Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 13


Are all 10 inkblots really necessary?

Is every single inkblot image really necessary in the gallery? Wouldn't a couple of each type (black and white and colored) be sufficient to give an accurate idea of the cards? Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Setting aside other important concerns, an argument can be made that examples of black and white, an black and red, and colored cards have some sort of encyclopedic value. But what does having three color cards do that having 1 does not do? Faustian (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Necessary? No. But then it isn't necessarily "necessary" to have this article be anything more than a couple of paragraphs long, if that's your argument. Articles have additional content because it's helpful and advancing the cause of the encyclopedic content, not because it's "necessary." We have all ten because all ten are useful and informative and there's no good reason not to have all ten. And we already discussed this with a resulting clear consensus, thanks.16:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)
I'd say there were ten good reasons not to have them. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we get to see any rationale for not showing all items of the MMPI, or the TAT, or the SAT, or any other psychometric test, since they may also be deemed "useful and informative"? I am guessing (hoping) the Holzmann is copyright protected. Does a test's usefulness depend on how new it is and/pr whether it is protected by commercial law? So now all 10 images are displayed, we can no longer discuss them? or how long do we have to wait? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you asking rhetorical questions or presenting strawmen? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there was no discussion about whether 10 images were necessary or 5 were sufficient to convey the relevant information. Someone unilaterally added all 10 into the gallery and the conversation was about whether they should be there, whether they should be hidden, etc. The gallery could be trimmed. Wikipedia is not a reposatory of images: [1]. Setting aside other important concerns, an argument can be made that examples of black and white, an black and red, and colored cards have some sort of encyclopedic value. But what does having three color cards do that having 1 does not do? Incidentally, I could have unilaterally changed it but unlike some other editors I chose to discuss things before making such a controversial change.Faustian (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your message but it looks like there was consensus for including all 10 inkblots. I'm not aware that the possibility of only using some of the inkblots, rather than all 10, has been brought up before by you or anyone else, or it has? Anyhow, what appears to be a new proposal of using some, rather than all, may be something worth discussing. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a reasonable case that this does violate WP:NOT. Unless we get information on each individual inkblot and its significance, including a few and maintaining the link to commons:Rorschach_inkblot_test may be more sensible. Certainly worth discussing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that you want do discuss, even if after the event. Putting aside any projected rhetorical strawmen, my point is, as it has been all along, that items from psychometric tests should not be shown here. I don't accept that these particular items should be shown simply because they, unlike items in other tests, happen to be images. And I certainly don't accept that, because ten percent of the items can be shown, so should the other 90 percent. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? After all this debate and a poll that already answers this question we are right back to this? The answer to your question is in the megabytes of discussion above, yes the community wants the images there. This is like rewinding a bad movie and watching it from the beginning. Chillum 23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes really, Chillum. And with some, it seems, it gets no better on the rewind. But it's good to see so many other editors in useful and reasonable discussion and making useful article improvements in spite of their differences. When did the poll finish? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus for inclusion of all 10 inkblots, as indicated by the informal survey. Any editor is free to start a new informal survey and seek consensus regarding a proposal to exclude some of the inkblots. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There previous discussion was about whether there should be ten or none, and the previous vote was about hiding them or not. Given that all ten were added without any discussion or vote first, some can be removed prior to a vote. The small number of people here in this section seem to be leaning towards not including every single image.Faustian (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Re "Given that all ten were added without any discussion or vote first, some can be removed prior to a vote." -
When the informal survey started, the state of the article was that editing was suspended, in order to stop edit warring over the inkblots. At the time protection began, the inkblots were in the article. However, before the survey started, there was some discussion that placed the Status Quo as being the state of the inkblots not in the article. It was agreed to by Chillum, who is one of the main proponents of including the inkblots. There were no objections to this interpretation of the Status Quo. (See Reverting, status quo and survey re inkblots.) The fact that the inkblots happened to be in the article due to page protection did not change that, according to myself and Chillum, and no one expressed an opinion otherwise.
If there wasn't a consensus from the informal survey for including the 10 inkblots, there would have been cause to remove them. For example, if there was as much preference for removing them as there was for keeping them, there would have been cause to remove them because the Status Quo was previously the state with them not included in the wiki.
As we know from the informal survey, there was considerable consensus for keeping them. There was no expression by you or anyone else that some should be kept and some should be removed and that is why that issue wasn't considered. As you know, there was a consideration that they should be in a dropdown box. You or someone else could have just as well have opened up the survey to having only some of them included, but no one did.
In my opinion, the Status Quo is now the state of the article with all 10 inkblots included. If that Status Quo is to be changed, then a consensus needs to be built for that change. As I suggested, that can be attempted with a new informal survey. If you feel there is consensus for that change, I urge you to take an informal survey. If you feel more convincing is needed, then have discussions leading up to an informal survey. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Missed the survey and can't find a place to comment above, but the images certainly do seem in keeping with the encyclopedic purpose of the page - how else would we illustrate a page about a series of pictures than to have the pictures? Keep 'em. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why one Earth should we leave out some of the images except for reasons that have already been rejected? Chillum 02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy regarding Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Faustian (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are going to need to be more specific than that. Chillum 03:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." As I said, an argument can be made that there a color and a black and white and a red and black and white image give an example of such cards. Where is the rationale for showing each and every card? What additional, necessary and essential information do 3 cards convey that one does not? Given the proven and very specific declarations of harm with respect to throwing around test material, it would sem that cautious and judicious use of images should apply here, especuially here. Now I know you will disagree Chillum. You have written hundreds of messages - certainly more than I have since you came onto this page - shooting down all attempts at compromise. But so far, on this topic (are 10 inkblots really necesaary), opinions are about evenly divided.
I will also add that when someone unilaterally, without any discussion or vote, added all ten images you did not complain about the status quo and asking to wait for a discussion before the change was made. No, then you were quite satisfied.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is plenty more than a mere collection of images. The existing content add plenty of context to the images. Chillum 04:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no text for each specific image. Indeed, the test about the images basically states that there are black and white and colored inkblots. This can be illustrated with fewer than 10 inkblots.Faustian (talk 04:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
My recent addition to the Methods section may help a little. It has a link to The ten inkblots section and it also serves as an implicit warning to the reader that the inkblots appear later in the wiki. Also note that the reader can still choose to see them for the best understanding of what they look like, or choose not to and settle for the description in the following sentences there. It seems quite reasonable to display the objects that are being discussed, whether or not the details of their appearance are discussed. Just my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Bob. That's helpful. Do you mean that you would like each inkblot displayed? I'm still not completely clear. Earlier today I asked about trimming the number of inkblots. Other than you, three people were opposed, two supported, and one expressed wanting to remove all the inkblots. One of the people stating that all 10 inkblots were unecesary had previously supported, albeit weakly, including the ten inkblots unhidden when the choices were to include them unhidden or hide them. I know that a few active editors haven't chimed in on this particular point. It seems, at the very least, there is no clear consensus at this moment to keep every single inkblot as even if Bob is in the "display them all group" that would only mean a majority of one.
I will note that I brought this up for discussion before making any changes. In contrast, the person who added all the inkblots did so without any discussion, and was supported by several other editors in his discussionless changes. I hope those other editors, who went along with adding the entire gallery without discussion, are consistent with their attitude and wait until further discussion settles the issue before reverting the changes. In the meantime, let's keep this versioin up so that we can look at how the current version looks, see if its acceptable, etc. while making a decision. So, I am going ahead and trimming the images so they conform, more or less, to the text. (there are three typoes of images but I'm keeping 5 cards). I won't edit war over the changes but request that they be kept, at least for a day or so, while people look at them and review this conversation. Faustian (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Re "I won't edit war over the changes but request that they be kept, at least for a day or so, while people look at them and review this conversation." - I've copied your proposed changes over to here, where people can look at them for as long as they want during this discussion, and I have reverted the changes in the article. Thanks for your proposal of 5 instead of 10. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that all inkblots is more informative than a subset, and would support the full ten being included on the page.
Regards WP:NOT, the section in question reads "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." I've underlined the part I believe has been missed - the page is not merely the 10 Rorschach diagrams, it's that plus text. If these are the true Rorschach blots and are copyright-allowed, there's no reason not to include all of them per WP:NOT and it would certainly be encyclopedic to do so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
About the word "encyclopedic." No encyclopedia other than wikipedia uses the actual images. Britannica doesn't. Encarta doesn't: [2]. So either wikipedia is the only encyclopedia in the world or using the world "encyclopedic" to rationalize placing the inkblot images into the article is not correct.Faustian (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It is really not our concern if other encyclopedia's have policies requiring neutrality and in opposition to censorship. We do have these policies, and Wikipedia is unlike other encyclopedias in a lot of ways. Chillum 04:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the desire to remove the images is based on the APA code of ethics and not Wikipedia policy. The only policy based argument presented seems to be based on a misreading of policy. Chillum 14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it a misreading of policy? Or is it a policy embedded within a legal notice? I've heard very little discussion on that point. Perhaps because I am not conforming to the idea of discussing ideas at the bottom of the talk page in chronological order. Instead, the argument that Chillum is referring to is in two places. The first has already been archived after only 6 days time. The second is found here: talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #2 - It violates Wikipedia policy I'm stubbornly trying to lay out arguments as if talk pages were organized more like the article page. A better organized talk page makes a better organized article, right? Plus I'm finding it difficult to keep up with the speed of discussion. Is there a way I can ask you fine people to slow down and share the road with others? Some of us can't go as fast as the rest of you. It might open up the discussion so that more people can participate. I'm sure there are many who have popped in and then left because of the fast pace and poorly organized talk page. Is it possible to organized this better? Can we have separate talk pages for each point of argument with separate watch functions so that we can receive better notification when someone new shows up with a new contribution, perhaps a contribution that has not yet been discussed? It might help, also if we all pay closer attention to the outline at the top of the talk page, where new sections (arguments) can be listed. Also, it looks like we're going to ask for legal advice from the general council of Wikipedia. It may take a while to get a response. I was hoping to make a strictly "policy" argument, but another "legal" one crept in. But I'm learning to overcome my prejudice for the messy court system and instead trying to appreciate an underlying love of the law (and of lawyers). So let's all stay calm and breath slowly. It seems like we're building not just one consensus but two or even three at the same time. That's a little confusing, I know. But each consensus is valuable. But since the pace of this is so fast, we're getting a time warp effect. See Consensus is not immutable. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been archiving aggressively to keep this page usable; not all of our editors enjoy high-speed connections. The placeholder headings and pointers to the archive are so that discussion may be continued even after archival. Another option would be to move all image discussion to a subpage such that discussion-unrelated-to-the-images won't be saddled with hundreds of kb regarding the images (though, since a great deal of discussion does involve the images, this probably wouldn't really help). –xenotalk 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples of the three types of inkblots

Black ink on white paper, black and red ink on white paper, and multicolored

  • Plate 1
    Plate 1
  • Plate 2
    Plate 2
  • Plate 5
    Plate 5
  • Plate 7
    Plate 7
  • Plate 10
    Plate 10


