Talk:Rorschach test

Deeper reasons for Rorschach inkblot test controversy

Howard N. Garb, Scott O. Lilienfeld , M. Teresa Nezworski and James M. Wood go through the historical roots for Rorschach inkblot test controversy. Psychologists hold disparate views on the importance of (a) informal clinical impressions and (b) findings from systematic clinical studies. The leading Rorschach figure, Bruno Klopfer, was openly contemptuous of the need for norms and refused to include them in his highly popular Rorschach system. The central question (according to Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood) regarding informal validation is this: Are informal clinical observations as dependable as systematic clinical studies for assessing the validity of tests and the efficacy of treatments? Their arguments is that informal validation has been denounced within the field of medicine and other disciplines for a very long time and Rorschach inkblot test is an informal validation.

Garb, HN; Wood, JM; Lilienfeld, SO; Nezworskid, MT (January 2005), "Roots of the Rorschach controversy", Clinical Psychology Review, 25 (1): 97–118, doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.09.002{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

In this vein of arguments Rorschach controversy has deeper reasons than test itself. User:Yuccara|Yuccara]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Klopfer's opinions are ancient history (even though he should be credited as a pioneer in the field), so using his opinions to argue against the Rorschach is like using nineteenth century medical standards to argue against use of surgery. Exner and many others brought the Rorschach light years beyond Klopfer.

Garb, Wood, and Lilienfeld have largely been debunked here and in other professional publications. Garb et al. based their positions on outdated publications and selective exclusion of current research contrary to their arguements. Very bad science. Ward3001 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I just happened to find that article (Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood) by accident when I was casually looking for something else from the databases. What was something new to me was the following.

From 1940 to 1980, no figure in the United States was more closely associated with the Rorschach than Bruno Klopfer. Besides establishing the most popular American Rorschach system and co-authoring the most widely used textbook on the test (Klopfer & Kelley, 1946), Klopfer founded the Rorschach Institute (which eventually became the Society for Personality Assessment) and the Rorschach Research Exchange (which eventually became the Journal of Personality Assessment). Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood (2005).Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• For the Rorschach, 1940-1980 is ancient history. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Now. I am not an expert here. But on the other hand it might be undestandable from Society for Personality Assessment, i.e. Rorschach Institute, to publish in their magazine Journal of Personality Assessment, i.e. Rorschach Research Exchange, an article that says that Rorschach is a valid test.Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• And I am an expert on assessment. SPA has a wide variety of members, including those critical of the Rorschach. The Journal of Personality Assessment, from which this article was taken, is a peer-reviewed journal. And Garb et al. have been refuted in other publications. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be the same as if a leading judge from Supreme Court say that Constitution is not valid. Since Rorscach test is a base, i.e. Constitution, it can not changed or amended without huge debate. Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The actual inkblots are not changed, but the interpretive process has always been open to change through research, just like any other scientific concept can be modified through research. The Exner system has been modifed dozens of times of the past 30 years, by Exner himself and others. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And actually you missed the point totally. Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood (2005) argument is that informal validation has been denounced within the field of medicine and other disciplines for a very long time and Rorschach inkblot test is an informal validation.Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, you missed the point by a wide margin. Informal validation??? When a properly trained psychologist interprets the Rorschach, it is not informal. The psychologist doesn't just listen to the patient's responses and informally come up with opinions. The Rorschach has been validated through formal research over the past four decades by Exner and many others. Every Rorschach response is coded on a variety of determinants. The actual object that is seen (e.g., "I see a bat") is only one of many determinants. Others include how color is used, how shading is used, whether a pair or a reflection is seen, how common the object is (derived from frequency tables), whether elements of the blot are integrated into a single percept, etc. etc. Although some (but not all) of these determinants may have been based on theory (such as psychoanalysis), the basics of interpretation do not necessarily depend on the theory. Instead, the determinants are used to derive about 150 statistical calculations, ratios, indexes, and composites. Through a vast amount of research, these statistical findings are objectively related to behavioral and emotional patterns in everyday life. Thus, no psychoanalytic "projection" is required for that aspect of interpretation. Some psychologists go beyond the statistics and use subjective interpretation of "projected" material, but Exner's system never relies exclusively on projective interpretation. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words admitting that also other informal validation methods are invalid would have profound effects to many people in practise. I would see that Rorschach inkblot test is "stronghold" in fierce battle.

Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my misbehaviour in previous comment(s). Right order is of course Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld and Nezworski (2005). And of course in APA style it would be Garb et al (2005). Sorry. But may be you forgive me since I was not writing article to a journal, etc. Yuccara 06:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And as has been pointed out, the Exner system renders the criticism of the Rorschach as using informal validation as invalid. Moreover, Lelienfeld's work has largely been debunked within the field. Lilienfeld and colleagues are somewhat akin to the minority of scientists who claim that people have nothing to dow ith global warming. It's a fringe group. One example of Lilienfeld's honesty with respect to a claim concerning the Rorschach:

J. Reid Meloy's brief critique of just one part of Wood et al's "What's Wrong with the Rorschach" (Journal of Personality Assessment, volume 83, pp.344-346) addresses their claim that (.p.251 of Lilienfeld's book on the Rorschach) "ten replication studies examined the relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. Nine of the ten found no significant relationship. "

This may sound impressive. However, eight of the ten studies were doctoral dissertations that had never been peer reviewed and had never been published in scientific journals. Meloy wasn't familiar with all of those unpublished dissertations, but was on the committee of one of the ones cited by Wood et al as showing no significasnt relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. The dissertation did not include enough participants who were psychopathic to make this comparison. It therefore wasn't a valid study to use by Lilienfeld. It is thus mistaken (at best) or misleading (at worst)to use it as a counterexample.

The only study that was peer reviewed and published in a journal was the one that found a significant difference. The tenth study, one of only two publuished ones, appeared in a book chapter. It did indeed fail to find a significant difference between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths on reflective responses. Although the psychopaths produced three times as many reflective responses, this did not quite meet significance (p value was .07, just a bit higher than the .05 necessary for significance). Of course, none of these details were mentioned by Wood et al. Their absence confirms the conensus within the field that Lilienfeld are more interested in scoring polemic points than examining evidence objectively. Indeed, Lilienfeld and colleagues' works are filled with innacuracies, conveniently missing information etc. and aren't taken seriously by most people in the field.

This is why Lilienfeld et al have turned to the popular press with their claims. It is more easy to confince people who know less about the topic.Faustian 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Bibliometric" data on Exner

What is the point of this edit? As it is presented, I have no idea. Is it to show that Exner contributed mainly to JPA? What about the hundreds of other authors who wrote about the Rorschach? And JPA is one of the main journals for publishing about personality assessment. It is the only American journal devoted exclusively to personality assessment. Why would Exner publish in a journal that has nothing to do with personality assessment? And, in fact, he and others have published elsewhere, such as APA and other journals. At best the edit is pointless; at worst, it is very misleading. Deleted. Ward3001 15:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well. I was interested that how Exner has been contributing the thesis. Some people do it through books. Some people do it by articles. People have different valuations for books and articles. Some say that books are nothing. Some say that only articles matter. Some say that in books can be more information than in articles. Some say that books just repeat everything uselessly.

So the main point was just to give some idea how Exner´s ideas have spreaded since 1986. Not everybody have access to ISI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuccara (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not true that Exner has published primarily through books. I can post an entire bibilography for Exner, as well as others researching Exner's system, in the article, but it would probably triple or quadruple the length of the article and serve no purpose. I still fail to see your point. Exner published in journals, very often. Much of what is in his books is a synthesis of his research published in journals, as well as the research of others. Exner was a huge researcher for the Rorschach. Of course he wrote books. That does not diminish the importance of his research. Have you actually read a journal article or book by Exner?? Ward3001 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation map could be nice; may be the most influental articles and books. The problem of ISI is that it goes only to 1986. And like the chain from ancient history today. Hey - can you do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuccara (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a citation map. If you mean how often he is cited and which publications are cited, I have never had a need to know particular statistical details about number of publications, where he published, how often he was cited, etc. because I have read most of what he wrote. I don't think statistics about how much he is cited would reveal much because he is probably the most cited researcher in the history of the Rorschach. I think your concern is that he published mainly in books instead of journals (not true) and that he only published in JPA (not true). I still fail to get the point to all this. Ward3001 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Level of abstraction

Like in my previous messages I have tried to indicate that there is some doubt to whole class of projective tests, including Rorscach. I read an article denouncing projective tests, including Rorschach, and then I checked casually databases. Then I happened to see Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld and Nezworski (2005) article. Why not to add something when after reading an article? It is not big task to add summary.Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• An article by Lillenfeld, Wood, & Garb is already discussed and cited in the Wikipedia article. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I referenced Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld and Nezworski (2005) not Lillenfeld, Wood, & Garb. Try to keep count on your references.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• SAME AUTHORS. SAME ARGUMENTS. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And another thing.

Why not some bibliometrics? A citation map? Why not? Surely we are all interested how the idea has developed from the first initial thought to current form. Can we draw a line? X -> Y -> Z-> Exner?Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Read Exner's works. Then you can trace development of the Rorschach and the Exner system. You can't do it with a citation map if you haven't actually read Exner. I asked before, and I'll ask again: Have you ready any of Exner's writings? Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well. Why not to add references and small summaries? Like I have indicated before not everybody have access to all databases.

• Like I said before: The level of abstraction was my main concern. Here it goes again: 1->2->3. 1) I read an article denouncing 'all' projective test, 2) I browse for database for further enquiry, 3) I look for meta-article, 4) I find a meta-article 5) I read a meta-article 6) It happens to came my mind to add few lines of it to Wikipedia.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

READ EXNER. That's the last time I'm discussing this point. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Like I said before. I added the main point: informal validation.

• Their arguments is that informal validation has been denounced within the field of medicine and other disciplines for a very long time

* See my point? New info: critising informal validation, not only Rorscach.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING. If you want to try to write an article outside the Rorschach article about "informal validation", be my guest. But it will be mercilessly criticized by others. Just don't put it in the Rorschach article because the Rorschach is not "informally validated." Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have read almost everything what Exner has written why you don´t add some stuff to "History" part to this article? "Development of Exner´s thoughts", "Exner´s responses to criticism", "Exner´s teachers", "How Exners pupils have continued his work", "Exner´s master thesis", "Exner´s doctoral thesis", "themes of Exner´s pupils", "main works of Exner in brief", "what to research more according to Exner", etc.Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, I have contributed to the article, especially regarding controversy. Look at the edit history. Secondly, the article has been blocked from editing for the past five weeks. No one could edit it. And finally, I will add to the article, but this article is not my entire life. I have other responsibilities. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And where are following parts of the article? "Current status of Rorschach method research", "Main themes in Rorschach method research", "History Rorschach method research". Surely you have some idea of that if you can criticize Garb et al (2005).Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Same answer as my previous paragraph. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why not to add info? Is there something so special that you can not distribute?(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Don't insinuate that I'm am witholding "special" informaton. I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO ADD TO THE ARTICLE. That's the last time I'm discussing this point. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW. What do you like this kind of edit?

