntary response on the part of the reader. That's why the word involuntary is included in the title of this policy.Is this censorship? I would argue no; because no information is being removed. Instead, something is being added. So the issue here is not really about censorship. It's about choice. That's why the first paragraph of the proposed policy is written the way that it is.

So let me repeat that I'm a new guy at Rorschach. I was invited to come and bring my thoughts and I did so. This is one of them. So to characterize me as an old, disgruntled person who had previously been afforded every opportunity to argue his case and then lost, is simply an error. If you have any respect for the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, you would consider this proposal by its merits alone. It comes from a new guy. And new guys are supposed to bring new ideas. That's what I did. See WP:CCC Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey DD. I just wanted to drop in and let you know there is nothing wrong with what you're doing here; I don't think this is forum shopping per se, or at least, not inappropriate shopping. I think this is a good way to go about seeking wider community opinion on the situations similar to the Rorschach issue and also implementing something that will apply widely if accepted. That being said, you really ought refine a policy carefully before proposing it. As I commented at talk:Rorschach test#Points of order, my suggestion is to see what the community says about that particular RFC (since they're basically the same issue), use the comments to develop this proposed policy, and re-propose it after the RFC at talk:RT closes. –xeno^talk 13:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading something along those lines. If I acted at cross-purposes, then please accept my apology. I just had an idea, and I felt the need to get it down on paper. And the instructions at WP:POLICY were so explicit and simple. I was propelled to add the templates. If I had to do it again, I might have asked first. But there were no hint at WP:POLICY about that, and my political skills (or lack thereof) did not inform me otherwise. It never occurred to me that this might be seen as "vacating the field." or doing an "end around." I simply thought that I was making a proposal for consideration. Just another argument for consideration before the "FINAL ANALYSIS" when we weigh all arguments in dynamic tension. Boy, I got pounced on for that, especially by new people reading the talk page expecting to find consensus and finding what they were looking for. Talk about revisionist history. Isn't there something in WP:CONSENSUS warning against claiming consensus as a debate technique? Anyway, I've never worked on a page with an active administrator before, so I lack experience. I'll try to do better. I really messed up the wiki-etiquette, didn't I? Maybe my error can inform the next guy who comes after me. Because one thing I'm sure of, this proposal will come again, regardless of how poorly I presented it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any "active administrators" anymore at Talk:Rorschach test (i.e. the ones who are admins are wearing editors hats). I used to be able to consider myself an uninvolved administrator, but at this point I'm too deeply entrenched.

No, I don't think you "really messed up" at all. Maybe a little too eager, but that's not a bad thing. –xeno^talk 14:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As a person involved in the Rorschach debates I an very open to you proposing this policy. I oppose the idea of this policy, but I do want the communities reaction to this idea for a policy to be determined and documented. I think it is important that we give this proposal time to show what the community really thinks of it before closing it, whatever it may be. Chillum 14:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As another person involved in the Rorschach debates I am also very open to you proposing this policy. I strongly support the idea of this policy, in the absence of one which simply states that "test materials should not be displayed". This policy may also have he advantage of preventing other instances of harm, by means of involuntary health consequences, before they occur, regardless of the validity of the two examples which have so far been offered here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that the test security part of the policy is well worth considering (not sure if the epilepsy one is relevant). I'm a newbie editor, but a longtime reader of and believer in the mission of WP, and an decades-long enthusiastic student of the Global University... and I still believe strongly that professionals should be the ones making the professional decisions about these things in these circumstances. WP can serve its goal of providing useful encyclopedia-level information without thumbing its nose at the group of editors who are qualified to write these pages in the first place and substituting its judgment for the judgment of professionals who actually have to live with the consequences of those judgments. Furthermore, I think that since this issue is likely to come up for other tests, even if none is likely to generate the kind of passion the Rorschach does, so a more general policy would be helpful. Mirafra (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And in a nutshell we have the problm here. This has nothing to do with anyone 'thumbing their nose' at you. This has to do with the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is not censored. I'm really sorry that you disagree, but the consensus on the talkpage is, in fact, clear--and importantly, when one side is actually supported by policy and the other is not? That makes the consensus even more clear. You have the right to fork Wikipedia to your own domain; please do so if you feel that these images (which have been widely disseminated and published) must not be shown. → ROUX ₪ 04:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Version 1.0 Editorial Team

Please provide evidence that this ... page ... has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, as is claimed on the project page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed how I found this template and I realize that I inadvertently followed a wikilink from the Psychology project page to the Version 1.0 project. WP:WVWP The instructions and the recommendation to use this template to attract the attention of busy administrators were found there. I interpreted this to be a "rube goldberg" method of ringing the doorbell, but I was confusing the Psychology project with the Version 1.0 project. At the time, I thought the two groups were similar, but I see now, I was mistaken. You may see others using this template the same way that I have. However, in this situation, I now realize that I was ringing the wrong doorbell. I apologize for the mistake. I'll remove the template. Thanks for not biting the newbie. There's a lot of information to absorb. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What difference does it make to the arguments put forward here who has reviewed this page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable as written

The epilepsy concern has some minimal validity. The notion however that the passive concern from Wikipedia distributing public domain images which are easily available all over the internet is a problem is simply ridiculous. At that point, there's no harm done. Any policy or guidelike like this would run seriously afoul of WP:NOTCENSOR. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I agree with this statement in its entirety. → ROUX ₪ 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So you'd be as happy to see the Wikipedia inkblot image as number 1 in the Google Image Search result as at number, say, 100? Or maybe you'd be happier? And you would argue that because less careful internet sites have compromised the test (without EVER discussing the consequences) that's no good reason for Wikipedia not to compromise it even futher? Martinevans123 (talk)

I suggest you stop arguing dishonestly by putting words in the mouths of others. → ROUX ₪ 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if my questions appeared to be "putting words into the mouths of others". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The test is massively compromised. The test has been compromised for decades (heck you'll see some of the actual images in some intro psych classes). That's aside from the fact that this particular test is a test which isn't even taken seriously by most psychologists today. So yes, once something has been sufficiently compromised such that an initial google image search turns up the actual pictures whether they or here or somewhere else is utterly irrelevant to the practical effect. In any event, making general policies to handle specific situations is a really bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it might be impossible to produce evidence to support your claim? I would argue that there might be a difference between the internet user who seeks information from Google Images and one who seeks it from Wikipedia. Or does that distinction not really exist? But how compromised must a test become before it becomes useless? You seem to believe that the test is useless already. But we had better be careful, we almost stated discussing the issue of Rorschach images, instead of the policy proposal, didn't we. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to make a policy for a specific situation. It is an even worse idea to try to do so and to then not discuss that specific situation when considering it. In any event, if one does the google image search one finds a a complete copyof all 10 images on the first page [2]. Moreover, the test isn't useless really due to it being repeatedly compromised. It's useless because its been repeatedly debunked as unreliable and borderline pseudoscience. The fact that even if it did have validity that it has been rendered useless given that is simply icing on the cake. I don't incidentally see any reason to distinguish who is looking at Wikipedia as opposed to Google Image. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: the Rorschach has not been "debunked" as it continues to be widely used. It is taught in 80% of graduate schools and used by 80% of clinical psychologists in the US who perform asessments (this is referenced within the article). The criticism of it comes from a small minority within the field (by Lillenfeld et al) and has largely been debunked. Here's a brief summary of validity etc.: [3].Faustian (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I find a claim made by the Swedish Rorschach Society that Rorschach tests work as less than a convincing argument. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was not written by them it was merely posted by them. Here is another link: [4] and aother article : [5]. A few absracts: [6] [7] [8]. There are hundreds of studies involving the Rorschach and research into it continues (some of the new forensic applications are groundbreaking). The critics are a small handful of researchers.Faustian (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick correction/agreement. Make that "thousands" of studies. I just checked on EBSCO. Over 6000 hits. Mirafra (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that it is generally a bad idea to make a policy for a specific situation, but this policy seemed like it might be far more important than just this one situation. Do you have a view on the publishing of test materials per se? I'm not sure that those in the mental health community would agree with you that the Rorschach test has been "repeatedly debunked as unreliable and borderline pseudoscience". I suppose what I was really saying was that I expected Wikipedia to have more thought behind it that an automatic search engine does, rather than the actual specific effects in terms of contamination for the Rorshach test. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a view on publishing test materials per se since a) in the vast majority of cases test material won't be appropriate to a Wikipedia article anyways and b) by the time the material is PD it will be almost certainly widespread. If however, another example is needed let me ask whether you think we should remove the standard Snellen chart picture. After all, memorizing it allows one to fake having better eyesight than one has. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That looks quite a good counter argument (although you don't need an image to fake that test, just the list of letters, unless you rely on idetic memory?), except that I think the notion here was that the Rorschach relies on processs over which there is no conscious control (although I am aware of the images being used on some websites where there is a clear idea that the Rorschach can be consciously "faked"), and thus a choice to harm or to cheat could not be made in advance. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's a fair bit of evidence that repeated exposure to an image makes one more likely to subconsciously remember details and use them to figure out the more or less fuzzy aspects. I seem to recall that there was a study a few years back regarding the Snelling image and just this matter. Volunteers apparent vision dropped when they were exposed to non-standard Snelling images rather than one of the common ones. I'll see if I can dig up a copy of it. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well your first sentence there almost looked like an argument in favour of not displaying the inkblots. I felt we were comparing subjective involuntary apples with objective voluntary oranges. But that study sounds interesting and I'd like to see it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe this policy is completely out of line for an encyclopedia. It's here to prevent involuntary health consequences. However, if you take someone whose afflicted with Munchausen, and they somehow find a link to any article involving health issues, they have an immediate, involuntary health consequence. As a result, any article on any illness or disorder would need to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.53.238 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

*applause* → ROUX ₪ 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A picture of a psychological test is by definition harmful for anyone needing to use that test. Information about illneses is not harmful for everyone who has an illness, in contrast. Keep in mind that this proposed policy is not about enforced censorship of images but about displaying them in such a way that reduces harm. It's not about preventing people from finding the images but about not forcing everyone to see them. This proposed policy would be followed in the following example, with respect to a video on wikipedia that may cause epileptic seizures: [9]. The video is not censored but there is a captioon to it stating "One of the infamous scenes that caused the seizures. People with a history of seizures should be cautious before viewing this file." The video is there, it is not censored, but the presentation gives people an informed decision. Faustian (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, people with Munchausen's (either themselves or by proxy) or hypochondria are directly harmed by articles about diseases and so on. For the former, it gives them avenues on how to fake/induce certain conditions, while for the latter they may become convinced that now they have Disease X. So this proposal would in fact necessitate that all such articles be removed from Wikipedia, due to the harm they cause. That would be a manifestly foolish and unencyclopedic thing to do, and yet a bewilderingly vocal minority of people who haven't shut up about it for three years are hell-bent on doing the same with ten images that have been so widely published in the last several decades that attempting to censor them is roughly akin to prohibiting images of Michaelangelo's David on the premise that seeing a picture would rob them of the depth of feeling they would experience upon seeing it the first time. Again: Wikipedia is Not. Censored. We do not hide things in collapse boxes, we do not hide things on subpages, we do not require that people have to 'click here' to see whatever it is people are complaining about this week. We display encyclopedic information without fear, favour, or judgement. Readers are required to take responsibility for themselves; we are not responsible for them. As I said above: the sooner that the three or four of you who are dead-set on continuing this ridiculous argument--over three years now, remember--understand that concept the sooner you can stop wasting everyone's time. Or to put it more bluntly: consensus is against you. It has always been against you, and it likely always will. If you feel so strongly about it, please fork the project to your own domain and censor whatever you wish. Unless and until you do so, you are required to abide by consensus--which means taking the better part of valour and walking away when it has been made clear for three years that you will not get what you want. → ROUX ₪ 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding why you are so angry and worked up. Anyways, perhaps rather than banning such images (which would be censorship) the policy can at least call for taking into account the potential harm when displaying them. As for your comments about consensus, please review the [policy] which calls for compromise and integration of editors' opinions, not mere majority votes. It is not 3 or 4 arguing for minimizing harm, but 20 vs. 40 when this was last counted (and many have joined both sides since that time). Two of the three or four persistent ones happen to be the ones contributed uch opf the referenced material in the article; why shouldn't they be persistant? This mess would never have occurred if there was some sort of compromise.Faustian (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconding contra. 1 is covered by access standards, and is redundant. 2 is mired in the repeated, continuous, and unending politicisation and corporate interest vested in human medicine. For example, the involuntary psychiatric detention of political dissidents was accomplished in the Soviet union under a practice of care authorised by the relevant national body. Similarly, in Australia, the practice of care of Euthanasia is illegal. Denying the fundamentally political and social nature of medicine is really a slap in the face to History and Philosophy of Science which readily documents the continuous debate over what harm is. ISNOT: A peak organisation of US health care providers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts

With regards to photosensitive epilepsy, there is no good reason why Wikipedia should be any different from - for instance - YouTube with regards to this. People with photosensitive epilepsy, which is pretty rare, should receive adequate advice from their healthcare professionals and take their own precautions.

With regards to publicising tests, the individual questions of tests are probably not encyclopedic, but there is a good reason to give a rough idea about the faculties tested in a particular test. For instance, the MMSE page probably shouldn't mention every single question but should discuss the cognitive domains interrogated by the test.

On the whole, I think this all smacks of instruction creep and should not become a guideline, let alone a policy. JFW | T@lk 14:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JFW on every point, and opppose it becoming a formal standard on Wikipedia.

The concern about photosensitive epilepsy can be taken to WP:ACCESS if desired.

I would have opposed including the complete set of images at Rorschach test, or a complete list of questions at any article, simply because providing the full set is unencyclopedic (WP:NOTREPOSITORY, as in "Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia").

On the other hand, I'd support the inclusion of a very small subset of images or questions for illustrative purposes, and I would strongly support including a link to the category on Commons or to a page on Wikisource to the complete source, because it might interest some readers. Limiting an article to examples instead of a full copy is good editing practice, not censorship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you bring it up, JFW, I'm curious to know what advice doctors of individuals with photosensitive epilepsy give their patients. Do they tell them to not watch television or use the internet? If true, that's really a shame. I'm also curious to know what doctors have said to content providers. A little research might be in order. If you support listening to doctors, then I think you would support this policy because it's based on their advice.

As for being rare, I think 2 people per 10,000 is a significant prevalence rate. It's only a little less than MS which is 13 per 10,000 (400,000 / 300 million in the US), [10] but it's nothing compared to Schizophrenia, which has a lifetime prevalence rate of 55 per 10,0000 (According to our Wikipedia article) or 70 to 80 per 10,000 according to Public Library of Science. And bipolar prevalence is even higher still at rates upward of 100 per 10,000. The Rorschach test is particularly good at diagnosing Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Why would we want to sabotage it?

You worry about instruction creep, and I worry about Fundawikipedianism. I just made up that word. It means a belief that Wikipedia policy is incontrovertible and must be followed even in the face of another valid concern. The Fundawikipedian cry of "no censorship" is very strong. I've seen it to the point that valid sources were being dismissed without any contradicting evidence. That's not supposed to happen at Wikipedia. Despite the fifth pillar and WP:IAR AND WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, we have a problem with WP:NOTCENSORED For the benefit of all of us, we need WP:NOTCENSORED to be modified to give Wikipedians permission to bring other considerations into the discussion, such as common courtesy (aka the ethic of reciprocity). Of course we weigh all things in dynamic tension, but first, we need to allow people to be true to their true nature and bring their true selves to the discussion, and not reduce themselves to mere policy wonks. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well DD, you can go propose such a change at WT:NOT. However, I suspect it will not be embraced. Chillum 04:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to fundamentally change Wikipedia. Instead, I'm suggesting that some of us have forgotten that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that it's policies are not yet written in a manner that correctly interprets the founding ideals: Namely a) we take our information from sources, not our own suppositions, and b) our aim should always be to let the reader make up his/her own mind. In this proposed policy, I've identified two situations in which the reader may not have adequate opportunity to make up his/her mind. This is a special situation in which policy is, I believe, inadequately written. I'd really like to hear comments on this. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. As I said at "Talk:Rorschach test", I have not seen evidence that demonstrates harm arising from the display of those pictures. I do not support this proposed policy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Axl. Did you see this source from the APA? [11] It may be new. I'm not sure how long ago you were at the Rorschach talk page. We've been finding some new sources over at Rorschach talk. It's easy to miss them. Here's a quote from it:

"Availability of test items to an unqualified person can not only render the test invalid for any future use with that individual, but also jeopardises the security and integrity of the test for other persons who may be exposed to test items and responses. 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."