The above is Faustian's proposed change to the section currently titled The 10 inkblots, as Faustian mentioned above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It is about 50% as informative as the consensus version. No valid reason has been given to remove half the inkblots. There is also a strong consensus to show all 10. Chillum 14:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a repositaory of images. There ought to be a specific reason to show each image. There is not. There are three types of images as the article states, so according to policy it is only necessary to show examples of the three types of blots. The article on Pablo Picasso, for example, does not have pictures of every one of his paintings but one for each type. In the further article on Picasso's Rose Period ther is only one image, sufficient to illustrate this style of painting. The article on the Chicago 'L', for example, does not have an image of every single station. Should I provide a few hundred more examples? The issue of harm suggests we have better reason to limit images here than in the Picasso article or the "L" article. Yet you choose not to.Faustian (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing "Show a gallery of 5 inkblots" as an option to be considered. In fact I don't remember the step which suggested "Let's show one more image". Maybe your "strong consensus" kind of depends on what has been offered? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Martinevans, please see this previous message, especially the 4th paragraph. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. Bob. Didn't realise that it had been my fault, in absentia, for not asking. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the difficulty of your position regarding that. But we're focusing on that aspect now so I hope that is some consolation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a strong consensus to show all 10 inkblots. Once people have clarified that they meant 10 when they said 10 and not 5, will you say that consensus has not considered a "purple border with only 5"? I think it is very clear that the community wants those 10 images, and subtle changes to the question will not lead to a significantly different answer. Chillum 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Which shade of purple, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually they haven't mentioned specifically all ten. And again, you confuse consensus with majority, which is very convenient for you to do.Faustian (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a standard order of presentation of the inkblots during the session? If so, this information wouldn't be expressed by just examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If the order is imporatant that should certainly be stared in the article. But does that give justification for including the images themselves? Analogy - we might state that a murderer had been convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence, but would that give the justification for showing images of the prints? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason I happened to mention that point was that while I was looking at the 10 images I noticed that the three multi-colored ones were all at the end and wondered if there was a purpose for that. Others may see other aspects that our editors may not notice. Thus information is lost when all 10 aren't shown. Also, it may be a violation of WP:NOR for editors to mention their observations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So, couldn't we simply state "seven monochrome inkbots are presented, followed by three mutli-coloured" (provided our helpful experts could agree that this decription was ethically acceptable)? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Martinevans, Please note my previous remark, "Others may see other aspects that our editors may not notice." The reader would be prevented from recognizing other relatonships if only 5 of the 10 were shown and there were only a few observations by editors that are limited by the policy of no original research. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that takes the pre-exposure debate into a whole new realm. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you are raising the point that any harm would be reduced by having 5 instead of 10. Whether there is 5 or 10, maybe there would be sufficient exposure in both cases to contaminate the validity of subsequent tests. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, obviously, the less exposure the less contamination. If you put up 50% of the SAT questions the test will be 50% les contaminated than if you posted all of them.Faustian (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In the case of the SAT, if someone had an advance view of 50% of the questions, I presume that would invalidate the test for that individual. Is that the case for Rorschach too? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by invalidation? Would it make the test utterly useless? Probably not. A competant psychologist would adjust to the fact that the testee's performance will be compromised and that he's dealing with a less than perfect test (just as a good driver would adjust to having to drive in less than ideal conditions such as in a snowstorm). Would it make the results less useful than they otherwise would have been? Certainly. Just as, a good driver may not crash in a snowstorm, but it will still take him longer to get where he needs to go. And hopefully time is not so critical that something serious happens if he is late. The bottom line is that the people tying to put the images here are essentially throwing snowstorms at ambulances for the sake of being "encyclopedic," perhaps out of the belief that there are more important things in the world than not harming people.Faustian (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Re "What do you mean by invalidation? Would it make the test utterly useless?" - For the Rorschach, it appears that neither of us knows. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I stated that it would not make it useless, it would make it less powerful, which would have negative consequences. It's not binary - either useful or useless. But it would be compromised and more difficult to navigate.Faustian (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have anything to back up your remarks? Case history, opinion in a reliable source, anything? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm about to go on vacation, and thus will not be near a computer, but the effects of preexposure on test performance seems obvious and is a general rule. The statements in the article by the APA about test security reflect that and ought to be proof enough. Do you believe that seeing a test in advance doesn't affect performance on that test? Here's something with respect to IQ tests (not exactly analogous): [3]. The other issue is one of norms. Patterns of responses were generated using hundreds of test protocols based on people who had not been previously exposed to the images. The norms were based on that sample (sample emans, group of people used in a study). By exposing people to the images you are causing them to be different from the normative sample. As a result, the information generated from the normative sample (and the conclusions drawn from it) becomes a bit different with respect to the contaminated testee. The degree of diffeence is the degree to which the test is invalid. So if SAT scores are based on average of people who never saw that particular SAT, someone who did see it would be different from the normative sample on which SAT scores are based and his result would be different as a result of his contamination. Now you might say, why not generate new norms then for people who were exposed? The problem is that with a test such as the Rorschach, thousands of studies need to be made to recreate teh body of knowledge that currently exists, which is not an easy task. Moreover, one would have to generate seperate norms for people exposed once, twice, two years ago, etc. The impossibility of playing such games means that as a rule any test construction is based on people with no preexposure, and the psychologist or psychometrician adjusts the interpretation based on preexposure.Faustian (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Have a nice vacation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't you get it? It does not matter what you believe or what I believe. What is important is reliable sources. We are writing an encyclopedia not a letter to the editor, not a novel study, not a research paper. If you want to make something the basis for editorial decisions they need reliable sources. Why can't you fulfill this simple request? The APA statements don't go into motive one bit, so they really don't demonstrate anything other than the teacher should not give up the answers to the test. Chillum 05:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
A public statement by the British Psychological Society expresses similar concerns and considers the "release of [test] materials to unqualified individuals" to be misuse "which may result in harm to the client".[8] The APA states that the dissemination of test materials "imposes very concrete harm to the general public." The only reason you think that these - the offocial statement of the collective group of experts int hef ield - are not reliable sources is because you don't like the conclusion.Faustian (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Also I have read in a few places that these normative samples are already off base and lead to a significant level of false diagnosis even when not subject to pre-exposure. Chillum 05:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You can read all sorts of stuff. One can read papers by scientists that claim that global warming is not man-made. So?Faustian (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources make all the difference in the world. I find it hard to believe these ideas are so universal yet reliable sources for some reason cannot be found. Chillum 05:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You seem to always find excuses to reject reliable sources that contradict your ideas. This is what you did with the APA. Go to a university library and find some books on test construction; consult with a statistician if need be. These are fairly basic principles. No doubt you will argue your way into "proving" some flaw in what they have to say as well.Faustian (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes maybe. But what I am actually saying is that we can never know and in the absence of empircal data to prove this either way, we ought to at least heed the advice of professionals as a way of mitigating possible harm. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Heeding authoritative organizations is a reasonable point, and I think I mentioned that point myself in a message prior to the informal survey. But the consensus was in favor of including the inkblots anyhow. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. You might be interested in my previous discussion in this section New expert sign-up, beginning with my message of 16:11, 18 June 2009. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Bob. I already read all of it and it is very useful. Thanks for being helpful and approachable. I promise that I'll probably never to compare you to Hitler. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh you can compare me, but I hope it's done favorably, LOL. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No reason not to have both. "seven monochrome inkbots are presented, followed by three mutli-coloured" really only tells me so much, but when I see them I understand what is meant more fully. If I saw the images and no text I might not notice this fact, the two types of information compliment each other. I suggest both. Chillum 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
To really "fully" understand how this test works I'd suggest that one would need to participate in a real test session, whether as a tester or as a testee $. In the mean time, I am prepared to accept the advice of those who actually are testers, who say that is this case the risks of harm may outwiegh the benefits to the average wikipedia reader. Even if they offered no advice, my reason would be that test materials are better left undisclosed. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
$ or perhaps, to get a fuller perspective, both, which might be unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well visually speaking, there's 1,6) shaded black on peachy paper 2) black and red on off-white 3) black and red on peachy-white 4,5) fairly solid black with some shading on peachy 7) light shading on solid white (this one's a sore thumb - why?) 8) colour on light blue with fairly balanced margins 9) colour taking up most of the verticle spectrum with left and right margins 10) a very busy coloured image taking up almost the whole page... in other words, there's sufficient variation here. With respect, I don't think not-a-repository applies here, and a picture is worth a thousand words. –xenotalk 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
And a pre-exposed picture nay be worth a thousand contaminated test results. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not rejecting the potential for harm, in fact, I helped write it into the lead. However, I also haven't been presented with any compelling arguments that we should censor the images as a result nor consensus to do so. I would hazard a guess that censoring our content because of a potential for harm is a slippery slope most Wikipedians do not wish to descend. –xenotalk 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Your useful efforts have certainly not gone unnoticed, xeno. But I must admit that I saw the `potential for harm' detail as a balanace for having ONE image in the lead section (even though, I still believe it should not appear in the article at all), not as a balance for the display of all ten images. Maybe, like me, other editors see other kinds of "slippery slope" here? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info xeno. And thanks for the offer, haha, but I really should leave that task to one of the image protagonists here. I am surprised, however, that there is no explanation that the current lead image is claimed to be the image used in the actual test, while the gallery of ten is claimed to show the blots as originally created by Rorschach himself. One wonders why Rorschach's backgrounds were originally changed at all. Could it be do to with the antiquated printing machiney that the ISR tell us they still use? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that we claim the lead image is "the first of the 10 inkblots" (without mention of the retouched background)...we should perhaps amend that to say it's retouched to whiten the background; but what would be our reason? Perhaps due to this concern the shaded image should go in the lead, appearances be damned? –xenotalk 12:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the lead image with the image that has its background intact. I did this for three reasons, 1) there does not seem to be any objection to this, 2) I think we should put accuracy above style, and 3) I don't think the background is all that bad for the appearance. Opinions welcome. Chillum 13:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
On further consideration I agree that accuracy should trump stylism. –xenotalk 13:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, but I thought that the actual cards in the test used images on a white background? Perhaps one of our practitioners could confirm for us? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The times I've taken the test, it has been on a white background. (I've taken it at least twice, and maybe a third time.) The posters I had in my dorm room had a white backgrouund.jonathon (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

I'm re-removing the external links; though often used as such, the EL section is not a holding place for references - that's what the talk page is for. ELs should apply to the whole page, not be linkable as inline citations, be reliable and lack advertising. These do not meet my interpretation of these criteria, comments are below:

  1. History of Inkblot Techniques The page has a very short section on History, and can easily be used there. I'd be judicious though, as the reliability isn't hugely apparent (looks reasonable for reasonable use though)
  2. The secret test blot set and all operational procedures (Does not pertain to Exner's Comprehensive System: Exner, J.E. (2002). The Rorschach: Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation: Volume 1. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.) Dubious reliability, has advertising, looks rather partisan, has no sources, and is ultimately rather redundant to the gallery of images - which are better quality, full colour, filled out with shading, etc.
  3. "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading" from Skeptical Inquirer magazine : Jul 2003 The ultimate example of a source that should be linekd as an inline citation.
  4. "What's Wrong with This Picture?" A Scientific American article questioning the effectiveness of projective testing As above, and a better choice since SA is probably more reliable and authoritative, though both are less desireable than within-psychology critiques.
  5. Response to the Scientific American article by The Society for Personality Assessment. Incorrect summary, it's a journal article that doesn't seem to mention the SA article at all; an obvious inline citation.
  6. "Rorschach technique" entry in the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology A one page encyclopedia article which WP:MEDRS urges us to avoid as a tertiary souce. I don't know if it's even a good source, and certainly too short to be a reasonable EL.
  7. The Skeptic's Dictionary article criticizing the test I love the Skepdic, but it's rarely a good external link, and certainly not on a page with lots of good scholarly references.
  8. "presentation and promotion of the Rorschach method, concentrating on the way it has been practiced within the classical European tradition" A German? university page with multiple links; referenced, reasonable, and contains a mini-linkfarm, so I left it in but I could see arguing for being removed; I'm ambivalent.

Thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the external link section was unwieldy. Your trimming looks good and the commentary helpful, I'm sure. –xenotalk 03:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Very good. Chillum 03:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said when I puit them back, if your claim was that they shouldn't be there because they should be used as refs, the way to handle it properly would be to remove them one by one as they are sued for refs. But at least now you put them here instead of deleting them completely so people know they exist and know to use them to ref parts of the article, without doing that would have made it very unlikely for anyone to actually use them as refs. Whatever your stated goals are you always need to follow through on the steps to make them actually happen, and the original edit did not do that. DreamGuy (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

False inkblot as the lead image

Taking a real inkblot then using imagemagick and potrace to alter it: 

convert Inkblot.png Inkblot.bmp; potrace -s -o Inkb

is misleading. The caption needs to make it very clear that this is not a real inkblot any why, and this information and the inkblot itself needs to be verifiable. What is more if we are going to use a fake inkblot we need to use one that is already published by a reliable source. If this is indeed the most common way to represent an inkblot then it should not be hard to find a version already published. If it is not so common that we have difficulty finding a version published by a reliable source then it is probably best not to include it. I suggest we either:

a) Find an actual example of a fake inkblot published by a reliable source, where that reliable source explains why it uses a fake inkblot. Then explain in the caption that it is fake and give the reasons given by the original source for its fakery.

b) Use the real inkblot.

The current state of the article is just bizarre, and not supported by sources. It says it is retouched but it does not say why or by who(a Wikipedian), claims have been made that this is the most common form of representation yet we had to make our own for some reason. If indeed it is a fact that the inkblots are often shown this way there there be verifiable documentation of this that we can base our content off of.

To summarize I don't object to using a false image as long as the real inkblots are available below, and that the false image comes from a reliable source and the explanation for the reasons for a false image are also supported by the source. Making up our own image and not clearly explaining why(based on sources) is contrary to our goal of being verifiable, and accurate. Until these reasonable standards are met I propose we return to using the real inkblot for the lead image. Chillum 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • It made more sense before [4] WLU's changes (the motivation for which I don't necessarily disagree with). –xenotalk 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But saying "The most common image[1] used to represent the Rorschach inkblot test is this retouched version of the first inkblot." then providing a homemade version is ever more misleading. If this is indeed so common then why not use one that has been already published, and why is there no citation stating this is the most common image used? We went to an accurate verifiable and informative lead image to an image that is significantly less informative, not verified, and potentially misleading. What is worse I don't see any new justification for this change that has not already been rejected in the past. We need to make sure this is not original research by providing verification for our statements and using an already published version of this image. I am still not sold that the phenomenon of showing an altered version being the "most common" is a) significantly relevant to the topic at hand, and b) true. Chillum 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this: [5] is not a source. It is a Google search. To take a limited survey of a search engine, come to a finding, then use that as a source seems like an example of original research. Chillum 15:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not making a statement one way or the other as to what image should go in the lead, or the strength/weakness of the argument for placing it there, but this may alleviate at least the caption concerns as to "why". Whether or not it is true, verifiable, etc., is another story. –xenotalk 15:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to a similar version using a fake inkblot previously published by a reliable source and with its caption properly referenced. Until we meet these basic standards of inclusion, I think we should stick with the verifiable inkblot(the real one). Chillum 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) As for your desire to place the true image back there,... Faustian placed it there per my suggestion to also try to establish new consensus for a lead image in the usual way (BRD)... So if you object you may do so in the usual way as well. –xenotalk 15:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hesitant to revert, however if it was done in the spirit of WP:BRD then I think it is better to revert and move on to the discussion part. I have invited Faustian to gain consensus and satisfy the verifiability issues. Chillum 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I will never support fake images when the real images are not copyrighted. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, the one in the lead there is retouched also, and I placed there for stylistic reasons discussed at Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 7#The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test. However, I'm not married to my decision to use the white background, but I do think the peachy background gives the impression of a poor scan when all alone. –xenotalk 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

With as clear and overwhelming of a consensus as we have here this kind of repeating editing of the article in way the people know do not have consensus to make is just disruptive. In case we need triple plus super duper consensus on the latest rephrasing of the same thing we have extensivelty discussed and decided countless times already: fake image = bad, misleading, pointless. Real images, all ten of them = good. DreamGuy (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no clear and overwhelming consensus as much as you dream there was, dreamguy. There is a clear majority (not with respect to the 5 vs. 10 inkblots yet, btw). Consensus isn't a majority vote, it's a compromise that everyone can live with that incorporates all sides' opinions. Instead of that, we have the majority using its votes to streamroll its version through. Obviously, about 1/3 of involved editors can't live with the uncompromising preference of the majority. Thus there is no consensus and there will not be unless we can come to some sort of agreement. I think that some excellent progress has been made in this direction, but a group opposed to any compromise is trying to derail it and prevent consensus.Faustian (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Xeno brings up a very important subject. Do people think that the "white" or "blank" space is part of the encyclopedic content of the test? The background seems to have a color, and I wonder if that color is on the actual test cards themselves or if they are an artifact of the method of scanning or perhaps just damaged or aged originals. Would anyone who has access to the physical test let us know how faithful a representation these scans are? Chillum 16:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Novel image = safe. `Real' image, even one of them = possible harm. Although of course, the only "real" images are the ones presented during a real test. Too bad that doesn't make any pre-exposed very close fakes any less potentially harmful, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, the real image is the first one in the mind of the test subject, which, with good fortune and through a conversational process, becomes an image in the mind of the test administrator (unless wikipedia got there first, of course)? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the claim that viewing a real Rorschach inkblot is going to cause harm as yet to be demonstrated by a reliable source. If this is true then some reliable source must have said just that. What is more the community has repeatedly rejected the idea that these images causing harm justifies their removal.