The discussion of validity of projective tests is quite old. One good example is article of Mensh (1950) which goes through in 1950 “present-day” statistical techniques in psychodiagnostics (Mensh´s term). When new test were proposed back in 1950s statistical questions were raised of all tests, both projective and non-projective. The issues noticed by Norman are still relevant today

• there can be nomothetic or idiographic point of view
• what to do with phenomenon that does not fit in the normal curve?
• units of multivariate phenomenon, like personality, can differentiate in different curves, e.g. normal curve or J-curve
• reproduction of data in clinical practice
• can cases be treated objectively, quantitatively and anonomously?

Problems remain since Mensh´s (1950) days. How to describe many dimensions of personality and considering all data simultaneously? Can scientific method be employed in clinical practice? How to create similar conditions in clinical practice than in research phase of a psychological test? How to value and classify observations? Can statistical method be used if statistical units, i.e. observations, are not similar because of different observers? As an example Mensh (1950) references to Rorschach (naturally version then) method where is not-similar-distributed-factor problem. Like in 1950 there is not yet unanimous agreement among researchers and issues of validity and reliability in the study of personality. The same discussion (sometimes heated) continues when projective methods are in discussion and some researchers cast a doubt to whole class of projective tests while some are defending class of projective tests.

Mensh (1950). Mensh, Ivan Norman. Statistical techniques in present-day psychodiagnostics. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 47(6), 475-492, November.

Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• You really need to develop some expertise in psychological testing in general before adding this kind of information. I can't teach you psych testing on a Wikipedia talk page. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• You missed the point again. 1) Projective tests 2) problems generally in projective tests 3) Rorschach is a projective test.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• READ EXNER. Rorschach is more than a projective test with the Exner system. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually proposed edit is too long. It should be stilisised and then added with some other meta-article from 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Then it would be more informative. May be some meta-articles before 1950 also.

Well. Actually these should be two lines, i.e. pro-Rorschach and anti-Rorschach meta-articles from different decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuccara (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is my last response to you. I don't mean to be offensive, but it's obvious you don't have much knowledge of psychological testing. If you continue adding irrelevant or outdated info to the Rorschach article, I (and others) will continue deleting it. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing speed

There is interesting sentence.

As the patient is examining the inkblots, the psychologist writes down everything the patient says or does, no matter how trivial.

Just came to my mind that is there any research of the writing speed of the psychologist?

I got 7885 references in PsychINFO with term "rorschach" in abstract search. 0 with "rorschach writing speed". 0 "rorschach shorthand". 1 "rorschach writing".

I just started to wonder (aloud - it seems).

Yuccara 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Videotaped sessions?

Is there videotaped sessions where Rorschach has been used? I checked that "Rorschach video" returned 0 results. Of course the argument is that video is not the same as a real situation.

There is not section "Training" or "Education" in this article.

Has there been video training?

Scirus database gave some references (term "Rorschach video").

doi:10.1016/j.schres.2004.07.008 "Visual scanning deficits in schizophrenia and their relationship to executive functioning impairment" Arpi Minassian, Eric Granholma, Steven Verneyb, William Perrya, Schizophrenia Research , Volume 74, Issue 1, 1 April 2005, Pages 69-79

doi: 10.1076/clin.16.3.407.13853 "When the Third Party Observer of a Neuropsychological Evaluation is an Audio-Recorder " Marios Constantinou; Lee Ashendorf; Robert J. McCaffrey, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, Volume 16, Issue 3 August 2002 , pages 407 - 412

doi:10.1016/0197-4556(88)90049-4 "The diagnostic role-playing test" David Read Johnson, The Arts in Psychotherapy, Volume 15, Issue 1, Spring 1988, Pages 23-36 No abstract.

This was interesting.

PMID: 10408210 Psychol Rep. 1999 Jun;84(3 Pt 1):869-72. "Exploring the effects of tape-recording on personality assessment" Lichton AI, Waehler CA. Abstract: This study examined the possible influence of audio and video recording of personality assessment measures on anxiety. Undergraduate students in psychology were randomly assigned to Audiotape, Videotape, or Control conditions and given the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Rorschach Inkblot Method. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance indicated no significant differences among these conditions on the Spielberger, et al. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, A-State scale, and five Rorschach measures of situational anxiety. Tape-recording itself did not seem to affect the anxiety indices of these frequently used personality assessments.

Can not say more since my (or our) databases does not subscribe that journal. Well, of all thousands journals database does not contain all.

Is this all?

Yuccara 07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason to hide images

So i unhid it. See Wikipedia:Spoiler for comparison. The Merciful 12:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue for many reasons outlined throughout this talk page. Hiding the image seems to be a good compromise between the two positions of showing it, or not showing it at all.Faustian 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And I would add to Faustian, the point is to give readers a choice, not to hide the image from those who wish to see it. The image is easily available with one click. Ward3001 14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure many people would object to the images on the article anus, or prefer to have a "choice" to wether or not view them. Yet there they are, since Wikipedia is not censored.

Hiding has nothing to do with censorship, as the image can be accessed with a click. It still is there. The image of the anus on that site is anatomical and thus innoffensive to most people.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I also already drew comparisons to spoiler tags, since the objection to the images seems to be that they are in a sence spoilers.

The fact is that because viewing the image may negatively impact someone taking the test, you rob them of the choice of whether or not to view the image if you place it at the front of the page. There is nothing wrong with basic courtesy. Although an analogy can be made with spoilers, the situation is rather different. One is probably more likely to assume that the plot will be revealed by looking up a book or movie, than to assume that one's test may be invalidated by looking up that test.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look both links, you see that hiding the ink spot image is big deviation of the standard practise,

This may be because hiding images is a clever trick that not many people are familair with.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

when far more controvesial material is shown plainly.

Nothing controversial about an anatomical diagram. If there was something and it was controversial, and there were numerous objections, it too might be hidden. As for controversial images - I don't see Princess Diana's face as she was dying posted on the appropriate article.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I fail to see a reason for hiding the image that is not plain silly. It is just an ink spot, after all.

Just because you do not see a reason and for you "it is just an inkblot", does not mean that others feel the same way. It is not all about you. This talk page demonstrates the controversial nature of showing this image, with some arguing for not including it at all and others for including it. A compromise was worked out, where the picture remains on the site but requires a click to access. Why destroy the compromise?Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not Rorschach images are hard to come by, but the current image has the added value of authencity, and should be shown openly, as is Wikipedia's purpose. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to cater, bend etc. to demands, aesthetics, morals etc. any particular group. The Merciful 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you seem determined that it caters to you.

The fact is that this issue has been debated quite extensively, and rather than discuss it in the talk page or address the points first, you chose to make a controversial edit.Faustian 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that The Merciful appears hellbent on proving that other Wikipedians will do things his way rather than working toward achieving consensus. The two points of view in this debate (if you can call it a debate) are Let Wikipedians decide if they want to see the image vs. If the image can be shown then it must be shown. Ward3001 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image on Autofellatio is not hidden.Geni 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Perhaps the autofellatio image is not as controversial as the Rorschach image. If Wikipedians were more opposed to the autofellatio image, there would be a heated debate on the Talk page and the image would have been removed. Comparing the need for an image to be on a page on two unrelated topics makes no sense. If a video of hardcore porn were to be removed from Wikipedia, that does not mean that less controversial images should or should not be removed. Each image is judged on a case-by-case basis. Ward3001 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach image not even in the same league as the Autofellatio imagein terms of contriversy. Trust me on this.Geni 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not trust you on that. It's your opinion. Your saying it doesn't make it so. Ward3001 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you don't have to trust me. You could do the 3 seconds of research it would take to find the battles well some of them other such as Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio would have been harder to find. You could notice that it is listed on MediaWiki:Bad image list or you could talk to the other veterans.Geni 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's still on the page, so the consensus was to keep it. That's not true of every image for which there is controversy. As I said above, comparing the need for an image to be on a page for two unrelated topics makes no sense. The controversies for the two images are very different reasons. Ward3001 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not actualy true. In any case do you know accept that "far more controvesial material is shown plainly"?Geni 00:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion. And opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one. Let's see what the consensus turns out to be below. Ward3001 00:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I presented evidences. Are you unable to form a judgement based on those evidences?Geni 01:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence?? All I see is your opinion about how controversial the autofellatio image is. I see no evidence comparing the relative degrees of controversialness of the autofellatio image and the Rorschach image. No data, no statistics, no citations, no consensus of opinion that the autofellatio image is more controversial than the Rorschach image (which requires more than just your opinion). Just your opinion about it. But then, it's obvious that you think your opinion is evidence, that the way you see it is the only way it can be seen. That's not the way things are done on Wikpedia, per WP:NPOV, WP:CON, and WP:V. Ward3001 02:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thowing up a buch of WPs to try and avoid adressing my points isn't going to work. Evidences are MediaWiki:Bad image list and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio and the talk page archives of Autofellatio. I think that counts as fairly solid evidence of contiversy.Geni 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for the rest of us, Wikipedia policies do not depend on how important you think they are. You have presented no evidence of anything, except in your own mind. Ward3001 03:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can it with the strawmen. as for the second part of your stamtent would you say that Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio is indicative of controversy? Yes or No?Geni 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You can it with the orders and demands for yes-no answers. Contrary to your thinking, you don't run things on Wikipedia, and discussion is permitted, not simply yes-no answers. Let me try to state this as simply as I possibly can so you can understand it. Where is your evidence that the autofellatio image is more controversial than the Rorschach image? Not whether either image is controversial; that's not the issue that's germane to this discussion that you started. This is not a talk page about autofellatio; it's about the Rorschach. I am asking for your evidence that the percentage of Wikipedians (not just you) who find the autofellatio image controversial is greater than the percentage of Wikipedians who find Rorschach image controversial. Ward3001 14:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions only part of the debate is 197 kilobytes long. This talk page with talks about things other than the image was 116 kilobytes long. What conclusion would you draw from this?Geni 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No conclusion can be drawn because kilobytes is not equivalent to percentage of Wikipedians. Ward3001 15:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh well that's trivial. Number of wikipedians was far lower back then. We have not exceeded the numbers involved back then thus percentage is now far lower.Geni 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that the entire issue of the autofellatio image is trivial, then I agree. If you mean that Wikipedians' opinions are trivial, you could not be more wrong. Again, Wikipedia's policies and procedures don't depend on your opinion of them (thank goodness!). And I have no idea what you mean by "We have not exceeded the numbers involved back then thus percentage is now far lower." Ward3001 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia has people involved in the project. We call them editors. As time goes by the number of these people tends to increase. Now the autofellatio debate took place in 2005 which 2 years ago. Since then the number of editors has increased rather a lot. now if you look at the first section of Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions you will see that the votes tally to 116. Now there are less than 116 involved in this debate ( this being the Rorschach inkblot image) and the total population of editors is much higher. Thus we can conclude that the percentage this time around is much lower. As I said all this is trivial to calculate.Geni 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I said percentage of Wikipedians. 100 out of 10,000 is 1%. Using lower numbers, 1 out of 100 is 1%. Percentages are a simple way to equate the metric. Now, show me the data using percentages that a greater percentage of Wikipedians find the autofellatio image controversial than the percentage who find the Rorschach image controversial. Ward3001 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Err I know what a percentage is. In this case it over complicates thing since we could use absolute fractions but eh.

