Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I have read, quite carefully all the text on this page, and all the responses and argument on the talkpage as well in closing this debate. Those proposing that the images and accompanying commentary be entirely excluded have argued that there is potential for harm to persons and that, through our related policy, the images should be excluded. Those supporting inclusion have, among other things, appealed to WP:NOTCENSORED - I would like to remind them that this does not mean that we must include everything that we can: as a community, we do have the power to decide to remove something for its offensiveness or inappropriateness - WP:NOTCENSORED simply means we are not compelled to.

Nonetheless, the argument for inclusion of the this material is strong - a conclusive case for violation of WP:BLP has not been presented, particularly given the wide availability of this material in other media, and the majority of heavily-supported comments on this page show consensus for the idea that this encyclopedic topic would be incomplete without the images. This shows a consensus that inclusion of the images and the common responses to them is appropriate within current policies.

This discussion reached no particular conclusion as to whether a restriction on the numbers of images should be established, and this close should not be taken to mean that there can be no discussion on the editorial appropriateness of including all ten rather than a selection - this is a separate content decision. In general, however, this RfC should mark the end of the immediate include/exclude debate since there are no real further avenues for dispute resolution in an area such as this. I'll happily take any heat for this on my talkpage over the next few days from those who have further questions or want advice on the avenues of appeal that remain. Please do not take those appeals back to the article talkpage, as that would be unhelpful. Best wishes, and happy editing. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Threaded responses on the talk page only, please Should Rorschach test display all ten images used in the test and the common responses, or should we act on psychologists' concerns that doing so undermines the test? 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

I'm opening this RfC as an admin who has been lightly involved with some behavioral issues on Talk:Rorschach test. I have no involvement in the content issues themselves. I'm hoping that fresh eyes will bring closure to a dispute that shows no sign of abating.

The basic issue is this: the Rorschach test is used by psychologists to evaluate personalities based on people's responses to a series of ten inkblot images, such as this one. The argument is that the patterns you see within these images are indicative of certain states of mind. Researchers are divided on the value of the test, some seeing it as informative, others arguing that it's too subjective to be reliable.

The creator of the test, Hermann Rorschach, died in 1922, which means the images are in the public domain. All ten images are available on the Commons. They were added to the article in June, prompting protests from psychologists who say the test is undermined if patients have already seen the images and the most common answers. See, e.g., The New York Times and The Globe and Mail . I believe the argument is that the addition of the images to the article makes them more available than if they were only on the Commons.

The basic questions for this RfC, then, are:

  • Should our article display all 10 images and the most common answers?
  • Does the harm argument carry any weight? Does Wikipedia's mission overrule professional interests?
  • Should a compromise be found e.g. not showing all 10 images, positioning them below the fold, not publishing so much information about the common responses?

The desired outcome is that a resolution be suggested by consensus during this RfC, which will be respected even if not to everyone's liking. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at dispute resolution

[edit]

Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit]

Statement by LjL

[edit]

Wikipedia is not censored, so relevant images and text should not be removed because some people object to their viewing. No disclaimers should be used (although the current lead image may be moved to a more appropriate section if a better lead image is found). Even disregarding these guidelines on the grounds that they should be ignored in this case, the claimed harm is 1) not ultimately, definitely provable 2) so indirect that it cannot be taken to require an exception to policy 3) claimed to be potentially generated by such a wide variety of content that virtually all article content on test description and interpretation ought to be removed on its ground (for instance, sources state that test subjects should not receive any hints whatsoever that "color" may be important in their responses, because that will skew results).

A compromise involving removal of some of the 10 images (note, a very limited set of material that cannot grow in number, not really an image gallery in the "unwanted" sense) is not acceptable, because sizeable parts of the article content specifically discuss the images individually or in groups (for instance by color components).

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --LjL (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Jezhotwells (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. hmwitht 17:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dlabtot (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Quasistellar (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) — Quasistellar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  8. Chillum 19:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. DreamGuy (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Jakew (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. iridescent 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. (also)Happy‑melon 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Falcorian (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. WS (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Mysidia (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Ipatrol (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Jafeluv (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 07:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Verbal chat 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. *** Crotalus *** 17:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Gwinva (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. DGG (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strongly opposed to censorship --Matheuler 03:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Matt Deres (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. → ROUX ₪ 03:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. KGyST (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Ironholds (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Gigs (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. –blurpeace (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Agree with basic message. Disagree with the need to publish all of this quackery. NVO (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. — Ched :  ?  11:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Bryan Derksen (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Chutznik (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Someone objects to everything. If we remove all controversial subjects, we weaken the purpose of Wikipedia. Gorillatheape (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57.  Skomorokh  22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Mdwh (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roger

[edit]