None of that is relevant because the reason for showing the false image is purportedly "This is how it is commonly represented" not "It will cause harm"(or is this an ulterior motive?). The issue at hand is one of verifiability. If the fake image is the most common form of representation then it should be easy to find a reliable source that says that and a reliable source that uses such and image. Without meeting these basic standards of inclusion consensus for this change seems unlikely. Chillum 21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, surely. How would one produce the evidence to put in that reliable source, Chillum? Still, it seems that's "irrelevant". But can't Google provide that reliable source that verifies GoogleImages provides the "most common form of representation"? Surely it can't have any ulterior motive? My motive, my issue at hand, is to cause no harm. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason Faustian gave was that it was the more common method of displaying it, I can appreciate that your motives are different. To answer your question, performing a google search then analyzing the results to come to a conclusion is original research. What we need is a previously published reliable source that supports these facts, not an experiment performed by a Wikipedian. Chillum 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a British website that uses the black and white version: [6]. Your earlier statement "Once again, the claim that viewing a real Rorschach inkblot is going to cause harm as yet to be demonstrated by a reliable source" is obviously false. Release of any test data has been condemned by reliable sources. The American Psychological Association (APA) rules of ethics, designed to ensure "the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work", require that psychologists "make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials".[7] A public statement by the British Psychological Society expresses similar concerns and considers the "release of [test] materials to unqualified individuals" to be misuse "which may result in harm to the client".[8] The APA states that the dissemination of test materials "imposes very concrete harm to the general public" as well, in that "there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose. Ward has already explained to you several times why the type of reseach you want is impossible.Faustian (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Your claims and sources about how showing the image causes harm have been rejected by the community. You may disagree with Chillum and consensus but there is nothing "obviously false" about his statement. Please either bring new properly sourced specific evidence or give up this old rejected argument. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
They have not been rejected "by the community" but by a small group of editors who don't care about evidence that does not support their opinion. As for Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." To claim that the published opinion of the American Psychological Association, which [7]"is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide." is not a reliable source with respect to something concerning a psychological test says more about the strength of the editors' opinions in the face of evidence than it does about the source. BTW,here is something else from the APA's website [8]: "It is entirely appropriate to demonstrate testing materials and procedures in undergraduate courses such as general psychology or personality theory. In this situation, simulated test items should be used to demonstrate any given device or technique. For example, instructors may make their own inkblots or invent "similarities" items to illustrate the content, administration, or scoring of a test. Alternatively, a film or video may be used to illustrate administration, without revealing or compromising the security of the stimulus materials or scoring. " Anyways, to leave yet another warning, I will be leaving for vacation in the afternoon and will not be on the computer for quite awhile; I avoid the computer when not having to do paperwork etc.Faustian (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The APA source has been addressed ad nausium, I am not going to repeat arguments you have already heard. The British website you linked to gave me a 404 error when I clicked it. Chillum 04:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that I have fixed the link I can see it. I have a couple of questions. Why did they show the modified version of the inkblot, the source does not seem to indicate this. Also, who wrote this? I don't see any accreditation at all. A source can hardly be reliable when there is no source given. This same source links here, where it tells you which answers you can use to appear heterosexual and which you can use to appear homosexual("This is the blot that allegedly can determine sexual preference. A heterosexual response would be: 'Seeing two male figures' A homosexual response would be: 'Seeing two androgynous (remember 'Pat' from SNL?) or female figures.'"), this source seems a bit sketchy at best. I see two bare breasted African women holding a heavy pot of water, and I am not homosexual. Chillum 04:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, I must admit that I neglected to click on the "analyse your unconsciuos mind" link, half expecting it to take me to a new wikipedia article. Chillum, if the image caption at Nicola Dexter's portal site had told us plainly "this is the most common form of representation of the inkblot" would you have been satistifed? BTW, we had our doubts, but the African women are a real giveaway. Still, congratulations on the gender issues. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please keep talk on this page constructive to article building and try to refrain from comments about other editors. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Chillum, please excuse my attempt at humour. Gary I recommend you take the test for the sake of good article building. (please note my constructive but very weary and bleakly humourless tone). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Given everyone's lengthy participation in this debate, I'm sure any results would be corrupted beyond recognition. They'd probably have to lock me up forthwith ;> –xenotalk 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not offended Martin, one bad joke deserves another. Who is Nicola Dexter? Chillum 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (Just the lady in London who wants to de-stress you and who has paid, through her advertising link it seems, for the site at Faustian's simplypsychology link. Hmmm, the power of advertising). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this instructional video on swaying a consensus might help? ...or maybe not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Dr. Moreau was quite persuasive. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

To those who would prefer the exclusion of the inkblots, I would suggest trying an additional approach. It involves the type of approach used by those who put into Wikipedia, the policy WP:BLP. What WP:BLP has in common with the issue here is the consideration of harm that can be caused outside Wikipedia. Thus you might consider proposing a new policy about material that professions need to keep confidential for the successful practice of parts of their profession. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be a more productive way forward, though I don't know if the community would embrace this idea. Chillum 13:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I should add regarding harm caused outside Wikipedia, that there are other articles besides Rorschach test that are related to this type of issue of causing harm, for example Lock bumping. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to have another policy that considers harm like WP:BLP does. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, one might want to look at the talk pages of these type of articles and the talk page of WP:BLP for ideas. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Any suggestion that helps to clarify this issue must be welcome. Thank you Bob, although I suspect that the arguments may be very different on the talk pages of such articles as Lock bumping, which may involve the use of the information given in a conscious decision to perform an act which may be harmful. I have yet to find any subject(s) sufficiently similar to the pictorial projective tests, where the `harm' is held to occur without any conscious decision or any act as such, to allow close enough comparison. They seem unique as a class. Also, it seems that the potential harm of the pre-exposed inkblot works at least at two levels - for the test subject who may not be correctly diagnosed and for the test administrator whose professional skill may be compromised. Nevertheless, I think it will be well worth a look at `external harm' articles. (Oh, hang on a minute, checking my link... let's not forget that image over on Projective test that currently has NOTHING about harm in the article and NOTHING on the talk page) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
With just a quick glance, I thought some of the ideas expressed in the security hazzard [sic] section of Lock bumping , for example, parallel some of the issues here a little.
Old discussions at WT:BLP might be useful for how to get the consideration of harm into policy. To find those discussions, one might 1st find when the harm related passages in the policy were added, then check the archives on the talk page for the discussion just prior to that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, interesting article. This brings to mind, "The right of free speech does not carry with it the right to holler fire in a crowded theatre." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has NOTHING to do with the Biographies of Living Persons policy. This is not a biography of any person, and the only person it could at all conceivably be considered even partially biographic of is not living. Can we lose the pointless wikilawyering, please? 14:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Bob was suggesting that it does. He was suggesting people look to past discussions wrt BLP to see how the issue of "harm" informed the evolution of the BLP policy as it exists today. –xenotalk 14:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is source for inkblots reliable?

The source for the inkblots is given by clicking on any one of the images and is a webpage http://ar.geocities.com/test_de_rorschach/index-en.htm . Is this considered a reliable source for determining that those actually are the official Rorschach inkblots? If so, shouldn't there be an inline citation for it? (My apologies in advance if this has already been discussed.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about this as well, and I can't recall any previous discussion. That particular page definitely doesn't meet WP:RS. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Fun on a bun. If the significance escapes anyone, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and this relevant message from Jimbo. If we have non-verifiable, non-trivial information in the article, it's likely not suitable for inclusion. We can maybe ref an outline of the blots with the aforementioned "Big Secrets" book. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion is not verification, it is verifiability. The key question here is, does anyone doubt these are the real inkblots, and can it be verified that they are. If need be there are plenty of other sources claiming those images are the official inkblots. If anyone actually challenged that claim that these are the actual inkblots a reliable source becomes needed, until then I would say it is non-controversial.
I would not be terribly surprised if someone tried to use the verifiability policy to remove the images, about every other policy has been tried after all. Perhaps we should just preempt such an attempt by just finding a good source, it will also help anyone using the article as a starting point for research. Ward, Faustian, I believe you both work in this area, perhaps you would know of a good source to verify our images? Chillum 12:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that these are the correct images without a reliable source, and I wouldn't take anyone's word for it without a reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The people who have used the test and said here that they had certainly had a reliable source -- the test itself. Whether you are in a position to verify it or not is not the issue. Please cease all such wikilawyering antics. DreamGuy (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, Be nice. Here's a video to help you relax. Note the remark at the end of it. Enjoy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it is simply because I have seen the same pictures on so many sources throughout my research in this debate that I personally find it non-controversial that these are the images. I will provide some sources later. Chillum 14:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it not controversial that these are the images, the side that wants them removed who argues that their supposed superior knowledge of the test somehow means they should be given control of this article and ignore consensus has never disputed that these are the actual inkblots, and indeed all of their arguments were based upon the fact that they are the actual inkblots and not fake ones. On top of that, I underwent training on how to run the test as part of my graduate level courses in psychology and I can indeed confirm that these are the actual inkblot images. No reliable sources contradict that fact, as none could. This is a non-issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 June 2009

Disregarding "superior knowledge", "control of this article", "ignore consensus" etc. etc., I would argue, somewhat conversely, that the images need not be "exact copies" of the "real images" from any "reliable source" for harm by pre-exposure to occur. Possible critera of similarity might be, for example, that a viewer couldn't tell any difference with the "real images", or perhaps that they allowed the viewer to construct (subconsciously) the same interpretations as did the "real" ones. It might be different if we were debating copyright (or trademark, as Mike at inblot.com seems to be). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not your WP:SOAPBOX nor a place to argue your own Wikipedia:Original research. DreamGuy (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
All true, but we should provide a source(the verifiability type, as opposed to the image source) for the sake of completeness and for those who use Wikipedia as a starting point for their research and then move on to reading our sources. The official kit(The Rorschach-Test ISBN 3-456-82605-2) would make a good source. Chillum 14:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, have at it. –xenotalk 14:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just cite the test -- ISBN 3-456-82605-2 -- as the source. Can't get any better than that. The above URL can be used for verification purposes/convenience link to anyone who would foolishly think to wikilawyer with such a pointless argument. Edit conflict, beat to providing the test ISBN. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Problem solved. Chillum 14:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Dreamguy, you could get much better than that - simply provide a direct link to the images displayed on a site by those who claim they legally own them (once you have convinced them that the images are truely free). Then the reader really could choose whether to see them or not. And all problems of reliabilty and verifyabiltiy solved too! Or have I missed something? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sources need to be verifiable - they don't need to be conveniently verifiable. The ISBN to the actual test seems airtight. –xenotalk 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not better by any reasonable use of that word, Martinevans123. We already have proven that the images are public domain, which means the public owns them, and the public put them up here. The fact that they are accurate has been cited. The only problem here is the small number of people who insist upon trying to ignore consensus and keep wasting everyone's time with absurd arguments. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Xeno - I agree. Dreamguy - I'm sorry if you feel any or all my arguments are "absurd", but please if you do don't waste any more of your time by responding. I make no apologies for being part of any "small number of people" on this talk page or anywhere else. Arguments over the similarity of those images which are deemed to be trademarks do not seem to be considered as "absurd" by the legal profession, or even by those accused of wilfully abusing them like inkblot.com. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Trademark? Wow, where do you even come up with this stuff. That's more absurd and false claims to ad to your collection. DreamGuy (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The legal argument over trademarks was because someone was calling their test the "Rorschach Inkblot Test" when it was in fact not. The images themselves are covered by copyright law, and are current in the public domain. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The image outlines at inkblot.com may have been copped from Poundstone's 1983 book. Don't know. If so, they may have an active copyright on them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The only letter I've seen posted from them is the theinkblot.com one [9], which is trademark complaint, but if I've missed something I may very well be wrong. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I only brought that up because you were considering, near the beginning of this section, using those outlines in the wiki if for some reason the actual inkblots couldn't be used. In that case, the copyright of Poundstone's book might have been a consideration. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you sir. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone checked any of the books at ISBN 3-456-82605-2 to verify that the inkblots in the article are correct? If so, please put the inline citation into the article, like is normally done for references. I'm not sure if an editor checking that they are the same, isn't a violation of WP:NOR, but maybe someone can comment on that. Ideally, one would want to get the image directly from the reliable source. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you not even bother to read the above comments? I verified them a couple of hours before you even asked. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you referring to a previous message of yours where you gave an ISBN? If so, I'll direct my question from above to you, with some extra clarification that might help. Have you viewed the inkblots in any of the books at ISBN 3-456-82605-2 to verify that the inkblots in the article match? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen adverts for this isbn from http://www.rorschach.com clearly showing the same inkblots as we are displaying now. The reference needs to verify the content of what we post, it does not need to be the source. Chillum 00:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this what you are referring to: http://web.archive.org/web/20071004210224/http://www.rorschach.com/test.html ? They have some small b&w called "blanks" that aren't very clear, and don't show the same images that we have. However, their similarity is a reason to be optimistic that the wiki has the images of the actual inkblots. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's one of them. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56907155&referer=brief_results This was published in 1994 and the author is Herman Rorschach, which seems pretty reliable. : ) And to any bibliophiles out there, it would be interesting to have an additional reference to the first publication of the inkblots for historical info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So, if an image here has been "copied" from a real book, anyone may verify that the copy is correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
After giving it more thought, I think the idea is to give a source so that the reader can verify that the image is correct. Obviously, one wouldn't want to give a source that the reader will find doesn't verify the material. That's why the source should be checked by an editor to see that it verifies the material. This seems to be the basic idea for all sourcing.
So it looks like we can use the present images in the wiki, with the Rorschach book as a reliable source, but the Rorschach book should be checked by an editor to see that the images in the wiki can be verified by looking at the book, as a reader could do if so desired. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's been verified several times over already, so why do you keep asking for an editor to check it? Multiple editors above confirm it, and there was never any sensible reason to doubt it in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What you say, Bob, sounds eminently sensible. I suppose I was searching (perhaps misguidedly) for some piece of Wilipedia policy about HOW an image printed in a book becomes an electronic image here, i.e. scanning mechanism, minimum resolution, colour match, image contrast etc. Or does the resulting image just need "to look the same", purely subjectively? You seem to be suggesting this: at least one wiki editor opens that original cited book at the page with the image, then displays the wikipedia image on his computer and then visually compares the two. If he can see no difference, that's fine. He then knows that any future wikipedia reader may do the same with the same result. Is that what you mean? Or does this sound absurd? Many thanks.Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If we didn't already have candidate images in the wiki, that could be done. In our case, all that needs to be done is for an editor to check that the book images look the same as the wiki images, and then include an inline citation for the book in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. So any images on cards currently used by test practioners don't really come into the equation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Who said that? They come into the equation in that our images need to be a faithful representation of the subject, they don't need to be a scan of a specific book though. Anyone who wants to can access the source and see if we have been inaccurate. Ward and Faust seem to have confirmed that this is the real test, and since the "real test" is what is being referenced then the source is pretty much confirmed. Chillum 13:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't read my recent messages carefully enough. I think we agree for the most part. I would suggest that we get something a bit more firm than "Ward and Faust seem to have confirmed..." Not sure why there is your resistance regarding, for example, an editor going to a library, probably a university library, and checking the images in a reliable source, to see that they look the same as the images in the wiki. I expect someone here will be visiting such a library anyhow for other things and they can check on this too. Seems reasonable to me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I see no need to doubt Ward or Faustian. But numbers of editors confirming is irrelevant I guess, it's that one editor who claims the image is NOT the same and then gives reasons that would be crucial. Fortunately, we don't seem to have any. But Bob seemed to be suggesting that, in general, we need one single editor, who subjectively judges and we must believe him, knowing nothing of how he usually performs in a pictorial "spot the diference" test, using his coffee-stained library book and his ancient but tiny CRT pc display. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Re "But Bob seemed to be suggesting that, in general, we need one single editor, who subjectively judges and we must believe him..." - That's not quite what I meant. You don't have to believe that editor anymore than you need to believe any other editor that puts sourced info into the Wikipedia. If anyone has reason to believe that a citation that an editor put in the Wikipedia doesn't support material, they can go check the source for themselves. That's the meaning of verifiability which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I'm just suggesting that someone actually look at the source, to make sure we haven't made a mistake with the images. So far the confirmation is tenuous since no one has even given an inline citation, much less checked to see that it confirms the images that are in the wiki. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to anyone reconfirming the source. Martin, it is not hard to compare two sets of inkblots and find they are the same. The digital versions are not tiny, you can click on them to see the full size. Unless anyone is actually making the assertion that these are not the Rorscach inkblots then there is no issue. Chillum 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
But how big and clear is my monitor, or the browser window on it, are those blinds drawn and how long do I take to make my judgement? The procedure just seemed a bit open-ended/ subjective. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Here: [10]. Now we don't have to go to the library, we have a second source showing the same images near the bottom of the page. Also a good example of yet another organization that does not find it unethical to show the images while educating people about them. Chillum 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And it's not hard to see that the background colour is totally different. Or am I just wearing my Dutch cream-tinted spectacles? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Different scanning methods give different results. Since we can't tape the official cards to the website we will just have to use a scan. It is clear that they are the same inkblots, even if the source has lower quality scans than we do. Chillum 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood. I thought you were claiming that the Dutch source in some way supported the argument that our images are a "true representation" the original blots or at least of those used on the real cards by practioners today. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The Dutch web site with the incorrect backgrounds and low resolution is a significant improvement over the mini b&w images that you referred to previously, but our wiki images should be checked with the book so that an inline citation for the book can be honestly put into the wiki. Please note that I'm optimistic that it will check out, and I don't think you have to worry on that account. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I must say I am a bit confused. Is it being suggested that our images have some subtle variation in coloring or is it being suggested that the inkblots we have are not pictures of the real inkblots? I think we have satisfied through multiple reliable sources that these are indeed pictures of the real Rorschach inkblots. Many scans and photos we use have less than perfect quality, but they are still accurately representing their subject. If anyone has access to these cards and can create a higher quality set of scans they are of course welcome. Chillum 15:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh well. I give up trying to communicate the idea. Whatever. Or maybe you can point to specific parts of what I wrote that you don't understand. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought my last statement was an attempt to clarify the issue... I will try again later. Chillum 15:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I can buy myself a set of cards from the internet, scan them in as wikipeaid images using my "less than perfect" scanner and then add the orginal book ISBN as the reliable source of these images, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, since these images are public domain this could be done. If your scans were better than the ones we had then they would be welcome. Also I have no objection to improvement of our sourcing or the images, the only point I was trying to make is the we have satisfied verifiability requirements. Improvement beyond what is required is always welcome. Chillum 15:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe my purchase can wait for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A request to the regulars regarding the below RFC

To the regulars: Let's try and limit our participation as much as possible in the below RFC I've just filed. I think we all know very well where each other stands - and let's see what the wider community thinks. Feel free to respond to questions from new faces, but at the very least, please do not ping-pong back and forth with other regulars. –xenotalk 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content?