Okey then

P₂₀₀₅ = population of wikipedians in 2005

P₂₀₀₇ = population of wikipedians in 2007

P₂₀₀₇>p₂₀₀₅

therefor P₂₀₀₇=KP₂₀₀₅ where K is a constant with a value greater than 1

Ca₂₀₀₅ = population of wikipedians in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial

Cr₂₀₀₇ = population of wikipedians in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

we construct

• Ca₂₀₀₅/P₂₀₀₅*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial
• Cr₂₀₀₇/P₂₀₀₇*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Now as we have already established we can represent the second equation as

• Cr₂₀₀₇/(KP₂₀₀₅)*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Now I have shown that Ca₂₀₀₅ = at least 116

By comparison there are less than 50 different usernames on this talk page. Okey that alone enough to end it but I'm going to be super generious. I'm going to let Cr₂₀₀₇=Ca₂₀₀₅. Thats right I've move than doubled the size of the current contriversy for the purpose of the proof. An insane degree of generosity no?

If we treat them as equal then

• Ca₂₀₀₅/P₂₀₀₅*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial
• Ca₂₀₀₅/(KP₂₀₀₅)*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Cancel the terms:

percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial=(percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial/K)

percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial*K=percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

And as we have established K>1

percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial > percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Q.E.D

Geni 02:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of trying (quite unsuccessfully) to dazzle us with mathematical pseudo-skills, give me the absolute number of Wikipedians who have commented about autofellatio and the absolute number who found the image controversial. Then give me the absolute number who commented about the Rorschach image and the absolute number who found it controversial. And I'll check your numbers. Ward3001 02:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Define your terms. Interdentally even using the most generous possible values from here (ie wikipedian= 100 edits per month and we ignore increases post Oct 2006) K = 4 Do you really think that 4 times as many people have found this image controversial? Fewer than 50 have commented on this page by comparison 74 voted for link to the Autofellatio image so where exactly are your 280 wikipedians going to come from?Geni 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're evading the issue (nothing new in that). No definition of terms is necessary. I'm asking you to state four numbers: (1) Number of Wikipedians expressing an opinion about the autofellatio image; (2) Number of Wikipedians who think the autofellatio image is controversial; (3) Number of Wikipedians expressing an opinion about the Rorschach image; (4) Number of Wikipedians who think the Rorschach image is controversial. That reduces things down to the simplest possible terms. If you can't do that, I rest my case. You're just blowing smoke, hoping no one will notice that your argument is baseless. Ward3001 12:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

just gave you some numbers. Dispute them or conceed the point.Geni 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as I thought. You don't have a clue about the four numbers that I asked for. I rest my case. This is my last communication on this issue. It's a waste of time. Ward3001 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Current situation appropriate

I'm going to toss my two cents in here and state that as someone who has a neutral opinion on the Rorschach ink blot test, I can perhaps provide some perspective, and will attempt to do so now:

I LIKE the way it is now. It is both logical, and considerate to our readers.

The past two times I have viewed this article, it notes that it is considered to at least partially invalidate the test if one views the blot before they take it - but then still gives you the option of viewing the image, which is only of the first card. There are several reasons this is a good idea to me:

• As much as people may try to ignore the validity of the argument, it IS true that one may not be AWARE that simply viewing one of the images from the cards could be tainting any future Rorschach test they take in the view of any psychologist who might administer the test to them. I'm actually quite interested in psychology, have taken an Intro to course on it and everything, and I STILL did not know this - thus, the article is also actually more informative right from the get-go.

• I liked that WP was allowing people to view the image, as it can be seen as enriching the article - but allowing people the option of CHOOSING to view it, and telling them why it was formatted this way, is fantastic, because anybody who doesn't care about "invalidating" the test can see it, and anybody who's concerned about it doesn't have to - they know why it's that way, and, thus informed, can make a decision for themselves on whether they want to view it or not. Otherwise, you'd have people who would not have chosen to view it if they knew it was supposed to "invalidate" the test for them, accidentally viewing it because they did not know it was going to be there and/or not knowing that it would potentially taint the results of the test for them.

• Comparing it to sexual or anatomical images is ridiculous. It's apples to oranges; sexual images are only offensive, and only to some, because of purely cultural reasons; the only argument against them is that they are in morally or visually poor taste, basically - a cultural aesthetic judgement. The Rorschach blots, in contrast, are a regulated set of images used for testing purposes - the results of which could be tainted by their viewing in the opinions of many of those who administer the test. A better comparison would be "Should we show an example of a question that appears on the FCAT in some form every year, or not?" - with the exception that the ink blots are actually used to gauge something that is not "level of knowledge of something we're trying to teach you", but rather "statistical match with certain personality types based on answers". But it's considerably closer a comparison than the autofellatio image, that's for sure.

• The truth is that while may be seen as enriching the article, in the majority of cases, images are merely a nice thing to have, not a genuine necessity. Let's not pretend it's even a requirement for a good article, because most of the Featured Articles I've ever seen would have still been informative and interesting reads without the pictures. Their inclusion is normally a matter of adding content that it is believed will be appreciated by the reader, while taking advantage of the multimedia potential of the web. There's no particularly strong logical reason to include the ink blot except to satiate reader curiosity - but not all readers would necessarily be curious enough to want to see the picture.

In short, as it is now, people have the OPTION of "spoiling" the test for themselves, but they aren't forced to. We can have our cake and eat it too - allowing people who WANT to view the image (i.e. who take the calculated, informed decision of not caring if they've "invalidated the test" for themselves) to do so, but allowing people who don't (i.e. who take the calculated, informed decision of not wanting to "invalidate the test" for themselves) the option of not HAVING to view it, while knowing that if they ever change their mind, they can scroll back up and with one click, view it and satiate their curiosity. While taking advantage of the supremely useful multimedia and interactivity features of the web.

I say this, for the record, as someone who DID make the click and view it. I appreciated being informed of what viewing it could mean, and of being allowed both to view it, and to if I desired, not view it, depending on my preference.

So please - just leave it the way it is. Don't unhide it. I don't think it's necessary per se, but I also don't mind having it in there... but I liked the setup of not forcing anyone who merely wants to know the history (and not necessarily the images) of the test to view it, and telling them why they were being given a choice in the matter. Hiding it from view of those who don't want to "invalidate the test" for themselves (while offering them the option of viewing it if they so wish) is of slightly greater importance than someone merely not wanting to see "dirty" images when looking up a "dirty" subject. At least all that happens with "dirty" images is that people might get grossed out or offended.

Common sense, people; common sense and courtesy.

Thank you,

Runa27 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the image of the first pic of the Rorschach inkblot test be hidden?

This is a longstanding edit war whether or not the image should be hidden. People for it being hidden point out that viewing the first image may make the psychological test invalid and cause "serious damage" if seen, even unintentionally, and according to the American Psychological Association's ethical guidelines, psychologists must do everything within reason to maintain the integrity of the testing materials. People against it being hidden believe that it falls under WP:CENSORED, which states Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive and as such should not be hidden and believe that hiding the image is unencyclopaedic. I'm adding this to Request for Comment to get a wider opinion. -Halo 19:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the "damage" would be to the validity of anyone's test results should they ever be in a situation in which the Rorschach is given to them. Such people may choose not to view the image until after they take the test (and I emphasize that it is a choice; all it takes to view the image is one click of the mouse). Note also that earlier edit warring was about whether the actual Rorschach image was shown vs. a blackened outline. That is not the issue here. Ward3001 21:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why wikipedia should be concerned about any percived damage to the test.Geni 03:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not damage to the test. It is damage to the results for the person taking the test. In other words, if someone is taking the test and the results are important to that person's psychiatric treatment, viewing the image can make those results inaccurate. An analogy would be contaminating blood before conducting a CBC. The results would be damaged, and thus any diagnosis and treatment depending on those results could be wrong. Ward3001 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again that is not our concern and the blood analogy is completely wrong. Closer would be a case where someone has used a storage mechanism that doesn't keep out enviromental contamination. Would you blame the protocol that allowed the use of that mechanism or the enviroment?Geni 03:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Geni has a propensity for declaring things right or wrong without a shred of evidence. The blood analogy is quite appropriate. Gregory Meyer et al. provide metanalysis of research on validity and reliability of medical tests and leading personality tests, with clear evidence that tests such as the Rorschach are quite analogous to medical tests. Ward3001 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You will note that I went on to present a different version of the blood analogy which I feel fits the case better. On what basis do you reject this?Geni 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the blood analogy is backed up by scienctific research, with an appropriate citation, rather than opinion or speculation. Ward3001 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? You view wikipedia as a deliberate attempt to contaminate the sample. I view wikipedia as an environmental factor. If I were running a head space analysis on a blood sample and kept getting the wrong result because I failed to use an airtight container would you blame the air or my choice to use a flawed container? I accept that the internet exists and allows rapid transfer of information (heh the internet views censorship as damage and routes around it they used to say) just as I accept that the general environment contains large amounts of sodium as a potential contaminant. It is not wikipedia's job to try and fix your flawed methodology.Geni 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I said Wikipedia is "a deliberate attempt to contaminate the sample." I have simply said that Wikipedians should be given a choice about whether to jeopardize their Rorschach results should they ever be in that situation. Ward3001 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"contaminating blood before conducting a CBC" In common english the use of the adjective suggests an active attempt to contaminate in this case by a person. And wikipedians are given the choice they are free not to read the article. You go to Vagina you get a pic of a vagina. You go to Rorschach inkblot test you get a pic of a Rorschach inkblot.Geni 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Make up your mind. First you said that I believed Wikipedia is a deliberate attempt to contaminate. Now you're saying it's the person reading the page. No "active attempt" is needed. A naive test-taker does not know that he will contaminate the results by viewing the image. You certainly did not seem to grasp the concept before it was pointed out to you repeatedly. And opening the Rorschach page is not an "active attempt" to contaminate, but once the page is opened and the image is the first thing seen, the contamination has occurred without any attempt. As the page is now, the viewer is told about possible test invalidity and given the choice to view the image by one click of the mouse. Ward3001 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whew, the more I look around WP the more I am impressed with how passionate people get over stuff. I actually don't see any problem with using the blot. I've always been curious to see them anyway. But there is a simple fix to this. This might sound like a daft suggestion, but there is, by definition, nothing very special about any particular inkblots. Why not just make a new blot that looks very similar to the one shown? That way copyright and any (dubious) concerns about the validity of the test would be avoided. Any one could it! Or am I just being flippant? - My 2 cents MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

because such a blot would not be one of the test blots thus the amount of information being conveyed would be reduced.Geni 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But there is no reduction in the amount of information if a single click is required to see the actual inkblot. Therefore the argument of censorship does not apply.Faustian 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

