Talk:Rorschach test/disclosure

Way too much information

    This test is used with criminals, in job interviews and to get
    licenses! You are telling so much information that anyone can
    have some serious advantage! You shouldn't show all the inkblots!
    Neither the most common answer! This is cheating!  —Preceding
    unsigned comment added by
    187.36.118.141 ([[User
    talk:187.36.118.141|talk]]) 11:13, 4 February 2010
    (UTC) 

Spontaneous responses are what makes Rorschach results valid (See topic "Why this article makes the Rorschach useless", below). If looking inside an MRI chamber made your MRI results meaningless, I guess you'd want that image on Wikipedia too? Because "it's not fair for only radiologists to know about MRI machines"? That's your argument? Really!? And your availability argument is bogus. This breach is NOT equivalent to what's available to the public. A highly motivated sociopath yes, but not an average Googler. I've seen numerous examples of inkblots in widely available books -- but never an actual image included in the test. I can only think of one book that contains ANY of the actual inkblots (I won't name it). A Google image search turns up normative answer data for the actual images only in reference to this wiki article. ... In the doctoral course I took on administering it, we practiced giving the Rorschach to each other. Only after taking the test could you administer it to the next person. That's because the test results are compromised (less accurate) if you've seen the images before taking the test and they're contaminated (completely useless) if you've heard others comment on the images. In fact, at the first class we were eager to see the images (what's an inkblot anyway?), but the instructor only agreed to show us one card on the condition that no one comment on it in any way, even after he put it away. Only after everyone took the test could we discuss the images in class. That's how seriously the issue's treated. We're not on a power trip about it -- that's just how the thing works. I see you don't get that. ... This is one of the most useful tools in a good diagnostic toolbox. If this breach causes the test to fall out of use just to "even the playing field" for criminals and job applicants and gratify the misguided whims of some of non-experts, the collateral damage will be to the mentally ill who will no longer receive the truly informed help they often desperately need. ... And so you've shown them to everybody. Whose life have you enriched? How's the world a better place? Is your "freedom" so intoxicating that you take it at the expense of the mentally ill? Does your "right to know" trump their right to good treatment? Power to the people, man! ... Psychologist are bound by a myriad of ethics to not misuse power. But misuse of power by non-experts might represent a natural limit of Mr. Wales' good idea, which we see exceeded here. This was probably inevitable. If Wikipedia is truly created by "everyone", you'll have the judgment of experts routinely "overruled" because misinformed people who enjoy pushing cultural power buttons will always outnumber experts. Sadly, Jimmy, you've empowered the irresponsible. (Such a shame they're not copyrighted!) Daveandmicasmom (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is appalling that Wikipedia does not heed the fundamental principles of the above commentary; that the APA has principles of test security THAT ARE BEING VIOLATED BY WIKIPEDIA, by showing the Rorschach cards. In this sense WIKI LEAKS all over the society that needs still to benefit from this remarkable test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladrbill7 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Defending the public domain

The general public has seen a vocal minority make ethical complaints against Wikipedia - which is to say, the volunteer contributors who build the encyclopedia and the very small team of professionals who keep it running.

Which is to say, the general public has seen the informed people make their case against wikipedia's position, and the position of the informed people has been overridden.

This isn't a matter of classism, of elitism, of social strata, or populism. This is a matter of one group--yes the minority, we can't all be experts in everything--trying to lay out the case that their expertise demonstrates to be correct, and having it ignored because those with less expertise would strongly prefer for the case to be otherwise. The spectres of elitism, unaccountability, and needless censorship are used to skew the discussion, with both the science and actual, real life therapeutic activities as casualties.--Volkris (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 But Wikipedia also has ethical principles to uphold.  The only actual legal issue noted in the press reports above is that "a German publisher of the images has threatened to sue Wikipedia for posting them".[1]  As explained in Colby Cosh's excellent commentary,[2] Wikipedia is forced to follow the copyright restrictions imposed by the Copyright Term Extension Act, an appalling piece of legislation which handed over decades of our shared cultural heritage to great-grandchild heirs in exchange for nothing at all.  It should be no wonder that when a property actually expires to the public domain, we'll need more than a few vague fears to convince us that we still have no right to know about it.

It is not difficult to raise fears that encyclopedia articles about all sorts of topics will risk some sort of negative impact. But we have to decide whether we believe in a society where most people are only allowed to know some few things that more enlightened heads decide are useful enough to them to justify any potential dangers and social problems they might create. If one believes in such a society, then Wikipedia has the responsibility to ensure that only magicians know magic, only psychologists know psychology, only chemists know chemistry and only the government should know how government decisions are made. But if we have any faith that freedom of inquiry is a good thing, and a democratic sense of equality is not a failed experiment, then we must believe that any foreseeable negative impact will be offset by positive advances that may be more difficult to predict or understand.

In this case, we already see the positive impact unfolding. As the article provokes discussion throughout the news media, some have begun to ask why people should have different legal rights based on what shapes they see in an inkblot, particularly when there is no consensus even among psychologists that the test is useful.

There is a good deal of consensus that the test is useful. Every year there are numerous analyses and metaanalyses--not to mention consistent activities of expert organizations and journals--that show solid scientific consensus about the usefulness of the Rorschach in trained hands. Meanwhile the arguments of critics have been effectively refuted. This information has been presented here, and any argument based on the idea that there is no consensus amounts to intentional and irresponsible ignorance of the situation.--Volkris (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The progress that society can make from a skeptical reexamination of psychological practice would already seem to outweigh any damage that has been alleged above. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well put could not have said it better myself.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This comment is a classic straw man argument meant to misrepresent the side that wishes not to include the questions and answers to the test. The author writes "But we have to decide whether we believe in a society where most people are only allowed to know some few things that more enlightened heads decide are useful enough to them to justify any potential dangers and social problems they might create." Of course I and psychologists would agree that most people should not be forced to know only "some few things!" The problem is that Mike Serfas provides a false misrepresentation of what the minority wants. We do not want " society where most people are only allowed to know some few things." We want a very narrow and specific limitation - no cheat sheets (questions and answers) to tests that are used to help people. Other than test questions and answers the more encyclopedic information the better! Is that clear enough? We do not advocate that "only psychologists know psychology" as falsely claimed, only that test questions and test answers ought not be leaked. It's as simple and limited as that. Leaked questions and answers to psychology tests make articles on those tests no more encyclopedic than leaked questions and answers on the SAT or some other test would make articles on those subjects "encyclopedic." A "democratic sense of equality" brought about by leaking psych tests is no different than one for medical licensing exams ("why shouldn't everybody be able to practice medicine? let's leak all the questions ans answers..."), etc.

When you leak the test questions and test answers to a history test you rob that test of its purpose: to examine how well students have learned history. A history teacher objecting to leaking this information does not wish that history remain a secret known only to him (on the contrary!). He just wants to be able to tell how well his students have learned and it's much harder for this to be done if he can't use a test to do it. Similarly, when you leak the questions and answers to a medical licensing exam, you rob that exam of its ability to test whether or not people are qualified to practice medicine. This makes it much harder to determine whether or not someone is qualified. The purpose of the Rorschach is help the psychologist make accurate diagnoses in order to help people and society. Mr. Serfas' statement that "is no consensus even among psychologists that the test is useful" is absolutely false. There is some controversy between a small group of psychologists led by James Wood and the majority over whether or not it is overused but even Wood, the Rorschach's main opponent, states that the test is not worthless (see this article. This controversy can be adequately described (and ought to be) in the article without including the tests' "cheat sheet" (its questions and answers). Even Wood states that the Rorschach is good at detecting thought disorder. Thus, by posting its questions and answers it becomes more difficult to accurately diagnose thought disorder; a tool for doing so has ben compromised. People might be given pills for it that they otherwise would not have been given, or conversely not be treated for something they have. Most psychologists would welcome a lot of encyclopedic information about the Rorschach in the article. It would be useful to dispell some of the scary myths about the tests, etc. They object to including information about the test. Just not the test's questions and answers.

So no, psychologists on this forum are not monsters lurking in lairs, or a secret society doing unknown and scary things which must be exposed, which is the picture you and others seem to be trying to paint. They're just people defending a test used to help people which, like most tests, gets damaged if the questions and answers are leaked all over the internet. It's rather difficult to engage in a dialogue when the other side misrepresents the minority position to such a huge degree, and then others vote or make decisions against this minority based on the misrepresentations rather than the actual position. I hope that this has cleared things up for you and others.

Some people have claimed that psychologists and others want to bring back the "dark ages" by not having questions and answers to tests on this page. I invite you to consider if maybe there is some of that going on on the other side? There was a time when "common sense" indicated that it was ridiculous that people were descended from monkeys. The science, backed up by thousands of studies, is clear that the Rorschach works - but "common sense" tells some people unfamiliar with it that the idea that what is seen in inkblots can tell you something about that person is ridiculous. Or that some kind of "magic" is involved (scientists were once accused of witchcraft). At the risk of making a mirror argument (in terms of hyperbole) to Mike Sefras' anti-Rorschach statement, I can't help but wonder if this crusade against the test is kind of a 21st version version of some regular folk busting up a science laboratory 150 or 300 years ago. I would argue that if as a result of actions such as this psychologists become forced to publish their studies in controlled limited access journals rather than in ones openly available in academic libraries, if textbooks are forced to be sold only under rigid controls (a 21st century version of having to hide their work from the pitchfork wielding angry mob - not that everyone wanting to include this info wants to destroy the tst), this will be more of a return to the dark ages (or at least a taste of them) than not publishing test questions and answers.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is smashing up laboratories. We are simply documenting relevant, verifiable, and publicly available information about the subject of this article. If any of this information was really a secret then we would not have reliable sources on the subject on which to base our article. It seems your objection is not over the documenting of these facts, but that it is being done in a resource that is more accessible to the common person than a textbook(which that same person could also look at).

I am very sorry that this test is so sensitive to people knowing information about it, but the whole point of this article is that people end up knowing about the subject. There is no point in characterizing our attempts to make an encyclopedia as some sort of campaign against science, it is simply not so. In fact I think we are furthering science by letting those who seek to learn about a subject do so. Just because our goals happen to be at odds does not mean we are out to get science. Chillum 14:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Does someone have to "know the subject" of every other test by knowing its questions and answers? We are "furthuring science" by making a scientific instrument less useful? By forcing scientific researchers to make their research less acceible for fear someone will leak into onto popular websites? Really?Faustian (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't have the "answers" we have common responses. We don't even have the questions, we have the images used with the questions. We are documenting the subject of the article. You have yourself stated numerous times that there is no "answers" to this test. You have to first convince me this is a cheat sheet before using that claim as the basis of your next argument.

How can it not be blatantly obvious that this is tantamount to a cheat sheet? You know the test involves analysis of answers the subject produces on his own in a controlled environment, and you know by giving out this information ahead of time the subject will come up with answers outside of that controlled environment. How is this not absolutely the same as a student working on test questions outside of the controlled environment of an examination room?--Volkris (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And as I have said before, this test is already as damaged from exposure as it is ever going to get. It is all over the place, google, libraries, books stores, dozens of other websites. You can't put the egg back into the shell. Chillum 15:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In this test, the questions are the images and the common responses are the answers. I have never stated "there is no "answers" to this test". But this section is devoted to Mike Sefras' comment not about other arguments that have been addressed elsewhere.Faustian (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You know very well that there are not "right" and "wrong" answers to this test. It is up to the person how they want to interpret it, they don't fail if they see different things than the 10 tops answers on Wikipedia. If you did use the top 10 most common answers here it would not give you an A on the test either. Chillum 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, why do you think that because the answers are not classed as right or wrong they are not answers? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am saying it is not a cheat sheet. It is an encyclopedic article. If you read an encyclopedic article about a test before taking it of course it is going to effect the test, but that does not make it a cheat sheet. This mis-characterisation is not helpful or productive. Chillum 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

          It's a c

It is an article that includes the test's actual test questions and test answers (i.e., a cheat sheet). Look up Britannica entries on various tests and see if they have such information.Faustian (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Britannica, but have you noticed that the Spanish Encarta has some test images and so does the Encyclopedia of Mind Disorders? --LjL (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't access Spanish encarta (I'll take your word for it), but English Encarta uses a simulated image, as does Britannica, the "gold standard." Anyways, the point is that the argument about being "Encyclopedic" seems odd given that most Encyclopedias don't do this.Faustian (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I said Spanish because I had checked the others, rest assured I would have said it if I had found the English version doing it too. Anyway "encyclopedic" (at least here) doesn't mean "something other encyclopedias do", it means something verifiable and relevant to a topic, mostly. Wikipedia isn't a dull copy of other encyclopedias, fortunately.

No, Faustian, I'm also sure that no one is out to get you. And I agree with you 100%. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Faustian says that the psychologists here are "just people defending a test used to help people". I just don't believe this. If they wanted to help people, then they would support publishing the test so that more people could use it. Or they would support discrediting the test, so more people could see how bogus it is. There are no studies that show that the test works. It is just voodoo. But if the test did work, then I would be all the more in favor of publishing it, and all the more against what psychologists do with the test. Roger (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you don't believe it. You believe that the ethics code exists to make money for psychologists. Anyways, so according to you if psychologists would want to help people they would support giving the test answers and questions out "so that everyone could use it"? Really? So if medical licensing boards wanting to help people they would also give out the answers and questions so that everybody could pass the test also?As for your statement that it doesn't work - well, it's your opinion versus hundreds if not thousands of published studies.Faustian (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So a case of "heads I win, tails you lose", Roger? (provided those pesky psychologists don't just pocket all the coins, of course). But I'd be a bit careful about accusations of voodoo, even in the untouchably safe realm of Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If the medical licensing boards were claiming to be helping people with a secret test, then maybe I would favor publishing that also. If you are right that the test works, then we should publish the inkblots so the general public can see whether or not it works. And yes, I think that the test should be published whether it works or not. Roger (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder could you explain how "the general public" will be able to judge if the test "works" or not? They may not have knowledgable Wikipedia editors there to guide them? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I see where Roger is coming from. If he agrees that, say, medication works, does Roger also believe that the general public ought to be able to prescribe themselves medications without the requisite training and supervision that prescribers are required to have also? Is this where he is coming from?Faustian (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Evenso, while self-medication is perfectly possible, I don't quite see how self-Rorschach can be. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do think that info about prescription drugs should be available in WP articles, without being censored by the drug companies or by physicians who may profit from their patents' ignorance. Roger (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain, Roger, how not seeing a certain image before a psychological assessment counts as "ignorance"? Which aspect of information about prescription drugs would equate with, say, a description of inkblot images? And why do you seem to think that all health-care professionals are interested only in financially fleecing their patients? - what would Doc James make of your wild accusations? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This inkblot info in WP is not just available for those being assessed; it is available to anyone. I hope that the info about prescription drugs is more valid than these silly inkblots. If DocJames is keeping info from his patients, you'll have to ask him about that. Roger (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Um ok, if you dont want to even discuss "the silly inkblots", let's try some other questions. Which "drug companies or ... physicians" are censoring the informaton about prescription drugs which appears in Wikipedia? Which are of them are profiting from "their patients' ignorance"? And how? Are these part of an analogy you are making? Are they a direct comparison? Or are they just more wild unsubstantiated claims which have nothing at all to do with the Rorschach? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the drug companies are not trying to censor info in the way that psychologists are. If the drug companies try, then I would probably say that WP should go ahead and post the useful info, even if it is against drug company wishes. The drug companies would have to come up with some very strong reasons for me to even consider an argument for censorship. Roger (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for the hypothetical concern about a totally different subject. This straw-man makes Doc James' look positively substantial. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Drug companies are very smart. They know that such an attempt would make it look like they have something to hide. Chillum 19:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, we are not giving out pills. Who said anything about self medication? Your comparison once again does not match that which it is compared to. It would be more accurate to compare this article with an article describing the effects of a medication, not allowing people to self-prescribe. Nobody here is attempting to actually conduct this test so your analogy joins the collection of false analogies on this page(smashing laboratories, putting up hazard signs where there are no hazards, helping people medicate themselves without a prescription).