Moved to Talk:Rorschach test/images#RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content?

How many kicks at the can?

I have seen something very similar at the Muhammad depiction debates. After a few months of being told that their basis for the removal of the images(it offended their religion) was not a valid reason to remove them people began to try each and every policy they could find. They would explain how NPOV and OR requires that we remove the images, then they tried copyright, then they starting bringing up obscure manuals of style. All the while the true reason for them wanting the image removed was the same as it always was, it offended their religion. In the end such a tactic failed as because a) the policies did not support their arguments, and b) it was seen as a transparent attempt to get what they wanted.

I am seeing a bit of the same thing happening here. The reason to want these images removed remains the same, but due to this reason being rejected a variety of replacements arguments come to take its place. In the last couple days I have seen history repeat itself here. I have no objection to policy based arguments, I prefer them in fact. However I do ask that they be sincere. Perhaps every one of these new arguments was a sincere attempt to bring Wikipedia in line with its own policies, perhaps it was an attempt to use policies as a tool to get what one wanted. It is possible there is very real and honest concern about the public domain status of the images we use, or if they violate neutrality, or if they are properly verified, or if they are derivative works, or if they are undue weight, or perhaps some people just wants the images removed for the original reasons given.

In the interest of creating a neutral point of view I request each one of you to ask yourself: "What is more important to you, advancing the interests of Wikipedia, or advancing an outside interest?". Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. I am sorry if I sound like I am accusing anyone of something, but it does seem very familiar to me. Perhaps I am wrong about this? Chillum 13:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why I initiated the above RFC, based solely on the supposed actual motivation for removing the image(s). –xenotalk 13:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A productive step. It sort of reminds me of a poll we had a few weeks back, and another RFC a few months ago. Sometimes Wikipedia is like watching re-runs of an old show. I wonder, if this RFC finds that we should not remove the images for these reasons, will it satisfy those who wish to remove them or will this just go in circles forever? Chillum 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it does seem like a broken record after a while. It seems like we have settled this issue except for the disagreement of a small vocal group of editors.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If the "outside interest" is preventing harm to others, then yes Chillum, for me that wins every time over "the aims of Wikipedia". While I don't really mind being compared to a religious fanatic, I think others might - I honestly believe that the concerns here are different to those at Muhammad. And yes, I remain very disenchanted. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated that preventing harm is not congruent to our goals of creating an encyclopedia. Information may be used to help or harm and even that varies from perspective. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The "use" of information, to help or harm, would seem to usually depend on conscious decision, which, in this particular case, may not be an available option. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but back onto my original topic. How many kicks at the can? If the same arguments are made and rejected by the community for say another 2 months will we accept consensus then? How about after a year? How about 5 years? Will Ward and Faust just keep arguing as they have since early 2008 until those disagreeing with them simply give up? Chillum 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, repeating the falsehood that it is only 2 editors opposing what you want, even after your claim was shown to be false here: [11] and you even admitted it. I guess some habits are hard to break.Faustian (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I asked how long we must entertain the same notions that have been rejected time and time again. I mentioned you are Ward because you are the two who have been pushing this the longest and the most. This is demonstrable by the archives which I am very familiar with. Chillum 03:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and I retract my last comment although given the history you ought to be careful about not commenting in a way that could interpreted as emaning it is only two people. FYI, since your arrival onto this topic you have been at least as active, if not more so, than either Ward or I or any other editor. As for "rejected", that is irrelevent. PEople do disagree and I never denied that in this case the expeerts are outnumbered and in the minority. The point is what we do with this disagreement. Faustian (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any new arguments?

Will a continuation of this debate be an endless repetition of the same rejected arguments over and over? Or is there anything new to add?

It is a terrible waste of time to tell the same people that the same arguments still are not compelling month after month. I think we should stop responding to arguments that have already been given plenty of consideration and rejected. We have already established a stable consensus on this matter and I think we have given this one issue enough attention and would like consider it settled until such a time as arguments that have not already been rejected by the community are presented.

Surely there are other aspects of this article we can work on. Chillum 21:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The sad t hing is that you can archive everything above your comment, and in six months time, it will all be repeated again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo daoist (talk • contribs) 06:18, 7 July 2009


If you're concerned that people might engage in endless repetition of the same old arguments, you might consider fully developing the ones we have now

  1. 1.3 Arguments Pro
     #01 - The cat's out of the bag
     #02 - No evidence of harm
     #03 - Adds to the page
     #04 - removing the images amounts to censorship
     #05 - Reputable organizations have been showing the images, too
     #06  It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.
  1. 1.4 Arguments Con
   * 1.4.1 Argument Con #1 - It may harm a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient. 
   * 1.4.2 Argument Con #2 - It violates Wikipedia policy
   * 1.4.3 Argument Con #3 - It interferes with the workings of another profession
   * 1.4.4 Argument Con #4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.
   * 1.4.5 Argument Con #5 - It violates Wikipedia policy on indiscriminate collection of information.
   * 1.4.6 Argument Con #6 - It violates Wikipedia policy on non-free content.

They are well organized and easily found when someone goes looking back in the archives. However, some of these arguments still have questions left hanging. Future readers might question, as I did, whether the issues that they have had ever been fully explored before.

If you're thinking about the future, you might also consider what Steven Colbert in his popular television show, The Colbert Report, might say when he visits this discussion a few months from now. I think we've raised some issues that would get his attention, namely the role of ethics in Wikipedia. What will he say? Will he excoriate us for ignoring ethics in favor of policy, and compare us to Islamic or Christian fundamentalists: calling us "Fundawikians" for taking our policy "Bible" as the complete and total word of authority and in our zeal, promoting the cause of evil in the world? Or would he applaud us for not deviating from "our goals" in the face of "outside interests." I think he'll portray both extremes. Or maybe he'll run a sketch portraying us like the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment. We'll get lost into our assigned roles as guards until suddenly someone calls a halt to the experiment and we are all exposed as mere college students, sitting in our underwear in our darkened dorm rooms, deciding the fate of others. I know Steven Colbert. He'll do something funny. But I think we should pay better attention to how we want ourselves to be portrayed. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't base our content on what comedy talk show folk have to say about us. Every last one of those arguments have been given plenty of attention over the last several weeks. Do you have any new arguments? You know, ones that have not already been rejected? Chillum 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't even sound like a serious argument. To even think that Stephen Colbert will even be here in a few months (where did THAT come from?) or that he would take your side (your kind of ignorant arguments are exactly the sorts of things he loves to skewer mercilessly), you're just deluded. And none of it has anything to do with how we conduct ourselves on an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What a surpise, more personal attacks from dreamguy ("Your kind of ignorant arguments").Faustian (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia not have any policy on publishing test materials? Shouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Chillum 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No (other than copyright laws) and no. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Einstein says the definition of insanity is doing the some thing over and over again yet expecting a different result. These are old arguments. Just because questions have not been answered, or answers fall short of your expectations, means nothing to the community as a whole. Broad community consensus has been achieved regarding the images therefore the burden of proof to change it lies with anyone wishing to change it. None of these arguments has apparently changed anyone's mind. Repeating them will not either. Trying to find any possible way to remove the images is becoming disruptive. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Does he, I've not seen his talk page. If there really is no policy then perhaps Wikipedia would be improved by having one and the debate here would be a useful test-case in the path to achieving this. Questions deserve considered answers and not accusations. How else can debate proceed? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:VPP is a good place to propose a new policy. We have been answering your questions for months, I can't imagine anybody who would say we have not given them due attention. This has been weeks of endless repetition, you ask how else can a debate proceed? It can proceed by presenting an argument that has not already been repeatedly rejected. Or you can simply stop beating a dead horse. Chillum 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::Ever the sarcastic one. Martin debate is good but not the same refuted debate. If you wish to create policy try the WP:Village pump. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Chillum and Gary. But can you remind us when the question above about policy (five hours ago), which you have kindly answered, was ever previously asked (or answered) in this debate? But please stop throwing your wiki UNCOOL STICKS. And the point I was making was that Albert is not a wikipedia editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That was more of a question than an argument. I think it has come up in the debate before, or perhaps not. There is no such policy as far as I can tell. If you think this needs further discussion you can create a thread about it. I did understand that you were referring to Einstein. Chillum 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
And where is the debate on harm refuted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This section is to present new arguments, not to rehash old ones. There are sections above dedicated to the question you just posed about harm and there has been plenty of response and consideration given above. People have remained unconvinced. Please, does anyone have any new arguments? Chillum 15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is the "section above" dedicated to the question of wikipedia policy on publishing test materials? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a section above about harm. Regarding the question about the non-existent policy I just said you can create a section if there is more to talk about. I suggest you create it at WP:VPP because creation of policy is beyond the scope of this article. Regardless, asking if a policy exists that would support your position and being told it does not exist is not really an argument in favor of your position. Chillum 15:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am suggesting that the lack of a clear policy to prevent it is the reason why the images have been displayed here in the first place. But thanks for the clear, non-accusatory, advice (please note my non-sarcastic and concilliatory tone). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(in a soothing deep and friendly tone) I suggest that such a policy proposal is likely to come to the same conclusion the consensus here did. However, if you propose a policy then I will participate in the debate. It is possible I am wrong about my prediction that the community would reject it. Chillum 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The policy for prohibiting test materials doesn't exist because we don't need one... and in fact it'd be actively opposed to other policies we do have. If you disagree with our other policies on this matter you can't just up and create a new policy that will somehow overrule all the others. Making policy is a long process that requires an extremely broad and active consensus from the wider project and not something you just write up in a dusty corner of the site and expect others to follow. Seeing as how other longstanding rules such as WP:EL aren't even policy yet despite years of being here and supported, you have exactly zero chance of having any policy preventing test materials from being included here. But if that's the only avenue you have left to try to get what you want to do over the strong consensus against you, good luck with that. (That ought to keep you busy for the next ten years.) DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Chillum for your friendly encouragement. But ten years in a dusty corner with "zero chance of success" doesn't sound so attractive, DreamGuy. So maybe I'd better stay here after all, like all the other "stubborn" editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It's only been 7 days since the discussion at Argument#1 - It may harm... began. In that time, new sources where discovered and questions left hanging. I answered Xeno's call to come to this discussion 22 days ago. It makes no sense to invite someone and then ignore their questions. It's not very WP:CCC of you. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Not true Danglingdiagnosis. That argument was first brought up in early 2008 and again numerous times before this most recent turning of the wheel. I can see how someone relatively new to this very long debate would think that this has not been given due consideration, the archives are very long and tedious to read but they do tell the story of this endless repetition I speak of. Chillum 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Correction it was even earlier See Talk:Rorschach test#Which image (From July 2007). You can see that Ward and Faustian were busy stating the exact same arguments that are still being argued today. Just compare this poll from February 2008 with this poll from June 2009 and you can see that this debate was settled ages ago. Look at this index of the archives I have created to see a full history of this debate: User:Chillum/Rorschach test talk page archive. Chillum 02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Correction before I disappear again: the debate was never settled because consensus, defined as compromise, was never achieved. Instead a 2/3 majority had their way with no input, in terms of the article's construction, from the minority. So the only thing that wa settled, I suppose, is that experts are outnumbered and that 2/3 want something done a particular way. As long as this sad state of affairs exists these things will keep coming up again. This is exactly what happens when you don't have consensus and when the debate isn't settled.Faustian (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet another argument that has repeatedly been refuted. Consensus does not mean everyone is satisfied, there has been consensus for showing the images for over a year and arguments to the contrary have not changed that. This debate was settled last year, you lost. This idea has been given more than enough consideration. Do you have any arguments that have not already been repeatedly rejected? Chillum 04:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Translation: The majority choose to ignore the policy concerning consensus and still win by majority vote. This is how the debate has been "settled" and arguments "refuted.". The reality is that the problems keep coming up again because indeed there is no consensus. Indeed, this is a perfect example of the wisdom of consensus policy.Faustian (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
How come you did not object to consensus in February 2008 but you do now? How is this consensus not to suppress the images different than the consensus not to suppress the images back then? Chillum 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Because over a year ago I had't read the consensus policy and naively took others' word for it when they claimed that votes equals consensus. Thanks for showing an example of me trying to forge some sort of compromise, though.Faustian (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the thread on "what is consensus" got archived. You can restart it if your like and we can talk about it some more. This section is for any new arguments that have not already been rejected by the community. Chillum 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Translation: a majority of editors involved on this topic have chosen to reject wikipedia consensus policy and to steamroll their version through, claiming that their majority equals "consensus."
Here it is: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review, 92kb of discussion on the subject. Chillum 04:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
That just shows how many editors prefer what. Consensus isn't majority preference: [12]"Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions." The current "solution" does not respect the the opinions of the minority (indeed it does not take them into account), it is merely the preference of the majority, and there is no consent to move forward. Thus there is no consensus. I initiated a discussion and an rfc on the wikipedia"consensus discussion page: [13] and [14]. Very few people responded, and their opinions, though not consistant, seemed to indicate that consensus is indeed compromise, provided that such compromise doesn't violate wikipedia policy (NPOV, use of reliable sources, censorship, etc.).
When atempt at discussing policy is made, you conveniently chose to ignore the policy points: [15], instead choosing to add a false statement about how many people are in the minority, incorrectly (disohonestly?) claiming it was just two people. Then you used a straw man argument that I claimed that consensus policy calls for 100% agreement even t hough I never claimed that it did. You then cherry picked from policy rather than using whole quotes to produce a skewed interpretation. When you were called on this misbehavior, you chose to revert to ignoring the policy guidelines. The bottom line is that here we have an example of a majority choosing to ignore wikipedia policy and having their way because there is no mechanism in place to enforce that policy. The result: no consensus.Faustian (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want to create a section to talk about my behavior go ahead, my user talk page would be a good place for that. The consensus was reviewed by multiple outside sources including a post at ANI. How can you act like your viewpoint is being disregarded when it has been given so many months of consideration? It simply has not been convincing. We all know if the numbers were reversed and the majority wanted to remove the images that you would call it a consensus(if I am wrong then deny it). This section is for new arguments, not rehashing old ones. Chillum 13:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any new arguments that have not already been discussed ad nauseum? Chillum 13:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
But Faustian's points are perfectly valid, whether written here in this section or anywhere else. They are the very reasons that prompted me earlier to take objection to the proposal made by one editor to "hammer out agreement" and to suggest that such an approach was redolent of the Secret Police. Apparently those whose views cannot be accommodated can simply be accused of "wasting time" and of using the same old arguments "for months on end". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Secret police? A bit over dramatic perhaps? We just don't agree with(and are thus not obeying) your arguments, we are not kicking in your door in the middle of the night. Have you read the archive of this debate I have posted at the bottom of this page? What we are facing is nothing more than proof by assertion which is no proof at all. These are the same arguments for months on end, there is no accusation about it, it is all in the archives. A huge amount of consideration was given to the arguments, it is not accurate to imply that we are trying to unduly dismiss them. I am just asking for an argument that has not already been rejected. Chillum 13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I also read it all when it was going on, thanks. I just think that hammers may be the wrong tools with which to try and reach "agreement". I'm keeping Adolf in reserve, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about with "hammers", and "Adolf"? We already have an agreement, it does not include 100% of the people here, but it includes enough people to be a strong consensus. We don't obey every minority viewpoint, we do give them all consideration, but in this case they have just not been convincing. If the numbers were reversed and most people wanted the images removed, would you not consider that a consensus to remove them? Chillum 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You accused me of a "not so subtle variation of Godwin's law", didn't you? And I am objecting to the idea that agreements can always be "hammered out". That's what I'm talking about. But I also don't see that consensus is compatible with the notion of "obedience". There was a time when the debate was considering changes in position or display mechanism of images as a way of reaching agreement. But now we the choice seems to be "images vs no images". Hang on, don't tell me... I'm not allowed to make this point, as it's not new? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that, predictably, Chillum has chosen to sidestep a discussion on actual wikipedia policy points as usual. His strategy seems to be: ignore policy, go with majority rule because the majority can get away with ignoring policy, and then label the dissenting minority whose views are not accomodated at all (in violation of the consensus policy whose points Chillum refuses to discuss) as troublemakers repeating the same arguments. He complains about my drawing attention to his behavior, then makes up claims about my own ("We all know if the numbers were reversed and the majority wanted to remove the images that you would call it a consensus(if I am wrong then deny it). "). For the record, I would accomodate a minority view that disagrees with me and have stated so. I'm not Chillum, after all. And this is indeed the appropriate place to highlight Chillum's behavior because it reflects the process that has occurred on this page. He also claimed that consensus was discussed. Yes, it has been - and he derailed that discussion as demonstrated.Faustian (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is weak Faustian. If we let minority view rule then we would basically have chaos. The wiki in practice is very democratic even though we state its not a democracy. That's because we weigh arguments based on logic and common sense. It is possible to have 10 editors on an article abandon those principals and have a minority win consensus with the help of an RFC or outside mediation because their arguments were more logical and given more weight. Attacking Chillum is not going to change things. If you have a problem with his behavior and cannot solve it on your talk pages you can place a wikiquette or a request for comment on a user. This page is for article construction of the Rorschach test. If you do not wish to accept consensus then follow the dispute resolution process. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Your statement is based on a straw man - I do not propose that minority rule - that would be a violation of consensus policy (as is, of course, "majority rule"). I only point out that per policy the minority viewpoint needs to be taken into account in the layout of the article, otherwise there is no consensus.Faustian (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Not every viewpoint needs to be reflected in the article, I don't see anywhere in the consensus policy that says that. Chillum 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is not unanimity - so viewpoints by scattered individuals indeed do not have to be taken into account. On the other hand 1/3 of involved editors are not scattered individuals.
  • Wikipedia:What is consensus? "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."
  • "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""
  • "[16] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal restrictions."
So is the solution you ram through with your majority respecting the minority's opinions? It is not. Is there overall consent to move forward? There is not. Is there common ground? There is not. IS there a synthesis of the two viewpoints? There is not. Is there a balance betweent he competing views? There is not. It is, actually, 100% what the majority wants. So thre is not consensus per consensus policy.Faustian (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere, we have a definition of the rough consensus which is the actual standard at Wikipedia. Perfect consensus is impossible in any group larger than about 8 (according to some study I read in a leadership class more years ago than I'd care to admit). In any sufficiently large group, there will always be a minority unable or unwilling to concede to any position but their own. No functioning group can allow itself to be held hostage by an uncompromising minority (the so-called tyranny of the minority problem). While rough consensus does not mean that majority rules or even that supermajority rules, it also does not mean unanimity or even unanimous consent. Does anyone know where that "rough consensus" discussion got moved to? I think it might be useful reading. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you have written. That is why wikipedia consensus policy wisely involves the principle that [17] "Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."
So basically, consensus means an article that no one is 100% satisfied with but that, with the exception of a couple of isolated editors (inevitable), people can live with. Compromise means giving something up. Given the ratio of preferences the minority ought to give up more than the majority when the compromise is forged - article ought to reflect the majority's wishes more than those of the minority - the minority which at 1/3 of involved editors is substantial cannot be ignored for consensus to be achieved. However, to repeat myself, in this articles' case the majority refuses to compromise and seems to demand that the article reflects 100% what they want. As the majority they get to outvote any attempt at compomise. Every attempt at compromise has been shot down by this majority. So what do we do when a majority opposes policy?Faustian (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Ratios? This is not math. You simply have not convinced the community of your point of view. If you think there is a violation of consensus on this talk page then seek outside scrutiny, just don't just keep insisting it is the case when so many people have told you this is not so. Post at WT:Consensus and ask the people there what they think, that has worked well in the past. I remember a posting at WP:ANI where several people agreed that consensus has formed. How is it that the only people who think consensus is not being served are those who are not getting what they want? Chillum 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do you insist on using this section I created to talk about new arguments to repeat things that have already been discussed to death in the past? There are pages of discussion in this thread and none of it presents a single new point. It is all just a rehashing of the same old thing. I have had to start yet another sub-thread just to attempt to give someone the opportunity to breath fresh air into this debate. Chillum 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Since when am I and the other 1/3 who disagree with the other 2/3 not part of the community? We are all the community, and we ought to work together to forge a compromise. I did post to the consensus article and as I stated only a few responded and they seemed to indicate that consensus was indeed compromise as long as no policies such as NPOV, Reliable Sources etc. were not violated. I will note that once again you have chosen to avoid discussing the policy points, Chillum, but to change subjects.
When you make incorrect claims about consensus or the debate being settled I have the right to correct you no matter what section those false statemtns are in.Faustian (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
But this is a NPOV issue. But you knew that because we have already had this discussion. Why do you keep using this off all threads to repeat conversations? The whole spirit of this thread is new arguments. Chillum 04:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, when you make incorrect claims about consensus or the debate being settled I have the right to correct you no matter what section those false statements are in.Faustian (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Inline citation for inkblots needed