IF there is no censorship going on why not remove that click?Geni 20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the click isn't about censoring the image (how can an image be censored if it's a clearly labelled click away?), it's about giving the reader the choice about whether or not they want to see it when they look at the page. By placing that image up front, at the top of the page, the reader is denied that choice by editors who decide what the reader wants to, or should want to, see. best, Faustian 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you useing a browser made in the last oh 20 10 years? there will be an option to turn pics off.Geni 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Once you see the image, there's no need to turn off pics. You've already seen it. Turning pics off after seeing the image accomplishes nothing. Ward3001 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here. Does doing an IQ test invalidate you from doing any IQ tests ever again? Does doing the IPIP Neo test invalidate you from doing another personanlity test. Show the blot. Put a spoiler warning on it if that will bring consensus. Technically they are out of copyright, so that argument is a red herring. I've just been to that site that shows all the blots. I can see the argument that IF someone was to do a Rorschach test the very next day AND they came here they MIGHT be able to get a forwarning of the test and that MIGHT invalidate the test. The same thing might be said for an IQ test: you might be able to "bone up" on the answers and "cheat". But is the Rorschach the same kind of thing? I don't see how you could "bone up" on a test that relies on "seeing pictures in clouds". But how likely is that any way? An artist (someone with a trained eye - there have been scientific studies that show experienced visual artist's eyes scan very differently to 'controls') would probably get an entirely different result to, say, a musician, (who's ears are the dominant sense). When I come to WP I want information. Having the blots is information. AND it is only one of the set. Put a spoiler tag on it and get on with it. You guys are doing good work here, don't spoil it with acrimony.MarkAnthonyBoyle 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To address some of your points without regard to your opinions about showing the image: (1) Yes, doing an IQ test will invalidate a subsequent administration of the same test within a short time period. (2) Comparing the Rorschach to another personality test is comparing apples and oranges. They're not the same. (3) The issue is not "boning up" on the Rorschach because you're not trying to achieve a "high" score (as you would with an IQ or achievement test). The issue is that the Rorschach requires spontaneous responses upon first seeing the images. (4) Regarding whether visual artists or musicians (or any number of professions) respond differently than the general population, sometimes there are no differences, and you can't always trust conventional wisdom about a certain profession responding a certain way. If there is a different response pattern for a specific group, sometimes the test interpreter knows about those response tendencies and factors them into the interpretation; sometimes it's unknown. Ward3001 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the spoiler warning, that is exactly why the image requires a clearly labelled click to see. And that is the compromise between those who do not want the image up at all and those who do want it there. Unfortunately some people do not want a compromise...Faustian 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah spoilers per Wikipedia:Spoilers implied by the article title in this case no spoiler notices.Geni 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, deep breath, so we have two opposing camps here, yes? I'm not particularly involved in either side (this is not my argument and I'm not a speacialist on the subject), although I guess it's honest to say that I would err on the side of showing them.

Tell me if I've got it right.

camp 1: articulated by Ward3001. There is something special about the blots. There is only one set of official blots, there has been a lot of work go into developing the test. The test requires that the subject see them afresh or it is invalid. Don't show them.

camp 2: articulated by Geni. The value of the blots is contested. There is an educational, research and public interest value in showing the blots. This is an article about the blots. The actual blots should be shown (simulation won't do)

camp 3: articulated by Faustian. There is a compromise position between the two camps. A hidden link will keep most people happy.

Does that seem like a reasonable summation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, camp 1 and camp 3 want the same end result: a click of the mouse to display the blot. So there's no need to view those two as differing. Ward3001 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did a google web and image search on Rorschach inkblot. Couple of interesting results. This article comes up top of the list, so it's probably a good idea to get it right. Also this article is cited on lots of sites. And that picture is out there, as well as some of the others, so whether we have it here or not won't prevent anybody seeing it. Does that change any feelings on this issue? MarkAnthonyBoyle 07:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this fact makes censoring the picture (by not having it up at all) a useless exercise, because someone who really wants to see it will find it elsewhere if not here. On the other hand, by requiring a click to see the image, we prevent those who are curious about the test, or unaware of the implications of seeing the blot, from accidently spoiling it for themselves on this site by giving them the choice about whether they want to se it, and warning them about the possible consequences of doing so.Faustian 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001 I can see that you feel strongly about this. Would you agree to a hidden image if there was a stronger warning against viewing it? Or perhaps it was further down the page, after the Methods section, perhaps with an explicit warning saying why it may invalid the use of the test for the viewer? MarkAnthonyBoyle 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my position is a bit misunderstood. I am agreed to the page as it is right now, with the image hidden by a single mouse click, and the current warning at the top of the page. My understanding is that Faustian and I want the same thing. Long before the current debate I was opposed to having the image anywhere on Wikipedia, but (unlike some other users) I have agreed to the compromise that was decided prior to the current debate. Ward3001 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The compromise position is only haveing the one image.Geni 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Are you pretending to fail comprehend the current debate and/or Ward's comments on purpose? Because I'd like to think you're better at reading than that. Maybe you missed subtle clues here, but it's pretty clear from context (for instance, the comment being in this particular section of the talk page which is ONLY about whether to hide the image, not the controversy over whether or not it should be included at all) that the compromise Ward3001 is referring to here is the compromise of allowing the image on WP but under a warning about the potential for test invalidation with a clickable thing to view the image AFTER an informed decision can be made. You just "corrected" someone falsely - are you sure that's where you were trying to respond? Maybe you clicked the wrong section by mistake or something...

In any case, see my above argument on this same page under I believe "Current situation appropriate"; I think this is a fantastic compromise, allowing one to see the kinds of blots used if they so wish, but not being forced to view it while only trying to look up other information (such as its history, the controversy surrounding it, whether it's still used, etc., any number of things OTHER than what the blots look like), whilst being informed as to how viewing them ahead of time may be seen as invalidating the test. This informative AND courteous to the reader, and your option of "turn off pics" is FAR from courteous to the reader in comparison; most people do not keep pic-viewing turned off or even necessarily know how to make that change in their browser (and some browsers may require a restart for that to even be set up), and a reader who was unaware of the fact that viewing the blots is seen as invalidating the test might "invalidate" it for themselves WITHOUT actively choosing to do so, when they may have well chosen the opposite had they known. Your argument's a bit of a strawman, in the sense that it says all these things that people "can" do and "should" do if they don't want to view it - but ignores the fact that people would have to basically be some sort of psychic in order to know that they should in the first place. Whereas giving them the option of viewing it, while telling them "viewing this may invalidate the actual test for you, but you can still do it if you want" is the perfect solution I think, because those that only wanted other information on the test can get it without accidentally "invalidating" the test for themselves without knowing that they're doing it, while those that still want to view it even KNOWING that it could "invalidate" the test, still can - with, I'm just going to point this out here, less effort than it would take to turn pic-viewing on and off in their browser, and without having to have the as far as I can tell somewhat obscure or at least non-universal knowledge that the test can supposedly be invalidated if the blots are viewed before testing.

In short - what's REALLY your problem here? Because I am absolutely perplexed to see that we've found the perfect solution, and yet people are still complaining about it, even though it's the best possible solution imaginable under the circumstances. But my mind is downright boggled by the idea that there is someone who actually and in apparent sincerity, thinks it is better for a reader to have to be psychic and know something that isn't universal knowledge to know how and when to turn off picture-viewing in their web browser in order to not invalidate a test that they don't even necessarily know CAN be invalidated just by viewing the image...

...than for there simply to be a little message pointing out that it is considered possible by psychologists to invalidate the test by viewing any portion of it ahead of time, but still providing a little thing they can click on to immediately show the image if they wish to view it AFTER knowing all that.

Common sense and common courtesy have already prevailed I think - so why is it that somebody's still trying to argue against this?

And on a side note - just because "other sites" do something doesn't mean we should. I mean, there is more than one site that basically violates copyright left and right by ripping off its "answers" from places like Wikipedia, taking whole articles and copying them wholesale with NO editing, and not necessarily correcting it if the particular article has errors even big ones, or if its information changes over time. Does that mean Wikipedia should do the same? And plenty of other sites include unverifiable information - does that mean Wikipedia should, too? And even MORE sites argue for a particular point of view instead aiming towards neutrality, or require paid access - does that mean Wikipedia should do those, too? Of course not. The "everyone else is doing it, so we should too" argument is a somewhat silly one, and let's please not pretend otherwise.

- Runa27 18:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying

Ah, I think I see now. There is so much discussion, over such a long period on this issue, I hadn't quite got it right? So the discussion now is, just to clarify, that:

Camp1: given the circumstances, although we don't like it and we have very good reasons for not showing them, we will concede to having one hidden image.

Camp2: show the lot, (or is it "just show this one, don't hide it") this is a public interest issue, in an authorative encyclopedia, people have a right to see and discuss them and make up their own mind.

Have I got it right now, or close enough? Or did I miss something again? Look, don't get me wrong, I just think that given such a long and heated debate, it might be worth clearly and succinctly stating the "bottom lines" as they stand now. Yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk • contribs) 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC) MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just have to reiterate that with respect to Camp 2, having people click on the image does not deny them the right to see it and indeed gives them the right to make up their own mind.Faustian 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Show 2/3 (any more would be excessive given the length of the article). Prepared to compramise on one and a picture of Hermann Rorschach and idealy a picture (or diagram) of a test underway but eh that can wait.Geni 14:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are trying to raise the stakes and present increasingly more extreme positions, so that a new "compromise" becomes your original extreme position.Faustian 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That's Geni's style. And if we were underhanded enough, we could go back to the old position of demanding that no image be shown at all, with or without a click. But we are willing to compromise without such deception. And there's already a picture of Hermann Rorschach on his bio page. Ward3001 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of time I've invested in the image side of wikipedia do you really think that haveing all ten would count as an extream position for me? They are relivant free media.Geni 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is your ratcheting up your demands when it looked like you might not get 100% of what you wanted; your inability to compromise. The other side could do that just as easily as you have, but that's not the spirit of compromise. Ward3001 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are free to try and defend your orginal position.Geni 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But that would be unethical when we're trying to honestly compromise and reach a consensus. Some of us have ethics; some of us are not underhanded and deceptive. Ward3001 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if this is not meant as an insinuation and a personal attack, it could easily be construed to be one. Let's stop it here and now. Please don't give a fellow editor reason to believe that he/she is being attacked and insulted. Let's remain civil, rational and to the point. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, everyone stay calm!!! :-) I think we have a consensus for now, yes?