Why is it that when reason fails to convince people of a point, that there is a tendency for those who have failed to convince to resort to false analogies? Is it easier to form a rebuttal to something your opponent did not say instead of addressing what was said(see Straw man)? Chillum 14:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The false analogy is the one starting this section. By publishing the cheat sheet (questions and answers to the test) you are helping to destroy it - so the analogy to smashing laboratories is correct. I addressed what was said in the lengthy passage above. The real straw man here is when people say that this is about psychologists wanting a society "where most people are only allowed to know some few things that more enlightened heads decide are useful enough to them" and that "in such a society, then Wikipedia has the responsibility to ensure that only magicians know magic, only psychologists know psychology, only chemists know chemistry and only the government should know how government decisions are made.". Since you never challenged this false description of what the minority wants to do , I can assume you agree with it. And that's the real straw man here.Faustian (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is pointless to use "cheat sheet" as the basis for further debate when the claim that it is a "cheat sheet" has not yet been accepted. Please don't assume I agree with things I have not commented on. You have a very poor record of accuracy when it comes to reading my mind so please stop trying.

I don't know what your motives are, I certainly don't associate it with the actions of psychologists in general. Frankly I don't think your opinions represent the field at large, I think they are just your opinions. Chillum 14:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The opionions of the field at large with regards to the security of questions ans answers to any psychological tests are expressed in the by the APA, the organization that represents 150,000 psychologists and is the largest professional organization for psychologists in the world. It states here:"Disclosure of secure testing materials (e.g., test items, test scoring, or test protocols) to unqualified persons may decrease the test's validity. Availability of test items to an unqualified person can not only render the test invalid for any future use with that individual, but also jeopardizes the security and integrity of the test for other persons who may be exposed to test items and responses. Such release imposes very concrete harm to the general public - loss of effective assessment tools. Because there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose (in some instances only a single instrument), they cannot easily be replaced or substituted if an individual obtains prior knowledge of item content or the security of the test is otherwise compromised." This is the collective opinion of the field. You are, of course, welcome to think whatever you wish.Faustian (talk)

Just a thought, perhaps the field at large, content with a limited number of test or in some cases even a single instrument, and without any pressure to diversify the test and/or research into the possibility of creating robust tests, has evolved less than it could have. Like other fields have. --LjL (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The time and resources into developing tests makes it unlikely that a useful test will be replaced by a completely new one. As in the Holtzman, often the new one turns out to work less than the other one. The pharmaceutical industry can afford to do this; psychology can't. What typically happens is the useful test is continually revised, new norms developed, perhaps new items, which is a better use of reosurces than starting over.Faustian (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What if encryption and computer security people in general had historically made the same reasoning? I know, you say it's a different situation. It probably is. But I assure you that the argument you made would sound quite convincing if made by a CS research... were it not for the fact that they have realized since a long time that, despite appearences, avoiding progress to safeguard what already exists is not the "better use of resources" in the long term. --LjL (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is the amount of time and resources that go into each psych test, in addition to the loss of scientific data each time a test is abandoned (research is cumulative, building on what was discovered in the past). As someone said earlier on this same topic, it's not like reformulating a program, but going back to the abacus.Faustian (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not impossible. But which of these "other fields" have been equally affected by the expiry of copyright and the effect of the internet on the accessibiity of its test materials? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been accepted by you, which doesn't make it inaccurate. So please clarify - do you agree with Mike Sefras' statement that begins this section or not?Faustian (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no comment on that. I really think it goes beyond the scope of this talk page. What is more, it is talking about the field in general. I don't think the field in general has been much of an issue on this page, just a handful of individuals who claim to be part of the field. Chillum 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, Faustian's point about medication was a question to Roger, not a false analogy. My own analogy about warning signs was a comparsion given in good faith (about the effect that context may have on the interpretation of an image) and was in no way intended as a "straw-man". I was not "resorting to" anything, thanks very much. So you seem to be left with a collection of one - the point about destroying science which Faustian has now explained further. And I agree with him that the real straw-man here is the one presented at the start of this thread. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to reply down here even though you replied up there, I would prefer to keep this linear. What I meant was that the field in general has not been harassing Wikipedia to remove this content, just a small handful of people here. Chillum 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So according to you I and others in the minority expresing our opinions are "harrasing wikipedia." Thanks for the insult and assumption of bad faith.Faustian (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been over two yours that you personally have been actively trying to cull the content of this article. What else would you call unrelenting insistence on arguing points that have been rejected time and time again? I think this article is suffering due to it too. Chillum 15:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, your language is a little biased here? What may be seen as a "cull" by you is seen as "refinement" by others, myself included. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I said culled and I meant it. The pictures, any significant modern criticism, information about how people respond, what will this small group of people demand we remove from the article next? This "refinement" is nothing more than removing valid content without any basis in policy and in direct opposition to our policies and best practices. Chillum 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I never supported removal of any significant modern criticism. I only support removal of the test questions and answers. Nothing more. Period.Faustian (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, your colourful language continues. I would be grateful if you could show where, in any contribution I have ever made to these talk pages (or indeed to any wikipedia page) I have ever demanded anything at all? In fact, I'd be surprised if you could find many literal demands at all from the small group . Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this is inappropriately loaded language ("demands" and "culling"). When you add more information that further violates test security, then you've added to the list of things that the professionals would like to have removed. We're not the ones who keep moving the goalposts.

And agreed that the concern about the modern criticism is a completely different issue, that of NPOV. I would not support removal of that information, only putting it in appropriate context without undue weight. The problem is that people are not putting in a reasonable balance between the various points of view in terms of their actual scientific support. Writing a good summary of the balance of a dispute within the scientific literature is quite a difficult task, particularly when you don't have much expertise in the field. Mirafra (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I understand that User:Faustian doesn't think he is advocating any large limitation on Wikipedia. The problem is that if we could philosophically accept the idea of removing public domain inkblots (and descriptions of what images are normally seen, and perhaps also such information as that those tested are also rated based on whether they turn the images upside down, etc.) to protect a handful of readers from potentially having a different result from a test ---- then how can we possibly consider to include a photo of an embassy, bridge, power plant, or military headquarters that might help to facilitate an actual terrorist attack? How can we include articles about explosives or war gasses that might help someone prepare for an infamous act? Perhaps I should have given such examples to begin with, but (ironically...) I was feeling afraid that if I brought it up some people might be more inclined to follow the slippery slope in the other direction. We should have more faith in a free society - even in its sacrifices. For every ten children who look at the article about acetone peroxide and manage to harm themselves or others, it may be that one more learns to stabilize her basement bombs and eventually goes on to create a liquid O₈ based propellant with the specific impulse to allow far more ambitious journeys in space. We have to decide whether we are guided by fear or by trust in what people can do with knowledge.

The SAT was mentioned as a parallel. Looking over that article it mentions, for example, that scores on the essay section are highly dependent on length, directs readers to a (sadly incomplete) study guide on Wikibooks, and makes mention of the small industry of firms seeking to provide students with as close a match to the questions and format of the SAT as can be achieved. Does this trouble anyone's ethics? Even movie "spoilers" (or worse, inline references citing bad reviews...) have a potential and perhaps more tangible financial impact on the film industry. The effect of exposing some readers to Rorschach images is also a financial impact, at most, because as admitted above the question is only whether psychologists can afford the "time and energy" to make a new test.

I said that "there is no consensus even among psychologists that the test is useful". The source that User:Faustian cited to refute me states that "some sectors of psychology regard the test as an unfortunate vestige from the discipline’s past, only one step removed from tea leaves and crystal balls."[3] I think the political question some have asked may not be whether the test is useful, but whether a court that refuses to accept polygraph results should allow Rorschach results to influence its decisions. Mike Serfas (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Mike Serfas continued to misrepresent the arguments when he stated, in reference to the opposition to leaking the questions and answers to a psychological test (and nothing else about it) that how can one therefore allow photos of embassies, bridges, power plants, etc. Simple - many steps not involving wikipedia's image of a bridge are necessary in order to, say, blow up that bridge. In contrast, posting the questions and answers to psychological tests is all that is needed to damage the test's usefulness. So Mike Sefras' analogy is false. Indeed, I can think of no situation truly analogous to this one. Perhaps, posting step-by-step instructions on how to build a bomb, where and how to obtain the materials, and how to conceal one's activities until the bomb explodes. But even in this case, it requires the person to peform all the actions (finding the ,aterials, building and planting the bomb, etc.) himself. Wikipedia doesn't do all those things for the person. Posting questions and answers on wikipedia, in contrast, requires no additional steps whatsoever to cause harm. Wikipedia is, in this case, the direct agent of harm. However in making his point Mike Serfas' expressed a hypothetical willingness to sacrifice harming 10 children and/or others for the sake of some scientific advance that is quite disturbing: "For every ten children who look at the article about acetone peroxide and manage to harm themselves or others, it may be that one more learns to stabilize her basement bombs and eventually goes on to create a liquid O₈ based propellant with the specific impulse to allow far more ambitious journeys in space." Mike, do you really believe this is acceptable? This seeming disregard for the risk of harm may be reflected in the comment that "effect of exposing some readers to Rorschach images is also a financial impact, at most, because as admitted above the question is only whether psychologists can afford the "time and energy" to make a new test." Well, no. If someone with paranoid schizophrenia and access to a computer is able to render a tool that can detect his problem useless, and subsequently harms himself or others, the effect is not financial "at most" but quite physical and psychological. Forensic wards of hospitals or prisons ar full of people who have harmed themselves or others due to going undiagnosed, people who when untreated had killed loved ones, only to regret it after only when it was too late receiving the treatment they needed. With respect ot Mike Sefras' final paragraph, I would like to remind him that consensus does not mean universal support. Indeed minority dissent against the consensus is quite common in science. For example, there are some sectors within the scientific community that dispute that global warming is man-made (in a 2009 survey summarized here only 47% of petroleum geologists felt that climate change was man-made). Consensus within the scientific community is that the Rorschach is useful. And Mike Serfas' statement comparing the Rorschach to the polygraph is based on a false understanding of how the Rorschach is used. The Rorschach is not used to diagnose in the way that a polygraph is used to tell whether or not someone is lying. Rather it is a tool, sometimes a critical one, to provide information that helps the expert to see what is going on and to then base his expert testimony on the findings. By posting the questions and answers to the test you are robbing the vulnerable people who benefit from such tests of this tool (and let's face it, the people hurt most by what is being done here are those who end up hurting themselves or others due to not getting diagnosed properly, people who have committed crimes going to prison, and then reoffending once they are released because they weren't treated, rather than receiving the treatment they need, etc.)

So, to repeat, psychologists do not object to any information about the Rorschach or any other test other than, specifically, the test questions and answers. No opposition to embassy or bridge photos, no opposition to discssion of controversies or test usefulness. Just the questions and answers. No matter how you or others try to twist it to mean something sinister or far-reaching it all comes down to only that.Faustian (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're making progress here. I don't see evidence for your statements. The polygraph was not excluded from evidence because it was a lie detection test but because it was unreliable. (See brain fingerprinting for further developments) Certainly I never suggested that the harm that comes to curious children every year because they can access scientific information is acceptable - my point was quite to the contrary. But anything we would do to stop it would be the beginning of something even worse. We need to have faith that if we do the right thing - trust common people to learn what they like - things will work out for the best in the end, even if it is impossible to see or predict just how that could happen. Some day the lives of a hundred million children might be saved by cheap emissions-free energy from space, and it might all begin when we allow one curious young reader to see potentially dangerous information on Wikipedia. Mike Serfas (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see that any evidence is required to support the assertion that display of the inkblot images directly allows for harm in a way that display of images of bridges, or embassies or bombs (or merely articles describing such) does not. Once the article page here is opened, the viewing of the inkblot requires no conscious thought at all, much less any understanding of concepts, formulation of plans and eventual action on those plans. The viewing of the image is immediate and unavoidable. So I'd have to agree with Faustian that any analogy with images of (or articles describing) bridges, embassies, bombs or acetone peroxide and so on, is misleading. But could you also directly explain the benefit that arises from displaying the inkblots (unless it is because you wish to help to destroy what you consider to be a useless psycholgical technique)? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that SPAdoc, whose opinion you should consider relatively authoritative given his credentials, repeatedly stated that the problem he sees is not with people viewing the inkblots accidentally, but ones studying them deliberately. Why would he have said that? --LjL (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Should I? I think perhaps we should ask him why he said that. I'd suggest that there will be a wide range of reader responses between "fleeting glimpse" and "prolonged visual study", any or all of which might give rise to harm. Do you not see any difference between looking at an inkblot and making a bomb? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, making a bomb is way more dangerous. Anyway, what you "suggest" "might" happen when "fleeting glimples" are taken... well, it's interesting, but - I assure you - is bound to extremely little bearing on the article. --LjL (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So are you agreeing with Mike Serfas that seeing inkblot images here is analagous to making bombs by reading about them here? Mike Serfas is also just suggesting what he thinks might happen, isn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just an analogy. I find it's probably more or less valid, provided that seeing the inkblots accidentally doesn't really cause harm, but only studying them deliberately might. If this is not the case (although I believe it probably is), then the analogy won't apply.

And mind, you're perfectly free to "suggest what you think might happen", as is Mike; I was merely pointing out that, when your suggestion contradicts that of an editor with such credentials as SPAdoc (which is close to a source, really), it's unlikely to be taken in serious consideration. On the other hand, I always mantained that having credentials doesn't give someone objectively more weight on Wikipedia, and that reliable sources rule on content, not meta-content (like decisions on what content should be suppressed).

So really... I'm just saying that (under the wrong assumption that sources decide on meta-content), given the sources we have, including but not limited to SPAdoc, claiming that accidental exposure may cause harm really does realistically require evidence, because it contradicts said sources. --LjL (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, every decent source I've seen, as well as virtually everyone here, have agreed that it's virtually impossible to cheat the test in the direction of faking normality, so your example of someone going undiagnosed because of cheating is, well, extremely weak. At worst, someone who doesn't want to disclose a pathology may manage to invalidate the test, but that hardly takes any information to achieve (one easy way is to refuse to take it!).

Also, you may keep saying that psychologists only object to test questions and answers and nothing else, but that doesn't automatically make 1) comparisons with other situations where, in our opinion, the same objection would apply if they were valid 2) pointing out of other aspects of test information "disclosure" that would, in our opinion, fall into the same realm... invalid. They're still quite valid. There are other information on Wikipedia that may be harmful, and we publish them anyway; there is other information about the Rorschach in its article that's not just question and answers, and if the latter are harmful, then so will be the former. Just saying "but we don't object to those things" doesn't refute anything.

It's nice, on the other hand, to see you agreeing that consensus doesn't mean universal support ;-) --LjL (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While it is difficult if not impossible to "cheat" on the Rorschach having the cheat sheet (questions and answers to those who don't like that term) render it invalid. One can't "fake normality" but one can make the Rorschach "unusable." Which is obviously bad for making an accurate diagnosis, because it essentially removes a necessary tool. There are axctually three ways that including the questions and answers are harmful. One is in terms of people who simply come across the images. The second is people with mental illness who are not responsible for their actions who actively spoil the tests for themselves (the example of the person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia who doesn't want people to catch on theat he knows they are all spies or aliens who want to thwart his plans for revenge). The third is in forensic cases where people want to hide the fact that they are psychopaths. Only in the last category can one's actions be described as truly voluntary. I have never stated that consensus means 100% support. To Mike Sefras: of course the Rorschach is reliable; hundreds of studies prove this and the consensus within the field is that it is. A very small minority disagrees with the consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 September 2009

Case 1: We can reasonably assume, according to sources we have, that accidental exposure is not really an issue. Case 2: Since that will result in invalidating, not really cheating successfully, how is it different from the subject merely refusing to take the test in the first place? Case 3: Ditto. They can invalidate the test using information from Wikipedia, or they can invalidate it by just giving absurd answers, or they can refuse to take the test in the first place.