I put up a {{fact}} in the Inkblots section because I thought an inline citation should be there, and the template was deleted! Please note that when the reader comes upon the section with the inkblots, he won't know what the RS for them is without a citation there. Isn't that why we have inline citations in Wikipedia, instead of just a list of references at the end? Gee whiz, don't know what the problem is about putting the citation there. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I can't do it because I haven't seen the inkblots in the RS that should be in the inline citation. I don't dispute that they are probably in the RS, like they are in the wiki. I just think that someone who has seen them in the RS that should be cited in the inkblots section should put up a proper inline citation there! Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think someone (hopefully someone other than me) should write some text to go with the pictures and then an inline citation can go there. Otherwise, a floating ref just looks peculiar. The references are almost immediately below the images, so I don't see it as that big of a deal either way. –xenotalk 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the problem with attaching the inline citation to the section title, The ten inkblots, so that it would be useful for the reader like inline citations normally are? That's why I put up the {{fact}}, and it should be there to encourage editors to do that. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Before anyone writes that text, maybe we ought to be clear on which are the "real images" and which are the "real test images" (see the[18] section above)? The source in Commons for these ten images is a website in Spanish (English translation available) written by someone in Argentina. Curiously it ends with the following advice:
"I find that following these tips for prepairing your own responses is much more useful than indicating specifically what to answer: psychologists are not stupid, no matter how stupid their science can be. And the mistakes that could get ourselves busted are not only the answers we give but also how to act in general." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've never seen an inline citation in a header like that. Let me look into it a bit. I still think the text is a better way to go about it. –xenotalk 16:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Xeno, We don't know when there will ever be text in that section. So until then, it seems best to attach the inline citation to the section title. After all, it's the reader who is the main consideration, and an inline citation there would benefit the reader. A {{fact}} there would encourage editors to do that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Bob I have never seen a section referenced. The WP:MOS#Section headings does not discuss it. Common sense would seem to dictate that TOC/indexes help navigate a document while sourcing is done to relevant text in the article. I'm sure clarification can be made at the MOS talk page if neseccary. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This should do for now. Wasn't there a source that listed common responses? That might be useful text to go with the section. –xenotalk 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now in good conscience I can presume that you have checked that the inkblots in the book match, and I can improve that and replace it with a proper inline citation to the actual book. OK? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but it seems redundant, no? Inline citations are not a requirement when the text is explicit. An inline citation here would be like writing "Kurt Vonnegut's [[Cat's Cradle]] involves fictional substance known as ice-nine.<ref>Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle</ref>". And, no, I haven't confirmed. I think DreamGuy above said he did, though. –xenotalk 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I had something better in mind. But in the process of looking up the 13 digit ISBN at amazon.com, I found this. It looks like the images that are in the wiki have different backgrounds than the images that are in the item at the ISBN. The official images appear to have plain white backgrounds, whereas the images in the wiki don't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice find! So what do we make of the ones we're using now? Poor scans? Background of paper tarnished with age? –xenotalk 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
My guess is water damage, which may have also altered the inkblots themselves. This seems more apparent for the multicolored ones. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

← Yes, that would certainly explain the running colours. –xenotalk 18:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This speculation seems silly. Ward and Faustian claim to administrate the test as practicing psychologist and they have never spoke up that these are not the correct ink blots and a google search almost always seems to show them this way. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)So where do we go from here? I don't think we can display probably water damaged images and claim they are the official inkblots. I don't even think we can display them in a qualified manner by saying that they are nearly the same as the official inkblots but have been water damaged or altered in some other way. We don't know how they compare. And putting in the wiki any comparison of the altered images and the official images by an editor would be a violation of WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If the image quality is not perfect that is not a verifiability issue, that is a quality issue. We can show a grainy black a white image of a historical figure and still say it is them, even if they are not really black and white and overexposed. We use the best quality images we can find. The images have been cited to a reliable source, and this source seems to be verifiable. If it is shown as a reference or an inline citation is of little importance, I would support either. If someone can provide higher quality scans that is wonderful, we can always use better copies of public domain images. Chillum 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't look like just a scan problem. More likely water damage, as I mentioned. As Xeno noticed, the colors are running. We don't know how much it has altered the images. Apparently, no one has even looked at the actual inkblot plates in the RS. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
More speculation. The only way challenge the existing inkblots is to bring verifiable proof that they are incorrect. (and in that case we would use those other ink blots that discredit the previous ones) Garycompugeek (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Gary, Have you ever seen the actual inkblots in an RS that can be cited here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
More than one source has confirmed we have the correct images for our reference. This is a quality issue, not a verifiability or original research issue. If the images are less than perfect then we should seek to improve them when we are able to, but currently they are the best representation we have. Chillum 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
re "More than one source has confirmed" - Are you referring the the mini B&W images in an advertisement for "blanks" and some small low res ones that had different backgrounds than the ones in the wiki? Those aren't confirmation in my opinion. All you can say is that the general appearance is similar. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
these ones have a yellowy background, lol.

On second thought, I think I'll leave it to you folks to decide what you want to do and pull out now. I really don't have a dog in this show. Also, I thought you folks were pretty good to work with. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

aw, don't leave so soon! =) re your over-written question [19], is File:Rorschach inkblots.jpg the one? –xenotalk 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Xeno, You've been very kind and charming, but it's time to move on. I can repeat what I said when I came here originally, I appreciate your invitation. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input here, especially the "list of reliable sources" section that gave us a little push to...well, work on the actual article, once in a while, rather than just arguing about it ;p –xenotalk 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One more time: I have seen the original images and can confirm the ones here are accurate. The images to me look largely like poor photos/scanning. Most reproductions add color casts invariably, and the existence of tonal shifts does not in any way invalidate these images. Some may also have some water damage, but from a quick glance at a couple of the scans at larger size I see nothing of any substantive difference for our purposes. Considering that at one point people were arguing that we could completely make up our own inkblots entirely out of thin air, it seems odd know to be raising quibbles about nonexact matches in color. Web images and computer screens are never going to be exact matches anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A note to the newly arrived editors

It seems the article has attracted the attention of some new editors. I would ask that they review the very lengthy history of this debate, familiarize themselves with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and participate in the discussions ongoing above to gather consensus before unilaterally removing images from the page. Thanks! –xenotalk 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the new users to the debate, however Zeitgest and Psychology12345 ‎are both obvious sock puppets of the same person. I had really hoped this debate would not break down into edit warring and sock puppetry but it has now started. Chillum 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's also the possibility they were alerted to this dispute from some web forum somewhere. I would like to think the regulars here know better than to engage in sockpuppetry. –xenotalk 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No, a look at the timeline:
22:10, 7 July 2009 Psychology12345 creates a new account
22:11, 7 July 2009 Psychology12345 removes images
22:25, 7 July 2009 Psychology12345 removes images
22:32, 7 July 2009 Zeitgest creates a new account
22:36, 7 July 2009 Zeitgest removes images
22:43, 7 July 2009 Zeitgest removes images
And it is very clear this is the same person. Perhaps it is a form a meat puppetry, but that is the same animal. I would like to think better of the regulars too, but even reasonable people will become unreasonable will they will not give up something they cannot have. Chillum 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to find a wholly uninvolved admin to look into this. Chillum 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right. But there is also the possibility that it was a non regular (perhaps even a non-Wikipedian) who came across this debate and then raised the issue at some off-site forum. The regulars here, while persistent, have for-the-most-part acted within policies and guidelines. –xenotalk 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have asked Bongwarrior to look into this. I looked at the block logs and found he is active at this time, and as far as I know has not involved himself in this debate. Chillum 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Bongwarrior has come to a similar conclusion as me. I think as long as we keep an eye on these accounts and they remain inactive that there is not much more to worry about. Chillum 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of archives

I understand that the archives for this debate are so incredibly huge that most people will simply not read it. Due to this I have dusted off an old piece of perl code I wrote that creates an index of a page by going through the history and watching when sections are removed. Here is an index of links to the last revision of each section that has ever been on this page before it was removed: User:Chillum/Rorschach test talk page archive. Chillum 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a repetitive read. Like watching a TV show during a writers strike. Chillum 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they don't read the archives, I guess we'll get a few more repetitions? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I indexed the archives, so that we don't have to reject all the same arguments for the nth time. Chillum 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oouy Veyy. This may go round and round forever. Perhaps we should stub image talk out like we do for Muhammad? Garycompugeek (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Forever is quite a long time. That's what we do is it? Like a used cigarette, you mean? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Image of Hermann Rorschach

Glad to see that the image of Hermann Rorschach has now been restored to the article(s) by Chillum's addition of "Hermann Rorschach, psychiatrist died in 1922, so this image is public domain." to the Licensing field. This seems to have satisifed Garion96. But there still seems to be no source information, as was pointed out to the original image uploader on 2 Jan 2007.