• Camp1: given the circumstances, although we don't like it and we have very good reasons for not showing them, we will concede to having one hidden image.
• Camp2:Prepared to compromise on one and a picture of Hermann Rorschach and idealy a picture (or diagram) of a test underway

Woohoo!!! so whaddya say guys: one hidden pic, with a good clear warning?MarkAnthonyBoyle 15:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a very reasonable compromise. I don't see the need for Hermann Rorschach's pic, but if that's what it takes to satisfy everyone I'm OK with it. One other sticky issue might be the wording of the warning. There has been a lot of confusion as to why the warning is needed, so I think some of the non-experts can cause a lot of problems if it's worded poorly. The wording as it is right now is quite adequate. Ward3001 15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not accepting hidden pic. Will accept pic placed down the page with warning at the top as long as warning flows with the text of the article.Geni 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A pic further down on the page with a warning is better than one on the top with no warning. It at least doesn't automatically force anyone looking up Rorschach on wikipedia to see the image. It allows them the choice of not reading the rest of the article in order to avoid the image. But the fundamental problem is still there. By placing the image farther down, you are still not giving those who choose to read the entire article the choice of whether or not they would like to see the image. Shouldn't readers have the right to read the entire article without being forced to see the image?Faustian 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious point for most people, but I think it's worth stating at this point. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Ward3001 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the picture. Don't hide it. I Don't care enough to stand in the way of consensus. — DIEGO ^talk 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the "damage" would be to the validity of anyone's test results should they ever be in a situation in which the Rorschach is given to them.

I question whether it is appropriate to use the terms "validity" and "Rorschach inkblot test" in the same sentence. Is this a joke? Serious damage? I am definitely not one to flout APA ethical guidelines, but give me a break. Showing one inkblot from the incredibly subjective and generally useless Rorschach test is a far cry from showing problems from an actual objective, norm-referenced, cognitive assessment like the WAIS, WISC, WJIII, etc. In the case of tests with a high degree of objectivity, reliability, and external validity, showing even one picture or problem actually could cause harm if someone were to see it a short time before taking the test (still, highly unlikely if it were the first question on the test). Also, the results these tests are frequently used as a basis for making critical decisions. But when are the results of the Rorschach ever used to decide anything important (independent of corroboration from more objective measures)?

No test is used without corroborative data from other tests and/or interviews. As for the Rorschach used together with other tests and interviews, it is second most widely used test in forensic assessments in the United States (behind only the MMPI) and the second most widely used by members of the Society for Personality Assessment. I have seen it used quite often in forensic, disability, and other settings. A small minority, of generally academic non-practicing psychologists, have criticised its use (Lillenfeld and his circle) but their POV is rather marginal within the field.

Sure, there are probably practitioners out there who still swear by the Rorschach, but there are also people using the TAT and practicing psychoanalysis and regression therapy —that doesn't make it right.

Well, the Ivy League hospital where I consult doesn't accept postdocs nor interns without a good knowledge of the Rorschach. Even psychiatric residents there are expected to become familiarized with it. But perhaps it's an east coast thing. I have noticed among several otherwise very well-informed and skilled colleagues that, for whatever reason, that the redder the state they are from, the less likely they are to be proficient in the use of projective tests.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Showing one inkblot from the test will do no serious harm to the results should someone happen upon the picture prior to taking the test, since the results themselves are much more likely to be influenced by the interpretive whim of the examiner.

This is just false. I would compare seeing a single image of the Rorschach prior to taking it, to for example playing with the blocks from the block design portion of the WAIS or WISC prior to taking one of those tests. It wouldn't utterly ruin the test, but it would indeed be detrimental to its validity for the person taking it. Again, why force people to see the image rather than giving them the choice about whether or not they would want to see it or not?

Incidentally, the wiki entry on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale doesn't list the questions from the various subtests nor provide details about the test's administration (such as showing the blocks, detailing the nature of tasks, etc.) But for some reason people have decided to pick on the Rorschach.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the WAIS article doesn't list questions or show pictures of the block designs. That would be unethical, and could actually compromise the validity of the score (on a valid assessment). The Rorschach and the WAIS are not the same. The reasons why people are "picking on" the Rorschach would not apply to the WAIS. Showing an actual objective question or block design (as on the WAIS) is a lot different from showing a picture of what is essentially nonsense. — DIEGO ^talk 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think a psychologist is not being unethical if he purposefully displays the Rorschach images to the general public outside of an administration of the test, you have demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of professional ethics. And your POV statements about the Rorschach as "nonsense" don't justify such an ignorance of those ethics. Ward3001 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again with the attacks. I am not ignorant of APA ethical guidelines, and I never said that it would be permissible under those guidelines to post the picture. I implied that it would be a far worse ethical breach to post questions from other assessments (due to my disdain for the Rorschach) and it would not violate my personal ethics to post a picture from an assessment that I don't think is valid in the first place. — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We could have avoided what you perceived as a personal attack if you had clarified that you were talking about personal rather than professional ethics. I assumed, since we were talking about showing material from the WAIS that you were talking about professional ethics. Whilte we're on the issue of personal ethics, my personal ethics dictate that the contents of the Rorschach be protected from public exposure as much or more than the contents of the WAIS or any other test because I have read a substantial amount of research indicating that the Rorschach has as much validity as many other widely used tests. Ward3001 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to have an article mentioning inkblots, I think it is a good idea to show readers what an "inkblot" looks like. Is the Rorschach ever updated? How about showing a discontinued inkblot from a previous version? — DIEGO ^talk 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an inkblot image for the page makes sense. Given the concerns for validity, people who might want to take the test ans not have it compromised for themselves should be given the choice t about whether or not they would like to see it. Or, a similar image that would give an idea about the test without it being the actual image could be put on the page with no click required, along with the actual image requiring the click for those who choose to see the real thing. The "fake inkblot" was up on this page a few months ago I think.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments reflect a gross misunderstanding of scientific advances in the Rorschach over the last 30 years. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and you clearly have little knowledge of the current status of the Rorschach. Your statement that it is "subjective" shows a complete absence of knowledge of the Exner system. And the Rorschach is norm-referenced, with an update of norms occurring quite recently, something you apparently did not know either. As for your implication that the Rorschach is not used to make important decisions, I have seen the Rorschach used very effectively (in combination with other tests and a variety of other information sources) in diagnosis and treatment planning hundreds of times. Read the literature and it might open your eyes a bit. Ward3001 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your unconditional affection for an outdated projective assessment reflects a gross misunderstanding (or willful ignorance) of advances in the scientific study of behavior and cognition over the last 20 years. Are you seriously asserting that the Rorschach itself (not the scoring system) is objective? I never said I was an expert on the Rorschach, and I'm not an expert on blood-letting, psychoanalysis, or phrenology either, but I don't have to be in order to condemn them as utterly anachronistic and of dubious value in the objective, scientific study of anything. The Rorschach should not be used alone to make important decisions, and your "in combination with other tests and a variety of other information sources" supports my point. I have no intention of reading the Rorschach "literature", I'm too busy here in the 21st century. Or maybe I'm just repressing deep emotional wounds borne out of Oedipal tendencies and an anal fixation. Care to defend the TAT with such devotional ardor, too? — DIEGO ^talk 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think that any psychological test can be objective apart from it's scoring system and it's administration (and both are objective with the Rorschach), then WHAT criteria do you use for objectivity? With your standards, there is NO objective psychological test, not the WAIS-III, not the MMPI-2, or any other test. If you think a test is objective just because a computer generates scores, you are more lacking in knowledge than I imagined. Tests do not interpret themselves. Numbers don't make a test objective. So I repeat: How do you define an objective test?

What? The questions themselves can be objective. My issue with the Rorschach is not a lack of consistency in administrering or scoring the intrument. I would assume that steps are in place to assure inter-rater reliablility and consistency for any assessment commonly used in current practice). My issue is the subjectivity of the questions (inkblots) themselves. To me "subjective" does not imply "haphazardly administered" or "scored at random depending on the mood of the psychologist". Maybe I need to clarify the difference difference between an "objective" and "subjective". The Rorschach is subjective because the number of possible answers is infinite, and therefore require the administrator to subjectively categorize all responses and infer information that the test-taker may not have intended.Independent of the consistency employed in the administration and scoring, I would consider as "objective" any assessment in which the majority of the questions either (a) have a clear "correct" answer, (e.g., what is 2+2?, can you arrange these blocks so they look like this picture?, etc.), (b) present a finite number of possible responses (e.g., true/false, yes/no, Likert scale, etc.), (c) have a clear target answer that only requires an administrator to subjectively evaluate and categorize responses which do not match the target answer (e.g., "How are ice and steam alike?" [from the WISC-IV], or, (c) at the very least, have inherent meaning and are expected to elicit a response direcly related to the inherent meaning in the question (i.e., inkblots do not have inherent meaning, but asking "what makes you angry?" does). The WJIII, WAIS-III, WISC-IV, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A, etc., while not perfect, generally ask objective questions that can be scored by an administrator with an absolute minimum of subjective categorization. Not to mention these tests all feature hundreds of questions (almost 500 for the MMPI) vs. ten measely inkblots.

Once again, your explanation of "objective" reflects a profound lack of knowledge of the Exner system. The examiner does not "subjectively categorize all responses'. The response "I see a man" clearly results in a Human content category. The response "The whole thing reminds me of ..." clearly denotes a location of Whole. The response "Two birds, one on each side" is a pair response. I could give hundreds of examples. And in regard to the examiner "infer[ing] information that the test-taker may not have intended", do you think that does not happen with the MMPI-2? Do you think there is no inference when the examiner interprets what it means when scale 8 (or any scale or combination of scales) is elevated? Do you think there is no inference when theexaminer interprets a PIQ substantially greater than VIQ? Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What you have just descibed is subjective categorization! Yes, "I see a man" clearly results in a categorization of "Human", but it is the administrator who decides that, not the test taker. What if the person saw a snowman, or a scarecrow, but only said "man"? Are those human? What if the participant had said "I see love", or "I see flarn" or "puddle", or "ink" or "deep brick mountain fun". Would two "flarns" scored differently than one "flarn"? Would "I see a little girl" and "I see and old man" both simply be characterized as "human"? The burden of characterizing those responses falls on the administrator, not the person whose psyche is supposedly being evaluated. If there are only a limited number of categories, why not make it multiple choice? That would shut me up. Almost. — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, who besides the examiner, makes a differentiation between a 1 and 2 point response on WISC-IV Vocabulary? That is a subjective judgment, guided by a few words and examples in the manual. Same process with the Rorschach; in many cases, even less subjectivity with the Rorschach.