Answer me this directly, please: given that we agree that you can't "cheat" the test but merely render it invalid, how is it any different from refusing to take the test at all? --LjL (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

People think they are cheating it when they are not. They are not making the decision to not take it, they are making the decision to try to cheat on it. Without this info, the result would still be a valid test. With the info, their cheating attempt results in an invalid test. So this info makes an otherwsie useful tool invalid. Instead of helping the expert determine if someone is psychotic, or if they are psychopaths who are dangerous to others, etc. it now tells us only "the person tried to cheat." (for reasons that the test can't help determine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs) 12:06, 3 September 2009

Well, that is easily fixed. You just need to state in the article that cheating it is not possible. There's a very high probability that people actually trying to cheat will not skip that statement, as they'll be eager to read as much information as they can from the article. And you know what the good news is? Such a statement is already there in plain words ("[...] even though cheating is held to be practically impossible"). It could perhaps be made more prominent. --LjL (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't help the fact that the article is directly helping to prevent sick people from getting the treatment they need and psychopathic people from concealing their risk to society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 September 2009

I see you've gone into I can't hear you mode, ok. --LjL (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No LjL, I don't think anyone has "gone into I can't hear you mode". Why do you assume that all of those people who do want to "cheat" the test in some way will have any inclination at all to actually read the article? Surely it's perfectly feasible to study the images without readig any of the text? Surely in such cases any statement such as "it is not possible to cheat" can have no effect whatsoever? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

True, they don't need to read the article, in fact they could just type it into Google images and skip Wikipedia all together. Chillum 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

First, he's gone into "I can't hear you" mode because he didn't bring in anything new, just restarting the whole argument from scratch. Based on what he said, I could as well re-post the same stuff I have already posted, and it would follow suit fine.

Second, uhm... how would anyone cheat by merely looking at the images, but without reading anything about their supposed right or wrong or whatever answers? If (and that's a big if) accidental viewing is an issue, then even merely staring at the images would be relevant; but in case of "cheating" attempts, I really don't see how. --LjL (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So is there some kind of categorical division here - browsing and unplanned viewing = "accidental", deliberate studying = "cheating"? I'd suggest there is more likely to be a gradual scale of involvement along which different users' activities may fit. Does SPAdoc make explicit claims about cheating? What evidence does he offer to support his expert view? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, you have the talk page archives just as much as I do. I can't be bothered to dig them up at the moment. I'd say there's definitely a categorical division between the concept of "harming" people by making them "accidentally" view something, and the concept of people "harming themselves or other" by deliberately studying something to find ways to cheat it. It's a difference that seems exceedingly clear to me, to be honest. --LjL (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that people who are mentally ill sometimes (as in the case of people suffering from psychosis, the exact example I gave and exactly the sort of people for whom use of the Rorschach is not even controversial) are not responsible nor capable of making informed decisions. How do you think such a person wil feel after he hurts himself or loved ones, gets caught and then treated, and realizes that thanks to the convenient "cheat sheet" on wikipedia people testing him didn't have all the tools necessary to catch what was going on? An article like this is sort of comparable to putting a drunk man in a car, putting the keys in the ignition and sending him off.Faustian (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No. In the worst case, it's comparable to leaving a car with the keys in in a parking place. --LjL (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Right outside a bar with the door open, where if not for your action there would be no car there and the chance of the person finding the car somewhere else and driving it is much much lower than the chance of him driving it now because you made the car with the key in the ignition so much more accessible by parking it right outside the bar.Faustian (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Look", do you actually intend your enthusiasm to come across consistently as mixture of patronising scorn and condescension? Perhaps you can't be bothered. But I didn't make the claim on SPAdoc's behalf. There may be a distinction, but they are both forms of harm. We all agree, don't we, that it's possible to study in depth without realising there is any harm attached - that's why we have "Protection of test items and ethics" in the Controvery section, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No. --LjL (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight Faustain, you are saying that if a sick person chooses to hide their illness and uses information on Wikipedia to do so, then Wikipedia is somehow at fault? For one thing it is not our actions but the actions of the person seeking to conceal it. Secondly, as LjL has pointed out all they need to do is refuse to take the test. Thirdly, if a patient wants to conceal an illness from their doctor then all the power to them, doctors are not so special that they can expect some sort of right to know this information about a patient who does not want to reveal it. It is not our job to make it hard for people to keep a secret from their doctor. Chillum 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A person who has serious mental illness - to the point that he feels that his family have been replaced by aliens who must die - is hardly making "choices" at that point. But thanks for admitting t hat to you, such a person has the right to try to conceal his illness. I suppose based on this logic someone with dementia also has the right to drive, or the right to give all their money away to a swindler who stops by, etc. I hope that you also don't agree that an impaired pilot also has the right to conceal his illness from doctors or psychologists whose evaluation may prevent him from flying (people have actually posted test materials to tests, other than the Rorschach, that deal specifically with the latter scenario as well).

But here you go again covering up what wikipedia actually contains with bland or nuetral sounding words - "information." It is not "information", generally, that is the problem. It is, specifically, questions and answers to tests. Please don't hide this fact by using words such as "information" or "scientific knowledge." to describe what we are actually talking about - questions and answers to tests.Faustian (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What rights people have is not on topic for this page. Rights are decided by law; Wikipedia has no business concealing information (including on the basis of alleged [lack of] rights). --LjL (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum is the one that presented the "right" of a mentally ill person to use the cheat sheet here (questions and answers to the test) to keep himelf from being accurately diagnosed; I responded to his comment by pointing out that this "right" is similar to the "right" of a demented person to give all his money away, or drive a car, etc. Again, please do not refer to test questins and answers as "information." What we are discussing is much more specific than that - it is the test questions and answers rather than information in general.Faustian (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that I do agree with the above; I am discussing this for the sake of trying to demonstrate that any "harm" is very dubious, but I do also believe that it's not at all Wikipedia's business to stop patients from trying to "harm" themselves in the first place. --LjL (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Should the article on suicide contain links to sites that give advice on how once can commit suicide? After all, it's the reader's decision on whether to click on the link or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen Suicide methods? –xeno^talk 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Even that page doesn't quite go that far. Not yet anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Even worse: pedophiles have websites where they share tips on how not to get caught. Should wikipedia include an encyclopedic article about such strategies also?Faustian (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you reduce a concept to absurd levels then of course the result is absurd. Nobody is teaching people how to diddle children here Faustian, we are showing a smudge of ink. I find your comparison offensive. Chillum 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually among other things the Rorschach is used by experts as a tool to help them differentiate psychopathic pedophiles (or any other criminals; I have seen it used with pedophiles however) from non-psychopathic ones who may benefit from treatment. This page allows psychopaths reading it to eliminate it as a tool. So no, Chillum, I haven't reduced this to a very absurd level at all.Faustian (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No Chillum, carefully chosen blots, not smudges. And no, not one, but eleven different images. I don't find Faustian's comparison offensive in the least - we all know how difficult it is to find similar cases where harm is a key factor. The example Faustian gives may be far more serious, but that is no good reason to find it offensive. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You not finding it offensive in no way comforts me. Chillum 16:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that, although offering any comfort was not my intention. Apparently some psychologists find it offensive that their test materials are posted in a Wikipedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not "their" test materials. Also, meh at indentation, really. --LjL (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What is this stuff about "their" test materials? These inkblots are the property of the public, it is as much ours as it is theirs. If it was their intellectual property then we would obey the copyright laws, that really is the big issue. Chillum 20:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This "stuff" is about psychologists having knowledge and skill that the public at large does not. And about the test materials and techniques that they employ in the discharge of their professional duties. Chillum, do you intend to start using the inkblots in Rorschach sessions with anyone you choose, since you say you "own" them? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean just like I can use my car just any way I like, because I own it? --LjL (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are their test materials, as only they use them - in the way they were intended to be used at any rate. Surveyors have their theodolites, surgeons have their surgical instruments, all manner of other diagnosticians have their own diagnostic tools. The inkblot images are in the public domain, but that does not mean the public own them in the same way as psychologists do. Being able to see something does not automatcally confer the observer with the skills or the privilages to be able to use it properly. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, being in the public domain means exactly that the publics owns them in the same way as psychologists or anyone else does. Chillum 20:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The only way the public "own" these images is by virtue of the fact that they can see them and copy them. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The public own these images by the virtue of the international laws that determine ownership. Chillum 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to suggest that, just because certain images are in the public domain, not everyone may be able to use them exactly wherever and whenever they wish. Especially if those images are used on a daily basis by a group of healthcare specialists as a recognised part of their professional duties. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But we can use them whenever and however we want, that is my point. Chillum 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you may be interfering with the way a group of healthcare professionals carry out their duties. That is my point. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be the slippery slope I warned you about. But why would it be wrong for Wikipedia editors to share pedophiles' published trade secrets with interested parents? Playing God, deciding whether a disclosure will help or harm the world, that isn't easy. We're just here to help write an encyclopedia. Mike Serfas (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that's even remotely encyclopedic. Many verifiable reliable sources about their strategy around, huh? --LjL (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To Mike Serfas: Thanks for sharing where you stand. Am I right to assume that you would defend having a wikipedia page about tactics that predators use to hide their pedophilia and would use the pretext that parents could learn about this too to defend the existence of such a page (even though, obviously, parents would be less likely to look up tips than would be pedophiles)? Just because something "isn't easy" doesn't absolve us of basic responsibilities. Don't foget, the policiy about living people already brings the issues of harm and responsibility into play. Moreover, in the example above a lot of steps need to be taken beyond wikipedia to cause harm. In the case of putting the test questions and answers online, all the harm (invalidating the test) is done by interfacing with wikipedia alone. Unlike in the case of instructions on building a bomb or avoiding getting caught when harming children, no subsequent steps are taken: the wikipedia page has done all the damage itself. The bomb builder may get his instructions from wikipedia, but he has to find the materials, build and plant the bomb himself. Wikipedia's page about how to build a bomb didn't do all that. In this case, on the other hand, you are essentially handing him the bomb. And in this case you are not always handing the bomb to a competant person responsible for his actions but to someone with mental illness. The fact that one or 1000 people may be curious about the questions and answers to this test and would like to be able to read the "cheat sheet" doesn't justify one person being harmed as a result of this page.13:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's taken a while, but now you seem to be understanding what I meant about choosing between fear and trust, and why Wikipedia has to decide one way or the other. But which do you think is safer really? Hoping that a few antisocial pedophiles haven't already learned such strategy tips from some hidden source, or trusting that parents armed with this information can raise children resistant to trickery? Mike Serfas (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The only true analogy I can come up with is entirely hypothetical: a wikipedia page that works like that video tape in the horror movie the Ring albeit in most cases not as extreme. Again, you vcan argue in some cases that the person still chose to view it. But in many cases people are not competant to make such decisions. Faustian (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is a psychologist telling me to base my decision making on fantasy? I don't believe that looking at the inkblots forces someone to see something different in them the next time around, because researchers have measured the stability of results between a test and a retest.[4][5] But that's actually quite irrelevant. Even if mere exposure did change the test result, psychologists can't make people give up their freedom of inquiry just to make their job easier. I suspect your Rorschach results would also be easier to interpret if Saw (film series) were banned, but we're not doing that either.

Though it is another overwrought comparison, certainly many reliable sources do exist describing tricks used by child molestors, and Wikipedia does include this information. A large fraction of crime articles describe the strategy used by the perpetrator. For example, Suspect Kidnapper Dons the Garb of Police to Lure the Teenage victim. Similar tactics for murderers are also commonly published, e.g. hiring a boy to dig for a water line ([6]) or inviting him to hunt for snakes ([7]). I should add that the last of these is currently described in the Wikipedia article Thrill killing. Yes, it makes me uncomfortable to throw out such ideas for a criminal to potentially use, but I rationed the web search to only five minutes! Surely they would do more than that.

I should add that with the recent closure of WP:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images, which supported both use of the images and accompanying commentary, this issue has been fairly conclusively decided in favor of including the information so far as Wikipedia is concerned. At some point this conversation ceases to become a useful discussion of policy and becomes a mere political forum discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Mike Serfas (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal statement

I have been an eager contributor to Wikipedia for almost four years (though most of my contributions have been pointing out something that I feel needs improvement).

Completely irrespective of whether there is no law preventing the Rorschach blots from being reproduced on Wikipedia, the utter spiteful adolescent STUPIDITY of actually reproducing them here has seriously dampened my interest in contributing further to this formerly wonderful project.

The longer I worked on Wikipedia, the more people I encountered who seemed to have very little idea of what an encyclopedia is and of what constitutes an improvement. An increasing number of other "contributors" seemed to be operating robotically: If they could cite some "rule" for working on Wikipedia, then all other considerations were ignored. Perhaps the most flagrant example of this seemed to be those people who, as long as one sole printed reference to some "fact" was located, were satisfied to include that "fact" in Wikipedia regardless of how much countervailing evidence there might be. Kind of like workers who had punched their timecard to show they finished their 8-hour shift; the quality of their work was of no consequence to them.

As I found that my attempts to make simple improvements in Wikipedia encountered more and more ignorant resistance by people whose qualifications to be contributing to Wikipedia seemed to often be vanishingly low, my enthusiasm for continuing to contribute decreased.

The blithering idiots showing the world that they can do whatever they feel like with the formerly unpublicized Rorschach blots (for the same reason that a dog licks its genitals: it can) have been for me just about the last straw. This university has been taken over by the mental patients.Daqu (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As a pseudo-anonymous editor coming across this diatribe, I'd like to point out that you've made 272 article edits since March 3rd, 2006. As such, I don't believe you're entitled to the moniker "eager contributor", since you average 4.89 days between article edits.

That you have the gall to imply that these 272 edits have met some resistance as part of an overall bad attitude amuses me.

So you disagree with a controversial RfC. That's fine. You don't need to throw a tantrum to demonstrate your disagreement. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Even someone with an average of 500 edits a day for 50 years should not be engaging in rants and name-calling. Poor form. Chillum 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Collapsible table?

Has using a collapsible table for the images been discussed already? I agree that the images provide important information to the article and should be accessible for readers who wish to see them, but a collapsible table would keep the article accessible for readers who do not wish to see the images and the provided information. Liquidluck (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed a few times, and rejected consistently. ^Chillum 23:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Message by Peterdan

I have administered several thousands or Rorschach tests during 30 years of practice. I do not know a better test for highlighting the dynamical aspects of one's emotional life. Nonetheless, I always use the Rorschach in conjunction with at least another projective measure, more often two.Psycho diagnosis is a matter of cross referencing test results, and there is no predicting which approach will yield the more relevant data. My contention is that the Rorschach does that better than any other projective measure. We need this type of measure, with all its faults, because questionnaires and interviews can reveal only what the subject is aware off-a psychology of the obvious. Mr. Serfas' "the public has a right to know arguments" regarding the publication of the Rorschach plates sound hollow. The truth is that this is not a scientific argument, but an ideological one. The Rorschach is but the stalking horse of that famous "bete noire"- psychoanalysis. Having tried in vain to relegate it to the level of myth , the psycho-ludites are now attacking the means by which the inner world can be explored. Of course this has been tried before in totalitarian states both of the right and left and it did not work. If the Rorschach is indeed such a worthless measure, I have a challenge for Mr. Serfas and those who hold similar opinions: let them take the Rorschach and publish the protocols on line, after waiving their right to privacy. We will analyze the results, and we'll see how worthless the test really is.Peterdan (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, of course, that this is an ideological argument. Wikipedia is not a leading psychological journal and we are not breaking ground in reassessing standard methods of diagnosis and treatment. We are, by and large, not even psychologists. We are only a large group of people who are serious about collecting together all the interesting bits of knowledge that we possibly can and making them available for all the world to see. We would not be able to prove conclusively here that Rorschach analysis is without value --- but we don't need to convince ourselves of that here. The only conclusion we need to make here is that the value of the test and assertions of the harmful effects of publication are not such a certain and compelling public interest that we should supersede the values that we otherwise treasure ... though truly, we might well be unwilling to do so even if that were the case.

The problem with your challenge is that it would produce only anecdotal data, and can neither prove nor disprove anything. Even a stage psychic can succeed at cold reading some of the time. It might also invite ad hominem arguments that would be better avoided. Perhaps this is "psycho-Ludditism", but it seems to me that once a label is placed on a person, whether passive or aggressive, manic or depressed, tending toward schizophrenia or autism^*, and so on, it is an open invitation to disparage and discount his thoughts.