Surely, regardless of the subject matter, the copyright of a photograph is held by the photogapher (and up to 70 years after his death) or by a publisher. I think it seems unlikely that less than 70 years have passed since the death of the photographer in this case, even if his ir her identity is known. But were the rights holder suddenly to come forward, I think they might be entitled to a compensation payment for the infringing use of the image. I wonder if this photograph has ever been published in a book about Rorschach? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get US copyright law. If it was from before 1923, which it clearly was in this case because it's not a photo of a skeleton of Rorschach, then it's automatically public domain. The 70 years from death of the photographer does not apply in this country for the time period in question. Source is irrelevant, as whereever it came from it's pubilc domain and the photographer would never "be entitled to compensation payment". DreamGuy (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Very sorry, it seems I "don't get" a lot of things. So the country in which the photograph was originaly published is irrelevant? Did wikipedia ask for source information just for RS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia always asks for source info these days because it's easier to demand it even in cases where it's irrelevant then to let the typical image uploaders who don't know anything about copyright upload whatever they want. Unfortunately some of the people going around tagging images as unsourced don't use some common sense before doing so. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I was asking: "So the country in which the photograph was originaly published is irrelevant?" Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Good question. Wikipedia:Public domain seems to cover the topic. I don't have time to read it now, but will later. Chillum 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
(note) If we look here [20] we see this "The picture of Hermann Rorschach on this page is from H. Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious (Basic Books 1970). Reproduced with kind permission from Institut Henri Ellenberger, Paris."
Wondering if the original photograph (original being the one Ellenberger used since Rorschach would have been dead for almost 50 years by the time The Discovery of the Unconscious was published) is owned with rights by The Hermann Rorschach Archives and Museum 76.217.156.168 (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that answers that, emailed Rita Signer, contact for The Hermann Rorschach Archives and Museum who says and I quote "This photo of Hermann Rorschach is kept at the Hermann Rorschach Archives and Museum. The photographer is unknown. The copyrigt is held by the International Society of the Rorschach (ISR)." (typo included) 76.217.156.168 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Better picture of Hermann Rorschach

I have found a better copy of the same picture of Hermann Rorschach than the one we had. I have replaced it. I hope we can all agree this is an improvement. Chillum 23:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Very nice. I always cringed at the grainy one. –xenotalk 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Much better. Good find Chillum. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

US Copyright law

Dreamguy, re your change [21], does the Copyright Term Extension Act not apply? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Per that article: "Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward" The inkblots were made prior to 1923. US copyright laws over the years have been a mess of conflicting periods of coverage and other standards. The original US copyright laws (ones in effect for old, public domain works such as these inkblots) had nothing to do with the death of the creator but only with the publication date. It's not safe to lump the US in with other countries on the 70 years thing, as most of the time it doesn't match up. DreamGuy (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it depends on which inkblots we are discussing? As far as I can see the ones on the test cards are being printed even today and so are "works made after 1923". Psychologists aren't using the actual ones printed by Hermann Rorshach before he died, are they? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
They are using the original images he made before he died, yes. Merely copying old images and printing new versions faithfully reproducing the originals does not give a new copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. DreamGuy (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Did those originals have white backgrounds or coloured? Do we know which are being used now? Does that matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
See my comment at the bottom of #Inline citation for inkblots needed; this may explain where the different versions of the images come from. –xenotalk 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a fascinating citataton, xeno, that suggests all sorts of variety in the original printing. I wonder how it continues and concludes. Perhaps it explains away the "water damage theory"? But I am still left wondering whether what are used today on the cards are really the same as Rorshcach himself produced in 1921, or even the same as those published by Verlag in 1927. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Same images. There are photos of Rorschach displaying some of the inkblots in question (one even was the cover of a book), and they are the same ones. Variations in background colors make no difference. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I see. Which book was that? But "makes no difference" to who? Was that Rorscharch's own view (and that of his proponents) or is it just the view of the US legislature? How different does an image have to become to be seen, legally, as a different image? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If you don't understand copyright law and sincerely want to know, please educate yourself; don't insist other people do it for you. DreamGuy (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have insisted nothing. By simply asking some questions I had hoped that my lack of knowledge might enable you, or any other editor, to educate the community here. If you understand copyright law and sincerely want to explain it to us, please just answer. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

At what point do we file a sockpuppet investigation into single purpose accounts such as User:Danglingdiagnosis, User:Zeitgest, User:Psychology12345 and User:Dolphinfin? It's pretty clear that these accounts exist to try to give the appearance of more people supporting a position than actually exist. It wouldn't surprise me if other socks were at work as well. Maybe if we figure out who is responsible they can all be banned (with the sockmaster) and the constant whining will die down or go away completely. DreamGuy (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll still get my "whining", I can assure you, constant or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
AS long as it's not disruptive and you limit yourself to one account, that's fine. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am neither sockpuppet, nor impressed with the arguments for keeping the images up on the page. The issue is quiet clear to me. It is a matter of ethical conduct. A large, internationally recognized society, the American Psychological Association, includes within its ethical guidelines to protect test material. These test materials are potentially being spoiled by being placed on this page. Although I am not a "sockpuppet" as you call them, I would support their use as part of protecting the test's images. This would be keeping with the ethical principles of the APA. Dolphinfin (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet of Psychology12345 and blocked indef. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is fair to lump Danglingdiagnosis in with these other blatant single purpose accounts. He created his account in 2006 and has contributed to a variety of medical articles over the years. I am going file a checkuser request on the new SPAs that have been showing up to remove the image after work. Chillum 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Dolphinfin, may I ask how you came to find this debate? Were you contacted either in private or through a public forum? Chillum 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to answer. I was bumping around wikipedia today, procrastinating as I often do, and decided to see what was put together for the Rorschach test. My interest is professional, and I recognize that this particular test often generates a great deal of controversy, both within and without the clinical psychology profession. However, the writing is now on the wall, this test is valid for quite a few purposes, and much of the complaints leveled at it in the 1990's and early 2000's have been resolved through empirical work and responses. I see it as an enormously useful tool that has achieved its utility through a great deal of work from a lot of well meaning people. That isn't to say that like ALL technology, it can be used to harm someone, but the preponderance of the use is for helping others. I see that utility of it being threatened and degraded by its posting here. When I saw it I was quite surprised that wikipedia would allow it to be posted. So, I created a name so that I could edit it off; isn't that how this is supposed to work? Only then did I realize that there was so much controversy going on behind the scenes. In general, I am a huge fan of wikipedia. I trust it more than most sources for information, recognizing its limitations. Yet this is one time that the process has failed. There are times when just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it. Just because the information is available, doesn't mean it should be broadcast. I see this as one of those cases. I think that much of the controversy around the Rorschach stems from fear of it. The actual practice and implementation of it is not nearly as nefarious as those who would see it debunked imagine it to be. In fact, it is not nefarious at all. I see the hard work of my colleagues being destroyed (however minutely) through the posting of these cards. I don't see why everyone feels that they are entitled to this information. It is not being kept secret out of some sort of "masonic" or "secret society" ritualism; it is more useful when someone can be exposed for the first time in the testing scenario. I guess I am disappointed that wikipedia has gone the route it has gone with this. Although it may not be copyrighted, it should be protected information. To use the old cliche, I hope those who insist on it being posted on here don't need it at some point, because it may have been worn away as a tool by then. I see many acceptable alternatives, such as a inkblot that is not part of the 10 cards that could serve as an exemplar. Or, to a lesser degree, an outline or two. Please remove them for the sake of clients who seek services of clinical psychologists. That is all I would ask. Dolphinfin (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet another expert opposed to showing the images.Faustian (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet another person who is clearly not a real account, you mean. One vote per person, please. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain to us how you know why Dolphinfin is not a "real account"? I can't believe that your statement was just meant to be plain insult. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Martin, Dolphinfin is an obvious sock puppet and has been indefinitely blocked as such along with his/her other two accounts. Sock puppets are not "real accounts" because they are just one person pretending to be many. It is a way people push their opinion when their arguments fail. Chillum 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see they are now banned. But how is that sock puppetry proved exactly? And how do we know that the sock puppet accounts weren't created to discredit the proponets of image removal? If genuine, it seems to be another example of the ethics of professionals at odds with the rules of wikipedia. If that editor now creates a new single account to continue debate will they be allowed to contribute? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If the "Sockpuppet Investigation" achieves nothing else it has solicited one of the most eloquent and reasonable statements yet added to the whole discussion so far. Thank you, Dolphinfin. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Martin are you encouraging sockpuppets? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
As you can see< Gary, I made this comment before the investigation concluded. The statement still seems genuine to me, partly for the reasons suggested by Faustian. But I'm even less sure now how we would ever decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's more likely that these users were canvassed here from some off-wiki forum. I do hope that none of the regulars are responsible for this, and remind that meatpuppetry carries the same risk of sanction as sockpuppetry. –xenotalk 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have filed for an investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Psychology12345. Perhaps check user results will shed some light on the matter. Chillum 20:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
More like yet another sock puppet opposed to showing the images Faustian. The investigation came back positive. Chillum 03:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: what if one person sees the images, is horrified, and then tells his colleagues who then also chip in, without any instructions from the first guy. Is this meat puppetry? Do people have a right to tell others what they see? and if someone is told by a colleague s their right to contribute forfeited? This seems different from canvassing for support to screw with the system. The talk pages of one of the two "sockpuppets" seemed to suggest it was two guys in the same office who came across the image. I also wonder about the "likeliness" of the third, dolphinfin. His case showed different geography from the other two but was based on "similar behavior" and the fact that it can be accessed remotely (is that rare or something?) Faustian (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
An interesting possibility. The other possibility is that someone here is using proxies. Both a check user and an uninvolved administrator came to the same conclusion as me. Chillum 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Having now read Faustian's comment I am very unconvinced that this sockpuppety has been "proved" at all. But I am guessing, not being an administrator, I have no say in that process? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Being that you have confessed no knowledge of how we flush these things out in the open do you believe your qualified to discredit the process? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It was more of question Gary. But I'm certainly sorry I asked now. So that's how "we" do it, is it? My belief in my own utility here grows smaller by the hour. But thanks for all the encouragement. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The best thing to do, Martin, would be to ask the blocking administrator. You could also comment at Wikipedia:AN#Uninvolved administrator needed for sock puppets. FWIW, checkusers are intentionally vague about how they come to their conclusions, to prevent sockpuppeteers from gleaning much information about how they are identified by technical evidence. That being said, if the CU said "confirmed" then that probable means they were editing from the same IP/browser. "Likely" probably had more to do with locational evidence, which would lend credibility to Faustian's comment above about colleagues discussing and unknowingly becoming meatpuppets of eachother (no doubt this distinction isn't immediately apparent to non-Wikipedians and actually pretty much breaks down as a term if they weren't previously editors). –xenotalk 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you once again, xeno, for taking time to explain and not to make personal judgements. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering they showed up near each other in time, acted the same way, gave the same excuses(compare User talk:Zeitgest with the reasoning Dolphinfin gave above), wrote in the same style, and had technical evidence linking them, I think we can assume it is just someone trying to bypass 3RR and unduly influence the debate with multiple accounts. It happens all the time on Wikipedia. Chillum 19:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation Chillum. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the checkuser, zerttgeist and psychology12345 were "confirmed" sockpuppets. However, the explanation they/he gave makes the confirmation problematic. If indeed it's a case of two people in the same practice or the same graduate department finding out about this page and acting on what they found, wouldn't a checkuser result in a "confirmed" categrization? According to checkuser, Dolphinfin was not a "confirmed" sockpuppet but a "likely" one, based on "Likely IPs are geographically distinct, but are those that can easily be accessed remotely, other technical evidence is similar, and behavioral evidence is similar." This doesn't seem strong enough for something as extreme as a block, in dolphinfin's particular case, and given his explanation for his actions which cover the "behavioral evidence". Moreover, his edit warring stopped after he was informed of it, so at the time of the block he wasn't doing anything wrong. It might very well be a well-intentioned novice wikipedia user who has now been driven off from further contributions, which would be a sad thing. It ought to be noted that the same person calling for the block for sockpuppetry also unfairly accused danglingdiagnosis of being one of the sockpuppets too. We should avoid witchhunts here.Faustian (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You can always ask for further review at Wikipedia:AN#Uninvolved administrator needed for sock puppets. I suspect however that most administrators, like me, will see this as an obvious sock puppet. I wonder how you would feel about these three brand new carbon copy users if they all were supporting the showing of the images? Chillum 00:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I certainly suspected a well intentioned novice and to drive them away would indeed be a sad thing. Perhaps dolphinfin will request an unblock and provide further explanation. It seems unfair to expect novices to always know and apply all the wikipedia rules. I hope danglingdiagnosis has received an apology. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Apology? For what? He's clearly not a new uninvolved editor either. DreamGuy (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I suspect the person who created those three accounts is still using Wikipedia, and possibly even still using this very talk page. Lots of people know how to use proxies, what most people don't know is that some of them forward your IP and if one uses such a proxy they will be revealed by a checkuser. Chillum 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It appears that Dolphinfin did in fact requested an unblock just a three hours after you predicted it. You sure called that one. Chillum 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully their shenanigans will lead to the sockmaster soon. DreamGuy (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And the unblock has been declined. Chillum 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
By whom and where? Looks like a nasty witchhunt, given the facts. I guess we've come to blocking/banning new users, trying to hide the debate on a subpage, etc. as a way of forcing "consensus" and silencing the experts.Faustian (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And, of course, you would be equally appalled if sockpuppets supporting the inclusion of the images were blocked, right? Or does your failure to assume good faith only apply to the blocking of proxy accounts that are on the same side of your little obsession here? Resolute 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
And I suppose we'll never know why the unblock was declined. Let's hope the next new editor here has more success. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Those were not new editors, they were sock puppets. Chillum 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've confirmed via email that Psychology12345 and Zeitgest are distinct users, and still have strong doubts that they are socks of any of the regulars here. I've also verified their assertion that they are indeed both students of the same graduate-level psychology programme. They've been unblocked with the understanding they should participate in the discussion rather than unilaterally remove images. –xenotalk 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead para about ethics