To my knowledge, this source is not contradicted by any other experts. And I worry when I hear my fellow Wikipedians asserting their own personal opinions saying "I don't see how it can harm anyone just by looking at them." We're not supposed to act like experts. That's not what we do here at Wikipedia. See WP:NOR and WP:V Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted/deleted some lame and obviously child-vandal attempts to include flashing images on WP's epilepsy articles, or links to websites that appear set-up to cause harm (whose link pretended to be something else). We don't need new policies to fix such vandalism and per WP:BEANS, the last thing we need is some official page giving young idiots ideas. Colin°^Talk 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I think that's a really important point. The less attention, the better. It's probably the reason doctors aren't objecting any louder to this. It would just fuel interest from curious onlookers. Maybe there's a better way to accomplish this proposal that utilizes the policy that already exists. Can you think of a sentence we could add to WP:NOTCENSORED that would give permission to Wikipedians to use their common courtesy and universally held ethics? Let me ask you: What about the television episode of Pokemon that injured so many. How did you prevent anyone from posting it when your opponents cried "Wikipedia is not censored?" Because, let me tell you, one day, someone will say that. How will you answer them? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy and ethics are not "common" or "universally held" so that clause would never be accepted on WP. I haven't had any problem removing such images or bad links to such images. Perhaps some idiot will cry "Wikipedia is not censored?" They will be in the minority. You worry too much. Colin°^Talk 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that source, Danglingdiagnosis. Here is the original source. This is a consensus statement from the APA. As far as I can tell, there is no actual evidence to support this viewpoint. I regard this as level D evidence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I regard this source as a secondary source, (i.e. a "position statement... by a major health organization") which according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) is preferable for use in Wikipedia. It is also not contradicted by any other source. To adopt a different view would be original research. Statements like, "As far as I can tell..." or In reviewing their work, it seems to me that they failed to consider..., or "I can't see any harm if we let people look..." are best left to peer reviewers, which we are not. We cite sources here at Wikipedia. We do not engage in original research. The people who argue that there is no health consequences to showing test materials have only their own original research (i.e. amateur opinions ) to support their claim. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The position statement is indeed a reliable secondary source, according to our guidelines. I have no problem with you citing it in an article. However position statements by major health organizations are usually based on evidence. This position statement is not based on evidence ("as far as I can tell", because there is no declaration by the organization of such evidence).

Actually I do undertake "original research". I have my own viewpoint, which you may regard as "original research". Wikipedia does not prohibit me from undertaking original research. Wikipedia prohibits me from publishing original research in its articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the proper place for your viewpoint be in a peer-reviewed journal? Then we could cite it as a source and place it side-by-side with other viewpoints. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, you seem to be requiring peer-reviewed secondary sources to support a policy, and "ban" original though/research from Axl. If that's the case, you're mistaken. These requirements are about articles, not Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policies are not based on "sources". --LjL (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, LjL. That's exactly my point. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This article (and to a lesser extent this article) show the validity of repeating the Rorschach test. This is circumstantial evidence of the lack of disruption of future testing when viewing inkblots. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Test-retest reliability in this case is based upon seeing the images for a short period of time while actually taking the test -- that's the normal use of it -- not having infinite amounts of time to pore over them and discuss them with your buddies and try to find out what to say that might trick the shrink. The extent to which "practice effects" affect test results depend a great deal upon the specific test. However, practice effects are present in most tests -- it's just a question of how bad they are given the usual way in which the tests will be used. No one is claiming that an incidental exposure to protected test materials will automatically destroy the validity of the test. We're saying that the APA and other professional societies, and the test publishers, restrict access to these tests so as to reduce the level of practice effects to within a reasonable amount. And on this page, we're talking not just about the Rorschach, but about all protected tests (of which there are at least hundreds). Mirafra (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And I repeat that if that is the issue (i.e. not accidentally looking at the card, but purposely learning how to "trick the shrink"), then not only would the "compromise" of having disclaimers be useless, but the whole issue is moot. We are nobody to prevent people from learning things that are in the public domain, and we should let them, because they're encyclopedic according to the WP definition. That's so obvious. Wikipedia is not an APA affiliate.

Most people here who argue that the images should be hidden were merely saying that it would be harmful to look at the cards accidentally because it may unwillingly impact the results of the test. Now you're stating that's not really the case, the only issue being with people who do it willingly. There is no issue then. --LjL (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To Mirafra: again I agree with LjL. An attempt to "trick the shrink" is no longer an "involuntary health consequence". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to promotions

If you're just here to note your opposition to promoting either aspect of this proposal to either guideline or policy, feel free to just sign your name here like I'm doing. If you want to discuss the situation, please add your comments above. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
2. With extreme prejudice to this ever being proposed again, yes, and sanctions for the initiating editor for trying to evade clear consensus at the Rorschach article. → ROUX ₪ 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
3. This seems contrary to our goal of educating people. To make this policy we would have to ignore our fundamental goals. I see no reason to do this. The only example of where this policy might be used, the Rorschach inkblots, seems moot as the images in question are already widely published. Chillum 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
4. This policy would wreak havoc on wikipedia. ie - I just read an article and had a stroke, please remove it per said policy. Any information could be considered dangerous depending on perception and usage which is why we have a content disclaimer. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
5. While done with good intentions, it is poorly thought out, and contrary to numerous other policies. Policy should never be written with one article in mind, since it becomes obvious that unintended consequences have not been considered. Resolute 23:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. See comment above on the politicisation of "harm". Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
7. This "policy" that should have been put forth as a guildline, is either way not consistent with wikipedia's goals. I think a reasonable compromise is to not include all pictures, or to have them in the article as a drop down box. I agree with JFW's reasons above.Fuzbaby (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I think decisions should be made on a case by case basis instead of instituting a blanket censorship policy. As somebody without any sort of formal medical training, I'm opposed to removing the images from the Rorschach page Corpx (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose: I believe that positive effects of improving access to information and education are far over the possible damage.--Garrondo (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose as a policy or a guideline. Verbal chat 12:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Ought to be marked as a failed proposal, as it has zero chance of ever becoming a guideline or policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose, with or without any rewording. This just flies in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED - a policy I'd find potentially very dangerous to overrule - without a valid reason for doing so (and I really cannot think of many valid reasons). The arguments that the page puts forward about Wikipedia's medical disclaimers are fundamentally flawed: they talk about what you should not expect from Wikipedia (medical advice), not what it should not provide (comprehensive information about the subject, including medical/diagnosis/interpretation ones). --LjL (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose. "Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus and apply to all editors." At the simplest level, policies describe what is practice on Wikipedia: edits which have consensus. It is abundantly clear there is no consensus at Talk:Rorschach test to remove the image. It is therefore completely inappropriate to try here to document a consensus that has never existed. If and when a consensus emerges at Talk:Rorschach test, then bring it here. You simply can't do it the other way round. --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Wikipedia is not censored. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Circular function

I'm confused by the reaction of people who object to bringing this policy proposal. If so many people at Rorschach say

"Gee, I'm prevented from even considering an ethical argument because policy clearly says we're not censored and policy over-rides ethics."

And then when we bring the problem to the policy arena and ask if we could consider creating an exception to policy and the people at that arena point back to the Rorschach arena and say,

"Gee, I can't really consider this proposal because there is (or is not) a consensus at the article talk page and it would be really innapropriate to try to influence that discussion remotely."

then I have to object and say that there is some circular thinking going on. I don't know what to do about that. Where is it that I can go to discuss the merits of the case? There must be someone who is authorized to consider policy changes? Who is that person? I really don't know. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That person does not exist. Wikipedia is a community and the community has rejected your proposal. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted, the promotion of policy is a community function. Also, it is not a circular argument at all. WP:NOTCENSORED, among others, is being applied to both cases. You are proposing a new policy that clashes with existing policy. The community is siding in favour of current policy. Resolute 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that you'll only consider proposed policies that don't clash with existing policy? Hmmm... Okay, but I think you're being a little unrealistic. I would argue that Wikipedia is still a work in progress and some policies might need to be changed or amended. But since you asked, let me see if I can accommodate you.

Here's an idea that you may not have considered: I've heard no arguments saying that this proposal can't coexist with WP:NOTCENSORED as it is currently written. The word "involuntary" in this proposal allows me to avoid charges of censorship as long as the reader is given a choice. Ask yourself the question, "is adding a hide/show button censoring information since no information is being removed?

You've heard from people on both sides at Rorschach. We all want this proposal to receive serious consideration. So let's here no more about how offended you are that someone is asking you to consider amending or changing policy. That's why someone wrote a method for making proposals in WP:POLICY and that's why you're here. And we can really use your help. If you're expecting people to only bring you policy proposals that have general agreement with no conflicts associated with them, then I think you're hopelessly optimistic. Please forgive me for turning the argument back around, but I think I should respond to my critics and point out that this proposal is being made with the best intentions and with no guile or subterfuge. It is what it is. It should surprise no one that we need to examine the reasons for policy every now and then. I'm sorry the ethics are so thorny. I'm sorry the conflict exists, but it's here and it's not going away on its own. So when you reject this proposal, try to speak as if your words will reach across to the affected pages and provide guidance. I think everyone there might appreciate the help. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do is forget it Danglingdiagnosis. The community doesn't want to change the policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The best thing would be to either amend or reject this proposal or provide another suggestion about what to do to help people with photosensitive epilepsy and various psychological conditions. (Schizophrenia 0.7 percent of the population, bipolar disorder about 1 to 2 percent.) It's not about me. I'm just one voice. I'm just a guy who made a proposal that could help end the conflict. If you don't like my idea, then please feel free to come up with another. But don't just say forget it. Even if I did walk away, there are others. This is not about me. It's going on in the English, the French, the Norwegian, the Italian. I don't speak those languages, but someone else looked at the French and reported that they are going through a very similar experience. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Show/Hide buttons have been overwhelmingly rejected by the community every time it has come up. As a veteran of the debates related to the Muhammad article, trust me, that one is a non-starter. Resolute 13:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we've found an exception to the rule. We can make exceptions, right? Or are we not empowered to do so? If not us, then who? Both you and Chillum keep referring to the Muhammad article and how you are veterans of that debate. So I'm looking at it for the first time and I find the comparison lacking. The first thing that leaps out at me is that not all Muslims agree that the image is offensive. Plus I can't see that anyone is concerned about future consequences to their body, mind, or soul. And yet, in this proposal, all attributed sources, every one, support the claim that damage to the test and the ability of a doctor to practice medicine will result. So I think the title of this proposal is sufficient to distinguish this from the Muhammad article. I don't see how Muhammad applies. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a circular function, it is just that both your article and policy proposal are basically the same thing, and because of that got the same reaction. The problem was not the venue you gave these ideas in, it is that the community has rejected said ideas, regardless of which forum you choose. Chillum 14:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well articulated as usual, Chillum, but your declarative sentences are belied by the prejudiced comments of others. Belied also by your own refusal to comment on the validity of the ethical argument presented, referring only to policy. I asked you three times to give your opinion back at Argument Con #1, and you side-stepped the question each time. I'd like to trust that you have weighed the ethical considerations and weighed a policy of revealing all relevant information and with a well-oiled fulcrum, found in favor of revealing all information. But since you won't discuss the ethical argument, I have only my trust to help put my mind to rest. I'm an engineer. I like to see how things work. I'd prefer to see the inner workings of your mind before I let it influence my thinking. I want to see that your hinges aren't rusted. For my part, I'll share my thinking with you: I feel like we're not approaching a book burning, here. So why the great concern about censorship? Isn't there more important work to be done in the cause of freedom? Isn't this more of a "please stay off the grass" issue than a "you're not allowed to think about grass" issue?

Please consider the merits of the arguments and try not to refer back to policy (circular thinking) and other unrelated debates (Muhammad). Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, you and a couple of other people keep stating and restating that "consensus" exists, trying to shut down discussion. I think it's clear from the extent of this argument that consensus doesn't exist, no matter how many times you assert it. Serious objections to your preferred solution to the problem have been raised, and we haven't heard any real response other than what amounts to "shut up!" (I appreciate that you have largely been polite, although a couple of others have not been.)

I've been thinking a lot about consensus and the nature of it. It seems that, under more typical circumstances, there is a more-or-less continuous span of perspectives on any given problem. Some people will be fringey on one end, some will be fringey on the other end (or perhaps there are multiple poles, whatever), most people have more moderate positions, and, with thoughtful dialogue, people will gradually move close enough to each other, and then we'll have something we can call consensus. It's different from compromise, in the sense that by the end of it, people aren't thinking so much about what they had to give up in order to get what they wanted, but more about how they more fully understand and perhaps even begin to empathize with the other perspectives, such that the place in the middle is seen as a valid way to serve both their own needs and their understanding of the needs of others.

However, in this situation, we have both a potential solution space that has a large amount of discontinuity (as I said, it's like being "a little bit pregnant"), and a distribution of opinion that seems largely bimodal -- there are the diehard information-wants-to-be-free and psychology-is-bunk-anyhow types in one space, and the professionals who are required to maintain test security in another space. There does not seem to be any consensus at all.

Because I'm a huge fan of the Harvard Negotiation Project (Getting_to_YES), I've been thinking about how we can bring the two sides together to serve our joint goal of creating a wonderful and useful encyclopedia. I think that WP editors who are not experts in psychology do WP a disservice by insisting upon policies that will drive away or silence editors who are. (Or at least just encourage us to spend more time arguing than editing (grin).)

I'd be interested in hearing what you or the others in the no-censorship camp have to say that would address the very real concerns that have been repeatedly raised by the editors who also happen to be experts in psychology. We are, after all, not any less part of the WP editorship.Mirafra (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that one reason for this policy proposal was the refusal of editors wanting all the images unhidden to compromise in any way whatsoever. They kept saying "notcensored" to any attempt at compromise.Faustian (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because there is very good reason to refuse compromises that are blatantly contra policy. → ROUX ₪ 04:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We did have a compromise, it was to put information about the APAs point of view on publishing test material in the lead section. But even after that the debate raged on. The only compromises that seem to be acceptable to you are in violation of our policies against neutrality and not being censored. This is a bit off topic for this page though. Chillum 04:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how censorship is defined. Your side was arguing that merely putting all the images at the end was censorship. Or using 5 of them rather than the whole set is censorship. Etc.Faustian (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy that Faustion. When we only had one image up the arguments were to replace it with a fake one. Short of the images not existing on Wikipedia, I don't think you will be satisfied. Your compromises all involve suppressing relevant and verifiable information. Compromises that inform about the other point of view instead of obeying it have not been accepted by your side. Well you accepted them, but then kept arguing for the removal of the images. The only compromise you seem to accept is one where you get what you want, the suppression of these images. Well, there is a consensus against that. Chillum 13:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, my coming late and engaging in a full discussion of the arguments PRO and CON may have contributed to your feeling that I was ignoring compromise. For that, I'm truly sorry. Please understand that I was and still am a new guy. I felt the need to first,

1. lay out and explore all the arguments available both PRO and CON, (there are 12 in all) and then
2. explore a compromise while holding all arguments in dynamic tension.

If by doing so, I caused you to think that I was ignoring some proposed compromise, then I apologize. I was just trying to lay the problem out on the table. To you, it must have seemed like I was being intentionally stubborn. I still believe (perhaps naively) that it is important to lay out the arguments in an organized fashion so that future Wikipedians can find them easily. Currently, there is a sub-page for the Arguments Con, but nothing for the Arguments PRO. Do you agree with me that there's something missing there? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming bad faith. At least you're not trying to get me falsely blocked for sockpuppetry. Compromises depend the issues on the table. If it's no inkblot or an inkblot, an outline of n inkblot is a compromise. In the current situation compromises would be different. I am rather surprised that discussion of ethics (which is a relevant part of the topic) is presented by you as a "compromise." The contentious issue is image presentation, not article content. Refusing to create consenssus on your part with respect to image presentation isn't mitigated by adding a content section on ethics.Faustian (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith, I am just basing my current opinion on your past actions. No matter what the state of the page you have always been arguing for the suppression of the images. The only time you were not was the time that the image was removed from the page. It is clearly the only state you are willing to accept, you have made it clear that it is a moral imperative on your part. You do realize that our goal of neutrality is an ethic of our own? Why should Wikipedia put aside its ethics for yours? We have a consensus, you just won't be part of it. That is fine, but that does not mean there is no consensus. Just accept it. Chillum 13:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Since compromise involves some sort of suppression that is undertandable. You are basically accusing me of seeking following consensus policy compromise (the horror!). Obviously the current version is not consensus but majority preference.Faustian (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say in the consensus policy that all parties must be satisfied for a consensus? I have explained this over and over, the point of compromise is to create a better consensus, to increase the number of people that are willing to accept the situation. Your compromises will only decrease the number of people that are willing to accept the situation. We have had other compromises that have lead to greater acceptance, such as the lead section I mentioned above. You can tell when a compromise is useful when members of different sides of the debate accept it, when they don't then it is more campaigning than compromise. Chillum 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, our neutral point of view policy supersedes consensus, so even if there was a consensus to deviate from our regular practices on the authority of an outside source, that consensus should be disregarded in favor of our neutrality policy. Not a popular truth, but we are here to build an encyclopedia first, consensus is simply a tool to accomplish this. Chillum 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There you go with your straw man argument - I never stated all. This is, like, the 20th time I've explianed that to you? If consensus is merely what the majority wants, period, than you are right. But clearly it's not. Too bad you, and the majority in this article, refuse to accept that.