I think we'd all welcome the chance to look at how you evaluate my perception, or anyone's perception, of specific figures, especially if we can relate this to reliable sources and use it to build the Rorschach test article. I'm just not interested in a Delphic pronouncement that doesn't share with us how you actually go about sifting through the raw data. I should say however that to me my interpretations of the blots don't seem very mysterious - they are only a rehash of familiar imagery. So to cite my more unusual interpretations, plate VII looks like a table lamp, because I've seen just such a table lamp many times. Plate X invites a far more elaborate explanation, from a submerged Cthulhian temple: pink mermaids pour a dense liquid from ceremonial ewers; blue shield-bearing rhinoceran imps wave green fans gently to pull in fresh waters; a pair of grey beetle-priests whisper intently as they prepare to throw open the doors of the inner sanctum. Even so, this seems like the simple result of reading and watching science fiction, especially that of H.P. Lovecraft. If there is any deep revelation about my personality I think it is in my choice to enjoy that fiction, not its reappearance in the blot. Mike Serfas (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[* I should acknowledge that the concept of autism and schizophrenia as opposite extremes, though plausibly argued, remains open for discussion].^[8][9]

Wow, this is still on my watchlist. Of course, by "collecting together all the interesting bits of knowledge that we possibly can and making them available for all the world to see" you mean, in this particular case, test items and answers. If not for copyright, you'd post the test answers and items for all the world to see for other psych tests, medical licensing exams, police exams, pilots' license exams, etc. in accordance with your ideology, the effects on harming the public be damned.Faustian (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You make it sound as if MCAT study guides were illegal. Have you visited a bookstore lately? Half an aisle is reserved for such test-taking help in any of them.

The position of a copyright holder is clear. No matter whether a scientific journal paper contains results obtained from publicly funded research, or provides knowledge and advice that might save lives - if the content is copyrighted, you are not allowed to reproduce it. The position of public domain holders must also be clear - if the content is free, you are not allowed to suppress it. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The results of the latest Rfc support the idea that our actions in this matter are not prescribed. We wikipedians are allowed to refrain from showing the images if we find that it does not help fulfill our primary mission of the preservation of knowledge, which according to the first encyclopedist, Diderot, is measured by the ability of future generations to use information. See encyclopedia. If we destroy this ability, we've destroyed knowledge. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Matter of test security

This page must be modified immediately. Section 5 must be taken out. The test was designed to distinguish serious mental disorders and evaluate criminals. If they can see it first, then it compromises its validity. This is one of the only tests of its quality, and I would hate to lose it as a tool. If there is a user able to modify this page, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengene13 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you humor the censors?

No. Hell no perhaps. Censorship just isn't on the table.

It's not a vote, your opinions don't matter. It could be 6.4999 billion to 1 and it would still be a violation.

It's not a matter of how many psychologists think what. It's not a matter of right or wrong, or that censorship(/DRM/etc) is impossible in the end, but that it's not your choice to make for everyone else.

Yes, we've heard you. Doom. Gloom. Whatever. Right or wrong, censorship is worse.

You've made your case and been turned down. You've made it again. You've reminded us to think of the children, the future, safety, apple-pie, and mom. But in doing so you've proven absolutely uncaring about the wishes and feelings of others. You can do what you want, but stop trying to bully us into compliance. No means no. 96.49.100.223 (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no means "I think 'no' ". If it was 6.4999 billion to 1, then by golly, I'm guessing they've got a point.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. That's an opinion. It should not have been a vote, but it became one. Yes it does matter what psychologists think, and how many. They are the professionals who use this test. It has nothing to do with apple-pie, or mom - no one, apart from you, has said it does. Nobody is "bullying" anyone. Or are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.226.165 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by 80.254.147.68

Civilization has not collapsed because the images and perceptions were placed on Wikipedia.

Next plot for WP world domination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's faith in WP as a responsible organisation that's collapsed. World domination already seems inevitable to all WP true believers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that there is indeed a cabal of people on wikipedia intent, some would say obsessed with establishing a New Wikipedia Order. After this has been achieved there will be a New Internet Order established.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is completely unacceptable that all of the Rorschach cards are posted on a public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adler2013 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

They existed in the public domain prior to appearing on WP. There seem to be no 'herds of interpretees manipulating the system' as a result of the WP presentation.

WP is a point of first resort, in which there are occasional 'incidents which make the news', equivalents of the 'placed papers' incident at The National Archives etc.

Either the system is robust enough to allow for, and adapt to, spread of the images, or there are flaws to it (as distinct from exam questions and similar where 'knowledge learned' is the key factor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.17.10 (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Most "exam questions and similar" operate with exactly the same requirements as the Rorschach test: they assume that the subject has not been given notice as to the precise questions and measurements performed by the exam. Normal exams combine that assumption with test performance to draw a conclusion about the student's larger body of knowledge, while the Rorschach test similarly suggests conclusions about the examinee's state of mind.

A question: Why can't another set of test images be developed?

Given that the images are 'to some extent in the public domain/out of copyright/visible to anyone wandering through WP' - why can't another set or sets be developed? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Developing a test like this is no simple feat. The cards used in the Rorschach exam were developed over the course of decades and backed by thousands of investigations conducted by many, many experts in the field and tested on thousands upon thousands of subjects. They're not, as one might suspect, just abstract designs pulled out of thin air to give clients something to gesture at.

Developing another set is tantamount to creating a new drug. In the case of the current debate it's as if Wikipedia is spreading a drug resistant strain and some are pointing out that it's no big deal because a new drug can be developed. --Volkris (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the images are so valuable, then that is all the more reason to make them accessible to others. Roger (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well no. The value of these images is that they have reams of research behind them, research that is based on the assumption that the cards are not widely available. Not only does making them widely available NOT spread the wealth around, it actually devalues the original cards by making the mountains and mountains of research irrelevant. It turns a scientific tool that can help people into nothing more than pretty wall hangings. --Volkris (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just like the Crown Jewels... we could all have a fragment of diamond each, couldn't we? or maybe a few grains of pearl dust? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.8.169 (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to resolve the longstanding debate about the utility and psychometric properties of the Rorschach when sites like Wikipedia blatantly trample on test security by irresponsibly publishing the cards and including information on specific responses given by past subjects. The Rorschach has both strengths and weaknesses, but these need to be elucidated by research that is as uncontaminated as possible. Wikipedia has not helped psychological science by publishing the inkblots. R. Schneider, Psy.D. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There is little difference between publishing Rorschach methodologies and publishing exam contents verbatim.--Volkris (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The images have been 'around a long time' and variously accessible to those who looked for the information, so a degree of 'reaction spillover' will always be an issue: and, given 'changing analyses of the mind and social relations' (class, gender, classification of 'diseases and attitudes' etc) the analyses of the analyses will change.

As said previously - with other types of 'analyses of the mind' information on the methodologies is readily available (anyone can get a passing knowledge of Freud, CBT, Transactional Analysis etc) without necessarily destroying their value - what precisely about these tests makes revealing the images and frequencies of responses damage the system? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As said previously, what damages the system is that the instrument was designed and calibrated on the assumption that the client will not have a familiarity with the images and testing procedure.

It's the same as some students having seen test questions before an exam. You can't accurately judge everyone on the same scale when some students have seen the questions and some haven't, right? It's the same with the Rorschach. The "curve" has been set over decades based on millions of administrations, and it might take another decade or two worth of data to create a new "curve" based on people who have seen the thing ahead of time. Meanwhile the validity of any test given to a "cheater" will be questionable.Crcarlin (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

they use tests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.62.33 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The case for and against exams per se (as distinct from longer term projects, which are more like 'real life') apart - one can study past papers and, on occasion, make a reasonable guess as to the questions likely to occur.

There will always be more to 'analysis of the mind' than the books or, in this case the images (beyond cod psychoanalysis - 'negative associations for all images so brain is seriously kinked').

Given that the images have been around for a long time, sooner or later they would have been placed on, or linked from, the WP page - so this should have been allowed for: and there would probably be a general use for 'a pool of images' (to be rotated/used to refine responses etc).

That's far easier said than done. It took decades to certify just these ten images. Adding twice as many images doesn't double the work; it increases it exponentially. "Allowing for" people to see the images ahead of time isn't the simple case of making new images as you seem to think. I don't think the general public realizes just how hard legitimate science is.

So rather than delaying a useful tool for decades to "allow for" foreknowledge, investigating all of the complexity that brings, it's more reasonable to hope popular media outlets like Wikipedia would decide not to take steps that endanger useful, valuable, verified tests that help solve real-world problems of individuals and society as a whole.Crcarlin (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The same discussion, no doubt, will be held given the eventual appearance of the documentation to public view which will happen through end of copyright or other reasons. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The information would have become 'available to those who looked for it' whether or not it was placed on WP: no information is given on 'what list of responses indicate what psychological outlook' - which would differ between socio-cultural environments (eg, taking the issuing date Weimar Germany, the American Deep South and St Kilda). Attitudes change: the effects of physical conditions and genetics on 'mental conditions' has varied over time.

Yes. And psychologists spend enormous resources taking new data on responses to ensure that the test analysis remains relevant and valid given precisely the concerns you express... and many others! Yet those resources are minor compared to the work that would be required if foreknowledge of the test material became widespread.

It also doesn't matter much that wikipedia doesn't specify the interpretations of various responses any more than it matters whether a student is given correct or incorrect answers before an exam: either way, the exam will not measure what it is supposed to measure.

The fact is, the Rorschach Test is valid, useful, well-researched, and unique. It's an important tool in many psychologists' toolboxes, one that can't realistically be replaced with one more convenient to the Wikipedia administrators, especially considering their motivations expressed above.Crcarlin (talk)

Given that the images have been around for decades, the question of developing new ones is 'logical to the non-expert' who is familiar with the concepts of double-blind, placebos etc.

Perhaps the discussion needs to take a new direction from 'WP should not have done it, and non-experts should not argue back.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the argument at all. The major argument seems to be that Wikipedia recognizes certain moral/ethical duties but doesn't realize--maybe due to honest lack of expertise--that this move violates their own policies. The experts have countered the arguments above, they have welcomed them and dispatched them.

From my point of view the argument isn't "non-experts should not argue back" but rather, "experts need not correct misconceptions--WP is happy with their incorrect notions because it gets them to a convenient conclusion."

As we see above, many aren't considering this as an individual case, but rather as an opportunity to rebel, sticking it to those evil censoring organizations around the world. "Take that, The Man!" They use vague, unfounded notions of a flawed test to get them out of ethical quandaries about how they're endangering a tool that actually helps real people.

So yes, it would be nice if the discussion changed, but changed to one where the ethical policies of Wikipedia were applied with respect to disclosure of and damage to the Rorschach Test, and it would be nice if people actually knowledgeable about the test (that would be those smelly, censoring experts) were considered.Crcarlin (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

'This can of worms' (making the images more generally available) would have been opened sooner or later whether WP existed or not, and whatever the motives of the person who originally posted them here.

It is not necessarily a matter of 'a tendency to rebel'  - but a change to a less hierarchical view of society - and a desire to see how the world can be changed rather than merely described. Any interested layperson can deduce some of the factors affecting interpretations - Weimar hyperinflation, modern internet-connected society: and that 'interpretations of the images and how they map onto mental views' will depend in part upon a more complex analysis.

Wikipedia describes its mission as being to create an encyclopedia, not to chance the future direction of society, whether for the best or for the worst. Wikipedia specifically and consistently takes up policies like NPOV to reinforce this, and its policy pages repeat the encyclopedia mission all over the place. So if it really is a matter of a change to a "less hierarchical view of society", then it doesn't belong here at all.

I am not an administrator - but to ask whether a new set of images can be developed is a logical question: and as the situation has changed the interpretations have to do likewise. (Some opticians now have computer generated 'Snellen charts or similar' - so the issue of memorising can be avoided). Jackiespeel (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, and you have your answer: No. New sets of useful images can not be developed easily because the test is not just about images, but about the images plus decades of study and data collection that is paired with the specific images at hand. Unfortunately, the "interested layperson" probably doesn't know about the massive amounts of work that goes into creating tests like these, nor about how that work verifies the validity of the test.

It's a tragic truth, perhaps, but the "interested layperson" simply doesn't have enough knowledge to come to an informed conclusion on these matters, and he won't gain that knowledge without skills and practice that come from serious, legitimate study of subjects ranging from psychology to statistics. Anyone is welcome to undertake that journey, but until they have, they have no way of knowing what they're talking about. Crcarlin (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your question begs another one: Does it violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy WP:NPOV to provoke a change in the test? I believe it does. The definition of neutral means that our actions should not forcefully produce results favorable to any point of view. The flaw in the current article is this lack of neutrality. The intrusion of Wikipedia into events leading to a particular outcome is acknowledged in the article, as currently written. Anyone reading it is sure to ask themselves, "Why is Wikipedia such an notorious player in the historical events of the Rorschach Test?" Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually spent some time rolling around the WP policy pages, and they're a mess. They're full of handwaving and big statements about philosophies behind their policies, but woefully short on details. I agree that there's a NPOV issue here, since so many people express an intention to actually imact the Rorschach, but there's another involving intellectual property.

The handwaving says that WP will have fair use policies stricter than the US, but it doesn't spell out what that actually means. It does sound like the international copyrights and APA declarations might very well make this information unpostable on WP.Crcarlin (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is - the images would have 'leaked into the www-sphere' whether or not WP existed: and, as with other such 'partly obscured activities' (Freemasons etc) there will be much 'peculiar, misinformed and off-on-a-tangent speculation' on the subject. There is a certain amount of leakage generally - a London Underground map design involving an inkblot-like image etc.

Well right, that's one of the big arguments for showing the images at WP. But that argument isn't without it's weaknesses. Clearly, for example, showing the articles on WP speeds up the spread of the images as WP is a uniquely popular, even authoritative site. It's all well and good to point out that the images would generally come out anyway, but that doesn't mean much for the particular individual administrations being biased that would not be biased otherwise, and the individual people who personally may lose the benefits of this psychological tool.Crcarlin (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Most laypersons will realise that there is more to 'analysis by inkblot' than a tickbox equivalent of the newspaper quiz ('Mostly as' - gloomy mindset; 'mostly bs' - depressed; 'this type of mix and match' - faking it) and that the process of analysis will involve 'the images, the responses and the discussions arising', and the analyst's experience and training (the equivalent of the taxidriver's 'the knowledge' etc); and that, like crime scene presentations, some of the information is deliberately 'kept out of sight' so as not to get false positives.

I don't think this context is stressed enough in the article. The objectors have proposed compromises, including specific-yet-informative disclaimers and putting the critical information behind cuts, but those compromises have been rejected... and with no reasonable justification as far as I can tell.Crcarlin (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

However - given that information is available on other systems of psychoanalysis (collected works of Freud etc) and the images have been around for decades, it seems curious that more has not been done to minimise the results of information spread. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you knew more about the statistical analysis and baseline data collection that goes into creating a legitimate, scientific, verified test like this you wouldn't be so surprised. Being able to assume that clients have not seen the inkblots and keywords allows Rorshcach creators and administrators to bring the difficulty of creating the test down from "nearly impossible taking a hundred years" to "really, really hard, taking decades."

It may be unfortunate, but there are few shortcuts in solid science. You say it's curious that more has not been done, but then, often there's absolutely nothing that can be done.Crcarlin (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see any actual arguments on this discussion apart from 'the information should not have been put on WP' and 'the information is available elsewhere.' There seems to be much argument among various persons which does nothing to convince a passer by.

'Interpretation of the mind' has changed over the past 120 years (as Freud started in the late 19th century) - cultural and social assumptions change, 'things which influence the mind' (genetics, drugs that can cure/mitigate certain problems etc), and even the spread of inkblottery as a design motif, so the 'process of analysis of the mind' will change.

And - anyone who has read/followed TV series on 'the history of science' knows that there is much work involved.

The argument 'these ten images have always been used, so there is no point in trying out other images to see what arises' seems to be illogical. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not an argument anyone at all is making. Psychologists don't want to keep using the same images out of tradition, but rather because those images have taken decades to verify, tweak, study, and build up data around. Switching to a new set of images requires them to throw out decades of data and start over from scratch. Crcarlin (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the first stone that counts.

I'm glad to see discussion here that is not turning a blind eye to the consequences of our actions, saying "what we do, here is inconsequential because others have already done it." For it's not only the first stone cast that counts. The others count, too. Even if the body lays still and lifeless, every stone cast should be cast with all due deliberation for its owner's intent. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's consider the purpose of an encyclopedia.

To those who are willing to consider the consequences of our actions, let me ask us to compare and contrast them with our mission. If the purpose of an encyclopedia is to preserve knowledge, not destroy it ( see definition of encyclopedia) wouldn't it be against our own ethics to do something that causes information to become unusable?