All of the examples you gave are easily coded for content without "subjectivity": scarecrow = (H); snowman = (H); "I see love" = Hx; "I see flarn" = Id; puddle = Ls; ink = Sc; deep brick mountain fun = Hx; two flarns are a pair if blot symmetry is used; "I see a little girl" and "I see an old man" are both coded H for content but differently on other determinants depending on what else might be said in the inquiry. All coded without subjectivity. Can you tell me that is the case with 1 vs. 2 point responses on Vocabulary? Ward3001 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Aah, the subjective vocabulary scores. The 0, 1 or 2 point scores on the vocab section of the WAIS and WISC are precisely the reason that I qualified my reponse above by saying "most questions have a clear right or wrong answer or a clear target answer. For the record, I actually have an issue with the subjectivity of the vocabulary section of these tests (and with other questions that require the examiner to rate responses based on a few examples in the manual). I would never use either them in practice. I have seen firsthand two or more experienced practitioners argue over whether an answer is a zero, one, or two point answer, which does not give me much confidence in the tests. The subjectivity (admittedly minimal compared with the Rorschach)of the WAIS and WISC is reason enough for me not to use either of them since there is a superior instrument without these limitations, the WJ-III. Does that mean that the WISC and the WAIS are not valid? No. It means that I don't like subjectivity in psychological assessments. Which is why I also think that if other, less subjective instruments can provide the same information as the Rorschach, those should be used instead. — DIEGO ^talk 02:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the critical point that you refuse to understand: The implication in your statement "The subjectivity (admittedly minimal compared with the Rorschach)" is patently false. You ignored the other things I said in the same paragraph. The subjectivity in my codings from the Rorschach examples that you raised is less than the subjectivity with the WISC Vocabulary (and other) subtests. (Incidentally, there is subjectivity in the WJ-III). No personal attack here, but to put it in the vernacular, this whole idea of subjectivity of the Rorschach compared to other tests is something that you are pulling out of your ass. It just isn't backed up by the facts. Ward3001 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I am admittedly not an expert on the Rorschach, I have no way of knowing the level of subjectivity involved in your codings (i.e., how do I know that all, or most, of your colleagues would agree with the codings that you've assigned to these responses?) So the fact that you found them easy to code is not really the point. That is why I brought up the heated disagreements that I have seen regarding scores on the WISC-IV vocabulary subtest. I am deeply concerned by these disagreements between experienced practitioners regarding issues that could affect the outcome of of the assessment. As you know, the WISC is used (often supported by little more than a perfunctory interview, unfortunately) to make important decisions where a score difference of one point (69 vs. 70, 89 vs. 90) can have a considerable impact on treatment, placement, and legal decisions. I'll refrain from any further comments on this until I have had a chance to read the research you're sending me. But I just have to know: what the hell is a flarn? ;-) — DIEGO ^talk 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You say, "I am admittedly not an expert on the Rorschach, I have no way of knowing the level of subjectivity involved in your codings". That is my exact point. You repeatedly refer to how subjective the Rorschach is compared to other tests, yet you don't know how subjective it is. If you had a fundamental knowledge of Rorschach coding, you would know that there would be much less disagreement about my codings above than there is disagreement over many aspects of WISC-IV scoring. I'm not saying it is important that you understand Rorschach coding to be a psychologist, but to take such a strong position about its "subjectivity" requires some basic knowledge of how subjective it is. For you to say "I'm not an expert on the Rorschach and don't know how subjective Rorschach coding is", and then sharply criticize the Rorschach for being subjective flies in the face of elementary logic. Ward3001 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Flarn" is coded Id because it is nonexistent. It likely would also receive some other patholigical codes depending on the entire initial response and inquiry response. Ward3001 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the subjectivity however, I do not believe that the Rorschach measures anything useful that cannot be measured using more theoretically defensible measures like the MMPI or a simple structured interview. No amount of factor analysis or norm-referencing can change that. If the assessment is not demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis (to my knowledge Rorschach results are not a diagnostic criterion for any condition in the DSM-IVTR), then it is an essentially worthless waste of time and money. — DIEGO ^talk 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to provide evidence that the MMPI-2 is more "theoretically defensible" than the Rorschach, or that the MMPI-2 is more "demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis". Give me the citations. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to provide evidence that " the interpretation of inkblots provides useful information that we could not obtain any other way". Also, I'm not a poster child for the MMPI, I was simply pointing out that it is objective in ways that the Rorchach is not. The MMPI is more "theoretically defensible" because it asks actual questions, in English, and elicits responses to those questions. Are you serious? You don't understand that asking a question is a more theoretically defensible way of obtaining information than saying "what do you think of this meaningless inkblot?" — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me your email address and I'll send you a reference list. The only reason I can't post it here is that it probably would triple or quadruple the length of this Talk page.

The Rorschach "asks actual questions, in English, and elicits responses to those questions. So again, give me evidence that the MMPI is more "theoretically defensible". Ward3001 00:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And guess what: You can administer, score, and interpret the Rorschach without reference to psychoanalysis, Oedipal tendencies, or any of the other constructs that you falsely attribute as underpinnings of the Exner system.

I was not attributing the constructs of psychoanalysis to the Exner system. I was simply comparing them because they are both complete bunk, yet still remain popular among some anti-scientific practitioners. My point was, the popularity of the Rorschach should not be taken as an indication of its validity, any more than the popularity of psychics is an indication of their validity. — DIEGO ^talk 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said that "popularity of the Rorschach [is] an indication of its validity". The validity of the Rorschach has been very well established with decades of well-conducted research. If you want citations I will email them to you. They are too numerous to include on this talk page. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't, but Faustian did say "it is second most widely used test in forensic assessments in the United States". What other conclusion should I draw from that statement? Why else is its popularity relevant? — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that in response to you statments that a small number of psychologists use that test, statements that were very incorrect.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And I beg to differ that you should not be as critical of any test as you are the Rorschach without some fundamental knowledge of its status over the last 30 years. You're the one living in the past. You're talking about the Rorschach as it was in 1960. No responsible psychologist would do that with a test.

Have the inkblots changed since 1945 or gained some inherent meaning to which responses can be reliably compared? By the way, the original Rorschach (without Exner's norms) is available and remains a top seller in Psychological product catalogues. So don't assume too quickly what "responsible" psychologists would and would not do. Are psychoanalysts "responsible" practitioners? How about people practicing regression therapy? My definition of irresponsible covers anyone using outdated methods with no empirical support indicating that they are actually useful. Practitioners like this are a major impediment to the advancement of psychology as a legitimate science. When this sort of malpractice is tolerated and even condoned (APA division 39), when actual knowledge is ignored in favor of tradition, it belittles 40 years of rigorous scientific contributions that have been made in the field. Unfortunately, until it rejects theoretical voodoo and hero-worship, psychology will always be a soft science. If you are aware of literature demonstrating that the Rorschach is a valid measure of something useful (that could not be obtained more simply or inexpensively), I would be willing to read it. — DIEGO ^talk 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelvant that the inkblots haven't changed. It is the system of administering, scoring, drawing parallels to behavior, and interpreting that has changed immensely over the last thirty years. It doesn't take much understanding to know that the inkblots haven't changed. It requires some knowledge to know that how they are used has changed. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to draw statistical parallels between all sort of things. My point is that the the inkblots themselves are nothing special and they are inherently meaningless. Since this is the case, why not use people's answers to actual questions (in the form of other norm-referenced tests) as a diagnostic tool. Why "improve" the way in which we administer and score interpretations of meaningless blobs when we could just use other measures that aren't steeped in the unfortunate history of psychology as a pseudoscience? Why the Rorschach? — DIEGO ^talk 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your ignorance of the Exner system is painfully showing. Exner's more recent research has shown that the inkblots are not entirely meaningless and, in fact, H. Rorschach never intended them to be. As for " the inkblots themselves are nothing special and they are inherently meaningless", each individual word on the MMPI or WISC-IV or any test with words is "nothing special and ... inherently meaningless" for test interpretation, until you put them together, elicit a response, score that response, convert scores into appropriate statistics, and apply a vast amount of empiricial research to build interpretation. That is the process that is used with the Rorschach. Ward3001 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to take to heart Faustian's admonition to me to cool down, thinking maybe you were well-intentioned but mistaught. Now I have no doubt. You don't understand the Rorschach, you don't wish to understand it, but you fancy yourself knowledgeable enough to speak intelligently about it. I'm to busy here in the 21st century to go back and forth with you when you pride yourself in being so uninformed. Interesting but completely useless talking to you. I will not respond to any of your other comments unless they are relevant to the Rorschach in 2007. Ward3001 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001, your personal attacks are way out of line. I see this is not the first time you have assumed bad faith and impugned the intelligence/knowledge of editors with whom you disagree. I don't "fancy myself" anything. I am allowed to voice a dissenting opinion from you. You are welcome to respond to that opinion on its merits, but turning a disagreement over the value of inkblots into a personal attack is not the most effective way to make your point. You seem to think that anyone who has not received extensive training on the Rorschach has no right to criticize it. This is sort of a ridiculous assertion. Does one need to be an economist to criticize economic policies? No. Would I have to subject myself to four years of chiropractic school in order to question the evidence-base supporting that profession? No. I have received extensive training at the University of Common Sense, and I think that alone entitles me to voice an opinion on anything that raises BS red flags (and trust me, claiming to predict a person's future bahvior based on his or her interpretation of meaningless inkblots raises plenty of red flags). I do not "pride myself" in being uniformed. Unfortunately, it seems that anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed". However, I do pride myself on my ability to apply rational analysis to dubious-sounding claims. I am able to divorce public opinion and educational indoctrination from a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. I don't need to be an expert on the Rorschach to understand its inherent limitations as a subjective evaluation intrument, I only need to be an expert in common sense and basic principles of empirical research. It so happens that I do have considerable experience in psychological research (both neuroimaging and applied psychoeducational research) and I have been trained in a number of assessments, but that should not be a factor in whether or not my opinion is valid. Again, feel free to disagree with opinions, but please refrain from personal attacks. — DIEGO ^talk 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking the opinions to scientific research is not a personal attack. And yes, you are allowed to voice your opinion. I never said you weren't. I also am allowed to point out whether those opinions have any scientific basis. It's one thing to have inadquate knowledge because it hasn't been taught to you. It's altogether different to harshly denounce something when you have almost no understanding of it. And when you do that, the rest of us are fully entitled to point that out. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you even understand the difference between saying "that comment is not supported by evidence like X,Y, and Z" and saying "you have no understanding of the Rorschach and have no right to denounce it." One is debating the merits of an argument, the other is a personal attack. Even if I am completely wrong, my argument has been against the test itself, not the editors defeding it. I would never say "you are a douchebag for defending the Rorschach" or insult your intelligence for disagreeing with me. I have only little understanding of many things, like genocide, religious fundamentalism, and bowling, so would it be wrong for me to denounce them? — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say you "have no right to denounce" the Rorschach. You have that right, just as I have a right to challenge what you say that is not based on solid research. And it is becoming increasingly clear to those of us who do have some understanding of the Rorschach that you have little understanding of the Rorschach (specifically the Exner system). I'm not the only one who thinks that. Additionally, if you attack a test as strongly (yes, venomously) as you have the Rorschach, I think it's quite reasonable for editors to challenge your lack of knowledge. That's what talk pages are for. I have never said you're stupid, or evil, or other pejorative adjectives. I have simply said you don't understand the Rorschach, which you don't. Ward3001 00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with you I think you need to cool down a bit. Diego is just repeating what he has been taught.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Faustian, I resent the implication that I am nothing more than a robot repeating what I have been taught. I am quite capable of thinking critically for myself. I just think that any practice or claim should have to stand on its own merits and not lauded or honored based on the fact that it has been used for 50 years. Things have changed a lot in the past 50 years, and we now have more reliable ways of obtaining the information that the Rorschach supposedly measures. But too many practitioners in the field insist on rejecting research-based practice in favor of embracing baseless peronal pet theories and philosophical frameworks. — DIEGO ^talk 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Diego, it is clear from your comments that you understand little about the Rorschach (otherwise you would not have made many of your comments). Thinking critically about something is not possible without knowing something about it. You have, yourself, stated that you know little about the Rorschach and don't want to know much about it: "I have no intention of reading the Rorschach "literature", I'm too busy here in the 21st century." Thus, by your own criteria, you reject research-based practice and instead embrace outdated theories (that use of the Rorschach is unchanged from 1950) and philosophical frameworks (that because the blots are 80 years old they are no longer useful - any empirical validation for this assertion?). I suspect you were given misinformation or rather little information about the Rorschach and base your statements accordingly (and your dogmatic ideology, also presumably learned at the same place, likewise plays a role). This is not meant to be insulting or patronising, and I apologize if I've offended you, it is my observation. With such attitudes you have better avoid "intellectual backwaters" such as Yale or Cornell which do indeed value the Rorschach and/oor psychoanalysis. Anyways, I will address some of your other points later, when I have more time.Faustian 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Faustian. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Faustian, I'm not sure if you read my statement above: "If you are aware of literature demonstrating that the Rorschach is a valid measure of something useful (that could not be obtained more simply or inexpensively), I would be willing to read it."