So taking into account potential harm - the opinion of 1/3 of editors - is violating NPOV but editting bsed on assuming no harm is not violating NPOV? How convenient.Faustian (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you not read this page? Don't you get the idea that the community has thoroughly rejected the idea of holding back test material to avoid causing harm in people? Can you really look at this page and not believe there is a consensus against this justification? You are just spinning your wheels at this point. Chillum 14:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The majority has rejected it. A bog minority hasn't. Unless you choose to exclude the mionority - including basically all the experts in the field about which this topic is written - from the "community" you cannot say that the "community" has rejected this argument.15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing or suppressing the images is not a POV. It is censorship. Therefore keeping the images does not violate NPOV it is writing a good encyclopedia. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A news reporter might well remove his fur coat before going on camera to report a story about animal rights activism. That's just good neutral journalism. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the article Islam censored? There is no image of Muhammad, the founder of that religion, there. It's hardly an obscure article that has escaped people's attention. Articles on sex positions don't usually involve images taken from hardcore porn (or by exhibitionistic editors). Not including every possible potentially relevant image isn't censorship although it's cetaionly possible to cry "censorship" every simgle time an image someone wants in an article isn't included within it.Faustian (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No but there is many pictures of Muhammad on his page to many musilims dismay. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But not in the article's lead. If we were to make the Rorschach images analogous to Muhammad/Islam, we would have no images in the test article, and have them all in an inkblot article, just as there is not a single Muhamad image in the Islam article and instead they are all in the Muhamad article. And even there they are not in the lead. But that's far from what people want here.Faustian (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because an article goes one way, does not mean that consensus here will agree. Why would we want this article to be analogous to Muhammad/Islam? It is its own subject. There is no images of Muhammad in the Islam article because that is not the subject, if this was an article on psychiatry you may have a point. What you suggest is indeed far from what people want here, I do agree with that. Chillum 14:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that consensus on one article does not require the same solution for another, it is, however, something that we can consider here. Suppose we did swap the positions of two images - moving the image of Herman Rorschach to the lead, and the first inkblot down. On the Muhammad article, an image of Muhammad himself was moved down as a compromise, and to help mitigate the concerns of people opposed to the images there. We could consider doing the same here, allowing a small nod to the minority viewpoint without compromising the value of the article. Resolute 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what the April/May '09 RFC was about. It seemed to hold that the inkblot go in the lead. That being said, with the kbs of text that have been generated since the swap, and since all 10 images are now in the article (and thus, inkblot 1 is duplicated), I would almost suggest this could be given another shot... To compromise and hopefully bring another era of stability to the article/talk page. That being said, we really shouldn't be discussing the Rorschach test article specifically here... We should probably move the stuff directly related to the article over to the talk page. –xeno^talk 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've been reading some of the archives, including that RfC. I suppose that given the discussion will go in circles forever, I'd add my own turn.  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs) 14:24, 17 July 2009

If all ten inkblots were at the bottom, following the discussion on harm and ethics, and Herman were placed in the lead, I would definitely be satisfied enough to end all my arguments, though not satisfied enough to actively fight for this new version (I might reconsider the latter point, but that's my gut reaction). I'd have to think about whether or not I would contrbute to this article's conent at that point, probably I would but I'm not sure. But my "endless" arguing would certainly cease.Faustian (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not sure I would feel comfortable contributing to the article if any of the inkblots are included. I would be very unlikely to feel comfortable contributing to information about how the test is administered and interpreted. Presenting information on validity and reliability and uses of the test, to try to deal with the serious undue-weight problem that's currently there, that I could probably tolerate. But I don't think I could stop arguing this policy in general. I'm a testing geek. Respect for test security, even if significantly compromised by forces outside of WP's control, is still a serious issue for me. That's going to affect how I view all articles related to secure tests.Mirafra (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for confirming that some people would indeed be prepared to censor not only the inkblots, but other textual encyclopedic information too. Some seemed not to believe that when I suggested it. Anyway, perhaps you should find another less encyclopedic encyclopedia to edit? Some here have mentioned Citizendium, maybe it could be a decent choice, if it's supposed to be censored in some ways? --LjL (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been discussing this problem throughout. Professionals who are also encyclopedia editors do not become free of their ethical professional obligations just because they happen to be editing an encyclopedia. (There is no "us" versus "them" here -- if "anyone can edit the encyclopedia" then no one should be treated as an outsider.) You seem to be saying that experts in this field are not welcome as co-editors on WP, even if that means having a whole set of articles full of misinformation. Mirafra (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What?! Experts are very welcome as editors. But they have to play by the rules. If they are bound by different, contradicting rules (i.e. they have a WP:Conflict of interest), then, regrettably, they may feel they cannot contribute to Wikipedia. It is their problem, not mine. --LjL (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What is your compromise then?

Ok, Faustian, rather than complain about people not being willing to compromise, why don't you just spell out, for those of us who have not been closely involved in this argument, what it is you believe is a fair compromise? Resolute 14:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, compromises depend on the various opinions offered. Some people want to have simulations of images rather than the actual ones, following the precedent of other encyclopedia such as Britannica or Encarta [12]. Others prefer outlines of the test, or having the images hidden (I relaize these violate nocensorship policy). The majority however want the images unhidden. In my opinion, given the community's preferences, it is reasonable to have a compromise that more closely reflects the wishes of the majority than the desires of the minority. Since the ratio seems to be 1/3 to 2/3, the compromise should reflect that to a rough degree. I'm not proposing being exact about this, but it's a guiding ratio I suppose. This is different from simply, 100% what the majority wants.

One proposed compromise was to include the images hidden, requiring a click to see. This however presented with printing difficulties. Various other compromises could invovle some combination of the following factors:

1. Rather than include every image, include only those sufficient to demonstrate each type of card. An example of a black and white card, a colored card, and black and red card. Or maybe two of each type of card instead of the entire set of cards. This could be framed as following wikipedia policy WP:NOTREPOSITORY. I notice that although some articles about artists include galleries of all their paintings not all of them do. Given consensus building, perhaps we can imitate those that don't.

1. Include an example of one inkblot in this article and all the inkblots in a different article, specifically devoted to the inkblots themselves (how they were created and chosen by Hermann Rorschach) etc. This would prevent harm to those who are curious about the test but don't necessary want to spoil it for themselves while at the same time making all inkblots available to those who want to see them on wikipedia. This would follow how the image of Muhammad is treated on wikipedia. There is actually not a single image of Muhammad in the Islam article. Instead the images of him are in the Muhammad article (compare to the article on Christianity whrre Jesus is everywhere). Even on the Muhammad article, they are not in the lead but in the body of that article.

1. Speaking of lead, given the concerns of harm the image ought to be moved from the lead to the back of the article, or at least to the test materials section or somewhere after the possible harm is discussed.. There can be no image in the lead, a clearly labelled "incorrect image" (Such as an all black outline with a caption stating "a common representation of a Rorschahc inkblot" or something like that), or a nuetral image such as the one of Hermann Rorschach himself. In the Bahá'í Faith, representations of their prophet Bahá'u'lláh are considerd distasteful. The article about that guy has an image of his shrine in the lead (even though it can be argued that the article is about him, not the shrine), and of him further back in the article. As in the case of Muhammad, I don't see any reason why the opinions of religious believers are taken into account while those of psychologists are ignored.

These choices or any combination therof or any others would seem to be acceptable. They have been proposed and some of them have been in the article in the past. When the images were hidden the article was stable for several months. When the image of Hermann Rorschach was in the lead and the inkblot was in the test material section, the page was stable for about a year. Of course, one can and has shot down each of these proposals based on interpretation of policy (ignoring the consenssus policy while doing so). Some have said that since each card is unique, each and every one ought to shown. That the best image has to be in the lead and an actual inkblot is the best image, better than Herman Rorschach or an outline of an image. Etc.

My personal preference, is for there only to be 3 images illustrating each type of card. Due to potential for harm such images ought to be hidden and placed only after a discussion of potential harm (since I see no difference between clicking onto a hidden image and googling an image unlike others arguing against the images I personally don't see the practical utility of simply banning them from wikipedia).

I realize that due to compromise my personal preference shouldn't be how the article looks and unlike the majority I am not pushing the version I want. I - and I feel most of the other dissenters - would be satisfied with any combination of the three points I described above (although keeping the image out of the lead is particularly important). Move the image out of the lead and into the test materials section, and move up the ethics discussion to above the test materials section. Place the gallary of images into a seperate article devoted to the inkblots themselves, (link it to this one in the "see also' section), leaving only 3 examples in this one. I am open to other suggestions and of course negotiations so we can arrive at something that most of us can live with - which is what consensus is all about.Faustian (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that this is fundamentally a binary situation, like being a little bit pregnant. We either break test security or we don't. There's no room in the middle for some theoretical NPOV -- publishing test items takes sides against the profession. The compromise that other encyclopedias have chosen, which is what I would personally support, would be to use realistic "simulated" example items for all of the relevant tests (which would include "all" of the professionally-used tests, not just the Rorschach, as this proposed policy suggests), however many of them the editors think would be helpful to communicate the ideas clearly. Mirafra (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

— Mirafra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been pretty open in saying that I'm a newbie editor, long-time believer in the WP mission and the Global University (which predated WP) as a general concept, and that I fully intend to commit to the long-term project of improving the psychology information on WP (some of which is woefully inadequate at present). I made a few edits yesterday when I saw particularly awful stuff kicking around where I also had the relevant resources right near my hands. But this discussion is happening now. Please stick to the actual arguments rather than attempting to discredit people you don't agree with.Mirafra (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is room for compromise. Censorship can range anywhere from book-burning, to a rating system, (e.g. the movie rating system PG-13, etc.). Compromise won't please everyone. But that's life, I guess. The current solution is no concession at all from my opponents. It includes information in the lead that is not controverted by any other source, and then it displays contempt for that material by displaying the images. The reader will question the neutrality of the article. (e.g. a news reporter wearing a fur coat while reporting a story about animal rights.) The reader is not informed of the presence of the images and the reader cannot reasonably be expected to understand what's at stake without some explanation and fore-warning. At a minimum, I believe he/she must be allowed to make up his/her own mind. Informing our readers is what Wikipedia is all about. Right? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2/3rs in favor of inclusion is generally enough for a consensus. I don't see any reason to compromise for a vocal minority when a compromise would run counter to existing policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is I think one of perception of how much of a compromise it is. I understand that you think this is a significant compromise, but from the perspective of the people who actually have to live with the consequences of your decisions, it's really pretty minimal. If the College Board were objecting to the publication of *all* of the questions on the SAT on the grounds that it would support cheating, and you proposed only publishing 1/3 of them as a compromise, the College Board would say that's not very responsive to their fundamental concerns. (Yes, I understand that the SAT is not a psychological test and is also clearly covered by copyright -- I'm just using it as an example of "person who uses X for an arguably-useful purpose objects to its indiscriminate publication even in part.")

Additionally, as I understand it, you moved this discussion here because you were trying to broaden it to solve the "general" problem of how WP handles test security, as a way of moving this out of the realm of merely the Rorschach. So I would suggest coming up with a compromise that can be easily applied to all test materials that come under section 9.11 of the APA code of ethics. Hence my proposal to do what most textbooks (even textbooks on assessment) and all other well-known encyclopedias do, which is to use sample items that are not actually present on the tests. Mirafra (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If 2/3rds of the college board voted for publishing, they'd probably be published. Here we're talking about PD materials, so they've already been released and published. Verbal chat 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about 2/3 of the College Board voting to publish, we're talking about 2/3 of the kids who have to take the test voting to publish while 100% of the College Board says no.Mirafra (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so based on what you wrote, if we used three inkblot images in this article: one black and white, one black and red and one full colour, unhidden, that would be acceptable? Using a show/hide box on images is something that has been repeatedly rejected by the community on several occasions, while creating a child article for the images would seem to be an unnecessary fork. However, if there is an acceptance on all sides that a couple images are acceptable, then I really fail to understand the conflict here. The placement of the image would remain an issue, I suppose, but but if we can get all sides agreeing on how many images, and what type, to display, then we can look to that next. Resolute 21:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're addressing my suggestion of one b/w, one b/r, and one color, I want to make clear that none of those should be actual images from the test. They should be simulated images. Then they could be on the main page with no drop-downs or forks or anything else. Mirafra (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to sound more like doing what the minority wants than compromising. If we take down all the images and put up fake ones in what way is that a compromise? Chillum 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It was intended to be addressed to Faustian. I should have been more clear. The actual images are PD, and we have a right to use them. Policy reasons argue far more strongly in favour of showing at least a couple images, however I personally would support a plan that shows only a few. Just because we can have a gallery does not mean we should. Resolute 21:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra: while I would be delighted with the version you propose I recognize that according to wikipedia policy we operate by consensus, meaning that we take into account most peoples' desires. Clearly most people want to show the images. I can't oppose those who seek to ignore the opinions of 1/3 and then support largely ignoring the opinion of 2/3. I think that it's reasonable and possible to minimize the damage through a well-crafted compromise that balances minority concerns and majority preference. Resolute: I find your idea to be quite acceptable. I do feel that image placement is a very important issue.Faustian (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But the compromise is not in line with the proposed policy we're talking about on this page, which is to defer to the needs of the professional community with respect to test security in general. The problem is not limited to the Rorschach. I can think of several more ways that people who, for instance, don't believe in IQ tests, or who think that it's a good idea to try to cheat on them, could legally post stuff that would have significant adverse effects on the usability of current tests as well. And I know there are huge controversies around IQ testing, too, and substantial issues around cheating, too, so I'm sure this is only a matter of time before we're having the same argument again in that sphere. I think the proposed policy is reasonable, and does not seem to be an undue restriction on WP. No one is trying to censor information about the kinds of items that are on tests, how the tests are given, and how they are interpreted. There's a lot that can be talked about that would answer the questions of serious readers without the need to break security.

Note also this: if a psychologist participates in the editing of a page that seriously violates test security, he could become vulnerable to a complaint against his license (the APA code of ethics, or something equivalent to it, is incorporated into state licensure laws). Knowing that, a psychologist might feel the need to avoid participating in creating or editing test pages on WP at all. (While I understand the whole "anonymous" thing, I also have been around too many computer-security geeks for too long to believe in the possibility of true anonymity on the net.) Whether that fear is realistic or not, if WP is setting itself up in direct opposition to the professional community, it means driving away the very editors who would be best able to provide quality content in this area. I'm a bit nervous on this front myself, as I noticed while editing a different test page today, and I've been an enthusiastic net user for over a quarter of a century. (I've posted to a few professional lists inviting colleagues to join the psych project, because there is a lot of work to be done. Since most of the stuff I look up on WP as a reader is well-done, I hadn't realized the woeful state of so many of the psych pages, particularly the test pages.)

Fundamentally, this appears to be a difference of cultures. Psychologists deal in big secrets and little secrets all the time. From a psychologist standpoint, test security is a small but important secret -- that is, it's hard for a psychologist to understand why it's so darned important for non-psychologists to bust these precise things wide open and mess up their tools and interfere with their work, when they'd be perfectly happy to provide so much other information about the tests that would actually answer more of the real questions people generally have about them. From a WP standpoint, this is a big but unimportant secret -- that is, it's hard for a non-psychologist editor to understand why the shrinks care so much about a few stupid designs. In that respect, it's not so different from the Mohammed problem, or the pornography problem. Mirafra (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how Wikipedia is to blame for compromising a test that seems already compromised. These arguments only make sense if the images were not already very available to the public. It would seem to me that this test is compromised if we show the images or not, so I see no convincing argument that we should not show them. You can blame the Internet(or the public libraries if you prefer) if you like, but Wikipedia is not the problem. Chillum 14:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New children are born every day. Plus, not everyone searches the internet with unlimited time and energy. What about people who don't want or care to see the images. Might they not be satisfied with a few examplars? I'm not saying we can ever put the genie back in the bottle. I'm just saying that the genie doesn't have to be omnipresent... especially in an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to be generally descriptive, at best. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship vs Propaganda

Let's discuss censorship. Many of us are using the word, but I'm not convinced that we know what we're talking about. Not many of us have ever lived in a totalitarian regime, so we're not really aware of what the danger is.

Censorship is not merely the deletion of communicative material. The full meaning of the term is deletion with the purpose of controlling the thoughts of others. Another term often associated with censorship is "the Thought Police" a term taken from George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. The lead character worked for the propaganda office.

The issue here, is more of a "Please-keep-off-the-grass" issue, not a "don't-even-think-about-grass" issue. No one is suggesting that we hide criticism or prevent the reader from seeing the issue up close, or at least as close as you can get to it without causing damage. Museums display artifacts for all to see, but they put ropes around many of them and signs that say "do not touch." That's all I'm suggesting.