I will defend Wikipedia's right to disclose information even if it offends someone, as in the case of many controversial and disputed articles, but not if doing so defeats our own purpose. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but that's the very matter at stake! When the Rorschach test is administered, it uncovers new knowledge about the psychological state of the client. By compromising the validity of the Rorschach exam through publicizing the pictures widely, knowledge about the psychological state of every examinee who takes the exam is potentially destroyed.

Also note that a compromise was proposed wherein the images would be placed behind a cut and a warning. That compromise would not destroy or make unavailable the knowledge that you're concerned about. Crcarlin (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues:

• Some 'areas of activity' have to remain partially outside the public domain for them to work effectively - an example might be certain criminal investigations. Other areas will be so obscure/complex that for most people a bare dicdef suffices - some mathematical equations would probably fall into this category.
• There should be a debate 'somewhere' on where along the line of 'disclose all' and 'give only the bare minimum of information' WP (and probably other wikis) should operate - and in many cases there will be several viewpoints, which may change over time. However this particular talkpage is not the most appropriate place for the discussion.

With the Rorschach test there has been some leakage of information into public domains for some time - and spillover from other sources (even 'looking at patterns in clouds'). Whether or not WP existed it is likely that this bi-directional leakage of information/influence on responses would have occurred to some degree.

The 'images have been around for a long time' and aspects of the analyses have changed over time, depending upon societies and other factors ('St Kilda in 1929' and 'internet-linked city centre dweller of 2009') and other sciences/methods of analysis (literary, historical etc) have developed, changed, adopted new models/abandoned old ones etc, and there are (to go back some distance in this discussion) different varieties of the Snellen Chart and colourblindness tests, it seems odd to the 'passer by with a passing interest in the subject' that there has not been a revision/expansion of the images.

The images/descriptives have 'escaped' onto WP - nothing that can be said will change the fact. It is logical to deduce that there is more to Rorschachian analysis than the images + responses + context: there is no obvious correlation between responses and the analysis of the mental position (beyond the banally obvious as suggested above) - so what can be done now that the playing field has changed? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because you don't find the correlation between responses and analysis of mental position to be obvious doesn't mean it's not there. There's a reason it takes a significant amount of training to become qualified to do Rorschach analysis. This huge training requirement is certainly a drawback of the exam, but the proven validity and unique benefits of the exam have shown this training to be worthwhile. Crcarlin (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"even 'looking at patterns in clouds'" has affected responses to the Rorschach, yes? Please could you explain? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Harm to the Rorschach test or society from pre exposure to the images has only been hypothesized. No one has been able to put forth any evidence to support this hypothesis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(and once more with feeling): "exactly how would this this evidence be collected?" Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To what extent do the inkblots rely on 'humans as pattern creating animals' (which would include clouds, constellations, cause and effect (illogical or not) etc.

Totally, I would have thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be an interesting experiment to take 'a new set of inkblots' and see whether responses change over repeated exposure which might well answer the question (I presume there would be studies as to 'changing responses' and 'changing activities of the mind' with the existing images so this could be factored out) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly more interesting than pasting the only set of standardised images available into an on-line encyclopedia and assuming, in the absense of any evidence, that there will be no effect on anyone. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The people who generated the Rorschach test had 70 years to show harm from pre exposure. If we at Wikipedia had to prove that no harm existed before we added something to the encyclopedia we would get no where. Thankfully we do not. The community and the world strongly support the inclusion of these images on Wikipedia. Thus they are here. A few have made claims of harm. It is up to them to substantiate these claims. But we have gone through all these arguements many times before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The people behind the Rorschach have spent 70 years developing it, refining it, proving it scientifically, and studying it. It's not as if the test was finished 70 years ago, and they've just been sitting back, taking a break since then. Throughout those 70 years they've been working hard to make the test as good as it could possibly be, putting forth all of their efforts into creating this tool to benefit society, and it continues to evolve even today. So now you're proposing that they should take a break from improving and studying the test--from benefiting individuals and society as a whole with new knowledge of the mind--to focus on the task of working out this new kink that Wikipedia has thrown at them?

Be sure you know what you're asking for.Crcarlin (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The 'people who generated the Rorschach test' had, and as far as I know still have, no interest in "demonstrating harm" of any kind to anyone. They certainly didn't have 70 years of Wikipedia to worry about. Yes, we've had these arguments many times and I'm fully prepared to have them all over again if required, if I see a statement by another editor which I think is misguided or shortsighted. I don't expect that consensus here on Wikipedia has changed since the RfC, or necessarily that it ever will change. And I certainly don't pretend to speak on behalf of "the world". Tnanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe The Canadian Psychological Association considered any disagreement among experts before they concluded that the risk of damage to the test's usefulness is significant. I find this to be a credible secondary source, (see WP:MEDRS#Respect secondary sources) that shows that our actions have not helped to preserve the utility of knowledge and information. I find this to be in conflict with the purpose of an encyclopedia and our own ethics. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a good source for the article section on the controversy. –xeno^talk 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheat sheets are cheat sheets

The question keeps coming up, "Where's the proof that exposing people to the images and scoring procedures affects results?" Well, such studies have begun, but they will take time to complete since science itself takes time to do right. These studies weren't started before (AFAIK) because they take resources away from improving the test itself, and I think a lot of psychologists assumed the sensitive information was fairly safe seeing as most people with easy access to it were bound by codes of professional ethics to protect it.

While we wait for the rigorous proof, though, let me emphasize something: these cards are absolutely equivalent to questions on any other exam, and example responses are absolutely equivalent to answers on a normal exam.

Do you really need scientific proof that WP publishing either specific questions or answers to this year's SATs will affect the validity of students' scores? Probably not. The Rorschach may be a different type of exam, but like the SAT, it was designed and normed under the assumption that test takers wouldn't have the questions or answers ahead of time.

So to those asking for proof of harm: be patient; it's on its way, but in the mean time remember, you're handing out cheat sheets to a test that's often used to determine things even weightier than which college a student ends up attending. Crcarlin (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you cite some reference to the methodology by which the tests were "designed and normed" specifically to people who wouldn't have the questions or answers ahead of time and these norms differ from those who have seen the images? If the effect of people having been exposed to the images ahead of time has only only recently begun being studied without results yet, then presumably currently it's scientifically unknown whether the norms would or would not shift significantly based on prior exposure and anyone speaking otherwise is going beyond the evidence based science into personal opinion or fear. The article states that the "answers" to the test are a small part of the overall interpretation process. If that is true, then they are not "absolutely equivalent to the answers on any other exam" and that would be a patently false analogy. Do proponents of the test who believe that it is scientifically grounded agree among themselves about whether their trusted research indicates that it is possible or not to "cheat" on the test? Both affirmative and negative assertions regarding that have been made by *proponents* of the test. If proponents of the test cannot even convince each other about such a fundamental question regarding the test, I am dubious they will be able to produce objective research about the effect of prior exposure which is convincing to neutral or skeptical parties. (Let's keep open the possibiity that some proponents of the test actually believe that it's possible to cheat, but have maintained a public falsehood about that "for effect" - to discourage cheating by denying its feasibility. In which case there are interesting questions raised by the question of whether an encyclopedia is ethically obligated to abet an overtly benign deception even in situations where the utility of same is not scientifically validated. Sometimes encyclopedias, like journalists, have different roles in society, than the practictitioners, to be balanced for overall best effect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.130.29 (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Defining the issues

There are several issues:

1. Some 'topics' have to be kept at least partly out of the public domain for various reasons (some criminal investigations, some medical and other procedures, 'things which are likely to cause annoyance and offence' - medical, war, etc etc). The issue of where along the line between full disclosure and 'much discussion and show the bare minimum' should be the default position for WP (or other websites) will be ongoing, will have a number of different and valid viewpoints, and belongs somewhere else. This discussion is a component of that debate.

2. 'The views of people generally' on 'analysts of the mind' (using the term as a catch-all - to cover ordinary life analysis as well as mental health analysis) tends to be rather ambivalent - and likewise towards 'experts who seem to make everything fit their theory' (this is meant to be a slight parody).

3. To what extent are 'the inkblot tests and the responses to them' the only means used in the process of analysis, and how far 'using a collection of methods' will highlight particular issues and prevent attempts to fake the results? If someone studies past exam papers sufficiently and can judge what questions are likely to come up, they will get a better result - but are they showing a truer measure of their capabilities than someone who has not done so?

4. Omar Khayyam's quatrain - 'The moving finger writes...' applies - society/culture changes and the process of analysis changes as a result. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jackiespeel, I'd encourage you to revise what you wrote above to make your meanings more clear. More than one person has no idea what you were trying to say. Maybe you were just being too poetic for us scientists.Crcarlin (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Oh, come with old Khayyam, and leave the Wise

  To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;

One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;

  The Flower that once has blown for ever dies."

Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Khayyam seems too docile. I prefer Dylan Thomas who wrote:

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,

And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,

Do not go gentle into that good night.[10]

--Dylan Thomas

We can undo this mistake. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the quatrain that most people know:

• The Moving Finger writes,
• And having writ, moves on
• Nor all thy piety nor wit can erase half a line
• Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

The images are on WP (whatever the originator's motives), and, even if they are removed, can, like much other 'methods of analysis' can be found 'by those willing to look for them' - so the process of analysis has been changed and the situation has to be worked around.

Any comments on the first three points? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's consider the values of the Wikimedia Foundation

An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community.[11] (emph. added)

The word "share" is often used by Jimmy Wales in public statements and donation requests.

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. [12]

But can we really say we've fulfilled our mission? Are we sharing the sum of all knowledge? Or have we taken some of that knowledge away? According to the Canadian, American, and British Psychological Associations, what we've done to the Rorschach test is "compromised its usefulness."[13] [14] [15] This means that the world is a little more stupid less knowledgeable, now. Thanks to our efforts, the human race has taken a step backward. I don't believe this is in accordance with our values, mission, and promotional literature. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC) altered 00:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, what they're saying is that by posting this information you are potentially compromising the test for people who have seen this page, and I know many have. I am not denying that you have a right to post this information, I'm just saying that doing so is a bad idea. Removing the pictures would not cause the human race to take one step back, it would be protecting information that is not meant for everyone to see. We do not post the contents of Presidential documents, and yet it is not causing us to become stupider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.71.34 (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• There is a somewhat-related essay that mentions the Rorschach debate: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is amoral. –xeno^talk 17:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that this argument was not considered in the last Request for Comment. I'd like to schedule a new one, so that we might correct this mistake and return Wikipedia back to its proper mission. see WP:CCC Concensus can change. Or hearing no objection, I'll just delete the images in a week's time. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd reccomend gathering consensus first. –xeno^talk 00:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we've really plumbed the depths of our skill set here at this talk page. (see WP:SILENCE) But maybe we have and it's time to reach out. How bout I write up a neutral statement and organize it like the last RfC, but not put the tag on it? I liked the way that was organized. (I didn't appreciate the gleeful WP:WINNER-like attitude, however.) I'm drafting something here on my user space at User:Danglingdiagnosis/Request for comment/RorschachTest2010 I guess I'll call it a "manual" RfC. (it has no tag, yet) I'd love it if you, Xeno, would offer administrator-like advice prior to canvassing for opinions. I tried to be as neutral as I could. Should I put it in user space, talk space, wp:space? Do you think it needs an RfC tag? I'm a little gun-shy after the undeserved verbal criticism I received after correctly following the instructions for creating a policy proposal. Or is it alright if I simply canvass for opinions in the appropriate manner (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification? It was after you canvassed for opinions at project medicine that I came to this article. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. It's probably best this live somewhere like Wikipedia:Requests for comments/Rorschach test (2010). You can leave brief, neutral notes at related WikiProjects, Village pump (policy), talk:Rorschach test... Maybe for editors who participated in the past. Are you sure there's an appetite for a new discussion? –xeno^talk 15:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope someone responds. I'd prefer discussion over wp:silence. I welcome immediate comments, as well. I'm not sure how to move the page to the location you suggested. Do you have access to an admin function that can do this? Or should I create the page and then attempt a create and copy/paste function? I worry about problems with line breaks. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Confidential Information

Though I respect the right to put up the Rorschach ink blots, as a psychologist I request that it is removed. The ink blots have been deemed "Confidential Information" by the APA, and the releasing of these pictures could potentially cause great harm. The Rorschach test is used to test for emotional instability, and if the test is compromised because the subject had knowledge of the tests images beforehand then it could result in a misdiagnosis and a possibly dangerous person going untreated. I am not saying the images must be removed, I am just requesting that they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.71.34 (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the length of time the images have been on WP, and, as variously stated above, the images, information on them, and commentary on the processes (for, against and humorous) are readily available on the web, I think they will stay.

My position on the matter 'being a curious bystander' is clear from my contributions variously on this talk page and the original RT talk page. Given the length of time the images have been around, the way 'societies in which the inkblot test(s)' have been available have changed during that period, and the way in which information has become increasingly available over the Web in the past 15 or so years, it seems surprising that alternative images were not being developed. Why can't these 'potentially dangerous people' be discovered by other means of analysis? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions of 'potential dangerousness' aside, Jackie, some rhetorical questions might also spring to mind. If the ISR or some other organisation HAD developed another set of images would these also be fair pictorial fodder for Wikipedia articles? Or would the law of copyright again be the final arbiter? Have the ISR been at fault in not predicting that, in the internet age, the usefulness of its test materials could be so easily compromised by international legal agreements over which it has and has had no control? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

'Given the stuff that gets posted to the web' it could be assumed that the images would eventually 'float around variously thereon' (especially after copyright ceased to apply) - and so something should have been done. A quick check on Yahoo and Google (which has various images and sets thereof) gives 'several hundred thousand' matches for the various inkblot tests.

Have there been 'compare and contrast' of analyses using 'inkblot tests' and 'various other methods' as the lead methods? What proportion of 'potentially dangerous persons' are only discovered using inkblot tests? ('It can be readily deduced' that there is more to the test than just analysing what the testee does with the cards and noting their comments thereon, checking against the equivalent of a log book and reading off an answer') And - what proportion of people with 'quirks, peculiar tastes and non-standard behaviour' manage to divert them into acceptable routes so never come to the attention of the analysts? (This may have a time or locality component - medieval flagellants and Viking beserkers etc)

Other categories of test materials change over time (to take examples used previously in the discussion examination questions, 'the assorted types of colourblindness tests', Snellen charts) so why not the inkblot tests? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the Snellen chart or, say, the Ishihara test, can be used to assess personality, although I guess they too only really "work" if the subject is unfamilar with the content and has not learned the "hidden meaning". But yes, I'd certainly agree that most psychometric tests can never be immune from the culture in which they have been developed and the way this changes over time. My Big Issue is that internet image search capability (and how long before the Wikipedia article becomes the Goggle Images top hit?) has advanced at a pace far exceeding what the developers of conventional tests (but especialy unconventional tests like the inkblot) can cope with. Oh and which are "the various inkblot tests" and when do those others get their own wikipedia page? We could at least warn their developers in advance? But alas the inkblot cat is out of the psychometic bag, so I've been repeatedly told. So it's all too late. Isn't it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The arguments for and against the Rorschach test can be readily found and another variety of test is at [16]. The rules for a Snellen chart can be readily devised by a 'non-eye specialist non-computer programmer' ('use a selection from these symbols, in this layout'; 'do not repeat patterns' and 'avoid certain pairs' - eg W/M and C/G)- and, from what I understand of colourblindness tests (there being several) a 'random selector of designs/colour compositions' would rule out attempts to force the test - and in neither case will the tests be invalidated.

As the playing field has changed perhaps new rules should be devised - and if part of the analysis is 'discussing interpretations' familiarity with the patterns need not invalidate the analysis. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about the Snellen chart, because the answers are simply verifiable numbers, not subjective contructs. Presumably Mr. Holtzman, whose materals are still covered by copyright, might be well pleased with Wikipedia's best efforts to over-expose poor old public domain Rorschach? But I have been unable to ask him. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

'The point is' - this was hardly a 'black swan incident' - the odds that the images would eventually escape onto the internet in general and WP in particular were 'near certainty.' (The same statement no doubt applies to Holtzman's tests - some of which can already be found on the web.)