Show all ten. A lot of people would benefit, such as those who have to get this silly test done for a court, and who want to know what it is all about. There is no evidence of harm, except that some psychologists use the secrecy to create a phony mystique about the test, and they prefer to maintain the secrecy.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Roger (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- This has already been thrashed out at several forums. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. hmwitht 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dlabtot (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I agree but not exactly in those words. Theoretic arguments of harm and benefit can be made equality persuasively.[reply]
  7. I wouldn't use these words exactly, but I strongly believe the explaining of all things psychiatric where possible. If people really want, they can read profiles and case studies on how mental health professionals conclude patients have antisocial personality vs anxiety vs schizophrenia, all three or none of the above. This is not substantively different. What is also worht noting is that the test is rarely used anymore. I must have seen it used only once or twice in the past 15 years myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Keep them available. They are public domain and are already available in book form since 1975 and on the internet since at least 2003.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. iridescent 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Falcorian (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Verbal chat 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. *** Crotalus *** 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse → ROUX ₪ 03:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Jusdafax (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Niteshift. The cat is already out of the bag. The info can be found elsewhere, so any (in my opinion) imagined harm wouldn't be changed by deleting it here.
  23. Chutznik (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlabtot

[edit]
  • Should our article display all 10 images and the most common answers? Yes, our goal here is to inform people, not to hide information or censor it.
  • Does the harm argument carry any weight? No, none whatsoever.
  • Does Wikipedia's mission overrule professional interests? Outside interests, whether described as 'professional' or otherwise, are entirely irrelevant. We are guided by our policies which are determined by community consensus.
  • Should a compromise be found e.g. not showing all 10 images, positioning them below the fold, not publishing so much information about the common responses? No, because no valid reasons have been put forth to do so.

Wikipedia operates by consensus; consensus does not require unanimity; an unwillingness to accept a consensus that you don't agree with is a form of disruption. Added: of course, no one is suggesting that editors are not allowed to retain their own opinions.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Dlabtot (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LjL (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. hmwitht 17:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Chillum 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DuncanHill (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. iridescent 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. (also)Happy‑melon 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Merovingian (T, C, L) 02:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Except for that last blurb, people are entitled to retain an opinion and even act on them without being construed as disruptive unless that is the intent or they are edit warring after a rough consensus.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jafeluv (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Verbal chat 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. DGG (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Endorse, especially the statement about acting against consensus (in this case approximately three years old, and unchanged in that time despite liberal and frequent application of WP:IDHT by the vocal minority opposed); Ipatrol is flat out wrong. Retain the opinion, yes. Continually fight against repeatedly re-established consensus? No. → ROUX ₪ 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. KGyST (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. –blurpeace (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Bryan Derksen (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. —Pie4all88 T C 16:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC), with the caveat that while users should not continuously battle consensus, it is true that consensus can change.[reply]
  35. Tim Song (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Mdwh (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by hmwith

[edit]

Since Wikipedia is not censored, all 10 images should be shown in a gallery at the bottom of the page, with no disclaimers. It's the user's own choice whether or not he wants to keep reading/researching at that point. If he wants to skip that section, he can do so, as it will be obvious at a quick glance that the gallery contains the inkblots. We're just here here to inform. Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable. We can't remove all information from the encyclopedia that is inappropriate to any one person or group. As long as information contributes to the article and is encyclopedic, it belongs.

Addendum (15:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)): I assumed that this went unsaid, but the lead image should remain unless a better image is found. The best free image for the article should always be at the top.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. hmwitht 17:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LjL (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chillum 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DreamGuy (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Further, many of the inkblots are already well-known to laypersons.[reply]
  8. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Falcorian (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ipatrol (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Jafeluv (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. And the lead image should remain unless a better one is found (unlikely) Verbal chat 13:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. DGG (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. — Ched :  ?  11:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Bryan Derksen (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Chutznik (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Skomorokh  22:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Mdwh (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mirafra

[edit]
  • Should our article display all 10 images and the most common answers?

No. The images themselves constitute the entirety of the test. The common answers and other supporting information that have been added in recent weeks are further harmful to test security -- they do not create an effective “cheatsheet” per se, but suggest a course of action that will create an invalid test protocol. (The entire notion of there being “correct” answers to this test is itself a significant misconception.) Extensive discussions of test content are not appropriate to the role of an encyclopedia; the current editors appear to be trying to write a monograph more appropriate to a professional publication. The article could provide high-quality encyclopedic content, given in nontechnical language, without inappropriate disclosures of information that would harm test security.

  • Does the harm argument carry any weight? Does Wikipedia's mission overrule professional interests?

Despite the creative imaginations of some, the use of psychological tests is not to read minds or control minds. Tests are protected not to “create mystique,” but to establish a set of relatively standard conditions under which the tests can be used, thus increasing the reliability and validity of the results. Psychologists are enjoined by professional ethics to attempt to maintain test security as much as possible, for the sole purpose of establishing those standard test conditions. Tests are often discussed in the professional literature, in order to further scientific inquiry, but these discussions are not intended for consumption by the general public, the way an encyclopedia article is.

While non-psychologist editors are not bound by legality in this matter, one would hope that they could choose to collaborate with an allied profession, either because they accept that they would be causing harm to the very knowledge they are attempting to document by rendering it less useful in the real world, or because they can understand that the article could be made better by enabling the cooperation of psychologist editors.