No one can accuse me of being the Thought Police. Instead, I'm fighting propaganda. Asking readers to consume communicative material that they might not choose themselves when given the choice is, by definition, propaganda. Many readers may not wish to see photosensitive epileptic images or psychological tests. So I urge caution. We should, at the very least, inform the reader of the concern and let him/her decide if this is information they wish to consume. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of 'this is rejected' and 'it will never happen' and 'you forumshopped to try and win a debate you lost' and 'get over it, consensus is against you' and 'consensus was always against you' and 'if you really desire it so much, please fork the project to your own domain' is unclear, exactly? → ROUX ₪ 21:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We are being told not to show information that we would like to show because some parties don't want other parties to see that information. That is an attempt at censorship. I also wish to echo Roux's comment. Chillum 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your thinking. I only thought to explore your point of view and see if you were worried that any restriction on information might be tantamount to the worst kind of censorship: the kind that aims to control the thoughts of others. And you really do believe that, don't you? I understand your concern. It is rooted in history, (e.g. Stalin, Hitler, imperial Japan) and history does have a way of repeating itself, doesn't it? Can you understand my concern? Can you understand how wrong it is to sabotage a test that is so important in the diagnosis of mental illness? (taught in 80 percent of graduate programs) How wrong it is to interfere with a profession that is on the front lines in a messy, complicated war that affects so many people? I know people who are mentally ill. They didn't ask to be sick. You probably know people, too. You've seen the attributable sources that show that these tests are important to psychologists. You brought no sources that contradict that information. So I'm left wondering why you would worry about the worst case of censorship -- the most dangerous form of censorship -- and ignore evidence of other kinds of danger. Aren't you just an ideologue, adhering to a belief in the hope that it will result in a better world, and ignoring evidence that contradicts that belief? I understand faith. I know how it can be a source of comfort, of certainty. But I'm old enough to know that faith can also be misleading. My church realized in 1956 the need to go against scripture and to allow women to be ordained as pastors. So I'm proud to say that I am not a fundamentalist. But I see this disturbing trait, this need to trust in the rules, in other people, especially those in the computer industry. And it scares me. My wish is that we raise up a generation of people who don't eschew the complications of social engagement in favor of the deterministic clarity of working with computers. It's not healthy. But I don't know your thinking. You haven't shared your thinking about the ethics of releasing the images. You'll only say that ethics are subjective and that you don't like the indeterminate nature of ethical arguments. Even when I challenge you to prove that this ethical argument is subjective, you can't point to one person who thinks it's okay to sabotage the work of psychologists. So I'm left to peer at the vacuum and wonder. Can you help me understand this? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That you frame it as 'sabotage' is more or less exactly the problem here. This proposal is rejected, you should have been sanctioned for attempting an end-run around consensus, I don't see any particular need to be sucked down this rabbit hole any further. → ROUX ₪ 05:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But it is sabotage. I have three sources that say so. Plus two more letters from the designers of one of the psychological tests, the Rorschach test, who claim damage. It is not I who claim sabotage. I'm merely citing what others say. The American Psychological Association says this:

"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"

This is from their 1996 Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data. They're talking about the damage caused by exposure. They called it "concrete harm to the general public," but I think the word "sabotage" is a fair characterization, don't you? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. Sabotage means that there is malice aforethought, that there is planned destruction for a specific purpose, that it is nefarious activity. Now. Please. Drop this. The discussion is over. Consensus is against you, as it always has been, and no amount of appeals to authority or random philosophy or semantics games will change that. Get over it. → ROUX ₪ 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Random philosophy? I've been consistent about this moral argument. Nothing random about it. However, I stand corrected. Sabotage, does indeed, require deliberate and planned subversion. I'm looking at the Wikipedia entry and the purpose must be indeed be subversive for it to be called sabotage. I would not apply that even to my opponents who criticized psychologists as mere pseudoscientists. Even though they have shown prejudice to a subject for which they know little, they are not engaging in planned subversion; they are merely vandals who don't care. You are not one of those people because you do care about something. You want policy to be nice and easy, without disturbing influences. You hope that new policy proposals come from subjects with little or no controversy surrounding them; that have achieved consensus prior to being proposed as policy. That makes you a hopeful optimist. I like your optimism, even as I worry about your vehemence in pursuing your goal.

I'm also looking at the entry for censorship, and I see the same subversive elements as in sabotage. Stalin, Imperial Japan, all employed censorship as a means of subverting public opinion. They hid criticism as a means of sabotaging the judgment of others. And if I were trying to influence public opinion by removing any ideas that might be seen as critical or demoralizing to the agenda of any individual, group or body, then I would agree that was censorship. Deleting various articles and their criticisms would indeed be censorship. But that's not what I'm suggesting. So I'm able to grant your point and stop using the word sabotage. Would you be willing to grant that what I'm doing is not censorship, but something else? (I'm not sure what to call it, really. It's more of a "Please keep off the grass" thing than a "Don't examine the grass." I'd be happy to offer another plot of grass for people to use. Just not the one with yellow tape around it. That's a protected plot of grass. What is that? Protectionism? I don't know the word for it. Even in my protectionism, I'm willing to concede permission to lift the tape and enter as long as the tape remains intact for the next person to see. So that makes me a bit of a compromiser, doesn't it? I've compromised my ideals out of respect for others. Can you do the same? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested 'compromise' is contra policy. No. Get over it. → ROUX ₪ 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel the need to remind you that we are debating a proposed new policy. By definition, a new policy has to be different from old policies. And it is in the nature of policies, including WP policies, that there can exist mutually contradictory policies. Nothing is an absolute. Mirafra (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, not really: if a proposed policy contradicts any existing ones, it shouldn't be made policy. --LjL (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Two things: First are you saying that policy can't change? Because I believe it's well understood that Wikipedia is and always has been a work in progress. I believe I'm quoting something when I say that. If you need me to cite the source, I think it might be Jimbo during the problem that arose and was fixed by adding a WP:BOLP policy -- again, a situation with some content that went far astray and had damaging, real-world consequences, much like the problem we face now. Second, I'm reading Wikipedia:Policies#Evaluating_the_consensus and I interpret what you're referring to to mean that all conflicts (if they exist) should be reconciled before consensus is finalized. And since this policy is in the brainstorming stage, I welcome your suggestions about how best to do that. From the beginning I was uncertain where this policy would fit. Should it be attached to WP:IINFO, or should it be one of the exceptions listed in WP:NOTCENSORED? Is it a legal matter and should belong in WP:NONFREE as protected information of some kind, using some protection status that I am unfamiliar with? Again, I'm not an expert. But I do know that we are at a stage, now, where the sources are leading us to recognize that we are creating involuntary health consequences. That is becoming harder and harder to deny. Sources show it. There are no sources that contradict it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that policy can't change, and yes, conflicts should be reconciled before activating a new policy that would have conflicts with other policies... But no, the idea, really, is more that first you'd obtain consensus to change the previous policies, and then propose a new policy, otherwise it might possibly be seen as gaming the system - although I suppose this is mostly a detail. But anyway, mine was merely a rebuttal to what you had said: "by definition, a new policy has to be different from old policies" - yes, of course it's pointless for a new policy to merely parrot another; but no, a new policy most definitely doesn't have to contradict old policies: it can simply fill a gap. And about it being the "nature of policies" for "mutually contradictory policies" to exist - well, perhaps it's their nature, but that's also forbidden by Wikipedia policy, so no, that's not really supposed to happen. That was all I was saying. --LjL (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. I'd like to think there exists a method of laying down draft proposals in situations where unresolved conflict exist. Especially when the arguments of one side seem to be limited to "but it's against policy" and are unwilling to discuss the merits of policy. I started this section in an attempt to understand the merits of WP:NOTCENSORED so that we might evaluate consensus, as it says in Evaluating the consensus:

• "Does the community generally believe that Wikipedia is better off with, or without, the proposed guideline or policy? What status for this page will best contribute to the main goal of writing an encyclopedia?"

I think the goal of an encyclopedia should conform to the following:

"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." (exerpted from encyclopedia)

What better service to future generations than to be neutral and allow the reader the freedom to choose his/her own course and not have it be pre-determined by those who went before them? We don't want to become an anchor holding back our children, do we? Leave that to the propagadists and censors, the real censors who are attempting to delete choice. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally, no, I don't agree with that definition of an encyclopedia. Or, I agree with most of it, except the "more virtuous and happy" part: that seems like propaganda I don't want to be part of Wikipedia. "Virtue" is an escaping concept, and I really don't want Wikipedia to try to impose a concept of "virtue" over people (I think that's what WP:NPOV is partly about). And as for happiness, it's good if it's a result of learning information, but the purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide information, regardless of any happiness that results.

Aside from that, you're free to discuss the merits of policy, of course; but if there is no clear consensus that policy should be changed, then, in all likelihood, policy won't be changed, and that also would mean your proposed policy couldn't make it in. --LjL (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the definition does seem a bit glad-handed. But it makes a point about future consequences and helps me introduce the topic of the merits of encyclopedic information. Are you willing to say that an encyclopedia should not have any involuntary health consequences? Or are you still not convinced that information can have anything but a meritorious effect? If so, I can point to four sources that say otherwise. See User:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary_health_consequences Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe an encyclopedia (or Wikipedia, anyway) should care about involuntary health consequences in the articles. A disclaimer will do. I believe an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should provide encyclopedic information, without regard to any effect such information might have. I am always very wary of censoring information on the ground that it might have "ill effects", because that's basically the excuse that has always been used for censoring information. You want to discuss the merits of encyclopedic information? Well, I'd say that on an encyclopedia, the merits of encyclopedic information should be considered obvious. If someone doesn't agree, they don't have to read an encyclopedia. Honestly, your sources may say that encyclopedias themselves are always dangerous and should be avoided, for all I am concerned; so what? --LjL (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent} All information is dangerous to someone. The "arguments" being advanced by Danglingdiagnosis are typical of those used by censors throughout the ages, e.g. Nazis, Catholic Church, Colonels regime in Greece, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Taleban, etc. May I suggest that Danglingdiagnosis archive's this page and forgets this daft proposal. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I call violation of Godwin's Law. We are not advocating censorship, nor is everyone who advocates the voluntary restraint of information a Nazi. We are advocating that the encyclopedia work cooperatively with those of us who are also professionals who have to actually use these tools.

Question: is this an encyclopedia, or is it a work of investigative journalism? I can't find anything answering that on WP:ISNOT. Is the purpose to provide useful information to readers, or to uncover the Deep Hidden Sekrits that must be So Kewl because those Evil Overlord Shrinks might use them to Read Your Minds? Would you perhaps like a page on how to make a tinfoil hat to stop them from doing so?

(Yes, I'm being a little silly here. But I think the point is one that should be answered, and I think that the idea does touch on why the Rorschach in particular has garnered so much attention, when other restricted tests have not.) Mirafra (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOTAMANUAL states that "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.[5] If you are interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks." So details about how the test is administered and anything involving supposed normal or abnormal responses appear to be out.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously misreading that guideline, which is about style, not content. It should not read like a how-to style manual. It can contain information about how a test is administered and how to read the results. It shouldn't do it in a manual-like fashion. And, somehow, I think you knew that already. --LjL (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not (that's what I get for reading it too quickly), but thanks for the assumption of bad faith. As for your point - you are probably correct and it can certainly be legitimately read that way.Faustian (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the assumption of bad faith, I agree that was no warranted. --LjL (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I was surprised you had written that about me.Faustian (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was making a joke about the tin-foil hats. My point is that just because information can be acquired does not necessarily mean that it should be placed in the WP article. Other test pages seem to rather routinely include information about "test conditions" and some vague sense of what the test is looking for. It's not sufficient information to let someone know how to administer or interpret the test -- it's largely the kind of information that would be disclosed if a potential client were asking about a test. I agree that the current page on the Rorschach needs some serious consideration whether the text itself also provides more information than is appropriate. But people are so freaking out about "censorship" that I hesitate to bring that point up. Mirafra (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Godwin's Law, before. That's so sad, yet funny. But really, let me answer the criticism that my proposal is approaching the kind of censorship that was employed by the various regimes mentioned, because it goes to the heart of what is censorship. Censorship is the deletion of information with the purpose of undermining and influencing public opinion in a way that is favorable to a cause, an ideology, or a government body. This proposal does not attempt to sway anyone's opinion. Indeed, its enactment will not silence any critic or advance the favorable opinion of any person. Instead, what it strives to do is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming participants in the debates (if there are any) surrounding these subjects. I feel like Wikipedia should be a neutral observer. This is fundamental to its mission. To participate so fully in the subject matter removes Wikipedia from its status as merely a provider of information and it then enters into the subject in a way that causes the reader to question its bias.

I thank you for raising this question of censorship, Jezhotwells. I'm happy to answer any criticism, especially those that try to answer the question:

• "Does the community generally believe that Wikipedia is better off with, or without, the proposed guideline or policy? What status for this page will best contribute to the main goal of writing an encyclopedia?"

I do not run from such a debate. Any concern to the contrary is an erroneous assumption. And we practice good faith assumptions, here, don't we? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free?

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. Mirafra (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw man. The tests are in the public domain, which satisfies definitions of "free" entirely. The fact that some associations lobby to keep these tests secret doesn't make them "protected" under the law, under Wikipedia policy or, for that matter, under common sense. They are public domain. --LjL (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If something is in public domain, this does not mean that it can be "granting the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially." I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that one can still not use materials to test someone, for instance, merely because they are in public domain. If the images are not free as defined by wikipedia, all sorts of compromises are possible and necessary based on wikipedia guidelines.Faustian (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... what? Of course something being in the public domain grants exactly the rights you mentioned - and more. It really does. On the other hand, you may not be allowed to test someone if you aren't qualified; there may be laws regarding that (generally only if done for pay, and it depends on the country, of course). But that has nothing to do with copyright or "freeness" of the images. --LjL (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Being public domain means exactly those things Faustian. It means it is in the domain of the public. Those who use these images for tests have no claims on those images. The images are free as defined by Wikipedia. We can "redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially". That is really the whole point. That is why attempts to censor these images based on the internal regulations of an outside organization are not going to work. In short, those doing the tests are using public property to do so, that is fine but they can't tell the rest of the public not to use the images just because they use them. Chillum 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, to claim to disallow such things when they have no right to (either because the IP is PD or because they don't own the IP) is copyfraud. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and "freeness" are two distinct concepts. The WP:NONFREE first sentence is, "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." (emphasis not mine, but wikiepdia's). These images cannot be used for any purpose. Specifically, they cannot be used for the purpose that they were designed for - psychological testing - freely. You are claiming "those doing the tests are using public property to do so, that is fine but they can't tell the rest of the public not to use the images just because they use them." Here is your straw man. The calim is not that professionals tell others they cannot u se images in public domain. The claim, rather, is that these images cannot be used for any purpose. Specifically, as has been piinted out, they cannot be used for the purpose they were designed for - psychological testing - by just anybody. Doing so by unlicensed professionals is illegal (certainly in Florida btw: [13]). The guideline page also states, "because free as in cost and free as in freedom are two entirely different things." These images are not free as in freedom. The generral public is not free to use them as they were designed to be used - as psychological tests (am I repeating myself here?). The penalty for doing so invovles prison time. By wikipedia definition, it would seem that these images are thus not free.Faustian (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Faustian, they can be used for any purpose, in any medium, even commercially. They belong to the public. Any organization that claims they can limit how these images are used is mis-educated about the law. Parts of the test may be copyrighted, the scoring system and such, but these images are not.

You cannot practice medicine without a license, but that has nothing to do with these images, you also can't rob a bank with them taped over your face as a mask. If someone is allowed to practice medicine then these images are available to them for free, the other parts of the tests are still copyrighted, but the images are there for that use. You are once again twisting Wikipedia policy to support your own ends, I am sure you know this argument is specious. Chillum 14:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You can always file for a deletion of the images if you think they are not free, though last time this happened they were found to be free. Chillum 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry but I have to echo those thoughts, you're blatantly twisting policy. What "public domain" means is clear, it is clear that the images are in the public domain, and it's clear that something in the public domain constitutes "free" content by definition. Of course, I couldn't legally carve any content that is on Wikipedia onto a gun and then use that gun to kill someone. But that doesn't make the content non-free (and I'm sure that's painfully obvious). Neither does the fact that a non-professional is, in some jurisdictions, not allowed to administer psychological tests make the test material "non-free". That is simply utter nonsense.