The difference between the two types of test - using agreed shapes it is easy to devise a 'Snellen-type chart' that can be used across all cultures, and colour-perception charts that can be used across 'species that can communicate with each other' - but the psychological/psychometric and other 'tests of the mind' have to be recalibrated for particular cultures and particular times (different perceptions then and now of the immured hermit and the 'autonomous non-submissive woman' etc - not implying any comparison between the two). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010)

Pursuant to the issues raised above, I am opening a wp:requests for comment and created a page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) Before others begin commenting, I wanted to be sure that I've gleaned as much as possible from this talk page. Does anyone have anything they want to add? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use vs Rorschach Disclosure

The data concerning popular responses is sourced from books published within the last few decades, which makes them almost certainly covered by copyright and thus non-free (I'd say they are non-free for other reasons too, but this is the clearest). Note that this policy has nothing to do with legality.

Wikipedia policy allows use of non-free content only when certain conditions are overcome, including the use of the minimum necessary to illustrate the point and the unsuitability of free equivalents. I believe both of these conditions are violated in this article.

So the questions are, what information is conveyed from listing all ten cards rather than just one or two (minimum necessary), and what information is conveyed from the actual cards that couldn't be conveyed by mock-ups (free content... without the potential for harm)?

I believe going either of these directions (subset of cards or dummy cards) would kill two birds with one stone, satisfying Wikipedia policy while enacting a compromise between the two sides in the disclosure debate. Crcarlin (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Facts cannot be copyrighted, so it's a moot point as far as the responses go. If the commentary accompanying those responses has been lifted directly from the cited sources, then that's a reason to reword, and not to remove. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct: I propose rewording, not removal, to bring the content in line with Wikipedia policy which requires as little use as possible and only when there is no free equivalent. So let's reword to minimize use of non-free content through either showing a subset of the cards (since I don't believe there is ANY marginal benefit to showing them all) or showing a dummy set (which would convey the same meaning to the reader).Crcarlin (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) It's as Someguy says. So long as we paraphrase or do not verbatim quote excessively, we're fine. (2) "what information is conveyed from listing all ten cards rather than just one or two" What the rest of the cards look like, obviously. (3) It's like with logos, the real thing needs to be used for accuracy's sake; also, why use mock-ups when we have the real thing?; and is there any evidence mock-ups would be any less harmful? [not to mention the question of whether the potential for harm exists is up in the air] (42) Your interpretation of "free content" is (imo) overly strict and your application of its definition to this context is (imo) contrary to the definition's spirit. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Logos, as Wikipedia's policy stresses, are entirely subject to the general restrictions on use of non-free content AND MORE. That's not to mention that accurate logos are needed only to identify the associated organization, but the Rorschach doesn't exactly identify itself through its cards.

As for spirit, Wikipedia's policy statement is clear that it is intentionally strict to promote a certain philosophy, and the definition of free content that the strict policy takes on is itself clear that it's intentionally strict to promote its own philosophy. These rules are clear and explicit. Agree with it or not, Wikipedia wants to avoid the inclusion of non-free content in its pages.

In the end I ask (and the Wikipedia policy on non-free content asks) what the full inclusion of this content brings over the other options. Saying that it lets the readers see the additional content doesn't do much to progress the case. Include it to include it? Crcarlin (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me include an explicit question. The Wikipedia policy on inclusion of non-free content requires the following: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

What significant information is conveyed in having all ten cards that isn't included in just one? One card illustrates the nature of the test, the nature of responses, and gives a notion of what popular responses might be like. What additional significant information comes from the rest? Crcarlin (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The 10 cards are free content by virtue of being in the public domain, making the question irrelevant (with regard to the card images). With regard to the responses, it's our job as an encyclopedia to be comprehensive and informative; I'd argue you'd need to put forth a positive argument for exclusion (i.e. rather than merely ask "why?", state why not). --Cybercobra (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy (linked above) stresses in multiple places that public domain is not sufficient for something to be free, that Wikipedia's standards are higher than simple legal status. Please review the policy. As for the argument for exclusion, again, Wikipedia policy against the use of non-free content is the reason to minimize use.

But even outside of this non-free issue it's generally a good idea in any writing--including encyclopedic--to ask the question I asked: what is communicated by more that is not communicated by less? After all, "Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details," and showing ten cards over seven screens where one on half a screen would suffice certainly runs afoul of this. Crcarlin (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

By definition public domain material is free, ergo the minimal use criteria you are referencing has no bearing on the use of the images. As to apparent passages being quoted from books, could you provide a specific example? Resolute 20:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy (linked above) stresses in multiple places that even public domain is not sufficient for something to be free, that Wikipedia's standards are higher than simple legal status. Both the popular responses and the comments were taken from non-free sources, and the images were derived from non-free data. Wikipedia policy (and general notions of good writing) requires minimal use. Crcarlin (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you quote me the specific passage where you are getting this interpretation from, as nothing on WP:NFC or WP:NFCC reads to me the way you are interpreting it. And again, I would like to see a specific example of "popular responses and comments taken from non-free sources." thanks, Resolute 20:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could you please provide a direct quote from the policy to which you refer? –xeno^talk 20:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Crcarlin makes a very valid point. What is the copyright status of, for example, Burstein and Loucks (1989)? Does the Hemisphere Publishing Corporation have any claim at all over the material owned by them and used in this article? And how would this be tested in law? Perhaps a Wikipedia legal expert could advise use here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but in the example you give, the Burnstein and Loucks reference is being used to site the common responses to seeing the cards. Those are simple facts/statistics, and as such not copyrightable. Resolute 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Those were hard-won facts. A lot was invested in determining those facts. And the owner of the copyright may decide they need to protect their investment. If our actions cause the test to fall out of use, then I can conceive that we might be sued and held liable under the fair use doctrine. One of the tenets of the fair use doctrine is that it cause no financial hardship to the author. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As above, facts are not copyrightable. The analysis of those facts is where the authors gain protection - and that is why I asked if the description field of that table is substantially similar to that of the source material. If it is, then yes we have a potential issue with NFC. If it is in our own words using those books as a source, then there is no issue at our end. I do find it cute how you two are desperately latching onto Crcarlin's misguided argument though. Resolute 18:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we possibly just discuss the arguments, whether or not you consider them misguided? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, misguided or not, I'm genuinely curious to know if the courts determine de minimis usage based solely on visual similarity or upon compromised utility or financial loss. Perhaps the people at the Fair Use Project WP:WPFU can help us answer that question. 67.183.101.204 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Another hypothetical question, although one I think may be relevant to guaging the boundaries here for those who have misgivings about the use of paychometric materials - how does the release of responses, even most common ones, sit with the confidentiality agreement given to a testee? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted or not Wikipedia policy requires statistical data to come from freely available source material or else it is defined to be non-free. The data behind these counts are almost certainly not available and so the statistics are non-free regardless of copyright. Crcarlin (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As below, you are misinterpreting policy. Wikipedia's definition of free or non-free is explicitly defined by copyright status. Additionally, you might also spend some time learning about sourcing and attribution. Not only are there no copyright concerns whatsoever, the source is properly and fully attributed. If we took your personal definition of free/non-free at face value, then about 90% of this encyclopedia would have to be deleted. If you like, send a message to Mike Godwin, as he is Wikipedia's general council, as I'm sure he would be able to clear up your misconceptions. Resolute 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered below. Crcarlin (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The nesting was getting ungainly. De-nesting from above.

Martinevans, these aren't legal questions. US law would, I'd imagine, have no problem with the content being used this way. That's not the point.

Apologies for the interject here. Surely there is a limit - or can whole books of facts be copied from any publication into any article? Who decides on this limit? I had thought the laws of copyright all depended entirely on the legal process and of the testing of statute by means of court cases? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The the policy states, "Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law," and specifies these standards through a specific definition of free: "'Free' content is defined as that which meets the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works'." That page-long definition requires the free availability of source data and the lack of copyright. The content on the Rorschach page runs afoul of both. Thus it is non-free as per FCW and Wikipedia's definition.

The in a nutshell summary sums it up what can be done with non-free content saying, "Non-free or copyrighted content can only be used in specific cases and only in as few cases as possible." The specific cases include (from the same page):

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

Finally note (again, from the same page):

Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.

So, again I ask, what is the purpose of including data from all ten cards? I believe fewer cards would satisfy any purpose other than the also-barred exposition of all details, and a free equivalent could probably do it just as well. And all with the happy side effect of bringing compromise to the removal debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crcarlin (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I am getting the picture now. First, the images themselves are public domain, so the fair use rules - including Wikipedia's NFCC criteria - are not applicable, so the debate really is just the descriptions of how people interpret the cards. To that part, I would have to ask someone with these books how closely our statements follow the books. If it is a close copy of what is in the books, then you could bring the NFCC criteria into play. If it is not, and that the writers of that table have simply used the books as a source from which they wrote their own commentary, then there is no problem. It would be the editor's own creative addition that we are looking at, which is licenced GFDL/CC-BY-SA, and is therefore free to use. Resolute 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What you say here contradicts the Wikipedia policy I cited. The policy specifically rejects legal status (public domain/CC, etc) as sufficient grounds to declare a work "free." In fact, it goes through lengths to explain both this position and the motivation behind it.

Again, as I quoted above, the policy lists specific qualifications to declare content to be free, and content on this page fails to meet those standards. Public domain status and US legal fair use statutes do not exempt the content from Wikipedia's policies.

So, what is the purpose of including data on all ten cards? That question needs to be answered even outside of this fair use discussion! Crcarlin (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, my explanation is not contradicted by policy; it is you that is misunderstanding policy. The policy you cited deals with non-free content only. Read the very first sentence of that policy dude, it explicitly spells out what is considered free: "content that does not bear copyright restrictions..." Public domain is the very definition of content without copyright restrictions. The only part of that table that has any impact on NFC is the descriptions, and only then if you can show that the text we use is substantially similar to the source material. As to the purpose of showing them all: the purpose is to inform, and that table does so very well. Resolute 00:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law," "'Free' content is defined as that which meets the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works'." Crcarlin (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

First statement is irrelevant as we are not dealing with non-free content. Second is not exhaustive. If you are going to willfully ignore the opening statement of the very policy you are attempting to quote then there is nothing I can do for you. Resolute 01:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, we now each think the other is willfully ignoring the statement. I think the definition of free/non-free is clearly spelled out, and you think the definition is irrelevant. OK then.

There is no wiggle room in the phrase "'Free' content is defined as that which meets the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works'," and your counter definition of 'free' is rejected by the statement about US copyright law being insufficient. Wikipedia policy disagrees with you coming and going. Crcarlin (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

← The argument you've based on the "Minimal usage" line from the policy - that we should only discuss the common responses for x number of cards because otherwise the readers have no incentive to purchase all three books on the subject and read for themselves the common responses to the other y number of cards - is an interesting one. However, the policy you've quoted reads -

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

...

3a. Minimal usage...

So the text you've picked is specifically written to apply to copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files. Text is covered under the rest of the guideline. The question that needs to be answered is more like, is properly citing all three authors on all ten responses "judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia"? It's clear from previous discussions that many editors here feel that a high-quality encyclopedia should provide readers as much information as possible on all ten cards, so this discussion would probably be best taken up at WT:NFC; and if support is found for your interpretation, included at Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable use of text. –xeno^talk 02:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the informed and considered response, xeno.

First, a correction: my argument is not based on maintaining incentive to buy anything. Wikipedia's policy statements go through their motivations, and preserving the ability to make money is a minor concern.

The phrasing of your quote is something I had considered. A couple of notes: the images themselves (if they are non-free, and I believe they fail to meet the standards of Free Cultural Work) and the lists of responses (which are certainly non-free), aren't normal textual excerpts. They would remain under the 10 criteria.

The textual content is technically given a pass from the 10 criteria, but I believe it is still subject to an umbrella notion of avoiding non-free content where possible, not to mention the even larger notion that Wikipedia is not a complete exposition.

So yes, we have non-free content being added to the article. To see its continued inclusion, as well as to simply justify the creation of a media-rich, seven-screen-long section of the article, I'd like to see some explanation of what knowledge is expressed by the full inclusion. I think such an explanation is needed both in terms of Wikipedia's expressed philosophy against non-free content and want for high-quality, encyclopedic (read: summary, not exhaustive) articles. Crcarlin (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The images are in the public domain and thus meet all the relevant criteria of a Free Cultural Work [17]. As for the cited facts, I think you are working from a novel interpretation of the non-free content policy/guideline as it applies to text. Please seek clarification at WT:NFC to see if your interpretation finds consensus and if so, have it added to WP:NFC#Unacceptable use of text. Further discussion here will likely prove unfruitful. –xeno^talk 16:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fact: the FCW definition says that source data should be available in order for the content to be free.

Fact: the content here comes from unavailable source data.

Where is the need for additional clarification? Isn't that entirely clear? Crcarlin (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The source data for the Rorschach images is ink poured on paper that was then folded. The source data for the responses is not claimed as free. –xeno^talk 14:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That the Rorschach images are just ink poured on paper and folded is a common misconception. Believe it or not, the images were individually and carefully developed, going through thousands of permutations based on data collected over decades. They may not look like carefully calibrated tools to the untrained eye, but they are.

Again, the FCW requires "Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available." The Rorschach images were definitely obtained through processing of files, but the data is not freely available.

Since we agree that the responses are not claimed as free, Wikipedia policy requires that their inclusion be minimized through statements of what extensive use brings to the table. That statement is what I've been seeking and not finding. Crcarlin (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They're still in the public domain. (rest of response and its response moved to #Rationale to include data on all ten cards). –xeno^talk 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The question of the images has been discussed thoroughly in the past here and via e-mail. See, for some examples, this, this, this and especially this and this.

In terms of the handling of text, text is indeed handled differently than other non-free content, I say this with some sense of the history of consensus here as material on text was added to that policy and guideline on my instigation to begin with. :) We absolutely rely on non-free content to verify material. Extensive quotations are forbidden in order to keep the use of individual works de minimis and to avoid rising to the level of substantial similarity. That said, if there are extensive quotations or unusably close paraphrases, these should be rewritten. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What I am talking about here is not the matter of removing the images for the good of the test and such. I'm talking about rewriting the section of the article because 1) it contradicts Wikipedia's written policy by apparently excessively using non-free content, 2) I strongly feel that it goes against the encyclopedic notion of summary, not exhaustive detail, and 3) the rewrite would have the convenient side effect of implementing compromise between the factions in the larger debate.

I asked a simple question that should be answered regardless of all copyright and policy matters: what is conveyed by more that isn't conveyed by less? Shouldn't the answer to that be an important part of any composition process, not to mention an encyclopedic one?

And yet the only answer I've seen to that question involves inclusion for the sake of inclusion... I mean, in addition to the answers involving inappropriate attacks on the test. Crcarlin (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It only contradicts your novel interpretation of the policy, which has been refuted above. Reliable sources are available to provide summary data on all ten cards. I doubt our article here is "exhaustive" when compared to the three cited works. –xeno^talk 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Due to the clarity of the policy on this matter I fail to see how my interpretation is novel. When the policy says, "all of these specific conditions have to be met," and then some conditions aren't met, well, that's that. Crcarlin (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, the "specific conditions" are for non-text media, not cited text. –xeno^talk 14:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As Xeno has explained, those conditions are explicitly for "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license", in contrast to text, which the policy clearly says need only work "in accordance with the guideline". The quiteline says, in entirety, on text: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as '(emphasis added)' or '(emphasis in the original)'. Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Are there extensive quotations of copyrighted text here? If so, can you please point them out? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying it violates policy, but you refuse to provide examples. again, Crcarlin: Can you show me that our descriptions in that table are substantially similar to the source material? Three people have now asked you that question, and you continue to ignore it under the mistaken impression that repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over and over will sway the issue in your favour. Show us evidence to support your position. Resolute 14:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The images have been deemed free in many conversations, and our own attorney has expressed no concern on this front. In terms of WP:NFC, we have no problems with the text as long as it does not extensively quote or too closely parpahrase the originals. Not only are we permitted to properly paraphrase non-free content, we are practically required to by our policies on verifiability and original research. If we are not paraphrasing other sources, we are at risk of interjecting our own synthesis or interpretation. If we paraphrased only free sources, we would certainly limit our accuracy and scope. If you want to discuss the encyclopedia value, you may find it more productive to do so without raising the other questions, as these have been resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You (and they, I guess) misunderstand: the textual descriptions are not what I'm pointing to. I don't know whether they are or are not direct quotations, so of course I'm not going to make the accusation that they are.