Why is the last lead para about ethics included? It's not about the ink blots or the test at all. I think it should be removed. Verbal chat 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good compromise to balance the concerns of showing the images and an image in the lead with the argument that this may cause harm. It's not a disclaimer per se, but it does at least highlight the concern in an encyclopedic fashion. –xenotalk 19:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The professional bodies responsible for teaching the test and overseeing its use have very strong concerns about the public display of test materials, of which the inkblots are prime examples. These concerns are only made more serious by the fact that the Rorschach may be used to diagnose suicidality. So the para is certainly "about" the inbklots, and if it doesn't seem to be so, perhaps it ought to be improved so that it does. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
So the reason we have this discussion in the lead is because of an argument on wikipedia, rather than for encyclopaedic concerns? It really looks like a disclaimer, and I really don't think that is a good enough justification. (Just so you don't think I'm dumb, I've studied psychology at Uni level (not my main subject, though) and I know many who work in the field.) Verbal chat 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Nor do I. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it reads well, is encyclopedic, and expounds on the final sentence (or "final fragment" seperated by ;'s... what do you call that?) of the 3rd lead paragraph. –xenotalk 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The users of the test, as well as the publisher don't see the ethical concerns as "an argument on wikipedia". If you want to read about the inkblots as if they were pretty patterns in a coffee-table book, then you wouldn't want any ethical stuff. But if you're more concerned about the USE of this test, you need to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I supported that lead paragraph as a compromise, however it seems the compromise did not satisfy anyone because they still argue for the removal of images. It seems like it has accomplished nothing. I agree there are synthesis issues, it is a group of related statements by different sources lumped together to advance a point of view. This seems to be present more for the sake of the debate than the article. Chillum 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It had accomplished quite a lot before people started taking it out without discussion and arguing that it should not be there. I have to agree that the two issues have become entwined - the insistence on the inkblot at the top led to the ethics being put near the top also, where you might not have expected to see them. But as with the later introduction of the ten inkblots, I too have become wary of compromise, as I feel once again that the rug is about to be pulled from under those who want the inkblots not to appear or to appear less prominently. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
When we took the most recent poll nobody sided with the idea of not showing them at all, and most people decided they should be shown as they are. Chillum 21:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
When exactly was that "most recent poll" and what was it's title? Not this one then:[22]? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It is still on this page: #An informal survey for the inclusion of the 10 inkblots. The consensus was clearly in favour of not hiding the images, and nobody supported the idea that they should not be shown at all. Chillum 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see now that your position was against the showing of the images, you just did not count yourself. My mistake. My point regarding consensus stands despite this. Chillum 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I "did not count myself"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
So, voting = concensus? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I was simply pointing out why I did not notice your stated position in the poll, you did not number your position like everyone else did. I never said voting = consensus, there was plenty of discussion to go along with it. Chillum 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"I am not a number, I am a free man". Hmmm, yes plenty. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that it is rather obvious that the images should be included, and if I knew of the debate beforehand I would have said that. That doesn't change the apparent irrelevance of the paragraph in the lead. Verbal chat 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with verbal. If not for the image debate this section would not have been included because it is not really relevant to the subject of the article. Chillum 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am truly astounded that you can suggest that the ethics of psychometric testing are "not really relevant" to the subject of this article. Why is it "rather obvious" that the images should be included? And is it really the task of an encyclopedia just to point out what is obvious? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not relevant because the sources are talking about test material in general not the Rorschach test. Perhaps it would be better suited in an article on medical ethics. There seems to be undue interpretation of the sources, and the way they are presented implies that they are referring to this test. Chillum 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, they're actually refering to ALL tests, this one included. But which other article shows the test materials quite so openly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome Verbal. The conflict is real and not just limited to the English Wikipedia. It is found on the French, the Polish, the Norwegian, the Italian, and it is found prominently on (at least) the first three web-sites listed on Google. Some of these sites are showing the images with the expressed purpose of helping people "beat the test," -- one in circumstances surrounding a custody dispute of children. We can't ignore this dispute. Instead, we're attempting to stand out from the fray and provide a neutral point of view of both sides of the conflict. This is complicated by the fact that the dispute centers around the idea of "pre-exposure" to the images, so we can't expose our readers to the image without showing bias. (e.g. a TV news reporter wearing a fur coat reporting on camera at a street riot between people throwing paint and arguing about animal rights versus the right to wear a fur coat.) We have reputable sources that "categorically" say that the lack of security of these test results can harm the ability of a psychologist to protect the welfare of his patient, and we have letters from the the designers of the test that make the same claim "specifically" to the Rorschach. We also have an article from Scientific American that while highly critical of the Rorschach test (while granting that it seems to do well with diagnosing Schizophrenia and bi-polarism) chose not to publish the photos saying simply "the images cannot be published." Here at Wikipedia, the contention seems to center around whether or how we are to be informed by these sources and weigh them against our goal of providing information. So I'm thinking we have a neutrality WP:NPOVissue up against and WP:NOTCENSORED problem. The question is how much should we let this conflict (this "outside influence" as Chillum calls it) move us in either direction. I think that since
  1. WP:NPOV is so very important, and
  2. Wikipedia can and has provided restrictions on information before, (see WP:IINFO) And
  3. since censorship is not simply an either/or binary proposition, (book burning being one extreme, a movie rating system, Rated PG-13, on the other)
I'm thinking we need to inform our readers about the issue BEFORE they see the images so they can make up their own mind. The spirit of most wikipedia policies is to let the reader make up their own mind, so anything that helps them do that is, I think, very appropriate. Clearly, any compromise is going to hurt each of us Wikipedians in some way, and that's okay with me. I think we need to explore the dynamic tension of this conflict and find a consensus. You're welcome to help us do so. Let's see, did I forget to mention something? Just read the index and find the 6 arguments PRO and the 6 arguments CON, and you can get a good perspective. And welcome. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Having a discussion about ethics in the lead is a compromise. I am happy to see it stay.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should have something, but not what we had for the reasons I gave above. Chillum 04:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not showing the images is not an option. They are relevant, add to the encyclopaedic content of the article, and are PD. Ethics should be mentioned in the article, but only related to this test and not in the lead. WP should not bow to special interest groups in suppressing information, and I'm glad it hasn't. This over the top disclaimer needs significant trimming to meet our policies. I'm afraid whenever I see an ink blot test I either see bats and Kim Basinger, or a Far Side cartoon. Verbal chat 07:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I see an ink blot test I see a Wikipedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Verbal. Having the information in the article at all is a compromise but having it in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think our standard of inclusion for the subtopic "ethics" in the Rorschach test article should be sources talking about ethics and Rorschach tests. Taking sources that talk about testing in general and then applying it to this test is original research. Where are the sources about ethics as related to the topic of this article? Chillum 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It is no more OR to include the Roschach when a source mentions tests in general than to include elephants when a source mentions all mammals just because that specific source did not mention any mammal species specifically. The APA Code doesn't mention any specific tests and the APA statement about the harmfulness of compromising tests doesn't mention any specific tests either. To claim this statement doesn't apply to the Rorschach because the Rorschach isn't specifically named is like claiming that claiming that laws against thefts don't apply when the specific victim isn't listed by name in the law itself. Nice try. Faustian (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
By that logic we could include any source that has general relativity to topic regardless of specifics. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

All tests huh? So this would apply to a reflex test too? Is it unethical to let the public know your going to use a little rubber hammer? Repeatedly sources are being brought up that do not directly apply to the subject and they are being creatively interpreted to support a position they do not support. That is original research. I ask once again, why are there no sources discussing the ethics as related to the subject of the article? If somebody would provide that then we could have a section on ethics that is not original research. Chillum 14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, hammers again, little rubber ones this time. Sorry to have confused you Chillum, but no I meant all psychological tests. I had assumed the context of APA and BPS might have provided a clue. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a great leap to induct that the APA concerns speak to tests where reliable goes down with pre-exposure, and we've sourced that this is the case with the Rorschach. I still think the paragraph is entirely appropriate and encyclopedic. Sure, if we can find another source to attach to it, that's great, but for now I think that in the interests of balancing the concerns we should leave it where it is. –xenotalk 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
From WP:OR: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."
This is exactly what is being done here. All we need are sources that actually talk about this huge controversy being described by a few Wikipedians, and then to limit our commentary to a faithful representation of those sources. Our original research policy makes it clear that A + B does not equal C unless a reliable source has already made that connection for us. We should not be combining sources in this matter. Chillum 14:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I'm surprised we haven't been able to find anything like this. –xenotalk 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Ethics codes do not mention any test specifically just like laws don't mention any potential victim of a crime specifically. There seems to be nothing inherently surprising about this. BTW, the ethics code also doesn't mention by name every person whom the psychologist is forbidden to cheat or steal from. The APA has concluded quite clearly that "The APA states that the dissemination of test materials "imposes very concrete harm to the general public" as well, in that "there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose". Those who implictly claim that the Rorschach inkblots do not constitute "test materials" when they claim that the APA code doesn't apply to the Rorschach becasue the ROrschach isn't listed by name are the ones engaging in OR. Faustian (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but we can find reliable sources on the ethics of stem cell research, and of cloning, and of numerous other medical topics. Where are the reliable sources on the ethics of showing Rorschach test images? It is not the place of an encyclopedia to document a topic that is not already being covered by reliable sources. Our original research policy says that too. Chillum 14:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there something about the ethics, specificlly, of every kind of species of animal to be cloned? Is a source that speaks about cloning "animals" not applicable when mentioning the cloning fo Dolly specifically?Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm not sure why people want this paragraph removed. It doesn't strike me as OR or SYNTH at all. Then again, I may be biased being the one who penned it. –xenotalk 14:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't want it removed, I want it replaced with something more in line with policy. There must be something related to ethics and Rorschach tests out there, and we should accurately reflect what that says. Chillum 15:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. –xenotalk 15:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I am also not sure why a sub-topic is in the lead(other than to act as a disclaimer). The lead is to summarize the topic, this content refers to nothing in the article, rather it is a self contained glob of loosely related sources. I think it should be a section in the controversies section(once we have a source that established that there is such a controversy related to Rorschach tests). Chillum 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
"Ethics in psychology" By Gerald P. Koocher, Patricia Keith-Spiegel , pp 159-160 http://books.google.ca/books?id=KwatUOmKCrUC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=psychologists+outraged+at+rorschach+test&source=bl&ots=N_GPpPM4P9&sig=QzqAQTmkhG4rySHGq8kw9t8rBKI&hl=en&ei=BlpXStvcBo7CNq_puJ0I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8. –xenotalk 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Now that is the start of a good section on ethics. Good find. Chillum 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
But they are exactly the same ethics. And don't appear to be wholly "subjective" either. So, if we knew that black labradors are dogs and that dogs can bite, to state "black labradors can bite" without a verbatim reliable source would be WP:OR, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Both from previous discussion and the above, there was clearly no consensus to add the major WP:NOR and WP:NPOV violating text to the lead, and no consensus exists now, so it will be removed per WP:BRD. If someone would like to propose a new version that is fully sourced to reliable sources and not slanted in such a way as to give WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, by all means write up something to suggest here, and if you get consensus to add it through hammering out the wording, then it will be added, but not before then. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already at BRRRD, so why would you do that before we finish discussing and looking for better sources? –xenotalk 16:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Simple, because we should not be writing the content first then looking for sources, we should find the sources first then write the content. We have at least one very good source now, thanks Xeno, so instead of putting that old stuff back lets write something up from that. Chillum 16:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose moving "removed the inkblot" debate to a sub page

This has been dominating the article talk page for too long. I suggest we set up a sub-page to keep this page manageable. There has been a pitiful level of non-inkblot removal related discussion on this talk page and the article is suffering because of it. I saw the same thing on the Muhammad image removal debates, the article talk page got so blocked up with one issue that it would not function as an article talk page anymore. Once they moved the debate to a sub-page the regular talk page once again began to be used for constructive purposes. It is my hopes that moving this one issue to a sub-page will restore productivity to this page, and benefit the article. Opinions? Chillum 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the editors responsible for most of the actual non-inkblot related content of the article are the ones objecting to the inkblot. As long as no consensus re: the inkblots is achieved, the experts will have little else to discuss. I suppose exiling the inkblot conversation off to some subpage is your way of ending the debate.Faustian (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Again I note that you are falsely trying to claim that all the experts support the removal. If you have nothing else to discuss here, you have no point to even being on the page anymore, because you already lost decisively on the one thing you apparently give a damn about. DreamGuy (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, a lot of false claims all at once. I never claimed that "all experts support the removal." Actually I don't support complete removal from wikipedia of the inkblots. Secondly, name one expert involved here who does not support some sort of suppression of the inkblots. With regards to "the one thing I care about", well, when there is a wound the focus is on healing that wound before moving ontop to other things. I may have contributed more referenced content to this article than all of the one pushing to include the inmages combined. i would like to contribute more, but cannot if the article stands the way it is, because doing so - contributing to an article that harms people - is unethical and immoral. That's where I stand. And most experts would do likewise.Faustian (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Again with the speaking for "experts" (switching from all to "most" doesn't change anything). As far as naming an expert "here" goes, I'm clearly more an expert on this topic than MartinEvans123 is as he doesn't seem to know when the inkblots were made, if the ones being used now are the same ones Rorschach made, and other extremely basic facts about this topic. And as far as the real world goes, plenty of experts think the Rorschach is inherently flawed, so obviously they don't care if the images are here. And you'd have to be pretty addled to think this article could at all harm anyone. DreamGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is completely accurate to state that most experts involved in this debate urge some sort of suppression. The only experts on this topic are psychologists, and almost every identified psychologist involved in this debate supports suppression. This can be easily verifed thanks to Xeno's monumental work: [23]. Sorry if the facts don't agree with you. As for your own self-claimed "expertise", it is contradicted by obviously bizarre statements about almost nobody using the Rorschach or that its supporters are a "tiny minority." The facts, included in the article, are that 80% of psychologists who do work that could potentially involve the Rorschach (clinical psychologists performing asseszsment services) use it and that 80% of graduate programs teach it. Thanks for sharing that you, personally, as a nonexpert apparantly holding a fringe belief concerning the Rorchach's worrthlessness, claim that that "you'd have to be pretty addled to think this article could at all harm anyone." I guess the expeerts whose collective statements about the harmfulness of distributing test materials and stimuli are "addled", right, according to Dreamguy? As for the comment on Martinevens, there you go atttempting to reframe the debate by pretending I said something I didn't say. I said that almost all experts support some sort of suppression. Not that everyone who supports suppression is an expert. Nice try, though.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, where's that reference that tells us the inkblots created by Rorschach in 1921 are exactly the same as those now printed on the cards used by practionners today? There seem to be quite a wide variety of images, like this one: [24] which is described as having been "Bought to Rorschach Institute in the 80's and digitally restored by me." I have never claimed to be any kind of expert, so I'm afraid I can't be in any competition with your good self. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they're the same ones. If they weren't the same ones, you'd have a US copyright law stopping you from printing them, remember? There has been a lot of work to preserve the images as is. In fact, some folks even still use actual plates that were printed in 1921. There were also concerns (that I can't remember where they were in the discussion) about the different background colors: those are just scanning artifacts. The plates are white. Mirafra (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely any editor has the right to be on this page, unless they have been banned. But are experts considered "external forces" and thus not be trusted? I didn't realise it was about winning and losing. I thought it was an encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, you guys have to stop pretending that "experts" means people who agree with you. This is an encyclopedia. You seem to want it to be the mouthpiece of some tiny minority of the psychology profession. DreamGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Where are the psychology profession experts who agree with you DreamGuy? Where's the evidence that "some tiny minority of the psychology profession" would think that showing the inkblot images is wrong (if asked)? Or even, where's the evidence that of those psychology professionals asked only a tiny minority think that? In fact - how many have we even asked? I thought it was being argued that experts such as these are seen as unwanted "outside forces" in wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus right now actually, a strong consensus, that is why the state of the images has been so stable for the last couple weeks. While ending this debate sure would be productive at this point, that is not my goal. Don't worry, once the Muhammad image removal debate moved to its own sub-page it continued for several months and several mega-bytes of text. Moving to a sub-page is not going to give either side any sort of advantage and I am not sure why you would think that. No, the reasons I gave are above, this article talk page is basically being held hostage by this all but settled debate and it is disrupting other work. I don't accept the dichotomy that the page will not be improved until we remove the images. Chillum 13:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There you go again with your false claims of consensus. There is no consensus. If there was, there wouldn't be a big debate.Faustian (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There isn't a big debate, just two people whining about some things that aren't even real concerns (and if they were wouldn't matter as far as our policies are concerned), and some sockpuppets. DreamGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Here you go, apparently falsely accusing everyone but two people of being sockpuppets.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You may not accept it, but there is a consensus, it is plain to anyone without a strong bias. The debate ended ages ago when new arguments stopped being brought up, this is nothing but arguing. Chillum 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is plain to anyone who hasn't read consensus policy or who seeks refuge in majority dictatorship. The fact is that 1/3 are ignored (20 people last time this was counted), in terms of the article layout. No compromise regarding the images has been brokered. All attempts at compromise have been shot down and argued against by you, with support from the majority. Thus, no consensus. No matter how many times you falsely claim there is.Faustian (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you seek outside scrutiny of this consensus? Oh wait that was already done and the consensus still held up. The consensus policy does not say that every opinion should be represented in the article, especially when it is completely contrary and incompatible with the majority of reasoned opinions. You did not win this debate, just accept it. Pretty much every compromise offered involves suppressing the images which is directly against consensus. A compromise should result in more people being satisfied, not less. Chillum 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There you go again with your straw man argument, once again falsely claiming that I stated that consensus means 100% agreement. It seems that you are willing to do anything other than actually address the policy points. We have a majority that refuses to compromise, thus torpedoing consensus (which is compromise). This majority is exploiting an inherent flaw in the system in that there is no mechanism to enforce consensus policy when the majority refuses to follow policy.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely this aspect of debate has been "dominating the article talk page" for so long only because people think it's worth debating? If people wish to debate other topics they should just start a new thread. All but settled? We are still arguing whether or not concensus can even exist unless the minority view has been accommodated instead of being voted out. Why should this debate disrupt anything? If editors wish to improve the article in others ways that is entirely their choice. Improvements of all kinds are worthwhile. But if they choose to debate image display, because they consider it the most important and fundamental question, that too is their choice, whichever side of the debate they support. I agree with Faustian that some people may well see the 11 images of inkblots and deem the whole article unworthy of their efforts. But Faustian should be thanked for at least improving this article throughout the debate despite his insistence that keeping the images here might prevent some others from doing so. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Only the few people who did not get what they wanted are arguing that there is not a consensus. Thank you Faustian for improving this article despite the presence of the images. This debate clearly is disrupting the regular editing of the article, a quick look at the archives shows that. Why do you think that moving to a sub-page would be disadvantageous to your side of the debate? It seems like a neutral move with the best interests of the article in mind. Chillum 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and many people who got what they wanted are saying there is "strong concensus". Is that a surprise? We seem to have different views on what concensus is. The archives are full of debate on the display of images because that's what people wanted to debate. I don't think moving to a sub-page would necessarily be disadvantageous to either side. But I still think it's unnecessary and that the reasons you are giving for doing it are not robust. Let's see what others think. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There's consensus on the inkblots, consensus on the consensus and consensus on the meaning of the word consensus. What next, we have to demonstrate consensus that there's consensus of the meaning of consensus? IT'd be beating a dead horse at thios point to point out that you're beating a dead horse. Enough. DreamGuy (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
All horses still quite healthy, thanks. Chillum was trying to discuss moving image discussions to a sub page? Not a stub page. And you already at the glue factory. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What is that even supposed to mean Martin? Chillum 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That is supposed to mean that I disagree with DreamGuy. In my view the horses are not dead, let alone being beaten. To me DreamGuy sounds here like a Knacker, taking away these horses for boiling down into glue. And it was supposed to mean that your thread here, Chillum, was created to discuss moving to a sub page, not concensus about images. And I still don't know what a stub page is. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Dreamguy can't seem to make any accurate statements today.Faustian (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion of what is accurate and isn't has been shown to be completely worthless. DreamGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
your opinion, as accurate as all your others.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Faustian's opinion of what is accurate has been shown to be worthless at all. And he has made some very useful contributions. I suggest that you apologise for such a derogatory remark, DreamGuy. Chillum - if a sub page was produced for image discussion, would someone need to copy all those places where discussion cropped up about images in other threads (as this certanly tends to happen)? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lets see what others think. Chillum 18:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support the move of this discussion to a subpage.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as well. Lets be honest here, this debate is being maintained by five or six editors at this point: Gary, Chillum and DreamGuy in support of them, Faustian, Martin and Ward (though he hasn't edited in about a month). You six have combined for nearly 2200 edits to this talk page, which is well over half of all edits, and I would be very confident in betting that at least 80% of those edits are related to the image issue. This little battle royale you have going here is completely overshadowing any topic that focusses on the article itself. Moving this private war to a sub page will allow you to continue rehashing your debates while also allowing other discussions to breathe. Resolute 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That does sound like a fair appraisal, Resolute. All other discussions should certainly have room to breathe. For some editors I think the images have been the central issue - if removal or display can't be agreed, any other contributions are seen as a waste of time and/or unethical, or even reflecting poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the creation of image discussion page. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As mentioned in the immediately below thread, I'm testing a subpage method with Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con. As far as I can tell, it's been intuitive enough thus far as several IPs and new users have managed to comment properly there. So for the next image-related thread that comes up, I will make a subpage for it. In the meantime I think we should let everything foregoing archive in the usual way. –xenotalk 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Further Discussions