Also, your claim that "freeness" isn't related to copyright status is inaccurate. The WP:Five pillars include "Wikipedia is free content", and guess where that one links? That's right, to WP:Copyrights. Hint, hint... --LjL (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia intentionally employs standards that are more strict than what copyright law allows. See WP:NONFREE Copyright laws are not the only standards we use in Wikipedia. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading it. Wikipedia employs stricter standards when it comes to non-free images, not when it comes to absolutely free (public domain, even!) ones. It's in the leading section of WP:NONFREE. Otherwise, please point me to where it says it employs "stricter standards" for when it comes to free, public domain images. --LjL (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, since I believe this absolutely pointless debate about public domain material "not being free" has gone on for too long already, perhaps this passage from WP:NONFREE may help clarify the matter beyond a shadow of doubt: "If a work has no copyright or is licensed to Wikipedia under an acceptable "free" license, it is a free work and may be used on Wikipedia without copyright concerns. See public domain, copyright, and Cornell University's guide to copyright terms for discussion of works that are not covered by copyright.". --LjL (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this argument is so beyond any sort of reasonable interpretation of "free" that I feel I can safely ignore it as it will never gain ground. Any image is illegal if you use it in an illegal manner. I can't take a public domain image of a Vincent van Gogh painting then try to sell it claiming it is the original painting, that would be fraud which is illegal, but it does not mean that Still Life: Vase with Twelve Sunflowers is a non-free image. Any reasonable person without a motive to accomplish will know this as obvious. This is sophistry at its worst. Chillum 14:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In all of your examples the crimes involved aren't directly linked to the images. The crime of wearing a Rorschach inkblot while robbing a bank is larceny, not wearing the image. The crime of selling the Van Gogh as real when it is not is fraud (you would be allowed to sell a reproduction that is labelled as such - the Van Gogh image is free and can be used for comercial purposes). The image itself is secondary. In contrast, the crime of using a psychological test is directly linked to it being a psychological test. You can make up a test with your own inkblot and administer it to people with no consequences (plenty of websites do this of course - see this [14]). OTOH you cannot use the Rorschach or any other psychological test to do so. In this case, the image is central to the crime. So, to repeat yet again, the image is not free as defined by wikipedia whose definition goes beyond copyright to include WP:NOTFREE "any content granting the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially."Faustian (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The image may be central to the crime, but if you are qualified, you can give the test whether or not you obtained the images from Wikipedia, and if you are not qualified, you may not give it (in some jurisdictions) whether or not you got them from Wikipedia. Seriously, this argument is utterly meaningless. We're wasting time. The images are clearly free, every Wikipedia policy screams that they're free, copyright law screams that they're free, extremely valid arguments have been given that they're free. I won't talk about this anymore; I have more useful ways to get carpal tunnel than typing about this when you can't hear me. --LjL (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Practicing medicine without a license may be illegal, but if you are allowed to administer a test then you can use these images. They are in the public domain, no organization has any special claim over them. Chillum 15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be shocked but practicing psychology without a license is also illegal. The images are in public domain but that doesn't mean that they can be used "for any purpose which is the wikipedia definition of nonfree. They can be copied freely. They can be used ot decorate your room freely. They can be placed on the internet freely. But using them for the purpose they were designed for - as psychologcal tests - cannot be done freely, as least in the United States (including in the state of Florida where wikipedia's wevers are located - the statutes are online [15]). Again, the WP:NONFREE first sentence is, "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." (emphasis not mine, but wikiepdia's). And, as we see here, they cannot be used for any purpose, certainly not for the purpose they were designed for and for the purpiose about which the article is about. And this holds true for any psychological test.Faustian (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you use these images to commit the crime of practising medicine without a license then that is illegal. "Any purpose" does not mean you need to be able to break the law with the image. Good luck convincing others of your point of view, but you have my response and I won't entertain this sophistry any more. It seems you will take any position no matter how absurd to get these images removed. Chillum 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So says the guy who actually argued that the Rorshcach is as central to psychology as Muhammad is to Islam. You have argued endlessly in hundreds of posts involving lots of reasons (indeed, having been much more prolific than me in the time while you have been involved), yet suddenly you say that you will stop. Has this particular argument hit a nerve?Faustian (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth. Chillum 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You made just that argument here: [16].Faustian (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What I said and what you attributed to me are two different things. Chillum 00:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For your information, this has been brought to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (and "for your information" does mean please don't move the whole discussion there, but rather try to wait for uninvolved third opinions - or I wouldn't have informed this page about it at all...). --LjL (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• While I think this argument is fruitless, it's also malplaced - it belongs at Talk:Rorschach test. Please try to keep arguments in the proper place. FWIW, I agree with the above noted counter-argument that the images themselves are free, and someone can indeed choose to do anything they want with them. What they choose may be legal or illegal, that's not really relevant to the fact the images are still free. –xeno^talk 15:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this argument is applicable to all psychological tests. If they are considered nonfree than separate proposed policies or guidelines about psychological tests are unnecessary. Out of curiosity, xeno, what do you think that wikipedia means by any purpose in the sentance "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. Faustian (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that section means that you must be free to do illegal things with an image for us to use it? Chillum 16:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum is completely right here. Our non-free content criteria are about copyright only- there are, of course, other legal issues that are not covered by our NFCC- personality rights and trademarks are two obvious ones. This image is in the public domain, but it is up to us and our reusers to use it in a manner that is legal. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say so in the first sentence in that case? Because it starts out with a sentence that can be interpreted differently. The impression I have is that something can be not copyrighted but still not be free either. The next two sentences state "But, because 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. Any content which does not satisfy any of the criteria, such as "non-commercial use" only images, images with permission for use on Wikipedia only, or (my emphasis - Faustian) images that are fully copyrighted are classified as non-free." The OR indicates that stuff that is copyrighted may also not be free, specifically content that doesn't satisfy any of the other criteria. Chillum is adding a straw man that I have already addressed.Faustian (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this argument applies to all psychological tests, which is why I posted it here. We're talking about a general policy here that would affect the presentation of all psychological tests, and would put to rest the analogous (although generally less heated) arguments on some of those tests' talk pages. The Rorschach is one of a few special cases, where the copyright system is insufficient to protect the test. But my point is that some publicly-available content is still restricted in its use. Mirafra (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This novel interpretation of "non-free" should be raised at the proper venue, the Wikimedia Commons (or WT:NFC). I have a feeling it will be handily rejected as a reaching argument that falls short of the mark. With respect, I think this line of argument is fairly absurd. The fact that we demand the images may be used for any purpose doesn't also mean we're suggesting the images ought be used for illegal purposes. If someone is going to practice psychology without a license, that's not our problem, and it isn't relevant to whether we are displaying the images or not. –xeno^talk 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that, as I keep having to remind us, we are talking about all protected psychological tests. I've spotted similar arguments on other test pages as well, and the basic problem is going to apply to many more tests than you might realize. That's why Danglingdiagnosis made this policy proposal.

Also, wouldn't the people who don't agree with us then just accuse us of forum-shopping? I must say, when something is wikilawyering and when something is legitimate discussion seems to be very much in the eye of the beholder. Mirafra (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikimedia Commons, these are free images. That is pretty much the only thing we need to know. Since Commons tells us they're free, we don't need to worry about applying (a very novel interpretation of) NFC to them. Until the Commons tells us they're not free, we will proceed on the belief that they're free. I don't think the cries of forum shopping are particularly helpful: I think this policy proposal was a great idea to gauge community on the idea of suppressing images due to potential harm, although it is pretty much redundant to the RFC I filed at Talk:Rorschach test. –xeno^talk 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, I think the commons limits itself to considering only copyright issues. Faustian's right. Wikipedia uses the term non-free to distinguish its policy from mere copyright issues. The question becomes do psychological tests enjoy some kind of protection status that Wikipedia recognizes? Also, do epileptics,or people who may be susceptible to photosensitive epilepsy and don't yet know it, enjoy some kind of protection status on Wikipedia? If they don't now, what would it take to create that protection? I don't know the answer to these questions. I thank you, however, for granting permission for me to explore the issue and even branch out with creative ideas without resorting to personal attacks. Creativity may be required if we are to resolve this, because I'm fairly certain that involuntary health consequences is a problem not foreseen in any policy currently written. I think we can all agree that this issue will go on forever until something is found to resolve it. WP:NOTCENSORED, with its many exceptions, (e.g. WP:IINFO and WP:NONFREE) is not the answer to future stability of the article. Censorship is just too broad a term. It can be used to describe too many things. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia uses the term non-free to distinguish its policy from mere copyright issues" - no, it does not, according to everyone who has commented on my question about it. --LjL (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If they don't now, what would it take to create that protection? → general acceptance of this policy, I guess. –xeno^talk 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Epilepsy bit

I don't know enough about the second part of the proposal being made here so I'm steering well clear of that, but I think the first point regarding photosensitive epilepsy has merit. A small warning at the top of pages that contain animations that may trigger photosensitive epilepsy would aid those that are effect and would be no inconvenience to others. A simple measure like this would aid many people in avoiding a seizure. Wouldn't that be a good thing?--OffiMcSpin (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what's wrong with that? I've heard some here, fresh from doing battle over images of Muhammad, say that if we do that for certain situations, then we must do it for all others, including situations involving religious objections. But that argument was never satisfying to me. Maybe there's more to it that I don't understand. So far the most anyone will elaborate about OffiMcSpin's suggestion is "trust me. That's a non-starter." Surely there are situations that warrant special dispensation? I think we've identified two of them, right here, at Involuntary health consequences. Shall we limit ourselves to the subject at hand, please? As I think any grade school principle will tell you. "Yes, we used to apply policy with a very uniform hand back in the 70's, but in recent decades, we've allowed ourselves more freedom to treat each child as the individuals that they are." Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"What's wrong with that" is that such a disclaimer is not even close to good enough for protecting someone's health. It's like putting up a warning sign that says "Don't stop here long enough to read this sign." The rare susceptible person needs to take much stronger measures -- measures that don't depend on the size of the screen (an image that's below the scroll for you may be first-screen for someone else), the size of the font, the absence of a vandal removing the disclaimer, etc.

Putting a note at the top that says "It might not be too late" is not really helpful. If you're susceptible, you take substantial precautions: you use a small screen (so the screen isn't the majority of your field of view), probably an LCD screen (because of refresh-related flashing), work in a brightly lit room, and avoid potentially risky situations during particularly susceptible times (e.g., shortly after waking up in the morning, or when very tired). And, importantly for the current debate, you set your web browser to not automatically load images and definitely not to keep .gifs looping endlessly.

Of interest here is that the flashing image usually needs to fill 25% or more of the entire visual field to trigger a seizure. I'm typing at a laptop right now. An image that filled the entire screen would only fill one-sixth of my visual field. The actual risk to individuals is therefore quite low in this environment.

Consequently, I opppose this as being a needless waste of effort. I know that it's very kindly meant, and I'm glad to live in a world where people occasionally think about helping others, but the proposed "solution" won't actually help anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever even been a confirmed case of one of our images causing a seizure? Are we basing this possibility off of facts, or are we just assuming anything flashing is going to be harmful? My understanding is that it takes a very specific type of flashing to cause a seizure and that even then it is a very rare event. From Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 "People with photosensitive epilepsy can have seizures triggered by flickering or flashing in the 4 to 59 flashes per second (Hertz) range with a peak sensitivity at 20 flashes per second as well as quick changes from dark to light (like strobe lights)."

How many of our images actually meet these specifications? Does a thumbnail image pose as much harm as a full screen? Aren't most animations just that, animations where each frame is a subtle variation of the next thus giving the illusion of movement? How many do we have that flicker from bright to dark?

The proposed adherence level, AAA, only says that "Web developers may satisfy these requirements", which does not sound like much of a change anyways to what we do now. We already may remove things if there is consensus for it. I just want to make sure this really is a problem before we start removing content based on this idea. Chillum 23:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, for whatever reason, Wikipedians are not allowing photosensitive epileptic images on Wikipedia. Even though the images are relevant and informative to the article, we are exercising a choice not to do so in the case of photosensitive epilepsy. I'd like it if Wikipedians felt that way about other articles as well, especially those concerning the needs of the mentally ill, a population that is underserved and under-represented. That's why I wrote this policy proposal. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, they are not? That's interesting. An example, please? (Do keep in mind that not allowing images unrelated or only tangentially related to the article subject is another issue entirely). --LjL (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Me and my big mouth. You're going to go back and restore the images, aren't you, because you "cringe at any restriction of information." Colin was right when he referred to WP:BEANS. My big mouth seems to be just drawing unwanted attention to the problem. Sigh. Instead of helping the problem, I'm just making things worse, aren't I? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, he did it one better. LjL went and found various random information, some correct, some incorrect, some outdated, and put it in the Rorschach article. That included significant information about the answers to the test, not just the questions. Yes, there are an infinite number of possible answers, and the mere fact of knowing a common detail or a popular response may or may not skew the results all that much... but there is a line somewhere where it would. We could argue where the line belongs, but it's somewhere. Talk about WP:BEANS. And not waiting for consensus, or clearly indicating the nature of the changes in the edit history. I dunno, I'm a newbie, but it strikes me as pretty rude.

And of course if anyone reverts the edits, they'll scream censorship again.

This brings up an interesting question -- would it be then be okay for someone who didn't like some other test to go get a few textbooks on it and publish the scoring criteria? It wouldn't be a violation of copyright to publish, say, the principles of scoring for the WISC-IV (particularly the subtests with open-ended responses). One could do that without actually copying from the test manual and thus without violating copyright. And lots of people don't like IQ tests, too. And lots of other people have reason to want to cheat on them, too.

I really think that we need to come to some consensus in general on how much information about any protected test belongs in an encyclopedia article. WP:ISNOT includes the statement that an article should not have "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." None of the other tests have anywhere near as much information about the actual test items (and certainly not the answers and their popularity!) as the Rorschach page does. One could add infinite detail there, and it appears that someone wants to. (Not sure what the test ever did to you, but whatever. If you're that interested, perhaps you should consider applying to graduate school in clinical psychology.) This could happen to any test, in or out of copyright, unless we clarify how the principle of "lots of information but not a complete flood of everything one could possibly want to know" applies to this general content area.

The page on methamphetamines does a very nice job of talking about the fact of home synthesis without actually giving enough information to let someone do it. I'm sure that information is freely available on the internet, too, but the editors showed some common sense and restraint and basic cluefulness about the position of this encyclopedia in current society. (I don't know how to find the archived talk pages to see how much blood there was on the floor during the discussion of how to achieve that -- my guess is that more of the argument was about how to talk about the safety of the home synthesis processes.) Perhaps meth inspires more sanity than the Rorschach. (grin) Mirafra (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to fix the information I've added if it's incorrect, but of course, feel free to also source your fixes, since I have sources basically every word of what I added. I also indicated that the "populars" frequencies are according to Beck, so it's pretty clear they're outdated.

Do not feel free to just remove the information, no. It most definitely belongs in an encyclopedia; it's no how-to guide or anything, it's perfectly encyclopedic information, and I find it almost insulting of Wikipedia to propose such information should be censored. If "your" psychological tests rely on this sort of secrecy, get better tests - it's not our problem. I'm into computer scince, and I've long known that security by obscurity is considered a Bad Thing. The algorithms should be known. --LjL (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I think I'll let you do the work yourself. I will direct my volunteer editor time towards pages where I am not violating professional ethics by doing so. If you'd like this page to look like deltabravo, have fun. Mirafra (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What does all of this have to do with the proposed policy or epilepsy? Chillum 02:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

To Mirafra: if it's encyclopedic, notable and verifiable, it belongs in Wikipedia. If you believe that home synthesis of methamphetamine meets these criteria, please add this information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, silly. I don't think "how to synthesize meth at home" belongs on the meth page, just like I don't think a discussion of answers or scoring criteria of any psychological test belong on the test pages.

Chillum, again, you seem to be being deliberately obtuse. I am talking about this problem because, although it is most severely problematic at this moment on the Rorschach page, there is currently no consensus definition of how much information belongs on the page of any protected test. On all of the other relevant tests where this issue has come up that I've been able to find discussion for (Rey, TAT, etc), the consensus of the community has come down in favor of respecting the need to maintain test security. On the pages where the issue has not come up, again, the consensus is that less is more. Hence the need for a discussion that can somehow transcend the idea of what should or shouldn't be done with the Rorschach page. We need to think more about the relationship of the encyclopedia to (1) the larger community (2) the professional community (3) the editors who have the professional knowledge to make the page actually useful to (1) while also serving the needs of (2). The current Rorschach page does not seem to serve anyone's needs well. Mirafra (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I know perfectly well that you don't think that "how to synthesize meth at home" belongs on the meth page. My implication is: why do you think that "how to synthesize meth at home" doesn't belong? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My answer is, because Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --LjL (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone claimed that the how to guide policy merely refers to style not substance of article content. According to that POV, someone could include how to make meth in a wikipedia article, they would just have to use an "encyclopedic" tone in doing so. This was used as justification for including "how to" information on psych tests. According to that point of view, rewording it so it sounds "encyclopedic" makes it justifiable. My impression is that some people will creatively intepret any policy or guideline to suit their needs.Faustian (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any how-to information on the Rorschach test article. I see documentation of common interpretations as demonstrated by sources. It is not an instruction guide. I find it to be informative. Chillum 13:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's now including not just the complete test, but also information about criteria by which answers are judged, as well as potential answers. Aka "how to answer the test." Mirafra (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, seriously, stop pretending you can't hear me. I already pointed to the WP:NOT note that says: "how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not" (emphasis mine). There is absolutely nothing wrong with including information that may indirectly let people know how something is done. Stop claiming otherwise, you're wasting your time. It's spelled out in the policies as painfully clearly as possible. --LjL (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"My impression is that some people will creatively intepret any policy or guideline to suit their needs." - funnily enough, I get the same impression. Have you actually read the policies we're talking about? See footnote #5 in WP:NOT, please: "The how-to restriction does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. Also, in article space, describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not." (emphasis mine) --LjL (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the how-to restriction is not meant to exclude content, rather to set the tone in an encyclopedic fashion. We can still say how things are done, or what people have done in the past, we just don't tell them what to do. Chillum 14:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that (mark the calendar! (grin)). Which is, of course, why I am concerned. You can say, "psychologists shouldn't rely on security through obscurity," but that is unfortunately, how things work. There is fundamentally no way to both ensure proper peer review of scientific information about the development and interpretation of secure psychological tests, while at the same time also preventing nonprofessionals from acquiring and potentially misusing the information if they are sufficiently motivated.