What I'm referring to are the results being duplicated here. They are non-free since their source materials aren't free, and so Wikipedia policy requires their use to be minimized. Again (as I've said over and over) this has nothing to do with legalities since Wikipedia doesn't consider legal to be sufficient for inclusion.

Wikipedia policy clearly requires minimization of non-free content, so I'm looking for justification for this level of inclusion. Surely fifth to a tenth the non-free content would be sufficient to communicate the point. Crcarlin (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Results are still text. –xeno^talk 14:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

annoyingly, yet again, butting in at the last moment with a hypothetical question If the results were numbers (like for most psychometrics) would this make a difference? (Or what if results were images instead of text)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Numbers are text. –xeno^talk 19:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a lot of misunderstandings here. Let me pause for the moment and I'll try to come back with a clearer statement. Crcarlin (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That much we can agree on. –xeno^talk 14:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rationale to include data on all ten cards

cut from the mess above

Including data on all ten cards brings much to the table. Completeness. Giving the reader enough information to see that yes, there are common responses to all ten cards, and that three different reliable sources are mostly in agreement on these responses. It shows that card 9 is perhaps the most ambiguous, with two authors not offering up a common answer. It gives a fuller overview of what character traits and pathologies may be divined from the cards, and demonstrates that some cards are better suited than others for particular diagnoses. The article's informative value would suffer were we to exclude discussion of some cards, and our readers would be left confused. –xeno^talk 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ah, confused, yes. Or even tempted to open a book. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The horror... –xeno^talk 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

Was this ever really discussed anywhere that I haven't seen? I suspect that if it was, it was lost in the noise of the bigger war over inclusion of the images in the first place.

What you're describing is clearly disallowed as synthesis. Crcarlin (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This rationale strikes me as self-evident, which is probably why (afaik) it wasn't explicitly discussed. (It also didn't really need to be discussed until you erroneously posited that we need to apply 3a. Minimal use to cited facts in addition to non-text media.)

What I've described is what conclusions the reader might reach. The reader is entirely free to synthesize their own conclusions. We've just provided the groundwork. –xeno^talk 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of all ten images as a simple gallery was discussed in the last big discussion, but the table as it is currently designed is a more recent addition. The table, as it currently stands, greatly increases the amount of information we offer our readers, and should stay. And, as above, your word simply does not cut it Crcarlin. Please show evidence that we are reaching or implying a conclusion not directly supported by the references. Unless you can, your argument of synthesis is as baseless as your argument that we are infringing on NFC. Resolute 15:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have time to dedicate to hashing all of this out. Please remember that I, like you, am just looking to improve the article. I'm not here on a quest to have the images taken down for the sake of psychology or whatever.

Synthesis is not about what's correct or incorrect. It's about giving the reader the well-researched, well-founded conclusions instead of encouraging him to draw his own conclusion based on encyclopedic (that is, incomplete) data.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to give users maximal information. It's to be an encyclopedia, which is a far different thing. The content is to be encyclopedic, surveys of topics designed to convey meanings, themes, and ideas that reflect the subject. Just putting out as much information as possible actually interferes with that goal, presenting unbalanced, raw, out-of-context information that ends up being effectually noise.

Take the data presented here. What are these percentages of popular answers? What sort of samples did they come from? What kind of populations? How big were the samples? Were they using recent scoring methods, old ones, international ones? Do they overlap? All of those questions have enormous implications as to what the numbers mean, but none of them are included in the article. Nor should they be, as the reader will quickly get lost in the important but boring details.

Hence the rule against synthesis. If you want to convey that there are popular answers, then say precisely that with a link to a real analysis supporting the statement. Otherwise the quality of the article suffers--as it does here. Crcarlin (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, your understanding of what constitutes synthesis is as poor as your understanding of what constitutes non-free content. And I'm sorry to say that a list of common answers under a heading of common answers, sourced to reliable sources that state exactly that is neither synthesis nor confusing to the reader. Resolute 15:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever decision is reached - the images and the interpretations have been on WP (and wandering round elsewhere on the internet) for 'some length of time': so the situation created cannot be undone and the discussion on whether the images should be retained or not appears to be irrelevant.

Probably most people 'passing through' will have different responses to those given with at least some of the images- which will 'prove nothing' (beyond the most simplistic types of interpretation which could be discovered by other means) without further information upon the context/weltanshauung (sp?)/behaviour of the respondee - and will assume that there is somewhat more to the process than 'merely numbercrunching the raw data of responses.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure there are many images that have been "wandering round elsewhere on the internet .. for 'some length of time'", which might be considered unhelpful, or even harmful. Does that give Wikipedia reason enough to include them? The smallpox virus was wandering around elsewhere on the planet a long while before these guys came along? Yes, one person getting snallpox wil "prove nothing". Do you see my analogy? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no analogy. There are many ways of analysis of the mind - of which the inkblot tests are only one route. My question somewhere above has not been answered - what do the inkblots find that cannot be discovered by other means?

For the casual observer 'endlessly repeating the same argument' appears to indicate there is a flaw in the argument.

There is as much likelihood of smallpox escaping from a sealed coffin/tomb becoming cracked as from bioterrorists. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No analogy, but thanks for extending it. How do you see us at Wikipedia – tomb-raiders or bioterrorists? I don’t see why the Rorschach inkblots deserve to be compromised simply because the test is not unique in the information it provides. Exactly which, of all the personality psychometrics, provides answers which cannot be discovered by other means? Neither do I see why Wikipedia can show images because simply because they have been wandering round elsewhere on the internet .. for 'some length of time'" – so have thousands of images of child abuse. Um, 'endlessly repeating the same argument'? Apologies, but I thought it was a series of answers to a series of questions, forming a dialogue. Even to a casual observer. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You sure love building strawmen, don't you? Such images of child abuse are illegal. When you manage to get the publication of inkblots outlawed, you will have a point. Resolute 15:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jackiespeel said: "Whatever decision is reached - the images and the interpretations have been on WP (and wandering round elsewhere on the internet) for 'some length of time': so the situation created cannot be undone and the discussion on whether the images should be retained or not appears to be irrelevant." He said nothing about legailty. You are quite right, inkblots are not illegal. But I was suggesting that use of images elsewhere on the internet in general is not reason enough in itself to say "nothing can now be done". I think the use that Wikipedia makes of (legal) images is relevant. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw man or category conflation? There are perhaps three categories of image - (combining several groups) 'those which are illegal/relate to matters sub judice/other topics which should by their nature be excluded from WP'; 'those which are likely to disturb and distress people on various grounds' (war, 'very medical' etc) and 'images whose broadcast cause some inconvenience to those making use of them.'

The points I was making were that the discussion seems to centre solely on whether or not the images and descriptives should be on WP - and not other possible strands, such as 'appearances and interpretations elsewhere on the Web', and that anyone interested in the topic will be able to find the relevant information #whether or not the images and interpretations appear on WP.#

What is the answer to my question - are there any examples where 'organised systems of inkblot tests' (of any kind) are the best way of identifying particular mental issues (of whatever kind)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Its the most used no matter how much you don't want it to be! It's the psychological test with most articles studying it. And the exposure in Wikipedia is seriously damaging it efficiency. We just proved it: [18] EternamenteAprendiz (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of inkblot pictures and responses from Wikipedia would not remove them from the public domain so the point is moot, and 17 test subjects from one trial is hardly convincing evidence. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why this articles makes the Rorschach useless

The Rorschach operates on the principle that we all project our unique mental contents onto ambiguous images. But after one reads the "common response" information published here, the Rorschach becomes a pointless test for them to take and here's why: Let's say you have a rabbit fetish. We're cloudwatching and telling each other what we see in the clouds. You: "Rabbit .. and another. See that one? Right there... that one has a hat on ..." If you leave and Joe comes and asks me what I see in the clouds, among my responses will be your many rabbits, which I never would have seen on my own because I don't have a rabbit fetish. But I'll tell Joe about rabbits because I can't UNSEE what you've shown me. Joe could reasonably assume that I've got a thing about rabbits, but he'd be wrong -- you're the one with the rabbit fetish, not me! But by pointing out your rabbits to me, you intruded on my contents -- I didn't project the rabbits, you did, but you pointed them out, so now they're part of what I see too ... So by publishing these cards, especially with information about what images are frequently seen, you intrude on everyone's projected contents. (And BTW, common responses don't always = "healthy" responses). That's why psychologists are in a bunch about this -- we're listening to what people see in the clouds and you're running around telling them what other people see, which they may never have noticed on their own. When I administer a Rorschach, I don't want people to tell me they see things they never would have noticed before reading this wikipedia article, but they will -- making the whole painstaking process a complete waste of their time and mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveandmicasmom (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument, but do you similarly object to articles that give away the plots to novels and movies? Someone could avoid these articles if he does not want to read them. Roger (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference, Roger, is that, unlike a novel or movie, a person might be able utilize the information available in this article to manipulate the test for his/her own benefit, to society's detriment. A person who reads a spoiler about a book or movie just ruins it for themselves; a person who, for example, uses the information in this article to game a disability assessment, incurs fiscal consequences for all taxpayers. A person gaming a court-ordered psychological evaluation, in doing so, misrepresents themselves to the court, and may therefore be given inappropriate sentences. You can see where I'm going with this - baring the Rorschach to the world doesn't just hurt the profession of psychology, it hurts all the social systems that depend on reliable assessment. Steve Carlson^Talk 09:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviving the discussion

It seems that the discussion about this has petered out, but I continue to be appalled at the amount of information available in this article. I am normally strongly in favor of the free sharing of information, but in this case, I feel that its availability is damaging to the ongoing use of the test, and has broader social consequences that must be considered.

As a psychologist, I have conducted assessments, and read the results of many others, in which Rorschach results were critical to defining a clear picture of the person's psychological functioning. Its unique properties make it useful for obtaining information in circumstances when other, more face-valid instruments fall short. For example, the Rorschach is often used as part of a larger test battery for disability assessments and court-ordered psychological evaluations. Because, under these circumstances, the individual may be motivated to present a different picture of their psychological functioning, face-valid instruments are often compromised by malingering or "faking good". In such circumstances, only projective tests like the Rorschach can deliver valid data. This is why it continues to be utilized on such a widespread basis.

If the DMV only had one form of its written test, you wouldn't want the questions and answers posted all over the web, right? The test would lose its ability to distinguish between drivers who know the laws and those who don't. Same thing here. The Rorschach's ability to deliver valid results depends entirely on the subject never having seen the stimulus cards, and never being exposed to other people's interpretations of them. The test and its interpretation procedures have been painstakingly normed, over a span of 70+ years, on this assumption. If a subject sees the inkblots and/or popular responses prior to evaluation, their responses during the evaluation will be affected, altering the psychological profile generated by the test. Since the evaluator can never be certain whether the subject has seen the blots, etc., s/he can never be certain whether the data collected by the instrument is in fact valid; this uncertainty renders the test useless.

Arguments that the images are public domain and accessible elsewhere on the internet are, in my opinion, irrelevant. Wikipedia should not support the proliferation of information that would cause harm to the practice of any profession, or which would subvert other social systems (the disability claims system, for instance). Just because other sites are doing it doesn't mean we should - Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the web, and if the images are shared here, they are more likely to be viewed and spread elsewhere. Wikipedia should be a model of social responsibility; sharing intimate Rorschach details is simply not socially responsible.

Arguments that new, copyright-protected inkblots could be created to keep the test stimuli in the protected domain ignore the fact that it has taken 70 years to evolve this test into a form that one can argue is psychometrically valid. That is no small undertaking. We're not talking a few studies here. We're talking HUNDREDS. Hundreds of lengthy studies, each with hundreds of participants, conducted to ensure the validity of the test across populations, to verify each of the THOUSANDS of possible findings that the test may generate. If the Rorschach is invalidated through widespread exposure, it will be ten years or more before the profession can develop another test that demonstrates validity anywhere near that of the Rorschach, not including the countless hours of retraining that each practitioner will require to familiarize themselves with the new test. The cost to the profession would be immense.

I ask you all to please consider the broader implications of the ongoing presence of this sensitive data on Wikipedia. This is not just about a few Rorschach zealots defending their baby. It's about the ability of psychologists to continue to use a tool that helps them to effectively do their jobs, and the social implications that invalidating such a tool would have. Thank you. Steve Carlson^Talk 10:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.54.40.226, 23 September 2011

Please remove the pictures of the Rorschach cards and the description of common responses. This is copyright material and affects test validity.

208.54.40.226 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images and Talk:Rorschach test/images--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a warning about the possibility that reading this will mess up your tests?

I'm not for nor against for the moment, but i was wondering, should this article have a little note up top warning people that according to some, by reading this article you might negatively affect the accuracy of the tests performed on you in the future? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there some proof of that? It seems much more likely to me that reading the article will positively affect the tests. I say that there should be no such warning unless some RS has objective evidence of a negative effect, and then the warning should be limited to the negative effect demonstrated. Roger (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"It seems much more likely to me that reading the article will positively affect the tests." - Do you understand the concept behind this test at all? 96.18.69.186 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the article is incomplete in its explanation of the concept behind the test, then please go ahead and improve it. Roger (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. This suggestion has been made before, both here and at various other articles. It has always been shot down by a significant margin. Resolute 03:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think that this proposal is covered the five standard disclaimers. (But I think that such a disclaimer is unlikely to be helpful anyway.) Roger (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not needed. Unless psychological textbook place this warning on them which of course they do not. And we would need evidence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Psychological textbooks do not show the actual inkblots used in the test. 96.18.69.186 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

They in fact do. Check out [19] [20] and [21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

heh it occurrs to me that the Poets of the fall Lift music video shows something very close to 5.Genisock2 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Revealing the images

... did not cause the collapse of civilisation.

Even non-experts-in-the-field would agree it is useful to have standardised images.

No matter how many times I look at the images and whatever interval, I still see 'wolves' and 'biker.' 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi! This talk page is for discussing changes you want to make to the article. What changes do you propose? Lova Falk talk 13:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

'General observation' given all the fuss at the time. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

Displaying images of the Rorchach test, popular responses and comments invalidate the test. Clinical psychologists and other professionals still use this test and may specifically use it with people who may malinger on other other tests of personality so it is crucial that this test remains confidential and for professionals only. It is not helpful to have this information so readily available to the public because it means that examinees may access 'common results' and potentially provide responses that are not authentic and valid. I respectfully ask that you remove these images, popular responses and comments. Emjaspiro (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The images (and responses) are in the public domain and are available in sources other than Wikipedia, so we're not letting the cat out of the bag. They also appear to be educational in nature. Keep in mind that our articles aren't written with any particular subset of readers in mind, and readers who will never be given a Rorschach test should be entitled to view such images if they like. Whether readers who will be given a Rorschach test should be entitled to view them is a somewhat complex ethical question, but even those who'd answer in the negative might agree that Wikipedia's policy against censorship trumps their personal view. (Feel free to solicit other editors' opinions. No need to use the edit request template—just begin a new section.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What Rivertorch says here is, I think, very fair (although I don't really believe that trumps have a place in such a complex ethical debate). I was one of three editors who argued very arduously and persistently for removal of the images, or for placement of the main image lower down the page, or at the very least for less prominence to be given to the "top responses". The Rorschach Institute also expressed their deep concern. But all was to no avail. For me the article still breaches the important principal of trying, wherever possible, to not display in the public domain psychological test materials - regardless of what they are. And I feel sorry for that. The test is still very widely used in USA and in Japan. But Rivertorch has summed up the strong consensus which emerged from much protracted earlier debate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't review the (dauntingly vast) archives before posting, so I actually was unaware of those discussions. I did recall that a basic psychology textbook I once used had illustrations of Rorschach blots and a discussion of common answers, and a simple search revealed lots of similar things online. So it occurred to me that this sort of content is definitely out there in other places, and that it would be rather odd to expurgate this article of things that anyone can find elswhere but that Wikipedia might be able to cover more thoroughly and with more context. This is a bit beyond the scope of the talk page, but I'm also inclined to say that test answers and methodologies rarely stay secret for long, so it probably would behoove psychologists who find ink blot tests useful to ensure that new versions of such tests are developed at rather more frequent intervals. Rivertorch (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If you need a link back to that huge discussion, please let me know. Yes, we had many versions of that particular lovely argument. All of which seemed to boil down to "you psychologists can spend as much time and money as you like developing a test, but if we want to invalidate it at the drop of a hat, by posting all the questions here, that's your problem". Hmm, how ethical is that? And of course, as far as this test goes, one's analysis rests very much on how far you see it as moving with culture or as tapping into some kind of culturally stable archetypes? The original inkblots were meant to be "random" but we now know they were not. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but we never had a reliable source to say that publishing the images and comments invalidates the test. Even if it did, we never had any evidence that professional testing was more important than self-testing. Even if this article helps malingerers against the interests on clinical psychologists, no one explained why we should side with the psychologists. And no one proposed the necessary changes to the WP anti-censorship policies. Roger (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, no apologies. As I think I tried to argue countless times, the kind of "reliable source" that you ask for would be logically impossible and (even if possible) unethical to provide. My position on this has not changed. It's curious, though, how "sides" develop, isn't it? But you still hold your precious "trump card" is seems. Oh well. Let's hope I'm not a "mallingerer", eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. how exactly does one "self test" with the Rorschach?