Wikipedia is, perhaps, a victim of its own success. As the most widely-accessed source of general information on the Internet, we now hold great power in our hands. But with great power comes great responsibility. As with the Biographies of Living Persons policy, we have to remember that, “Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility.”

Psychologists have a limited number of test instruments available; generating new ones and establishing their validity and reliability is a process requiring many years, as well as enormous outlays of limited research money and volunteer time. By publishing test content, we are interfering with professionals who are trying to do their jobs, and denying people who would like psychological evaluations the opportunity to have such evaluations.

Furthermore, since the Rorschach is often used in forensic contexts, where the possibility of an individual’s being dangerous to themselves or to someone else is at issue, we must carefully consider our role within the larger social world. If a person cannot be evaluated effectively because they have looked up information on Wikipedia, then there is a substantial risk that a homicidal person or sexual predator will be mistakenly allowed to go free, that a suicidal person will be prematurely pushed out of the hospital, or that someone who the test could have shown to be safe will be unjustly considered dangerous and deprived of freedom. Even a person who is not intending to mislead an evaluator, whose only interest in seeking evaluation is to find out more about themselves, could easily inadvertently sabotage their own evaluation by reading the content of this article.

While one might argue that it is the choice of the person reading the article, that would be ignoring the fact that the people being protected by the use of psychological evaluations are often not the actual people being evaluated (for instance, the children of an abusive parent). Additionally, if the disclosures on WP are broad enough to invalidate the test more generally, such that it can no longer be used at all, this action would have the effect of denying any person the choice to have such an evaluation. Any person who does not want to take the Rorschach test, for any reason, already has the option to refuse to consent to it, or to say, “I don’t see anything.”

Several editors have made claims that they feel that secure tests in general, or the Rorschach in particular, should not be used at all by anyone. This claim is a clear example of POV-pushing, where people who do not personally have the knowledge of the field are imposing their personal judgment on how the field should work, and attempting to use Wikipedia as their tool to enforce that judgment on others. The role of Wikipedia should be to provide neutral information regarding the validity and reliability of the test, in order to enable people to make their own choices about whether they will use the test, or consent to have the test administered to them.

  • Should a compromise be found e.g. not showing all 10 images, positioning them below the fold, not publishing so much information about the common responses?

Yes. Editors who are psychological professionals and who are knowledgeable about this and other psychological tests have expressed an interest in contributing to these articles, in order to demystify the testing process and to help provide higher-quality encyclopedic information. The current state of most articles on secure tests is that most of them are barely written, while the Rorschach article has been extensively written by editors whose writings do not accurately reflect the current research or uses of the test; experts on the test have examined the content and find that it is inaccurate, confusing, and misleading -- in short, of poor encyclopedic quality. However, because of the requirements under the professional code of ethics to protect test security, unless an agreement to respect test security can be made, those editors cannot contribute to this class of articles. To insist upon a policy that excludes the class of editors who have the knowledge and perspective to improve the article is foolish at best, and rather close to the nonprofessional editors establishing ownership of the article.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Mirafra (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vannin (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mex-psych (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) — Mex-psych (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  4. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Earlypsychosis (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC) — Dela Rabadilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  9. Very observant points, I concur wholeheartedly. This is not a debate about censorship; there's a line between idealism and practicality that some of our passionate editors find difficult to locate. This is not about "the man" cracking down on free speech. This is about us, as a community recognising we have a responsibility as editors of the most prominent information source on the planet, a responsibility that has already been acknowledged by the Living Persons policy, and a responsibility we ought not to shy away from. That's before I even raise the issue that this article is far closer to an academic paper than an encyclopaedic article and thus in flagrant violation of WP:OR. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 64.229.x.x

[edit]

Anyone who wants to "cheat" on the Rorschach test can go to the library and read Rorschach's test : scoring and interpretation By Alvin George Burstein and Sandra Loucks and a lot of the book is online anyway thanks to google books[1].

I don't think the test is used very widely these days anyway but even if it is the cat's been out of the bag for years and already had several litters of kittens so keeping this information off of wikipedia would hardly protect some sort of psychiatric trade secret.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 64.229.169.25 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DreamGuy (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. absolutely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Resolute 03:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. iridescent 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Falcorian (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Absolutely. You make a great point. hmwitht 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ThemFromSpace 14:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ipatrol (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The fact that the same ten images have been the only ones in use for generations should itself have raised concerns about test security for psychologists long before Wikipedia was created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Jafeluv (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. ~ mazca talk 07:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Verbal chat 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Matt Deres (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I'm reasonably sure that, even if the images were not on Wikipedia, a quick Google search would yield all ten images, if not in the image search results, then certainly by following one of the search result links. Tckma (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Googlemeister (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Dlabtot (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Chillum 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. DGG (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. — Satori Son 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SteveBaker (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. The cat is out of the bag, and the litters of kittens have had their own litters. My belief is that all the opposers know this of course, and they feel the only place they can (attempt to) control is Wikipedia. They are wrong. → ROUX ₪ 03:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Fribbler (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Niteshift36. Damn near what I said above (including "the cat is out of the bag"). It's already out there. Anyone with Google can find it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Not widely, but used. NVO (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. — Ched :  ?  11:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Bryan Derksen (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Tim Song (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46.  Skomorokh  22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Mdwh (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Endorse, but it's somewhat irrelevant. Even if the images were not easily available elsewhere, as long as they can be legally published and are of encyclopedic interest, they should be included in the article. It the testers responsibility to create a new test if the old one becomes useless - but today, relying on a test that requires a secret ingredient seems like a hopeless idea anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing

[edit]

The argument about harm to potential test takers doesn't sway me. The vast majority of readers are merely curious about the tests, the odds that they will ever take the test are quite low, and other sources of much more complete information are readily available. Additionally, it's not ultimately Wikipedia's duty to suppress information: e.g., we post LD50 information for chemicals (when known and relevant), even though that information could be used to commit suicide.

However, I don't think that the inclusion of all ten images -- especially within a gallery -- is ultimately encyclopedic. Actually, I'd remove the entire #The ten inkblots section, because a laundry list of typical responses also strikes me as unencyclopedic.

A small subset of the images is very clearly encyclopedic, since it quickly and precisely communicates the style of the images in a way that a verbal description could not, and therefore a small subset (probably less than half) should be included. I would choose at least one monochrome and one multicolored image, and I would place them in the article immediately adjacent to text discussing the specific plate. For example, the section #Exner scoring system says that popular responses to the first card "include bat, badge and coat of arms". It would be nice for the reader to be able to look directly at the image at that point, and to decide whether these were rational responses. This is encyclopedic; "here's a complete list of all responses that are considered normal" is not.

Finally, I would support an ==External link== to the full set of images (and anything else that's relevant) on Wikicommons.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LyrlTalk C 21:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Resolute 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LK (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Satori Son 14:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cyclonenim

[edit]

Whilst I appreciate the concern that publishing all ten of these images may be harmful to those who are subjected to the test in future, I believe the images should be kept without compromise for the following reasons:

a) The images are freely available in publications, I could go out to the shop and buy a book with them in. As noted above, there are several articles on Google Scholar which list the images.
b) There is no conclusive proof that any harm can come from seeing these images, seeing as there is debate about how useful they are in the first place. The images are subjective, and there is no guarantee a test subject will use the same answer they thought of when they first saw the images.
c) Wikipedia is not controlled by what is moral, it is controlled by what is best for making the encyclopaedia as informative, inclusive and accurate as possible. If that makes me a heartless bitch, so be it, but it's important to remember this point.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LjL (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chillum 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DreamGuy (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Quasistellar (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) — Quasistellar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  9. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jakew (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. iridescent 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Falcorian (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. hmwitht 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --NellieBly (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jafeluv (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 07:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Verbal chat 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Dlabtot (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Agree wholeheartedly. The educational benefits of providing an encyclopaedic summary of the test, responses, interpretation, validity, psychology (etc etc) to those interested in the subject far outweighs any potential for harm from someone happening to remember interpretations they once read and trying to fool a psychologist who depends solely on the results of a Rorschach test. People deliberately looking for them as part of a cunning plot to avoid diagnosis can find them, anyway. Gwinva (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Actually, i doubt a good tester will be fooled. DGG (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Again, per cattus ex baggus. → ROUX ₪ 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. KGyST (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Niteshift36
  38. — Ched :  ?  11:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Bryan Derksen (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Tim Song (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Hardtofindaname 10:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Mdwh (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

[edit]

The debate over showing all ten inkblots seems to have been polarized into a "we must show all or we are violating WP:NOTCENSORED". I do not buy this argument. In my view, the relevant aspect of the image use policy would not support displaying all images in a gallery because showing all ten images does not add significantly to a reader's understanding of the topic. I view the removal of the gallery as being an editorial decision, and not one related to censorship, especially since we will still have at least one of the real inkblots in the article, and visible links to the Commons category that shows all.

I think that until we are able to move beyond the argument of "removing any image is censorship", there is no real hope for compromise. I reiterated a previous proposal at Talk:Rorschach_test#Another_compromise_section in the hopes that it could lead to a productive soltion that allows us to both continue to make the images freely available and lend greater consideration to the industry's concerns. It gained no traction because of the "all or nothing" aspect of this argument. And while, given only those two choices, I would also choose all over none, I find this to be a false dilemma that is stonewalling any progress within this debate.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Resolute 20:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LyrlTalk C 21:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mirafra (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree, although I would choose none over one, and already have done when it seemed to be a real dilemma. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Satori Son 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC) — Dela Rabadilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  8. Bingo. My point exactly. NVO (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmh649