It's a question of what level of discussion of that information belongs in an encyclopedia. I don't know if this is still a problem in the computer-security industry, but I had some issues a few years back with a young man of my acquaintance getting into serious trouble because he was a "script kiddie." He was interested in being a Real Kewl Hacker Dude, so he went to websites that published scripts that he could download and use to break computer security (he almost caused a great deal of damage to a bunch of very nice astronomers). Those scripts were able to be written because of that same tension -- the information that "good guys" used to communicate about and improve each others' work on security protocols was also available to "bad guys" who used that information to develop ways to crack their protocols, which they then put up on the web. I wonder whether WP has a policy about presenting that sort of information or about what level of detail belongs in the relevant articles.

Also, I am curious how you and others view the question of "who is the primary target audience here?" Is the audience for the article a layperson curious about the Rorschach? In that case, the article is much too long, technical and confusing, and it's in a state were I literally cannot touch it. Is the audience a psychology professional considering the use of the Rorschach versus other personality instruments? That audience would tend to prefer, say, a review article or other reliable professional source. Is the audience an attorney planning a cross-examination of an expert witness? If so, go ahead, make my day -- an attorney preparing from that is going to get his head handed to him by an expert. Is the audience someone who is going to be evaluated with the Rorschach who is hoping to conceal relevant aspects of his true personality so as to get some kind of benefit he thinks he would otherwise not get? If so, I wonder why it is important to you to assist in that process.

This is not just a rhetorical question. I'm really curious to know what the community's vision of the purpose and audience is for a page on any protected psychological test. It's an area of expertise for me, and I'm interested in sharing that expertise in a way that would be helpful. I'm also happy to take that expertise to pages where I just help explicate complicated psychological theories, which doesn't create any ethical concerns. I've only got so much time. Mirafra (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra, I would like you to answer the question: why do you think that "how to synthesize meth at home" doesn't belong? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I do not believe that it is necessary to serve the purpose of educating the public, and because I believe that the potential for harm outweighs the need for supposedly "complete" content. I regard it as similar to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. It seems that you think you've scored some kind of point here, but if you read my talk contributions, I think it's bleedin' obvious that I regard issues of social harm to be relevant to the consideration of what to publish and what not to publish. Mirafra (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So your idea of Wikipedia is that only things that "serve the purpose of educating the public" (according to some definition of "education" that's only your own) should be included, while things that don't are out? If so, I doubt you'll find many who agree with that view... because Wikipedia is, you know, not censored. Should we remove articles about atomic physics because I might possibly use them to build an H-bomb? --LjL (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw man. Please don't put words in my mouth. Mirafra (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then if "serving the purpose of educating the public" is not an inclusion criterion for Wikipedia, why did you mention it at all? --LjL (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are erecting straw men as to what content you believe I would state does not belong in an encyclopedia. I believe that the exclusion criteria should be extremely limited, but I think that protected psychological tests are one example of content where precisely what is presented should be considered carefully in order to balance competing values -- that is, to provide the maximum amount of information to the public that does not also carry too much risk of harm.Mirafra (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I note that no one has yet answered my question. What's your vision? Who's your audience for the protected-test pages? What do you hope that they will know when they're done reading them? Mirafra (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WHO CARES? It's their decision. Why did I go and seek information about the test? IT'S MY DECISION. Mostly because I'm curious. That's why I use Wikipedia most of the time. Is that a crime or something? I sure darn hope not, I believe "random" curiosity is an extremely important characteristic of man, and also the #1 factor that contributed to the growth of Wikipedia itself. Should I be denied satisfying my curiosity because some arbitrary association arbitrarily "protected" the test (whatever that means) because, uh... because they couldn't come up with a more actually solid test? Hell, no. --LjL (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because most writers, myself included, like to think about who will read what they write and what that reader might want out of the written product. I study for myself. I write for others. It's an honest question, and doesn't require an abusive response. And I'm interested in what other folks' visions for the test pages are as well. Mirafra (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"I believe that the potential for harm outweighs the need for supposedly "complete" content."

— Mirafra

I am not aware of any policy where Wikipedia editors are required to consider the potential for harm. Similar arguments have been made at "Talk:Suicide methods", all of which have ultimately failed. Several people have already reminded you that Wikipedia is not censored. Your viewpoint is at odds with Wikipedia's policy. Your attempt to change the existing policy is destined to fail. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question:

"The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

excerpted from WP:BOLP

When WP:BOLP was proposed and accepted, it was inserted as one of the exceptions to WP:NOTCENSORED. If this policy is accepted, I supposed it, too, would be listed as one of the exceptions to WP:NOTCENSORED. Which is why I think it's insufficient to reject this proposal simply because it does not conform to WP:NOTCENSORED. Rather, a better consideration would be to ask

• Does the community generally believe that Wikipedia is better off with, or without, the proposed guideline or policy? What status for this page will best contribute to the main goal of writing an encyclopedia?

If you accept the definition of an encyclopedia as something that "collects knowledge" (not information, but knowledge) "so that the work of the preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come" (excerpted from encyclopedia) then I think we owe it to the next generation to preserve the work of the current. We should not vandalize the work, but rather preserve it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me of the "biographies of living persons" guidelines. To answer your question: "Does the community generally believe that Wikipedia is better off with, or without, the proposed guideline or policy?" There is a list above of several editors who reject your proposal. The consensus here is clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

To quote WP:CONSENSUS, "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." And so far, I haven't heard any good reasons to not impliment this policy. I've heard,

1. It violates WP:NOTCENSORED. But this is narrow thinking and clings to the status quo. This proposed policy, if enacted would modify WP:NOTCENSORED and be one of the exceptions listed. Much like WP:BOLP, it too considers "harm to living persons."
2. People with Photosensitive Epilepsy (PE) should follow their doctor's advice; we're not responsible for their health. But what about people who don't know they have PE? Wikipedia may be the cause of their first seizure. We currently are displaying content that does not meet level AAA of the WC3 consortium guidelines.
3. By far the loudest criticism of this policy I heard was You couldn't acheive consensus at one of the affected talk pages, and so you shouldn't bring the discussion elsewhere. as if this were an attempt to hide from people with differing viewpoints. (I invited everyone to comment) It's true there is no consensus at talk:Rorschach_test. There was an effort to reach Consensus as a result of the editing process, but this was not satisfactory to me and others because it included all the images for no reason other than they fit well on the page and were relevant. More than just demonstrating to the reader an example of Rorschach test images, it demonstrates the entire test. Some of the images even convey statistical information about what others found interesting, right on the image. If the purpose of the images is to provoke a individual response unaltered by outside expectations, then this purpose has been clearly defeated. This is vandalism, plain and simple. I continue to work at Rorschach to bring about consensus. See new argument at Talk:Rorschach_test/images/2009-06_Arguments_Con#7 - Such vandalism defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. However, the feelings about "no censorship" are strong. Even in the face of reasoned arguments, there is an unwilliness to consider anything but a strict adherance to the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. So after 25 days of that, it became clear to me that we needed a policy change, which is why, 13 days ago, I wrote this proposal. I continue to await good reasons why this policy should not be implemented. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect part of the rationale behind phrases like "You couldn't acheive consensus at one of the affected talk pages, and so you shouldn't bring the discussion elsewhere" is that people (I, for one), simply feel they cannot be bothered to repeat all the detailed argument they made on another page. After it's all been repeated here, will you bring it all somewhere else again? I'm sure people have better ways to spend their time on Wikipedia than repeating the same arguments over and over. --LjL (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to cut and paste. And I'm hopeful that I can one day get you to answer the question from WP:POLICY#Evaluating the consensus: "Does the community generally believe that Wikipedia is better off with, or without, the proposed guideline or policy?" for that really gets at the heart of the matter. To just quote policy is insufficient. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say the community has made it clear that is finds Wikipedia to be better off without the policy. I don't see any ambiguity in the consensus here against this policy. I also am tired of repeating arguments that have already been made countless times. Chillum 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of information vs. vandalism of knowledge

The strongest argument for including material with involuntary health consequences is that they are relevant information to the article being written. I concede the validity of this argument. However, I hold that argument in dynamic tension with this proposed policy and ask you all to do the same. If the purpose of an encyclopedia is to preserve the knowledge of one generation and pass it on to the next, (See definition at encyclopedia), then we've ultimately failed that purpose by vandalizing that knowledge. I contend that knowledge is different than information. We can increase information, but in the process damage knowledge. By vandalizing the work of others, (3 secondary sources say that a lack of security can damage the work of psychologists,) we are damaging knowledge. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think it's important to remember that this kind of vandalism can affect not just the specific test which sparked this debate, but every secure psychological test. In fact, the editor currently most active on the Rorschach page has announced his intention to do similar vandalism to other tests if the mood strikes him, and multiple other editors have stated their agreement that they will not cooperate with any voluntary restraint of information.

Psychological evaluation is a major part of the work that psychologists do to improve the health and protect the safety of their clients and of the general public. It would be unfortunate if the attempt to write encyclopedia pages about that work damaged that work, and if these pages became testaments to information that was no longer relevant to anyone because the pages themselves had forced that work to be abandoned. ("We had to destroy the village in order to save it.")

This vandalism is completely unnecessary -- excellent pages can be written about secure tests without damaging test security. The enthusiastic amateurs who have been writing pages on secure tests have been writing inferior encyclopedic content, full of misinformation and confusing verbiage. The professionals who have access to the information needed to write informatively, accurately, and clearly on the topic are in an ethical bind; they risk professional sanction if they contribute to a page that violates their professional ethics. Therefore, this policy is also needed in order to increase the quality of the actual articles written.

This is why I, as a professional in the field and one who intended to contribute to the pages in question, support a modification of the WP:NOTCENSORED policy to respect those aspects of psychological tests which need to be kept secure. Mirafra (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that suppressing information is more damaging to knowledge than providing information. Seriously, you are basically arguing the opposite of what happens when information is given to people. Showing the image is not vandalism if only for the fact that nobody owns those images. Nobody has any claim whatsoever on those images. We are not touching anyone's property, nor are we doing damage to any source of knowledge. Attempts to remove information from an encyclopedia is damaging to knowledge. Chillum 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The images may not be the property of any one person, but they are collectively owned and used. I'm speaking for the collective when I say that according to 3 reliable sources, we're vandalizing the Rorschach test. According to these sources, Wikipedia is actually destroying knowledge by bringing about "the loss of effective assessment tools" by the "disclosure of... test materials." I'm not making this up; I'm reading it right off the page. [17] Do you have any information that contradicts this source? I think the loss of these tools would be knowledge that is lost. Shame on any encyclopedia that contributes to that loss. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not collectively owned. They are in the public domain, and thus not owned. They might be used, but they are not owned. If a reliable source says we are damaging their property then they are misrepresenting what is their property. Lots of people use public domain property for their own purposes, but they do so at their own peril because they have no claim to control such content. I am getting a bit tired of the shame you are trying to put on us. I say shame on your attempts at censorship. Chillum 00:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tragedy_of_the_commons. Mirafra (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not shame; responsibility. An encyclopedia is supposed to preserve knowledge for the next generation, not contribute to its destruction or diminished capacity. You're free to use public domain property for your own purpose, but you're also responsible to leave it in the same or better condition than when you found it. I have 3 sources that say the most responsible action would be to maintain the security of the test items. These sources are not contradicted by any other source except for some kind of "rule-of-thumb" that disclosing information can only be a good thing. Cite your source, please. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter what those sources say. It is our purpose to produce an encyclopedia, not to protect people who rely on keeping public information secret. We are not changing the condition of those inkblots, they look the same before and after we use them, all we are doing is showing them to people who are interested in the subject. I think the community has made it clear that the idea of holding back public domain information to protect medical tests has been rejected. We don't base policies on reliable sources, we base our content on reliable sources. If 3 sources say something then we can document that in the article, but we are not going to obey them. Neutrality requires that we do not obey any source, just document them. Chillum 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Providing publicly available information to those that seek it is "Vandalism of knowledge"? What rot. Verbal chat 15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I am not likely to be convinced of such an idea. Hide knowledge to protect it? No, no, no, spread knowledge to protect it. Chillum 01:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how breaking test security helps the tests. I think Dangling has done a very nice job of explaining why it hurts them. Mirafra (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Test "security" has already been broken. In fact, this test is already broken, and outdated, and has been dropped by most of the profession (research and practising) outside the US. Verbal chat 08:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It's quite popular in Latin America (3rd most used test) and in Japan, as well as say Ontario in Canada. And norms are being developed in Russia. That covers much of the world.Faustian (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalism of knowledge" to me would be something like creating a guild or association, which hides information and knowledge from others and only allows the initiated access to "the knowledge". Interesting analogy. Verbal chat 08:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a test that is already compromised in not knowledge, it is just a tool that relies on a lack of specific knowledge. It would seem the test requires the suppression of at least this specific knowledge, regardless it is not knowledge itself. There is not vandalism going on here as there is no property to vandalize. There is no damage being done to the test even because the test is already compromised in that these images are already widespread. This has all been brought up a few times in the past already. Chillum 12:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you get to pass judgment on such things, but okay, let me try this again. "Responses of X type on the Rorschach are clinically associated with personality or behavior characteristic Y," is a piece of knowledge. By publishing secure information about the test and its interpretation, one risks rendering that previously-useful and correct information incorrect and thus obsolete. Like I said, destroying the village in order to save it. Mirafra (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If the test was protected by copyright or not widely available for some reason you may have a point. But the only thing I have seen this proposed policy applied to is the Rorschach test that is both public domain and widely available. It is like you are trying to unring a bell or put the egg back into its shell. The secret is out, this information is not private. Chillum 22:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is like saying, "three people already broke into my neighbor's house while he was vacation. I might as well go over and help myself too - you can't unring the bell." If one person is getting exposed to this information because it's on wikipedia, who otherwise wouldn't be, this is adding damage. Damage is not binary - either damaged or undamaged.Faustian (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya, except the house belongs to the whole community(the neighbor is just using it) and nothing was removed. Chillum 03:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We were talking about harm to the test, remember? Your argument was that the test was already harmed, implying that once it's harmed the bell has rung, the egg has ben broken, etc. My analogy showed that harm is cumulative. It can be added to. Just because the neighbor's house has been robbed three times and may be robbed again doesn't give us the right to rob it too, nor does it mean that our theft isn't "harm." Moreover, you equate "damage" with copyright. Since the copyright expired, there is no damage. Do you really believe those two concepts, damage and copyright, are the same thing?Faustian (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you ask a library to remove a book on the topic of Rorschach tests because it shows the inkblot? This is the subject they are looking up, and this is the information they get. We are not putting in a comedy special or under people's windshield wipers. It is being shown to people who are intentionally looking the subject up. Chillum 03:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see use of the value-laden term "vandalism" by Danglingdiagnosis and Mirafra when describing LjL's good faith edits. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, LjL should be commended for the hard work done. Imagine if Wikipedia went to another publication and starting trying to force neutrality down its throat stating that it is the only ethical way to continue? All day we have people that want their ethics and their rules to be followed on Wikipedia, and sometimes when they don't get it they consider it an attack against them. Well, it is not an attack against anyone, it is just us favoring our own rules and ethics over the ones that the latest person is demanding we follow.