The tests have beeon around for some 90 years - so knowledge of them was going to spread, especially once the internet became generally available.

Wikiapedia has become well known as a repository of information useful and obscure (and sometimes incorrect) - so it was logical to assume that the images would end thereon display.

There are positive reasons (obvious to even a non-psychologist) for having a standard set of images (responses to which will change over time and across cultures - as the weltanshauung varies).

Therefore it would have been/would be reasonable to be developing alternative images on a fairly regular basis.

To a non-psychologist the claim that persons can malinger with other inkblot tests means that they can do so with these ones whether or not WP provides details - and psychologists should be able to factor in 'access to previous inkblot tests' and possibly gaming the situation. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the reputable claim that "persons can malinger with other inkblot tests"? In fact, how many other inkblot tests are available? Your argument seems to be along the lines of: "because people can fake other tests, it doesn't matter if we tell them here what the typical responses are to this test, and how those responses might the interpreted." Or are you just saying: "all projective psychometric measures are useless (unless their component items are kept up-to-date and non-contaminated by pubic domain dispersal)"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wallace Collection shop had a book on the Rorschach text with 'images and explanations' (and I presume it is available elsewhere). Therefore WP is fully justified in having the images and explanations on the relevant article. Also it would be surprising if the RT constituted the whole of the psychoanalysis - as with WP itself it should serve as a starting point. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A number of books, and more recently websites, have published the images. This does not mean that wikipedia therefore necessarily has to "follow suit" in some way. The argument usually brought to bear is rather that the images are in the public domain, with no legal copyright protection. This in turn means that, wherever you happen to see them is irrelevant. But I am intrigued by your own personal account. Are you suggesting that their inclusion in "a book" at the Wallace Collection shop confers upon them some kind of status as works of art?

Your suggestion that the test itself should be regarded as only a start point for a much deeper and longer analysis is very sensible and I would agree with it. But it raises yet again the question as to whether pre-exposure to the some or all of the images in some way taints or invalidates the test, and thus, by connection, the whole of the ensuing analytical process. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If there is some reliable source saying that pre-exposure taints or invalidates the test, then perhaps that ought to be added to the article. Is there? Roger (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we'd probably come back to Randall (2010), wouldn't we. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of a test?

Moved from Talk:Rorschach test Why are this kind of information published? Psychological test should be used for helping people, This way of publishing information destroys that.

Rolf Petersson Leg psychologist — Precedingunsigned comment added by 90.237.201.28(talk) 11:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The information has been available on the internet for 'those who look for it' for some time - and Wikipedia mainly reports (and summarises and compares) what is available. As I said 'somewhere in the talk page archives' the tests have been around for decades, so awareness of the interpretations is likely to spread.Jackiespeel (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor. The available evidence was that people are helped by publishing the test, not hurt. You can find the discussion in the archives of this page. Roger (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? Is that "available evidence" presented in the archived discussion? I couldn't see it. Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Would you like to show us the "available evidence" for that claim?

'From what I understand' the viewer's interpretations of the images are taken in the wider context of the 'analytical session' - so having 'one set of perceptions' does not invalidate the process as a whole - and can be used for further 'discussion and interpretation.' The significance of 'seeing a wolf's-head-like-image' will depend upon 'being a conservation orientated person' or 'being a far-right wing orientated person' (simplifying) etc. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The important question is, does publication of the pictures constitute a copyright violation? If it does, the pictures should be removed. Lova Falk talk 14:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The pictures are not protected by copyright. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rorschach_test_images a consensus was reached that inclusion of the images and the common responses to them is appropriate within current policies. Lova Falk talk 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Some might argue that policy should be developed to better accommodate the advice of the APA, the BPS and the CPA. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A policy which will require the censorship of this article, no doubt. We both know that anything along those lines would be dead before it got off the ground. Resolute21:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One lives in hope of respect for the advice of the relevant professional bodies in building an encyclopedia? But I doubt I'll be trying to prepare the ground for such a policy shift.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

None of those professional organizations has ever said that there any net harm in publishing the inkblot images. Roger (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't they all make statements about the protection of test materials in general? Were they assuming that the Rorschach should be excluded for some reason? Would we expect them to name all tests individually?Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they did make statements, and the article summarizes them.Rorschach_test#Protection_of_test_items_and_ethics None of the statements imply that non-psychologists should be censoring a public domain test. The CPA did name the Rorschach individually, and said that it is not concerned with publication of the images. Even if one of these organizations did complain about release of the images, it would be about like the Hunger Games movie producer complaining about WP publishing a plot spoiler.Roger (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

An interesting, but rather limited, analogy, I would suggest. Martinevans123(talk) 17:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The CPA statement was this: "The CPA's concern is not with the publication of the cards and responses to the Rorschach test per se, for which there is some controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts, but with the larger issue of the publication and dissemination of psychological test content". I don't see them saying categorically that it is "not concerned with publication of the images." They are careful to say "per se", i.e. in itself. This one example, although controversial, is part of a bigger picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014

Moved from Talk:Rorschach test

Please remove images of the inkblots and remove detailed information that "suggests" how the cards are perceived. Unregulated access to these cards and information can hinder the validity and continued usefulness of this assessment tool. While it is certainly a fascinating topic and the cards are fascinating in and of themselves, these image postings along with suggestive perceptions of the cards are detrimental to the important use of these cards in clinical settings. This is a disservice to the public at large whom clinical psychologists serve. Not to mention a copyright violation as the cards are trademarked and protected test materials. In summary, please change the section that includes each card image alongside a suggestion of perception of the card to a section that does not show the cards and simply indicates there are 10 cards with images that the examinees is asked to describe as they see it. You may also change the images to "fake" Rorschach images often found on the internet if an example is requested by readers. 69.242.0.157 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The images are in the public domain and are not under any copyrights as the "author" died in 1922 (102 years ago). As far as the rest of it goes, I'm afraid that would fall under Wikipedia being not censored. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you were about to be given a Rorschach test, say as part of a psychological assessment in a criminal trial, and you wanted to "fake good" by giving the most normal responses, where would you look for help? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What has this question to do with the article content? --cyclopia^speak! 22:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No, quite right. It's to do with how article content might be used. None of our concern, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your guess is correct.--cyclopia^speak! 23:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Phew. Good job it's just a guess and not part of a structured projective test, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you want to actually obtain with your sarcasm, but you had it right: how article content is used is none of our business. Literally none. Zero. We are here to provide information to readers. If then readers decide to use it for nefarious purposes, that's their problem, not ours. Should we censor Critical mass because, you know, that's essential information if you need to build a nuclear weapon?--cyclopia^speak! 09:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

An acknowledgement that there is an issue to debate, I think, not just an IP edit request to dismiss and quickly move into this side area. Also, I would have thought reading in detail and understanding about how to build a nuclear weapon would require both a certain amount of motivation and a degree of technical knowledge. In contrast, viewing inkblots takes neither. You can't stop yourself simply seeing an image. If, as the users of this test argue, it's immediate first impressions which are key to its use, you might instead want to give the reader a choice - a drop down panel which clearly says "Viewing these images may affect your responses if you later take the test". Pasting the images near the top of the article means you can't escape them. It's a bit like a very immediate and irreversible "plot-spoiler" of a film you may never want to see, but one day might have to? Of course, if you come with a pre-supposition that the whole test is useless, you're not really bothered about any risk. I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

there is an issue to debate - No. There is no issue whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia article about the Rorschach test. Such images and their interpretation are obviously crucial facts related to the test -they are the test, indeed. The images are in the public domain and all this information can be reliably sourced. That's, literally, all what we have to care about. I have no opinion on the test being useful or useless -well, I'm slighly skeptical, honestly, but not being a psychiatrist I cannot make a truly informed judgement. But even if it was 100% sure the test is useful, and 100% sure that this article is ruining it: all of this would be again entirely irrelevant. We cannot enter into every possible ramification of consequences of every information we provide, or basically this would mean to censor half of the project. Also, knowledge about the test is already out -censoring ourselves is pointless. It will mean that psychiatry will adapt around the contemporary epoch, one where "security through obscurity" is guaranteed not to work.--cyclopia^speak! 12:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well you said it - "not being a psychiatrist I cannot make a truly informed judgement". I'm not a psychiatrist either. But when involved professional bodies like APA, CPA and BPS make very clear statements regarding test materials, I would have thought it would be more responsible for Wikipedia to listen. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's not that we keep them unless proven that it is harming the test/psychology. It is that it is not our concern. Let's assume, again, that it is 100% true that hosting the test cards/interpretations here is ruining a valuable psychology/psychiatry tool. As far as I know, it may well be. Should we act? No. We are an encyclopedia and we do our encyclopedia work, and if some people do not like it that is not our concern. We must act independently from such reasonings, because otherwise we should censor every conceivably harmful information, and therefore we might well close the project, because all information can be harmful, in one context or the other. Should we tell people that the poliovirus gene sequence is available and one can create it in a lab? Should we take care not to have a list of suicide methods because, well, this can be used for self harm (and surely it has been)? Should we tell people that strychnine is poisonous, and how much -maybe if one doesn't know, or better if we deliberately put wrong information, a poisoner could put too little and we would save someone's life, after all. And so on. The whole point of this project is having open, freely available information, with no exceptions and no self censorship. This might have some drawbacks in some specific instances, but if you feel this project has any value, then you should feel that the overall advantages are beyond the disadvantages. --cyclopia^speak! 13:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If I thought this project didn't have any value, I don't think I'd be here discussing this with you! I'll just have to agree with you that yes, very definitely, "it might have some drawbacks". And the example of suicide methods that you present is quite apt. If one of those professional bodies I cited came to wikipedia with evidence that information available here had been instrumental in an increased rate of suicide, I'd feel unable to argue that they should simply be ignored, just to preserve the self-conferred ethos of an on-line encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's make another example. Suppose someone wants to take their own life. They realize the easiest way with the material at hand would be hanging. Only, they don't know how to make the knot. This could just give them enough time to think this through a bit more and change their mind. But hey, today we have the Internet, and we can look hangman's knot here, for example. This makes suicide much easier for someone with Google -and I'm practically sure it made the difference several times. Should we remove all information about the hangman's knot online? --cyclopia^speak! 15:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We're not responsible for " all information about the hangman's knot online", were just reponsible for what's here. Or maybe we have a moral duty to reflect/ mimic/ stay attuned to whatever's available on line - including all those bits of the "public domain" that innocent readers, of any age, don't even yet know about or realise that they don't want to know about? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice I linked an article on such knot? Did you notice the first image in the article is basically an how-to to make the knot? And besides, the philosophical matter is the same: would you advocate removing information, here or elsewhere, on how to make a noose?--cyclopia^speak! 09:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, cyclopia, but I've tried to explain my misgivings as clearly as I can. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This issue is long settled after literally years of debate. The very arguments being made today have been discussed ad nauseum and the community has come to a clear consensus that the images shouls be included. This decision was based off of the goals and policies of this project. I invite anyone wishing to argue for their removal to read the enourmous volume of debate that has already taken place. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, (some of) the "enourmous volume" is in the archives back at Talk:Rorschach test, in case you thought there was no way back from here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Too detailed article can bias diagnosis and therapy

Moved from Talk:Rorschach test

Hello everybody, i'm a psychologist and i found this article very accurate, well written and detailed. And this is the problem. I'm sorry for the user who wrote such a good article, but may i suggest to remove many in-depth details, especially about the most common answers to the test. Rorschach test can only be taken once in your life, and you are supposed to be seeing the tables for the first time then. Though i know this is now very unlikely, due to internet, i do warn that knowing so much about the test can affect and bias your response to it, either with or without your purpose and consciousness. This test, like any other, is supposed to be used by the psychologist for your own good, which mainly means, for a better diagnosis that will result in a better psychotherapy. Therefore, if your answers are biased, this will damage the entire process and do no good for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.36.63.201 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but have you seen all the above boxes? The issue has been discussed to death. Consensus is that we are not censored and that such details are encyclopedic information. Sorry. --cyclopia^speak! 19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's true to say that the test "can only be taken once in your life", although for many people this will be the circumstance. I sympathise strongly with your view point and have repeatedly made the same arguments myself, but have to respect the consensus here. If new empirical, or indeed legal, evidence ever came to light, which clearly showed that exposure had a direct negative effect in some way, we would need to discuss again. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

maybe this thread, six months earlier, belongs above the one above? assuming the OP would ever find it here anyway, of course Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE THE INKBLOTS

Moved from Talk:Rorschach test
The section (the pictures and statistics) on the real inkblots is unnecessary and should not be provided to the public. By doing so, you are jeopardizing the validity of this instrument. The R-PAS (and any former versions) are to be used by trained professionals only, and by giving this information, you're running the risk of invalidating this measure. Please consider removing. I am also fairly certain it is a direct violation of the instrument's copyrights, as they are not to be published or replicated without direct approval (per usual). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.51.94 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Already discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong about the copyright, when I provided (what I believe are still) the currently-presented inkblots, I went to very great lengths to ensure I was using versions taken from books that were definitely out of copyright. I do not appreciate being accused of illegal acts, so please be careful before doing that. These books are, additionally, already available on Google Books (I had no special access to anything, I only used publicly available information from the Internet). The alleged validity of this instrument has long been jeopardized, and its alleged required secrecy is an obvious flaw with it. LjL (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. You can find these images in the public library and even just by a simple google search. If the test relies on people not googling the test then I would say Wikipedia is the least of the issues with it. Chillum 16:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Do I have the reasons for keeping correct?

Hi all. I'm seeking to understand the reasons given for keeping the test. It seems like there are two main reasons given. 1) The images are public domain and easily available elsewhere, so Wikipedia isn't hurting the test any more than it already has been, and 2) removing the images would be censoring Wikipedia. Right? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I figured it out. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but also the same reasons that WP posts all sorts of info -- that it is valuable and useful to people. WP seeks to bring knowledge to the masses, and not just to the intellectual elites. Roger (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2016

Hi, remove the images of the inkblots and the expected, they may affect the way people answer the test when they research it, also it can be unethical to show the images to common people, thank you xx

201.211.56.190 (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Been discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Common people"? Hmm, maybe we should just pulp them. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Human sens violation

You should take off the ink plot or at least the sugg3estion of answer. By showing them and suggestiong answer you are invalidating that test. For everybody watching this your are giving false information because there no good or bad answer. No good encyclopedia would break something to help people learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lili 234356 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think if someone is searching for information about the test online, that ship has sailed. Also, this subject has been discussed about a million times, and the consensus is to not censor the article. See some of those discussions at Talk:Rorschach test/disclosure. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Lili 234356, yes, the small amount of experimental evidence that exists does indeed suggest that pre-exposure can have an effect. Despite protests from both the APA and the BPS, that psychological test results should not be made public, WP has decided that the right not to censor is more important, regardless of the continued widespread use of the test, especially in the US. As you suggest, the issue is not really about the inkblots, but about "the most popular answers". In very simple terms, if you know you will be given this test you can use the article to learn the top answers - if you then want to appear "in the norm" (for whatever reason) you can give these, if you want to appear "out of the norm" you can dream up something more outlandish. Although the tests consider other elements of response than just content of response (although there is contrasting evidence), this possible route of contamination may allow for a major source of disruption. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. "Talk:Rorschach test/disclosure" is the page that you're reading here now.