[edit]
  1. When we post concerns that the Rorschach is not a valid test we are not pushing our own POV but those of people within the field who have published on the topic. See Wood for example.[2] These opinions are those from experts in the field and are verifiable.
  2. The field of psychology must look forwards. Those who beleive that the Rorschach is useful will have to develop new norms regardless of the outcome of this debate. They have shown these images for example on Fox news with the most common answers and they have been published in many papers around the world this last week.
  3. No one here believes psychologists are involved in mind control. What we do all agree is that they use this test in some very important social situation involving some very vulnerable people ( like child custody and criminal investigations ). And that these results can have a dramatic effect on peoples lives. What we do disagree on is who should all be involved in the discussions surrounding their use. One groups thinks this discussion should involve all parties involved ( ie. the world as a whole ). The other group is trying to exclude everyone who disagrees with their opinion. Even many of those within there own field. Some have commented that criticism from those who do not regularly use the test is invalid. Only those who believe the test is useful use it, well those who do not use the test do not believe it useful. The selection criteria guarantees that you get a single answer.
  4. Discussing this openly is an important part of science. And no one should be excluded from the scientific discussion. The problems facing the world is not "too much understanding of science" but rather "too little understanding". "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives" and I think discussion of this test in full detail will over all effect real peoples lives in a positive way.
  5. The opinions / ethics of the APA ( with 150,000 members ) should in no way override the opinions / ethics of Wikipedia members( 10 million editors)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree, except I don't think this is a case of APA against Wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination. That's just a rather weaselly argument made by some POV pushers, the same ones who falsely claimed that 80% of all psychologists use the Rorschach when, in actuality, most psychologists don't use any projective tests at all. DreamGuy (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. hmwitht 20:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Rohrschach is notoriously unreliable and invalid, facts well-established by independent research, and shouldn't be used for any purpose, much less to make decisions about people's lives. Whether the Wikipedia article includes the blots, I really don't care, but I do hope the Wikipedia article (I haven't looked) gives an accurate picture of the research refuting claims of the usefulness of this test. Agree with DreamGuy about the APA. Woonpton (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Gwinva (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. And I question the APA as a source for ethical guidance. Verbal chat 09:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bryan Derksen (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I've not seen any reason to believe that the stated position of the APA is the APA's actual position. However, even if it was, the code of ethics of a group only binds their members, not the rest of the universe. Gorillatheape (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mex-psych

[edit]

I was directed to this webpage by a comment to my talk page. This is a new participation for me. I am a psychologist in Mexico. It is typical in the introductory psychology courses to have information on the Rorschach test. The books for the courses I am familiar with are those used in the Spanish countries, and also to those in a few others. The books have a picture that looks like one of the actual blots, or at most one of the real ones. None identify specifically the 'popular' responses, nor do they have reference of the 'details' areas. The article on wikipedia does this. Now, it has been said that all of the information is already available to those who would eagerly seek it. This is true, but the comprehensiveness of the information is difficult to find. I believe it harms the use of this test for all future times to have all this information on Wikipedia. It is necessary that there be some information available, but not necessary to have it all so that the test is destroyed. Is it not fair to have the information of the test without the wrecking of the test by having all of it?

There are wrong uses of psychological tests. This test has the use of helping with some diagnostic questions. It has a usefulness for example of diagnosing the differences of the thinking disorder versus the emotional based serious mental health disorder, like the schizophrenia aside from a psychotic problem with the bi-polar. I do not think the arguments of it is bad to use the test for some peoples in some situations makes sense. Misuse of testing is another issue aside from this article.

So my answer to the questions are: - not all the images require display and not the common responses should be given - the wikipedia mission is one of several principles, not the only one, please respect other principles too. - please provide normal encyclopedia informations.

Written with respect to the fact of other opinions, from other cultures than my own. If there is an offense to any my words, I apologize.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Mex-psych (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC) — Mex-psych (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  2. Mirafra (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vannin (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LK (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mike Serfas

[edit]

I agree with several earlier comments, but I'll add that I think we should consider this within the context of Wikipedia policy on trade secrets in general. I found a brief discussion of the topic (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive129#Trade_secrets) which suggests that this has been discussed at the legal level (WP:OTRS) but not as a matter of editing policy. The two are rather unrelated to one another - suppressing a trade secret, if forced for legal reasons, would require Wikipedia to delete revision history, so for that purpose it doesn't really matter what revisions editors decide on. But I would also infer that WP:Sources and WP:Reliable sources would rule out including trade secrets. Articles require reliable sources, and reliable sources are published sources, but any information transmitted in confidence is presumably not "published". So I think that for legal reasons and by established Wikipedia practice, trade secrets don't belong in articles, at least not until someone has properly broken them by posting them to Wikileaks and provoking discussion in recognized media.