Seriously, if we throw away our policies to follow this groups rules, there are 200 other groups with rules ready to demand theirs be followed as well. Chillum 13:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is saying that the reason to do something about the images is because of APA ethics codes. Rather, the APA ethics codes merely follow the APA's collective finding that compromising tests causes concrete harm. The ethics code is secondary to the harm caused.Faustian (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well none of the other reasons given have convinced the community either. Since this proposed policy has been thoroughly rejected by the community, perhaps it is time to just let it go. People calling our contributors vandals is not likely to change things. Chillum 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Vanadalims has a specific meaning in wikiepdia that perhaps the new users weren't familiar with. It was used in reference to the information rather than the article, however. The point that by using the information you are destroying it is valid one.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Danglingdiagnosis is not a new user. He has been here since October 2006. Chillum 14:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was pretty clearly stating that the knowledge was being vandalized, and did not state that the articles were (the latter would mean he was accusing other editors of Wikipedia:Vandalism, which would be wrong).Faustian (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already argued that including relevant, verifiable, and public domain information is not vandalism. If you base a product off of public domain material then you don't have a claim on it. You cannot vandalize something that not only public domain, but your own personal copy. The material held by others remains untouched, it is simply the unrealistic expectations that somehow this public and free information will not be public and free that is damaged. We are not responsible for other people's unrealistic expectations.

Coming around and calling our volunteers vandals due to this is baseless. You don't own the pictures, psychiatrists don't own the pictures, nobody owns them. Get it? Nobody has any position to claim damage against their property because it is not property. These images cannot be owned. I could say it five more ways but if you don't get it by now you may never. Chillum 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

People vandalize publicly owned things all the time. Ever ride the New York subway? Nobody's accusing these editors of vandalizing wikipedia articles. They are instead being acused of vandalizing the information by causing it to become less useful. Faustian (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is our own private copy of a public work. We are not sneaking into the museum and scribbling on the originals. I know you are not stupid, you have demonstrated your intelligence. I can only assume that this subway comparison is mere sophistry. The only way that comparison could be apt would be if the design of the subway was public domain, then I build my own copy of it on my property with my funds, then spraypainted it. That would not be vandalism. Chillum 14:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not private but accessible to everyone. And it does impact the "originals", in this case the knoweldge. For example, if a study mentions that 30% of people see Frankenstein in the first card of the Rorschach (I am making this up for the sake of ther example), and you put this the publicly viewed wikipedia article, thanks to Priming (psychology)priming a higher percentage of people will see Frankenstein. Now it will be 35% or 40% or whatever, depending on how people read the article. You've just rendered that information (that 30% of people see Frankenstein) obsolete - vandalized it, as danglindiagnosis would say, or burning the village down in order to save it. There is information out there, in some trade journals, that tells you about patterns seen by criminals. If some wikipedia sleuth hunts the info down, reproduces it onto the page in a coherent and accurate way (admittedly, a tough task that may be nearly impossible for an untrained amateur), so that such patterns become widely known by criminals then suffice it to say criminals will stop providing such patterns. More valuable information made obsolete and less usefull by the very act of including it in a widely read website. What does one get out of doing so? It adds information, sure, but not knowledge. The facts included become obsolete by their very inclusion. Should an article just be a collection of obsolete facts?Faustian (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A library also has its own copies of works available to the public. Should we gather all the books in the libraries with these pictures and have a good old fashioned book burning? We aren't censoring, we are protecting people from harm! Chillum 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

First, please no accusations about bookburning. The kind of stuff, about psychological tests, you are trying to include is not found in general libaries but in academic ones. Yes, someone could go to a university with a Ph.D. program in clinical psychology and track down such information in that university's library. They could also order these books online from the academic publishers (trust me, you won't find them in your neighborhood bookstore). Do you really believe that the info in this way is nearly as widespread and accessible as it would be if it were all reproduced and integrated on a wikipedia page? So yes, by making this kind of information as widespread as you are by putting it on wikiepdia you are also making it obsolete to a large degree.Faustian (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Or they could just type it into google. Chillum 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And read through the really complicated professional sources. When you write an encyclopedia article, you are making the information more accessible. You're walking around unlocking doors, and claiming that it's not your fault that someone then goes into the houses. Mirafra (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have to read through anything complicated. You just type it into Google and they are. The world where these images are only available to scholars and professionals does not exist any more. Chillum 16:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a mixture of real and simulated images. On this article by placing the images into the article you are unlocking the door to the correct images. In terms of the article's content, when you try to describe what images people see in what kind of situations, you are trying to unlock that door. Thus, as has been said many times already, rendering that information obsolete. You are not just unlocking that door, you are breaking it. Of rather shwoing what's inside the house by dismantling it and cataloguing the debris, describing where it once was when the house was intact prior to your destruction of it. Faustian (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The images aren't just the problem. It's the detailed information that is going along with the images that is making the problem worse. (Part of why I'm having my ability to assume good faith stretched is that while we're theoretically preparing for a mediation, y'all seem to be trying to prejudice the facts on the ground. I hope it's clear that I'm not flying off the handle or making accusations. I'm letting you know how your actions are coming across, so that if that's not your intention, you can think about changing them. If it is your intention, then fine.) Mirafra (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We are showing public information to people who are looking the topic up. These doors and walls you speak of seem to be a construct, this is not private information. Chillum 16:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be a public building. Either way, you are destroying the structure in the process of describing it. And thus, your description is no longer accurate - you are saying that a bathroom exists in X location when it no longer does. Just like you're saying that 30% of people see a monster on the fiorst card of the psychological test when, thanks to your publication of that fact in a commply accessed website, it's now 40%.17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We clearly state that the responses are from the past and even give the source. I assure you that no paradox is created. Chillum 22:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but we're not talking about creating a paradox. We're talking about how the frequency with which a random subject might perceive a given percept can be changed when that percept is primed by being published on WP. Let me try explaining it on a more single-user scale. When I was first administered the Rorschach (before I took the course), I saw certain things. While I was studying the test administration and interpretation, I explored a great many things that other people have seen, that I didn't see on my own. Some of those images were quite vivid, and now, when I look at the plates, I can't imagine not being able to see them. My exposure to other people's responses changed my own responses. That's often not even a conscious process. Now, ramp that up to a larger population, and at some point, you're going to see changes that are noticeable. Mirafra (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that if these problems exist, they exist independently of Wikipedia and that neutrality prevents us from basing our content on such concerns. We are making an encyclopedia here. Chillum 15:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Accessibility

If the issue of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines is more than a diversion, it should be proposed under WP:Accessibility. That style guideline makes some effort to promote access for the blind, but it would take quite a bit of work to convert the W3C guidelines into templates and Wikipedia user guidelines.

The premise of the Rorschach debate is that a user's health will be indelibly compromised by the exposure of information in a public domain document from the early 1920s. This is utterly absurd, cultist thinking. (See also Xenu, though reading that article might cause permanent damage...) I think that whenever someone has a document that is still making money when it expires to the public domain, they look for some angle. (See Mickey Mouse#Legal issues) But Wikipedia is an organization of people who stand up for the public domain, and we need to be more hard-headed.

The larger danger of such a policy is that there is a long line of people, each of whom will claim that access to information is harmful. Certain medical organizations would say that knowledge of herbal remedies will encourage people to make bad decisions. Anti-narcotics organizations might say that information about recreational drugs can lead to their manufacture or use. Crusaders against pornography, video games, or gambling may protest that discussion of off-color topics leads users to sites that cause the reader to become "addicted". It will go on and on. If this policy were ever adopted, WP:CENSORED should redirect here, and it might grow up to be the longest policy on Wikipedia. Mike Serfas (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more than I do. This proposal is better suited to a publication that does not have rules to enforce neutrality, and forbid censorship. Chillum 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion is a choice. So also is the choice to take herbal remedies. Having information about those things doesn't change your ability to choose. But this policy is distinctly different because it deals with involuntary health consequences. Wikipedia enforces neutrality rules so that the reader can better exercise choice, and it has censorship exceptions to prevent harm to living persons. (See WP:BOLP Therefore, I think this policy is a perfect addition for Wikipedia. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Futhermore, by damaging the usefulness of the tests, choice is being taken away from those who might wish to exercise it. If you do not want to have a psychological evaluation, don't have one. But by trashing the usefulness of the tests for those who might wish to use them, you are preventing other people who might want to have a psychological evaluation from exercising their own free choice. Mirafra (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Perfect addition. Have you not read the reams of threads above of countless editors denoucing this policy because it would conflict with multiple current policies? That was rhetorical, no need to answer. It is obvious to me you will not listen to any logic but your own. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to drop the uncivil tone and answer the actual substantive point that is being made? Chillum claimed that the existing policies were necessary to preserve individual liberty, and I have claimed that, in this case, they restrict it. Mirafra (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Substantial to you maybe but old hat to the rest of us. The BLP exist to preserve individual liberty and helps protects wikipedia from slander law suits. Please accept the fact that as long as encyclopedic information is public domain, wikipedia will document it. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying again... can you explain how the goal of damaging the usefulness of psychological tests preserves the individual liberty of those who would have wanted to benefit from the use of those tests? Mirafra (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed some of the discussion about this point,[18] but I am not convinced. To begin with, the "security" of the images is already compromised. Even if the images were all deleted, other organizations have exercised their right to publicize them.[19] The images would remain on many mirrors of Wikipedia throughout the world, and would receive special attention at sites such as Deletionpedia.

I would also question whether a move to restrict the images can be backed with any evidence that casual viewing would damage the ability of a person to voluntarily seek diagnosis using the test. For example, when I looked at Figure 7 before my first comment above, it looked like a table lamp or a double thumbs-up gesture. I looked at it now, and not very surprisingly, that is still what it looks like. I could add many more interpretations, but I don't think that the range of images available for me to draw upon has been much affected by the exposure, nor do I suppose that I would remember the inkblot even approximately in a week or two.

For such reasons I find myself wondering whether the real concern is not so much performing the test for someone, but performing it on someone (as at a court ordered evaluation). A person facing the test as an opponent might value a chance to prepare. But who evaluates the sanity of a system that would offer or deny a person legal rights based on what images he sees in an inkblot? Here at Wikipedia our task is simpler: we put knowledge into the hands of the individual by collecting detailed information about a great range of topics, trusting that those who use it well will ultimately have more impact than those who use it poorly. If Wikipedia allows information about how acetone peroxide is manufactured, should the project shy away from giving someone information that might be usable to help obtain a desired result in a dubious psychological test? Mike Serfas (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you're projecting the amount of harm and weighing it with the amount of benefit. You've demonstrated that you are engaging with the problem at the required level of consideration and not just resting on existing policy. There are three high quality, secondary sources [20] [21] [22] that I'd like you to consider. These state that a lack of security of these images could vandalize the test and harm a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient. These are the best kind of sources according to WP:MEDRS. You or I might wonder if the APA and the BPS is worrying over nothing, but I think it's best to rely on sources. The evidence for harm with photosensitive epilepsy is likewise verifiable; however, the only policy consideration I could find was a markedly qualified May 2007 decision by a lone administrator to include language about it in the content disclaimer. There's not much of a paper trail behind that, I thought. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I read through your links. The second is a policy of ethics that does not cite its sources and might reflect any of a wide range of political motivations, which might include such things as commercial considerations or a desire to protect the image of the profession which people at Wikipedia really aren't concerned with. The first quotes the third without really adding to it. This leaves us with the 1996 declaration (which coincidentally comes during the run-up to the Copyright Term Extension Act) To quote your source:

Disclosure of secure testing materials (e.g., test items, test scoring, or test protocols) to unqualified persons may decrease the test's validity. Availability of test items to an unqualified person can not only render the test invalid for any future use with that individual, but also jeopardizes the security and integrity of the test for other persons who may be exposed to test items and responses. Such release imposes very concrete harm to the general public - loss of effective assessment tools.

This sounds quite serious, but I cannot help but note the use of the words may and can rather than observed or statistically significant. The declaration does not cite its sources. It does not cite, for example, a study in which a researcher exposed 20 persons diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder to the isolated test images beforehand, then compared their scores to 20 such persons not exposed to the images, offering each individual a reward if he could do best at passing for normal and seeing if there was a difference in their scoring by a psychiatrist unaware of their exposure status. (This experiment differs a bit from giving the test twice, in that I'd expect casually viewing the images to produce a less detailed memory than a formal and possibly stressful psychiatric procedure conducted in an unfamiliar environment; nonetheless, some researchers have given the Rorschach twice, and then assess the stability of responses between the tests, and seem to view changes as being meaningful.[23][24]) I should disclose that in all probability I would not be persuaded to deny people access to public domain material, either on Wikipedia or in society at large, even if such evidence existed. But without some evidence that some harm could occur, or what that harm is, I don't think we get that far.

I should also note that the quote for your links 1 and 3 puts test scoring and protocols on the same level as the test items themselves. This matches my subjective perception that the text of the SPARC site, if true ([25]) may be more of a disclosure than the graphics. I wouldn't have expected that such things as asking questions, saying "This is a...", rotating the cards, and so forth would affect the outcome. (That site also says that different practitioners score this in different ways - but if the test doesn't need to be given or scored in the same way each time, then what would be the harm in switching to a new set of inkblots and losing the historical interpretations?) If the blots were removed, would you object to inclusion of such text details just as vigorously? Mike Serfas (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources I cited are secondary sources: "position statements by... major health organizations" You're attempting to debunk them using a primary source, which according to WP:MEDRS, is against Wikipedia:No original synthesis, unless the primary source makes such a claim. In order to pursue this line of inquiry, you would need to find a primary source that directly contradicts the secondary sources that I cited.

You also disclosed that "in all probability I would not be persuaded to deny people access to public domain material." I have a certain respect for that, because as a rule of thumb, it is right more times than it is wrong. But again, I point out that I have 3 sources that say that it is wrong. I also point out that the Wikipedia definition of censorship is a work-in-progress because it defines by exclusion rather than inclusion. It talks more about what censorship is not than what it is, and in the list of exceptions, harm to living persons is included. (See WP:BOLP) I would ask you to consider the importance of early treatment for conditions such as manic depressive bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia, and how harming one of the diagnostic tools available can delay that diagnosis. Wikipedians should bring ethical considerations to bear. Otherwise, we simply become functionaries, or as I call it, Fundiwikipedians. And as the Stanford Prison Experiment has shown, people can easily get carried away when we forget who we are and simply become functionaries. This is the cause of problems like the Tragedy of the commons (abuse of public property), and it's why we have policies such as common sense and Ignore all rules. The adoption of this policy will help this problem. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to confuse the levels at which we consider these issues. Because you are proposing a change to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia policy does not apply. I cannot cite "WP:NOTCENSORED" or "WP:NOSEE" against your proposal; nor can you cite "WP:BLP", "WP:COMMON" or "WP:IAR" in favor of it.

I should add that the apparent "censorship exceptions" for biographies of living persons are a) mostly a matter of good sourcing and b) were enacted in response to very real risks of libel lawsuits. Wikipedia's core policy against censorship unfortunately cannot protect them from legal authorities holding a less outspoken position, but it is a commitment by the organization not to add to the ways in which content might be suppressed. That you would use such a relatively mild policy to justify further content restrictions is also a warning that this precedent, if enacted, would be used to justify a much larger range of similar restrictions. People describe this as a "slippery slope", because if we begin picking and choosing what topics to cover based on whether we think the knowledge about them is beneficial, there is no end to it.

The policies that you cite regarding WP:MEDRS and WP:SYN apply to content within an article, and you are free if you wish to cite your sources in the Rorschach test article as evidence for a sentence that disclosure may decrease the test's validity. Nonetheless, the usefulness of these sources for that purpose is limited by certain factors:

• The paragraph does not directly reference the Rorschach test;
• The use of "can" and "may" in the original would prevent you from saying that disclosure does decrease the test's validity;
• As explained in the WP:MEDRS policy, not all statements by professional organizations are secondary literature. To me, the texts you cite would only be true secondary literature if they reviewed, comprehensively, a set of primary publications based on experimental data. These sources seem more like a basic textbook or other "tertiary literature", in which the reader must trust that the author is giving an accurate description of the field without directly checking the primary evidence.

Last but not least, we reach the question of ethics. I will not consider here whether it is best for psychological professionals to follow the ethics code of the APA or other professional associations. The question here is whether such organizations possess such insight that editors of Wikipedia should prefer their ideas over Wikipedia's own sense of ethics and the legal rights that the United States has granted us.

Now this is a personal and political decision, which we must each make for ourselves, but as for me, I am skeptical of the ethics of a profession that pushes drugs like amphetamines and methylphenidate to children for a vaguely and variably defined disorder. Though my knowledge of the topic is limited, the articles here give me the (very approximate) impression that 3% of males may have antisocial personality disorder, 0.5% have schizophrenia, 10% have attention deficit disorder, up to 20% have unipolar depression at some point in life, 4% have bipolar disorder, 2.5% have obsessive-compulsive disorder, 3% have generalized anxiety disorder, and so on. It is hard to avoid the impression that the industry is approaching a "Brave New World" scenario with a capitalist twist, in which every normal variation of human character and feeling has been medicalized so that someone can make money by treating it.

In this regard psychology is far from unique - America's system of private medicine has been deteriorating to a state where procedures and tests are invented for profit[26] - but the effect is that I can't feel confident that the motive for limiting knowledge about the test is solely or predominantly the reader's self-interest.