I agree with Chillum that the use of sub-pages could be helpful. I'd like to see separate sub-pages for each argument: the 6 PRO and the 6 CON. Each sub-page could have a watch function that we could subscribe to. A better organized talk page (or sub-talk page) means a better organized article.

I'd like to point out that there are a number of discussions that are still open.

talk:Rorschach_test##05 - Reputable organizations have been showing the images, too

talk:Rorschach_test##06 Argument Pro - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.

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

talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #3 - It interferes with the workings of another profession

talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.

talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #5 - It violates Wikipedia policy on indiscriminate collection of information.

Also be aware that I'm proposing a new policy called Wikipedia:Involuntary_Health_Consequences. Please come and discuss it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Great idea proposing a policy. We can get some input from the community as to what they think of these ideas. Chillum 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

re the subapge idea: I think it might work. we could transclude all the active ones and even "noinclude" the upper portions of the argument as time passed (that everyone had time to absorb already). This way someone new could go to the transcluded subpage to see all that had come before in that particular debate or "line of argument", as it were. It might get a little messy, but it can't hurt to try. –xenotalk 03:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I've taken the liberty of giving this method a test run with the subpage Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con. Please let me know if this is amenable and I may refactor future image discussion into subpages of this type. –xenotalk 04:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

New arguments go here

Since the above section got filled with off-topic content unrelated to presenting new arguments I am roping off this section for people to present new arguments to the debate. Please keep this sub-section on topic by sticking to new arguments here, if you have anything else to say there are plenty of other threads. Chillum 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

David S Rohde argument

Okay, I admit, I saw the Slashdot article, but I'm not a newbie here.

There was a recent controversy over removing material at David S. Rohde because it would harm a person. While the possible death of a person is more serious harm than the harm caused by showing Rorschach inkblots, it raises some of the same issues. The Rohde case was also different because the New York Times complained and it was one of their own reporters (which I personally think of as a conflict of interest), and Jimbo personally intervened. Suppressing the information there and not suppressing information here has uncomfortable implications about whether we suppress information based on the importance of the person who complains about it. If we're going to be consistent, we should also suppress the inkblots. If we don't want to, perhaps we should rethink our policies on suppressing anything at all.

I've also complained about how policies seem to be written in absolutist ways that don't seem to allow for suppressing information. WP:IAR says it should only be used to improve the encyclopedia (and I can't honestly call protecting outsiders "improving the encyclopedia") and WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't seem to allow us to be censored in exceptional circumstances. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Slashdot debate [25]. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a very interesting comparison case. Perhaps the argument is refected here in terms of the "importance of the organisation" which complains. As far as I know neither APA nor BPS have directly complained (or even if they had, that the ordinary wikipedia editor would necessarily ever get to hear about it?). But I can't help thinking that the APA and BPS might find it hard to flex legal muscles in the same way that, say, a multinational corporation might. In contast, however, some of the argument here has been about protecting Wikipedia FROM unwanted "external forces" i.e. the expert clinicains who use the test and/or those professional bodies who represent them. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My impression is that the vast majority of clinicians won't use this test anymore because it is considered to be so unreliable and unscientific. So the APA or the BPS won't comment because they by and large don't care. (Incidentally is there any evidence that either the APA or the BPS were complaining about this test in particular and not other tests?) JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Your impression is quite understandable if your knowledge is limited to what is put out by the small number of Rorschach critics within the field (an example is this article:[26] )However, as noted in this wikipedia article, in surveys 80% of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services utilize the Rorschach, and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach it. The Rorschach has recently been used by forensic psychologists in 8,000 court cases, during which the appropriateness of the instrument was challenged only six times, and the testimony was ruled inadmissible in only one of those cases. The consensus within the field is clear that the test is useful and indeed it is used and taught frequently.Faustian (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The APA and BPS probably have very little clue about Wikipedia. Plus, they've already published ethical codes that are really quite clear on the matter.Mirafra (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I am sorry, but I don't think looking at a smudge of ink is anywhere near as dangerous as being kidnapped by the Taliban. Chillum 01:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is not. But the principle is the same: causing harm.Faustian (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Name the individual in harm by showing a PD image. Resolute 03:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I will point out that the Rorschach is used commonly in forensic contexts (custody, dangerousness, fitness to stand trial, etc).Mirafra (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Argument for general disclosure of testing materials (after an appropriate time)

I've read through most of the previous discussions, but they are so voluminous that I may have missed this. But has the Pro argument ever been considered for the general disclosure of testing materials -- in ANY field where a test is used to evaluate a significant segment of the public -- after a reasonable time has elapsed? Of course tests must be kept secret for a reasonable period of time to preserve their norming and keep results consistent. But I fully believe that no field should have information that is kept secret indefinitely if it can have significant effects on the general public. This goes for SAT tests and IQ tests, as well as state secrets. Yes, keep the materials secret for a few years, perhaps even a few decades. But at some point, that information should be opened up and made easily accessible to all. It's the only way to allow checks and balances that prevent abuses of power, whether it's by a few high-level politicians or by a profession that controls major decisions made about people's lives through psychological evaluations.

I do not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with the Rorschach test. It isn't relevant to me whether it's complete pseudoscience or whether it's the best psychological test ever created. The fact is that the more people who are able to examine something, the greater likelihood that potential flaws may be detected and discussed. Also -- again, this is not at all a criticism of psychology -- but the history of science has shown that experts can often overlook, disregard, or even be completely blind to significant problems with research in their own field. I'd be making the same argument if civil engineers had some secret algorithm to compute bridge designs or if a plumbers' union had a secret set of rules they used to create the most efficient plumbing in a house. The fact is that most of the time the experts do know what they're doing, but if the public as a whole can't have access to evaluate it, there might be some serious flaws that have been overlooked or even deliberately ignored. I think this is definitely true in standardized test materials I've seen, where questions are often severely flawed and can have ambiguous answers. However, if the methodology behind the creation and evaluation of those questions is not available to the general public, those flaws will never be corrected. I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of most standardized IQ tests, professional personality tests, etc.

In an ideal world, I'd argue for a two-stage release of materials (first publishing them in a specialized location with less restricted access, and then in a completely public venue), since the rise of the internet creates special problems in information management. The first stage in the past would allow for an extended useful lifespan for test materials in most circumstances. But in the internet age, perhaps this is no longer possible. In any case, the Rorschach test is more than 75 years old. Sorry, but I simply can't see any good reason to keep ANY stuff secret for that long, let alone believing that any test could be kept valid and relevant over such a long time span. You want a properly normed test? Think ahead and norm a new test before the old one goes into the public domain. There are probably a hundred times as many psychologists active now as were in Rorschach's day -- how hard is it for someone to make up a new test that does a similar kind of thing (and in fact, somebody should be able to make one that does things BETTER)? People who use patent laws and copyright laws do the same thing (at least they used to before Disney corrupted the whole enterprise) -- they keep creating and progressing if they want to keep making money and being productive. Why should psychologists be any different? And don't give me any crap about "science" being privileged here; the fact is that secret information allow its users special power. Our trust in that power needs to be periodically examined and justified.

Lastly, for those who would argue that if the general public knows how a test works, its results are no longer valid -- so what? People learn and adapt. Maybe if the general public knew more about how psychological tests worked, they might actually improve themselves psychologically in some way. I don't know. Do psychologists know? In just about every other field, new generations require new tests to evaluate the new expectations, knowledge, and culture of the people who are being tested. Do psychologists really think that their ideas or tests have universal applicability for all time in a way that no other field does? Even periodic renorming cannot make a test valid forever; eventually the questions it answers become less relevant, and the field should move on to other tests or methodologies.

Apologies if some of this repeats what others have said. I don't think my main point has been made before in the abstract, however. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The information that would allow the general public to view and debate the scientific validity of the test is already readily available, in the scientific literature. A quick shot I just tossed at the major EBSCO databases (PsycInfo, etc) with the search "subject = Rorschach" yielded over 6000 hits. I appreciate your personal desire to create a set of standards for the use, revision, and renorming of test materials, but the professional world already does that as part of its dynamic peer-reviewed process, and from a far more well-researched point of view than "I can't believe that they still use that old thing." By the way, the current norms for the Comprehensive System aren't 70 years old -- the most recent revisions are in Exner, JE (2002). The Rorschach: Basic principles and foundations of interpretation, Vol. 1. NY:Wiley. Mirafra (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I do note that you seem to assume that I am not familiar with scientific literature in the field of psychology. While it is not my primary discipline, I assure you that I am well-versed in some subdisciplines that overlap with my research. But that is irrelevant. Far from saying, "I can't believe that they still use that old thing," my argument is based not only on trends I have seen in psychology but in many other disciplines throughout the history of science. I am familiar with a number of general disciplines and even some subdisciplines within psychology itself where peer-review does not do its job effectively (for various reasons that I don't need to get into here). And at no point did I imply that there wasn't significant scientific literature on the subject, nor did I imply that there haven't been many renorming attempts over the decades for the Rorschach. I merely stated that the test *materials* themselves are old, and maybe after 75 or 80 years it would be better to design new materials to suit better and/or more specific purposes (as some have; I'm aware of that too) rather than simply collecting new data with old (and potentially flawed) stimuli. There aren't many other examples of specific materials remaining useful for over 75 years in the history of science in the last few centuries, that I'm aware of. Generally, over that span of time in a discipline, the specific interpretation and understanding of the details of how things work changes so much that significant modifications to previous materials are motivated, if for nothing else than because new understanding means that better methods and materials can be developed.
That said, again my primary argument was about the release of test materials (including tests, answers (if applicable), explanations of design, principles used for evaluation) to the general public after a certain period of time. If you note, I did argue that this information first be released in a more limited way (for example, in professional circles, then more generally), but 75 years seems a rather long lifespan to argue (as some of the professional associations apparently do) against widespread dissemination. Norming statistics and similar information is not enough, since statistics can easily be used incorrectly or even deliberately used to manipulate trends in data. Do I really mean to argue that professional psychologists are incompetent? Of course not. But the argument of "leave it to the professionals, who understand what's going on" sounds strikingly to me like the same arguments used to restrict access to state secrets. Everything should be open to more widespread oversight after a period of time; it serves as a check against the occasional myopia of the professionals. I admit that my concern is more about testing in general (whether it be IQ testing, personality testing, or SATs and GREs), but the argument for release of and easy access to detailed information after a reasonable amount of time is just as applicable here.65.96.161.79 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed policy by Danglingdiagnosis

Danglingdiagnosis has proposed a policy regarding possible concerns of health consequences as a result of Wikipedia articles. As it relates dirrectly to this article I have posted it here. See¨: here. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely unrelated, but...

...this is one of the most extensive discussions I've seen on a single topic, and I'm happy to see almost all of it was conducted civilly with little edit warring. That's how things should be done here, and regardless of the consensus you guys come up with, well done! :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While parties on both sides have been stubborn(for better or worse) there have been only occasional assumptions of bad faith, even less instances of incivility, and even less still edit warring. Compared to some debates I have been involved in, this has been very productive. Chillum 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 13
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_8&oldid=1171579412"