As I read it, the APA ethics code 9.11 ("reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials... consistent with law and contractual obligations") seems intended to protect something akin to trade secrets. I discussed the wording of the code in Talk:Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure#Image is widely available. In reality, that test image is easily accessible to the general public and is maintained online by a variety of professionals and scientific journals, without so much as a robots.txt restriction to prevent the image from showing up on the first page of a www.google.com search. I doubt that these publishers are all intentionally violating professional ethics. For these reasons, I am not convinced by those who say that the APA ethics code prohibits the reposting of images or other information from open access sources. Only a true psychological trade secret - information that can't be found on the Web or in a thorough library search - would require a professional to break an agreement of confidentiality to post the test data to Wikipedia. Since I don't think Wikipedia policy would allow the inclusion of such data (because it cannot be verified by a motivated reader), I think Wikipedia is already in full compliance with the ethical code.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Mike Serfas (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not a reasoning I was previously familiar with, but seems to make sense. --LjL (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I fully agree with this as well as the Rorschach test images have appeared in other sources as far back as at least the 1970s--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LyrlTalk C 12:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Resolute 14:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Mysidia (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Quasistellar (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC) — Quasistellar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  10. Chillum 01:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tckma (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Well said. And at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam: the cat left the bag long, long ago. The images are available to anyone with an internet connection already, and have been available to anyone with a library card for decades. → ROUX ₪ 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Verbal chat 09:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. In line with my comments above that the claims that APA is against us is just a weasel argument made by people with an agenda trying to ignore consensus and grasping at straws. DreamGuy (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Bryan Derksen (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kallimachus

[edit]

I think there is a solution that allows us to maintain integrity as an encyclopedia and to reasonably prevent harm. First let me say that how the two are balanced depends on the situation. For this situation, as has been stated above, there must be a balancing act between providing information for people wanting to learn about the test and not disenfranchising people who could potentially be harmed by viewing the article. As has been stated, it might no longer be as useful as a diagnostic test. For our purposes there are two people that will come to the Rorschach site:

  1. those that will never take the test and for which the 'preventing harm' principle doesn't apply
  2. those that will take the test: where the 'preventing harm' principle does apply

It is reasonable to assume that releasing answers to a test could impair the diagnostic ability of that test. Unlike some of the above posters, I think a disclaimer that says It is possible, but not proven, that viewing the actual inkblots below could negatively impact the future diagnostic ability of the Rorschach test. If you do not want to view the inkblots then you should skip that section. We should make the disclaimer factual, as the disclaimer gives us an opportunity to highlight any (or lack of) research about how distribution of test materials impacts diagnostic capability.


  • Should our article display all 10 images and the most common answers? Yes
  • Does the harm argument carry any weight? Does Wikipedia's mission overrule professional interests? Yes, the harm argument does carry weight.
  • Should a compromise be found e.g. not showing all 10 images, positioning them below the fold, not publishing so much information about the common responses? Yes, a factual disclaimer should be used.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Kallimachus (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) - I see no issue with using a disclaimer.[reply]
  3. LK (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fifelfoo

[edit]
  • Does Wikipedia's mission overrule professional interests?

When there is a conflict between ethical codes, wikipedia editors who are beholden to an external code (professional ethics for example) should not violate wikipedia's ethical codes, and should avoid conflicts of interest. The easiest way to achieve this is by not breaking wikipedia's ethical codes by editing in a manner consistent with conflicting external ethical codes.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LjL (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We can't just pick and choose which external codes to follow. There are infinite. hmwitht 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jafeluv (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I second what hmwith says. I think that we should stick to wikipedia policies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. They shouldn't violate their own ethical codes or those of wikipedia. If there is a conflict, they should not edit those pages. Verbal chat 09:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KGyST (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Niteshift36. Nobody forces those editors to edit here.
  10. Sort of. In my experience the people who still use this quackery to judge others - the ones I saw were personnel recruitment clerks, college dropout girls - are not bound by any code. Maybe others are not as hopeless? NVO (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Bryan Derksen (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Literaturegeek

[edit]

I have been aware for sometime of continued disruption on the Rorschach test article. Whilst I have not involved myself in the article, I have read from time to time the arguments on the talk page. I felt it necessary to add my views as this is a long running disruption to wikipedia which is repeatedly spilling out onto noticeboards, various usertalk pages, dragging in more and more editors so after seeing this Rfc pop up on the psychiatric task force (which is on my watch list) I decided to make this statement.

The main gist of the argument seems to center on the fact that by having the images on the wikipedia article of what are essentially someone who poured some ink on a paper, folded it and then asks people to interpret it and then makes a supposedly "scientific" diagnosis of some serious pathology. The reality is this diagnosing of serious mental health disorders, its use sometimes in court to determine whether someone is at risk of reoffending, whether they are a sociopath or whether they are suicidal from what I gather is a hugely controversial diagnostic method. This controversy is verified by several good reviews about whether it actually causes harm or whether diagnosing via interpretations of ink patterns even "works". Anyway I shall get to my point. My point is this the benefits and harm are very controversial and therefore the argument that "the ink blot" images must be deleted as they are harming the test and "endangering" society and individuals who may have been exposed (via the ink mark interpretation test) as dangerous sociopathic predators or suicidally depressed individuals is a null and void argument as it is controversial way of diagnosing pathologies of the mind via ink marks from folded paper and also wiki reports what is verifiable and not based on some editors thinking the facts are "harmful" or "not harmful". So the core argument of those opposing the images is as I say null and void. There are much better ways of making diagnosis which are much less controversial. A strong decision is needed one way of another to settle this dispute once and for all to stop this disruption to the wikipedia project. In the grand scheme of things I do not really mind one way or the other what the decision is but these are my views. I admit however, that I am not an expert on the (Rorschach test), I am just familar with the dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Agree that we need a strong statement one way of the other to end this dispute. Something such as "removal of well sourced info in the public domain is vandalism"[reply]
  3. Per Doc James. → ROUX ₪ 03:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Verbal chat 09:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Resolute 23:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dela Rabadilla