I don't do billing, but my impression is that the MMPI is more expensive than the Rorschach, though less time consuming for the practitioner.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In reference to "I have no intention of reading the Rorschach "literature", I was referring, in an admittedly exaggerated manner, to literature explaining Exner's work or stating that the the test is now norm-referenced, because developments in the scoring system are tangential to my main points of contention with the Rorschach (and other subjective tests like the TAT, Bender-Gestalt, Person-Tree-House, etc.).

Okay, sorry for misunderstanding.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that something is worthless or outdated simply because it is old. On the other hand, if something was crap in 1945, no amount of polishing will change the fact that it is most likely still crap in 2007. I didn't say that "because the blots are 80 years old they are no longer useful". I meant to imply that they were never actually useful, even 80 years ago. As for empirical evidence, I think the burden is squarely on you. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Given that the Rorschach is an established test in much use by psychologists (popularity among doctors or psychologists or other professionals at the highest level of training is not the same as popularity among the masses as in the case of, say, psychics) I submit that the extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof is the statement that this test is garbage.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the Rorschach or other projective instruments, the statement of the Society for Personality Assessment contains plenty of references and summarizes the research: [1]. In terms of validity the Rorschach is no worse than the MMPI. It is naturally a very different test and provides different ways of obtaining information with comparative advantages. For example, research has shown (sorry, I don't remember the journal and don't have time now to hunt iot down, but I don't read "voodoo journals") that it is harder to "fake good" on the Rorschach than it is on the MMPI. The implications for forensic, child custody evaluations, etc. where people are quite motivated to present a falsely positive image of themselves, are obvious. In terms of cost-effectiveness, running an invalid MMPI is still billed by Minnesota, and the percentage of invalid profiles in forensic settings (and thus, clients being charged a lot of money for useless information) is not good. Another situation in which the Rorschach is usefull is in inpatient settings, where people are often (in mine and others' experiences) much more likely to sit through a Rorschach than they are through an MMPI.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't see me disparaging the lightbulb and internal combustion engine as "outdated", do you? Has the actual Rorschach (not the "use of" the Rorschach) changed since 1945? In response to the Yale and Cornell statement. Don't let the academic pedigree of an institution fool you into thinking that all of their programs reflect a committment to evidence and rational inquiry. Exhibit A: The Yale Divinity School, where students are taught that humans can rise from the dead and virgins can give birth. — DIEGO ^talk 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How can a test be evaluated apart from how it is used? The blocks on Block Design haven't changed in a very long time, but that doesn't mean that the Wechsler scales (including Block Design) have no more value than they did 50 years ago. To say that the inkblots were "crap" in 1945 and so they are crap now absurdly ignores an immense amount of research that has happened since 1945, just as research has occurred on the Wechsler scales during several decades. And I completely disagree that you have no responsibility to present empirical evidence supporting your position. Such strong criticism about the Rorschach that you have spouted vehemently (even venomously) requires more than just your own thoughts. You are entitled to express your thoughts, but it is absurd to argue that you don't have to provide empirical support but your opponents do. Try doing that in a graduate school class, or a journal article, and see how far you get. Ward3001 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do I need to provide empirical support showing that inkblots do not provide any special insight into menal functioning beyond that which could be obtained through more straightforward means? It seems to me that claiming that "inkblots possess some special characteristics that can be used, like tea leaves, to predict the future" is the more outrageous claim. The burden of proof falls upon those making bizarre claims, not the other way around. The only thing I have spouted vehemently (and definitely not venomously) is my disdain for baseless respect to tradition and hero-worship that prevents progress in the field and only serves to widen the research-practice gap. I have nothing against the Rorschac, in particular. It just happened to come up on the RFC list. — DIEGO ^talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what advocate of the Rorschach has said "inkblots possess some special characteristics that can be used, like tea leaves, to predict the future". And the reason you have a burden of providing empirical evidence is that you claim other tests, such as the MMPI-2, are superior. That requires empirical evidence. I challenged you above to provide that evidence, and I have not seen it yet. So I'm waiting for two things from you: What Rorschach advocate made the "tea leaves" claim? And where is the empirical support that "measures like the MMPI ... [are]demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis" more so than the Rorschach (the last set of quoted words are yours). Ward3001 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I like your creative use of the ellipsis (...) and complete fabrication of a [verb] to link together to sentences and completely mischaracterize the quote. Here is what I actually wrote: "I do not believe that the Rorschach measures anything useful that cannot be measured using more theoretically defensible measures like the MMPI or a simple structured interview. No amount of factor analysis or norm-referencing can change that. If the assessment is not demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis (to my knowledge Rorschach results are not a diagnostic criterion for any condition in the DSM-IVTR), then it is an essentially worthless waste of time and money." The questions on the MMPI are objective (there are only two possible answers for each question). If you are asserting that the Rorschach is demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis, then prove it. If you are asserting that showing an inkblot to someone is more accurate than asking a question to elicit useful information, then prove it. I never made any claims regarding what the MMPI can and cannot do, only that its format is more objective (T/F statements with inherent meaning vs. inkblots with no inherent meaning. Do you seriously disagree with that?

"I do not believe that the Rorschach measures anything useful that cannot be measured using more theoretically defensible measures like the MMPI." That is about as clear a claim about the MMPI as I have ever seen. Ward3001 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"What Rorschach advocate made the "tea leaves" claim?" Are you familiar with hyperbole? I'll translate the statement for you: "Show me that the interpretation of inkblots is more useful at predicting behavior than other measures (i.e., there is something "special" about inkblots). I don't have to prove that your crazy claims aren't true. — DIEGO ^talk 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not accuse you of a condescending personal attack for asking me if I understand hyperbole and "translating" a statement for me. I will assume good faith. You placed the words in quotation marks. Not too big of a stretch to conclude that you were quoting someone who made a statement about the Rorschach. And, again, give me your email address and I'll send the reference list to address the relative merits of using the Rorschach compared to other measures in predicting behavior. Ward3001 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to give me 20 studies, just a methodologically sound meta-analysis or two will do just fine (providing they were not printed in voodoo journals like Annals of the Rorschach Enthusiast Society, Journal for the Advancement of Projective Assessment, or Inkblot Research Quarterly). You can post links, citations, or doi info on my talk page. And I'm not the one who brought the level of civility this low. — DIEGO ^talk 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand your request for a "quickie" coverage of Rorschach research, I'm afraid it's not as simple as a single metanalysis if you're talking about comparing two or more tests (or other methods) in "predicting behavior." Give me your email address and I'll send the full list. And do you consider American Psychologist or Psychological Assessment or Assessment or Journal of Personality Assessment to be voodoo journals? Ward3001 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I do not consider those journals to be "voodoo journals". And, incidentally, the order in which you listed them reflects the the order of relative "prestige" that I would have assigned them. Just so you understand what I mean by "voodoo journals", here are a few examples: Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Arts in Psychology, and Journal of Psychology and Theology. There are many more, but they all have a few things in common: they are devoted to publishing primarily qualitative research (and book reviews), in arcane "fields" that are often seemingly contradictory. — DIEGO ^talk 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Steady on chaps

Play the ball and not the man fellas. Most of this discussion is not strictly speaking relevent (although fascinating). An encyclopedia article should contain the facts, (stuff about the test), and any criticism (stuff about the controversy). Although I love a good stoush, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to prove or disprove anything, just record the facts. :-) cf christianity

MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We could have a consensus here if.....

I would like to see the issue resolved. I had no problem seeing the image by clicking the link, and the entire set from the link further down the page. People who, like me, want to see the blots, can just do what I did. Let those who have their reasons (whatever you and I might think of those reasons) have the image hidden and the warning. That way the edit war can come to an end. I think, lets just leave it. We might have a consensus if we leave the page as it is. And technically, the page should just describe the test, and the controversy (these are facts), and leave the interpretation to the reader. What d'ya reckon? MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with a solution that includes the warning as it is, and access to any images with a mouse click. Thank you for your efforts in this debate. Ward3001 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree.Faustian 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just thought about placing a fake image for those who want to know what an inkblot looks like (it was once up, anyone could go through the archives and paste it), and then requiring a click for the actual image, for those who choose to see it. Something like, "Here is an approximation of a Rorschasch inkblot. For an actual image click here (warning: doing so may invalidate the test for you).Faustian 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. — DIEGO ^talk 21:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that such a self-made (fake) image is a personal interpretation by the person who created it of what the essentials of "a Rorschach card" are. Such original artwork violates WP:OR. Regards, High on a tree 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the definition of original research: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" This definition would not apply to an approximation of an image clearly labelled as such. The image (as far as I can tell, I could be wrong) was not self-made by a wikipedian: [2]. The image itself is not an unpublished fact, argument, concept, statement, or theory. Nor is it an unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that by "fake image" you did not mean Image:Inkblot.svg (the blackened version of the original first card, which should not be used for other reasons), but an image created entirely independent of the original Rorschach cards, for example by just dropping some ink on a sheet of paper, folding it in half and then deciding that the result "looks like" the original Rorschach cards, and thus is a good substitute. (For an example, see this mock Rorschach card.) The point here is that the original cards, even if they were generated by a partly random process, were certainly results of a nontrivial research effort by Hermann Rorschach - if only because he selected blots which he deemed useful for this kind of testing and discarded others. (By the way; the assumption that these images are creative works above the threshold of originality is the very basis for the copyright claims by Hogrefe/Verlag Hans Huber, which until 1992 were perfectly valid to my understanding). Creating a new image and inserting it into the article with a caption such as "inkblot similar to those used in the Rorschach test" amounts to the statement "The response to the question 'What do you see on this image' can be used by a trained psychologist to derive conclusions about the patient's personality", which is certainly an unpublished statement, as no researcher has employed this image before.