It is also my perception that though some individuals have played a highly visible political role, as a group psychologists follow rather than lead on political issues. For example, Illinois was the first state to repeal sodomy laws in 1961, but homosexuality was only removed from the DSM list of mental disorders in 1973. Likewise, it is my impression that psychologists were fairly optimistic about the use of LSD and other strong "psychotomimetic" drugs in therapy before the drug was banned, yet once the law was passed they by and large acquiesced to the new state of affairs with little ongoing protest.

Such events give me the feeling that if Wikipedia and the legal system set a strong precedent for allowing information about psychological tests to become publicly known, the organizations might eventually change their codes of ethics to recognize that open source testing helps win patients' trust. Whether that is true or not, I choose to place my faith in Wikipedia's ideal of freedom of inquiry, even where it conflicts with this other ethical code. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue of consequences to health is important enough to warrant an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED. The policy at WP:NOTCENSORED is designed as one of exclusion, and says much about what censorship is not and little about what it really is. If this proposed policy were attempting to exclude information that attempts to sway opinion for or against any body of religion, government, or ideology, I would not propose it. I don't consider this censorship in the true sense of the word.

The wonderful article from the New Yorker you referenced (thank you, for that) points the finger of responsibily for high costs of health care at individual doctors, not at national health organizations. As you correctly point out, there is no lack of criticism among psychologists on a variety of subjects. If there were any controversy over the 1996 APA statement, we should be able to discover it in peer-reviewed journals. I'm sure that among 150,000 psychologists, there would be some whistle blower among the lot. For you to personally assume this role is unnessary, innappropriate, and original research. (Note: Proposing a modification to one or two policies does not necessarily negate the others.)

I grant you that both of these items (photosensitive epilepsy and psychological tests) are unique situations. That Wikipedia has the power to influence the practice of psychology is extraordinary. I don't deny that, and I'm sympathetic to those who complain that it requires special consideration and dispensation over and above what is usual. That's part of the reason why I wrote this policy proposal. I don't see it growing to be a long list, but if you think it needs tightening up to prevent future abuses, please feel free to offer a suggestion. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is much more than a right to sway opinion in favor of a government, religion, or ideology. Even the Miller test, which in my view has allowed much injustice, protects not just political expression but literary, artistic, and scientific value. Wikipedia exists to help all people to know and understand. This is a fundamental and subversive cornerstone of democracy - that among other things anyone can know what a chemist knows, what a physician knows, and yes, what a psychiatrist knows.

Since our positions on test data seem fairly clear, I'll return to the issue of epilepsy. Let me begin by saying that if someone can suffer epilepsy from looking at a computer monitor, it seems like the manufacturer of that device should be the first to look for ways to prevent that side-effect - followed in turn by the maker of the video card, the application programming interface, the operating system, the Web browser, the anti-virus software, and if all that fails, then the Wiki software. It appears that computer monitor manufacturers have inadvertently improved their products for aesthetic reasons so as not to cause epileptic seizures simply by viewing ordinary content.[27] However, some content that flashes or contains regular patterns may still cause problems, and the British ITC made restrictions on these patterns.[28] (see also Harding Test) There is no idea too obvious to patent, and designing a video card or other device to suppress production of these patterns is therefore restricted.[29] But once epileptics have complied with the international consensus belief that the sick should be permitted treatment conditioned on the payment of some hundreds or thousands to promote the creation of legal barriers to progress, they should be able to use hardware or software to protect themselves with some reliability.

By comparison Wikipedia policy offers few guarantees. Whether or not your policy were enacted, how many editors really know how many flashes or stripes are thought to make a pattern epileptogenic? How quickly would such an image be spotted in an article? It is true, of course, that in an article specifically about photosensitive epilepsy or a notorious trigger such as the Dennō Senshi Porygon broadcast will receive more scrutiny, but it is unlikely that epileptics will intentionally pursue viewing such images. So far as I know, none of Wikipedia's video clips play on their own, and with usual layout they take up less than 25% of the screen as is permitted under the above guidelines even for flashing regular patterns. So I think that if any trigger images are encountered on Wikipedia, it will very likely be as an accident or a prank,[30] neither of which can be prevented by policy. I think that malicious posting of such an image intentionally mislabeled to surprise epileptics is prohibited by policy - see WP:Harassment. This doesn't change the reality that anyone can create a throwaway Wikipedia account and do this without much risk of consequence from within Wikipedia, though the culprit could conceivably become the target of some legal action.

Last but not least, your proposal does not limit itself to the Harding test, but advocates the strongest possible adherence to accessibility guidelines. While this may be a noble goal, the truth of the matter is that Wikipedia did not allow WP:alternate text for images until October 2008 due to a bug in the software. To tell the truth, I hadn't realized they'd finally fixed that until I looked it up just now, and I doubt that many images have been updated yet. But alternate text for images to help the blind seems like the most basic possible accessibility measure any Web site can take, and this should give an idea of how far away Wikipedia is from the full W3C accessibility recommendation. While I can't know for sure, I think perhaps one reason for this is that Wikipedia's content is free and can be modified for a single purpose project. For example, there is a Simple English Wikipedia rather than any very serious effort to make the language here more understandable. It is possible that some accessibility issues could be handled by a mirror site rather than by changing the original. In any case, as I've said, I think the place for proposing specific adherence to W3C guidelines is under WP:Accessibility. Mike Serfas (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: As I suggested above, I've opened this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Accessibility#Accommodations for photosensitive epilepsy. Hopefully we can agree on something productive to come out of this discussion, even if a strict policy is unlikely to be effective. Mike Serfas (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this for quite a while, Mike, and I just cannot for the life of me figure out what you mean by "open source psychological testing." As in, how you think that would actually work from a psychometric standpoint -- how a test would be designed and built, how someone could be assessed on it in a meaningful way, and how this process would be different from the existing methods of scientific review. Perhaps you could explain it? Mirafra (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt it was rhetorical excess, but I only meant the current status quo in which much of the disputed information is widely available, including on Wikipedia. Mike Serfas (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's all well and good, but you're not the first person to claim that somehow the psychological field is supposed to be happy that some WP editors think it's the proper role of WP to somehow "help" psychology get past what they think are foolish methods of developing and interpreting tests, and thus to minimize the effects of their publishing of secure test information in one of the most highly public areas of the Internet. As someone who uses secure tests professionally and has been involved in the test development process, I am finding the suggestion that psychology can somehow just change its methods to be tremendously naive and ill-informed. But I'm open to hearing what people think they're actually proposing. "Open-source psychological testing" sounds like a lovely sound bite, but I have no earthly idea how anything like it could be implemented in the real world. So it's a real question.

The point of this entire line of discussion has to do with whether WP editors are going to accept that with great power comes great responsibility. It's not just about the Rorschach. It applies to all psychological tests. Since a number of editors have made it clear that their goal is not just to "publish information," but also, by publishing that information, to affect the ability of psychologists to use tests which they (the editors who are not psychologists) have a personal POV against, regardless of the state of the research supporting the use of those tests, I think WP needs to think very seriously about what its role is in society. Mirafra (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't follow logically

Wikipedia's medical disclaimer states that "the medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional." It follows from this that articles containing information about psychological test materials should convey information in a general nature so as to not prompt the involuntarily substitution of one test method for another. This may be a point with merit, but it doesn't seem to me to follow logically from the disclaimer. I believe the proposal would read more convincingly without it. Barnabypage (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is one of the stronger points raised here. I opened the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer#Disclosure of psychological test methods: worth a sentence? suggesting that the disclaimer might be expanded to cover this point. It only seems fair. Mike Serfas (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely the point of the disclaimer is that medical articles are inevitably general in nature, in that they don't cover all possible ramifications that might affect an individual; not that they should be deliberately diluted to generality. And the substitutions referred to in the disclaimer and the text about psychological test materials are completely different kinds of substitution with little but the word in common! Barnabypage (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not substituting anything. We are telling people not to use are article as a substitute for medicine, Doctors are allowed to make substitutions and that is nothing to do with us. If someone looks up the test in our encyclopedia first and then the Doctor decides to substitute the test with another that is the Doctor's decision due to the actions of the patient. We are not making any medical decisions. Chillum 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Chillum. My point is that whether or not the eventual consensus is that Wikipedia should publish the Rorschach tests, the existing medical disclaimer does not lend the support suggested to the "no" side of the debate, and that it is just a distraction to bring it into the argument. The disclaimer is about the inevitable shortcomings of what is published, not about what ought to be published. Barnabypage (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You think it's the doctor's responsibility? But I can cite a source that says that previous exposure to test material forces the substitution of one test for another [31] "Because there are a limited number of standardized 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." (emphasis added) This source says that it's the "release" and the "availability" of the test material that causes the substitution. The consequences are involuntary. Neither the doctor nor the patient can be held responsible. A compromise proposal (not the best solution) that would have shifted a large portion of the responsibility to the reader failed to achieve consensus. That leave only us Wikipedians holding the bag. You can try and wash your hands of it, but it's not very responsible of you. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not trying to be responsible. The goal of the project is to document public domain information in an encyclopedic manner and share that information with everyone. What others do with the information is not our responsibility. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary, I think you believe that information has intrinsic value, even value above that of the health of any single individual. I agree with you that information is usually best brought out into the open, unless evidence shows otherwise. In this case, I think we have such evidence. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that we've demonstrated by now that the theoretical effects on the health of a hypothetical person is not likely to sway any opinions one way or another. Resolute 00:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no one has tried to sway my opinion that there are no involuntary health consequences. If you could convince me of that, I would feel much at ease about things. Thank you very much. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we have made it very clear that we are not making medical decisions for people. If a doctor makes a decision to not use a test that has been tainted due to being in the public domain and also widely published then that is the doctor's decision, it has nothing to do with us. This argument carries no more weight than it did a month ago. Chillum 22:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You think it has "nothing to do with us?" Help me understand that, please. Then I could rest happy. The "Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data" applies to those who disclose test data. That would be us, wouldn't it?. This is a statement from a national health organization and is reliable source of information. It has not been refuted by any other source. You can say "it has nothing to do with us," but this source says that it most certainly does have something to do with us. This is why our general disclaimers don't work. Since exposure to this information has an involuntary consequence, then we can't very well tell the reader to follow the advice of a medical professional, can we? The medical professional will point to us and say, "I'm not responsible. Because you were exposed to a Wikipedia article, I have no choice but to substitute some other less-desirable procedure." (assuming one is available) Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't part of the APA, is it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but Wikipedia does have 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." (See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines) Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The last I checked we were not part of the APA. Imagine if we went to the APA and demanded that they follow our neutrality policy? They would say "We aren't part of Wikipedia, why should we follow your rules?", and they would be right. Other than Florida law we have never used the proclamations of outside groups as the basis of our policy. And by the way, Florida law is not against the showing of these images. The arguments based on the medical disclaimer in this proposed rejected policy are not valid, they don't follow logically. Chillum 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the source demanding anything of Wikipedia; instead, I think they are informing us of the possible consequences of certain actions. It's those actions that are at issue. The statement from this national health organization talk specifically about those actions, such as "The disclosure," or "the release" of test material or data. It says that those actions harm the test and impose involuntary health consequences on our readers. This is a statement from a national health organization, which qualifies it as a secondary source, the best kind of source, according to our guidelines. See WP:MEDRS
But getting back to the subject of this thread, I think the medical disclaimer is based on the premise that our articles will not have involuntary health consequences. It says that articles "cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional." I'm saying that they can substitute for such advice. The source proves it. I'm sympathetic to those who find this difficult to swallow. That information longs to be free and has intrinsic value is a fine ethic - unless it is proven to be unethical. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rejected

This proposed policy has been widely rejected since July 17th and shows absolutely zero signs of gaining acceptance. I am not sure what the continued repetition of the debate is accomplishing, everything we are talking about today was already discussed before the policy was rejected. How about we stop beating this dead horse? Chillum 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you haven't found a way to balance the issues here. Putting one's fingers over one's ears doesn't make the contrary voices go away. We think we have a very real problem here, one that hurts both our profession and our ability to contribute as members of the WP community. We'd like to hear a solution to the problem, not just a demand that we shut up. Mirafra (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I should note that someone just claimed consensus at Talk:Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure in the opposite direction. I think more discussion may be helpful. ;) Mike Serfas (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. That has nothing to do with undoing this failed policy. Unless new arguments are brought to bear, this should be closed and archived. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra, we don't have to counter your arguments(even though we have been for months), you have to convince us of them. You are asking for balance, but your side has no mass to tilt the scales, the fact is that things are already balanced and that your position simply does not afford much effect on the balance. The solution to the problem has been found, we will use the images. Perhaps you don't like the solution but it is the solution arrived at none the less. Chillum 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Your side has no mass to tilt the scales". It's pure majority dictatorship.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dictatorship? That is a bit unrealistic, do you really think in a dictatorship you would be allowed to make your argument for so long? No Faust, it is not about numbers, it is about the failure to convince others of your point of view, it is about core Wikipedia policy going against this idea. Sometimes people just don't get their way on Wikipedia, that does not make it a dictatorship. If this was a dictatorship you would have been blocked and tucked away in some corner, instead we have spent years considering your point of view. You simply have not convinced any significant number of people. Chillum 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, failure to convince the majority not be dictators. The majority dictatorship doesn't censor the dissenters by blocking them, it instead utterly rejects their stated opinion and dictates its will completely without incorporating any of the minority's wishes. And 1/3 (at least) dissenters is indeed significant.Faustian (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1/3rd? Have you seen the latest RFC on this issue? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. It is not even close to a third, it is in fact far less. If one ignores single purpose accounts(which I do) it is more like 1/8th, numbers aside policy is against you.

You are only calling us dictators because you are not getting what you want. You are the one who seeks to dictate to us, you have just not been effective at it. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Chillum 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a (now) a user subpage... I'd suggest just unwatching, Chillum - leave a note that you have done so and that persons should follow up on your user talk page if they want to respond to anything you've written, and a request that you be notified if this proposal is advanced again. –xeno^talk 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Xeno, If my only goal was my own piece of mind I might just do that, however I also have the best interests of Wikipedia as my goal so I will oppose any proposal that threatens to harm our project as long as need be. Unwatching bad ideas is a bad idea, you need to keep an eye on them. Chillum 17:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this proposal is tagged as "rejected" and it's just discourse at this point. If you don't like what's on the TV, change the channel. I'm sure you'll notice if it come back to a proposed stage. –xeno^talk 17:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not TV, this is an interactive environment. If I don't like what I see I can participate and change it. I will take you advice only in a limited capacity and try not to further post here until there is something further to respond to. Chillum 17:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't like what's being bantered about at the round table, move to a different one? ;> –xeno^talk 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling note to viewer: "No horses have been harmed in the production of this wikipedia proposal". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This information is already widely available. There is nothing to take responsibility for, the test is as damaged by exposure as it is going to get since anyone can just google the images anytime they want. I see no reason why Wikipedia should pretend that by removing the images it will someone help this test survive the new information age. Chillum 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Our readers are our readers and no one else's. Surely it goes (supportively) to the heart of Chillum's point that this just isn't the case. Barnabypage (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish by restating the exact same rejected arguments over and over and over again? Resolute 17:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "you" is DD? Verbal chat 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeedy. Resolute 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand the argument that it's okay to do it because others are doing it. That that somehow removes responsibility. That's not the mentality of reasonable men and women; that's the mentality of looters in a street riot. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to be insulting. Let's be crystal clear here: the images are easily found by anyone with an internet connection, proximity to a library, or a decent bookstore nearby. Your proposal has been soundly rejected, the consensus at the RfC is overwhelmingly against removal of any sort... so what exactly, as Resolute asked, do you hope to accomplish by continuing to bang this drum? The consensus has been the same for three years. It's not going to change. What are you gaining by repeating the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over? → ROUX ₪ 03:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand you. You're saying that we should assume that our readers have gone to "other sites, or to the library, or to a decent bookstore." I'm saying that we shouldn't make that assumption. If you and I have conflicting points of view, perhaps it might be good if we both make an effort to see what we have in common. Can we agree that we both have a responsibility to provide the reader with an article that gives him or her the maximum amount of control to make decisions? I believe that is what it means to be neutral. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux is saying that readers COULD go to those places, not that they did. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a hypothetical argument to a real question of responsibility. There will be real people reading the article about the Rorschach test or about Photosensitive_epilepsy who will read our article and not go to another site, or to the library, or to a decent bookstore. Those that do go somewhere else, I'm okay with; they're not my responsibility. But our readers are our readers. My responsibility is to them, not to anyone else. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So we better make sure we provide all available information. Verbal chat 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that is a hypothetical argument in response to a hypothetical question of "harm". In Wikipedia's terms, our "real responsibility" is to provide as much knowledge as we can, freely, as reliably as we can. Your proposal that we limit what information we provide based on hypothetical situations has been rejected. A tactic of Argumentum ad nauseum is not likely to be any more effective. Resolute 13:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to answer the question, DD. You do know the definition of insanity, yes? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You're not going to get a different result, so why do you keep doing the same thing over and over, ignoring what everyone else is telling you? → ROUX ₪ 10:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)