[edit]

Like most high school tests, or any other that whose premise is that the questions are not known by the test taker, the Rorschach test is affected by the details that are being published on this page. This test is extensively used around the world in mental health for diagnosis of major mental disorders. Disorders that may require medication and/or long-term treatment. I think that unfortunately many have voiced rejection for the professions that are the sources for the article content itself. Many have expressed positions that are at odds with currently accepted scientific thought, in an article on a scientific topic. The best thing for the Wikipedia community inclusive of it's readers, would be to reconsider the original humanitarian purpose of an encyclopedia and adjust it's policies. But we have the current reality to deal with. I think all the current correct content should remain, and most importantly the fact that the test is unequivocally hampered by the information published, should also be part of the Wikipedia. Not as a disclosure but as current scientific thought. Just the fact that this article is now famous should be reason enough for this information to be in the wikipedia. Then, I think that as contentious editors we should heed our own publication, and structure the article in a way that gives the best opportunity to the reader to make a choice on their own.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) — Dela Rabadilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  2. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mirafra (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanglingDiagnosis

[edit]

As stated in the opening comments, there are four applicable policies and guidelines. Let me address each one:

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, by the very definition of the word "neutral" requires that we not produce (or reproduce) results that are favorable to one particular point of view. It is better to provide zero information than information that removes the ability of the reader to make his or her own choice.
  2. Wikipedia:Verifiability: In the future, we will have trouble verifying the source for the images. geocities pages, including the source for our images will be closed on October 26th, 2009. It's not very reliable if it goes away, is it? I'm also concerned about the quality of the source. It's of questionable quality: It is self-published, with a clear ax to grind against psychologists and "their stupid science." [3] Why should the reader trust this source? Even if the author is telling the truth, and I'm not saying she isn't, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (See WP:V) A source more reputable than this is difficult to find, even using Google Scholar. If my websurfing skills are faulty, then please forgive me and feel free to post a link in the "external references" section of the main article. Much appreciated and thank you. Imagine what our readers are thinking? I don't wish for Wikipedia to stand alone as the only reputable source willing to publish the images. That's not how things are supposed to work here.
  3. Wikipedia:Public domain states that "anyone can use them [works in the PD] in any way and for any purpose. But common sense tells us that use of works in the public domain should not damage their utility for use by others, the "anyone" mentioned in the policy. See The tragedy of the commons.
  4. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not contains the much referred to, but seldom quoted policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Let me quote it now for the first time in this debate: The policy specifically defines objectionable material to be offensive in some way and states that "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." No one here is claiming that the images are "offensive, profane, or obscene." I'm not offended by them. They're interesting, of course, but not offensive. Further I don't believe I am advocating political or ideological censorship either. If it's not political or ideological censorship, or censorship of obscenity, profanity, just what kind of censorship is it? I'll tell you what: It's none of those things. It's something else that we don't consider in our policy. Therefore, the policy, as written or in spirit, does not apply to our situation. We have a special and unique situation, here.

Finally I wish to state my commitment to the mission of Wikipedia. I object to the opening comments which pits "the mission of Wikipedia" against the interests of professionals. This is unecessarily antagonistic and stands in stark contrast to my position and status as a non-psychologist advocating for the preservation of knowledge in the public domain. That is my only interest. Toward that end, I wish to state my desire to work with my fellow Wikipedians to build consensus. I want constructively propose that we apply two other policies and guidelines to our discussions. The first is the WP:TALK guideline which says that "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." After all, talk pages are just one step away from the main article. And the second policy to consider in our discussions is no original research. We have some pretty good rules of evidence and should use them. If you can't support your opinion with evidence, then you're just advancing your own theory, which inevitably leads to a campaigning for majority support and a "might makes right" philosophy. That's not how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia. See WP:CONSENSUS According to Wikipedia:Etiquette it's okay to "admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste." I respect the right of my fellow Wikipedians to use their WP:BRAIN, (see the essay) and give a lot of latitude to those who wish to express an opinion, but that does not give you license to contradict established sources without due cause. You can simply dismiss it as "an external influence." If we dismissed all external influences, what kind of encyclopedia would that make us? Statements by a national health organization, according to our policy, are considered secondary sources and may only be controverted by a source that directly claims to do so. See WP:MEDRS

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mirafra (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chillum

[edit]

There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. After it has been determined, through multiple processes, that a certain result will stand, it makes no sense to continue fighting. Editors feeling the need to continue fighting after the result has been settled need to get over it and work together to improve the encyclopedia.

The consensus in this matter has become abundantly clear. Failure to accept this consensus has been, and is continuing to be disruptive to the development of the article. In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error.

This issue has ceased to be about if we should display the images on the article or not. It has instead become a clash between consensus and those who do not wish to accept consensus. The consensus arrived at by this RFC, and prior discussions, should be respected by all parties and we should all stop wasting time on this issue and get back to writing the article.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Chillum 23:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absofrigginlutely, and suggest sanctions should Danglingdiagnosis et alia continue harping on an issue where consensus has been settled for three bleeding years. → ROUX ₪ 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The consensus is indeed pretty clear, and the topic has been debated comprehensively. --LjL (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Quasistellar (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Any further debate of these same points after this RfC is just forum shopping in my eyes. Gigs (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Resolute 17:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Indeed. Reminds me of Little Hans and the dead horse. And Nietzsche. Maybe I need therapy. Verbal chat 17:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Dlabtot (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. It's clear what the consensus is. The images stay. --Falcorian (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Most definitely. Also suggest sanctions against those who are unwilling to contribute to this topic productively. Consensus is abundantly clear, let's move on. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. *** Crotalus *** 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 100% agreed. The consensus is clear, and I have created {{Uw-rorschach1}}, {{Uw-rorschach2}}, and {{Uw-rorschachblock}} for possible use against those who persist in defying it.[reply]
  17. hmwitht 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. well said Chillum, let's put this to bed already Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Quite. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Very good points indeed. — Ched :  ?  11:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes please. There haven't been new points made in quite a long time, it's just the same arguments cycling over and over and over again. The article has continued to improve only despite this. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by FT2

[edit]

It is not our place to judge the merits of the claims of "harm", nor are we truly competent to do so other than as lay-people. We can assess the seeming-reasonableness (or otherwise) of the claims made, but we are an encyclopedia, rather than a censor of others' notable material and reference information.

We can note for example that the images date from 1921, are public domain, are very well publicized and library'ed already, and that a person wishing to research the images or proposed responses online or offline to fool a tester, can very easily do so whatever decision we make.

While full inclusion might be relevant for Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource, as an encyclopedia we need to ask whether all ten are needed or not - are they such a classic as to warrant including all of them in the article? That's a content consensus issue though, different from the basic principle of include/exclude.

If the test is useful and disclosure is indeed a problem, I suggest strongly to the psychological world that new images are created and responses assessed and standardized. The problem under discussion here will not be resolved by Wikipedia including or not including them -- the basic problem stems from the fact it is now 88 years from publication and almost as long since the death of the creator. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Resolute 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. hmwitht 15:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (and I don't to often agree with FT2 ;-)[reply]

Statement by KGyST

[edit]

I have involved in the Hungarian discussion of the showing/not showing the Rorschach-tables, and there are some arguments I didn't find here, although it's possible that they are so old that I didn't read so back in time. But maybe some of You don't know them.

  • Rorschach seemingly published his book, and made efforts to propagate it. It would be desirable to know His own thoughts about the public availability of His work, but it seems He would agree.
  • I Hungary it is evident that if something is not totally transparent, bad guys can cheat it. From other sources it's obvious that the test itself is widely used making decisions that heavily affect people's lives, so the temptation is strong, and for those whose lives are affected, the tables are available, so it's arguable that among the testees knowledge of the tables is over the average. From this point of view physicist's arguments about knowing the tables before the test is right the opposite of itself: if a significant number of testees know the tables, and the physicist supposes they don't (since if they have seen the tables for cheating, they say they haven't, if they haven't, they say they haven't), it's more desirable to show the tables to everybody and to suppose they all know them. (It's not so simple, since people start thinking about tables consciously or unconsciously, that thy physicist must take into account, and indeed worsens the test, but every tester agrees that this doesn't block it)
  • In general, the similar problem stands for the testers themselves. If this disputed and important test is not totally transparent and (anonymous) results are not knowable in great numbers, one can think testers don't want to discuss about their "black magic box'.
  • If showing the tables 'ruins' the tests themselves, it can provide ground for a better image-based projective test. In general, in the information age, as it's well known, You cannot hide anything from the public, so sooner or later every test (regardless of 70 years of copyright) table finds it's way to the public, whether psychologists want it or not. But such a constraint (the always-availability of the tables to the public) can lead to devising a new image-based projective test, where inkblots are created (say, by a computer) for every patient uniquely (he or she can take it with him/her after the test), and the tester interprets the answers trough a method devised not for every single one of the ten tables, but in a more general way. (The computer could be said to generate some important features on some of the table) This would be a great process, since:
    • It would solve the problem with doing the tests more than once, that (not by numbers, but by ways of usage) is quite common, although one could think it is prohibited
    • Nobody could cheat, or cheating would be more difficult
    • The test examples would be freely available and disputable
    • If the test doesn't consist of strictly ten tables, one can make faster or deeper tests. If a case is more difficult, a wider range of tables can be applied, and process can be studied more frequently (it's not suggested to retake the original tests within a year)
    • Devising such a test can lead to a better understanding what the testees see and how they see. From this point of view showing all the ten same tables is similar to describing always the same ten species for a zoologist.

On this basis I think Wikipedia must show all the tables as a science-historical examples.

KGyST (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Well-put. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

[edit]

All comments not related to an endorsement, and all threaded responses to an endorsement, should be directed to the talk page.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rorschach_test_images&oldid=1123483929"