This also applies to Image:Rorschach_black_on_white.png: As for The image [...] was not self-made by a wikipedian you are probably correct, it is an example output of a programm called "gnu.app.displayhack.Rorschach 0.1" available on the program's home page. But in the definition you quoted, "published" is to be understood in the sense of Wikipedia:Original research#Reliable_sources, and that web page certainly doesn't meet these requirements - it seems to be just a little fun project of some Java programmer (without a degree in psychology or such), who does not seriously claim that this image could be a substitute for the original Rorschach images. (The program has a myriad of different possible parameter settings determining the output; deciding which give the best "approximation" would already be OR. And even if we were to entirely ignore the OR issue here, I would say that this pixel cloud has a very different appearance, even a layperson can instantly recognize it as being in different "style" than the original ten cards.)

Regards, High on a tree 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see such a consensus. As noted in more detail below, the Javascript trick employed in the current article version has severe disadvantages (for example, it violates Wikipedia's goal to create content that is reusable in other media).

Can you please provide a citation of this goal? If this is indeed the case, than this is a good point which nevertheless needs to be balanced against the numerous arguments of not including the image openly, of allowing the reader the choice of whether or not to see the image. For me, in case of conflict betweenthe two, the importance of having the right internet wiki overrides concerns about what the page will look like in other media.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you have a look at the links that I gave below? (I didn't want to repeat myself here; I also didn't mention the argument again that even on the web people with Javascript-disabled browsers won't be able to see the image.) Regards, High on a tree 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The link given does not indicate that "Wikipedia's goal" is to create content that is useable in other media. It describes a project that involves doing so, stating:

"In 2003, Jimmy Wales proposed making an offline release version of Wikipedia. This group was formed in late 2004 to meet this challenge. Our work involves identifying and organizing articles, and improving/maintaining a core set. Our work does not hinder the existing wiki process for creating and editing articles, but rather it supports that work by providing additional organization...Our strategy has been intensely debated, but the group has reached a consensus. We elected not to follow the German model. Instead we chose to start with a core of quality articles on key subjects and expand from there. We have produced a small test version (Version 0.5), with the goal of releasing larger collections of articles in due course. The next general release is generically referred to as "Release Version" while our first "official" comprehensive release will be called Version 1.0."

There is no mention of the Rorschach article being among those slated for use in other media. Your concern about those whose browsers have disabled Java-script is inded legitimate. Do you have an idea of what percentage of users this would apply to (I'm assuming that is is a small minority)? In that case we would need to discuss balancing the best page for the majority of users versus taking care of the minority. best, Faustian 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are trying to portray this as a one-off freak idea by Jimbo Wales. Offline or print editions have been described as a necessary consequence of Wikipedia's vision of "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" given the fact that the majority of the world's population does not have Internet access or even computer access. But this is getting offtopic. If you need to have guidelines quoted on you, have a look at WP:ASR#Think_about_print, which says Don't forget, we want to make the creation of a print version of Wikipedia as easy as possible.

Regards, High on a tree 12:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, while I appreciate your good-natured tone in a heated debate, I personally think that "let those people just have their way, even if their reasons are wrong" is not a good motto for writing an encyclopedia. It amounts to bowing to whoever is arguing most vociferously instead of basing the decision on the best arguments.

Well, looking at the history, the most stable periods with this page was when a compromise image was up. A consensus needs to be reached.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the arguments against showing the picture need to be listened to seriously, but that doesn't mean that invalid arguments (which started with falsely calling the license information on the image page "a blatant lie" and making phony claims about the image's copyright status) should be accepted.

Certainly.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go back to the solution which existed until the beginning of September. Regards, High on a tree 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that the image up at the beginning of September was not the result of any consensus but rather it was the version that happened to have been frozen in the midst of an edit war. Prior to that edit war, a black-and-white shaded approximation of the first card, a compromise between no image vs. the real image, had been up for about a month (following another edit war). That month with the solid black compromise image was probably the longest period of stability on this page. The reason for that stability is exactly because it was a compromise version. As long as some extremists try to erase any image while other extremists put up the actual image with no warning, it seems that there will be edit wars.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• "The problem is that such a self-made (fake) image is a personal interpretation by the person who created it of what the essentials of "a Rorschach card" are. Such original artwork violates WP:OR."

I don't agree. Posting a picture of a symmetrical inkblot in order to show readers what an inkblot (not necessarily a "Rorschach inkblot") looks like does not violate WP:OR. The inkblot need not be an "interpretation" of the important features of a Rorschach inkblot. The caption could be written to make it very clear that it was just a picture of an inkblot, with no direct relation to the Rorschach. The important point is that it would look roughly and qualitatively similar to an average viewer. I think the proposal is an elegant solution that should satisfy those who seek to develop a multimedia-rich article and those who, due to ethical concerns, wish to keep the actual Rorschach image hidden. — DIEGO ^talk 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A psudo-Rorschach inkblot does not convey the same information as a real Rorschach inblot.Geni 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with posting the picture

My window of free time is closing for a few days, so I hope that someone else can further develop this argument further. Setting aside the issue of copyright which may have expired, the actual Rorschach inkblots are supposed to be sold or used only by professionals. Psychologists and, presumably, psychiatrists also are bound by a professional code of ethics not to disclose such images. So, whoever obtained these cards and posted them on the internet either did so through a violation of their professional ethical code (if they are a professional), or obtained the cards through fraud (such as by ordering or buying them through claiming to be a professional), theft (or "borrowing" without permission from a professional or clinic), or some such reason. Therefore, by having an image obtained in this manner on a wiki page, would not that make wikipedia comparable to a person knowingly driving a stolen car? (Even if he's not the one who actually committed the theft) Wouldn't that be wrong?Faustian 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stealing a car is illegal. Ignoring the various codes is not. In addition you missed inheritance, the requirements of deposit libraries and acquisition through bankruptcy as methods of acquiring the cards that would fall within the codes. There are other ways.Geni 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My analogy wasn't with respect to legality, it was with respect to the seediness of the situation. In wild 1990's Russia there weren't yet laws on the books against driving cars stolen in other countries (there were stories about tourists "shopping" for cars in people's driveways in Berlin, and having them delivered in a few weeks). Today it is still almost impossible to recover stolen cars there, even if they have been identified, once someone has registered them in Russia [3]. What would you think about doing something like that? Is it acceptable because it's legal?

Do you think that wikipedia is such that it is acceptable to post an image that was very likely obtained through unsavoury means such as ethical violations or fraud? The loopholes you've presented seem pretty rare and even then have an unsavoury character - taking advantage of someone's death to do something that would have been unethical for the deceased to do while alive.Faustian 12:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No crime has been committed at any point and I don't view the breach of this particular part of the Psychologist's code to be unethical. Since copyright terms are often based in the life of the subject we take advantage of people's death all the time.Geni 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you personally, do not believe that breaching a part of one's professional ethics code is unethical for you personally, does not mean that a breach has not occurred.Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So what? This is wikipedia. We are not censored for the benifit of professional codes or principles.Geni 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The example of the magic trick is not an ethical code nor is that of depicting Mohammad. Note that the article on Islam doesn't include a single image of Mohammad, presumably not to offend people or subject innocent believer to what they consider to be blasphemy. Thanks for leading to this example. Faustian 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

magcians frequently describe the magicians code as an ethical code.

So do you think that psychologists or medical doctors are equivalent to magicians? Would a doctor or psychologist being unethical strike you as no more troubling than a magician doing so? Faustian 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

the equiverlent of the islam article in this case would be the Psychology article. Muhammad which would be a more equive case contains a number of drawn depictions.Geni 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The equivalent of the Islam article would not be the psychology article. The Rorschach's place within psychology is not nearly as central as Muhammad's place within Islam so your anaolgy is false. The best analogy is as I stated: despite Muhammad being central to Islam, the Islam article doesn't include his image. Muslims aren't forced to become offended merely by reading about their faith. Anyone wishing to see his image can look up the wikipedia entry about the the prophet himself or the cartoon controversy, etc. rather than about the religion of Islam. The Christianity wikipage has numerous pictures of Jesus, the Islam article contains not a single image of Muhammad. The important difference between Muhammad's image and that of the inkblots, of course, is that forcing someone to see Muhammad's image offends their religious beliefs, while forcing someone to view a Rorschach image compromises the validity of their test should they choose to take it. But anyways, the Islam page does show a precedent of a controversial image not being included. (And remember, I'm not even arguing to go as far as the Islam page and not include the image - I simply want the reader to be given the choice by clicking onto it to reveal it)Faustian 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Faustian, We don't know what the circumstances were. Do you? This argument is a bit like a straw man. There may be all sorts of legitimate ways of coming into possession of these cards, including inheritance, estate sale. I don't have any objections to hiding them from general or unwitting exposure. I do think there is a strong public interest and scholarly research argument for letting people find them if that is what they want to do. I, for instance, can forsee no possible scenario in which I would undertake, or be required to undertake this test (it is not a common test in my country). I might, however, want to include them in a dissertation on another subject. Argue for hiding them on the grounds that an unwilling or unwary "browser" of this article may compromise a future test. Don't make this argument, it's not a good one. MarkAnthonyBoyle 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are two separate arguments, and I am not advocating that one argument about the images is better than another. With respect to the posting of these images being the fruit of someone's violation of ethical violations, you mentioned inheritance or estate sales. The ethical codes certainly include having appropriate plans in case of death. For example, there are specific codes dealing with the destruction or removal of patients' personal information in case of death. It's not acceptable for a psychologist to, say, write in his or her will that they want information on patient X to be sent to the media or published in a book after the psychologist's death. The code of ethics states that test integrity should be maintained. If provisions are not made to prevent the the tests from falling into the wrong hands (i.e., someone who will then post them on the internet) than that is clearly a violation of the ethical code, no different from the psychologist who has private patient information broadcast to the media posthumously. The fact that he faces no consequences for this ethical breach does not alter the fact that the action itself was unethical.

Perhaps I haven't been creative enough, but I cannot think of a way for the image to have been posted that did not ultimately (even if not by the person who actually posted the image) have as its cause some sort of ethical violation on the part of a practitioner, or some sort of fraud or theft by an unauthorized user. Anecdotally, research even if helpful is not used if obtained unethically, and I believe that legally police cannot use evidence even if helpful, if it had been obtained wrongly - "fruits from the poison tree". Is it acceptable for Wikipedia to post or use images obtained through someone's ethical breach, fraud or theft?Faustian 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Rapid active external rewarming in accidental hypothermia J. P. Fernandez; R. A. O'Rourke; G. A. Ewy JAMA, Vol. 212, Issue 1, 153-156, April 6, 1970. Cites some of the most classicaly unethical research in history. So your Anecdote would be incorrect.04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)

Was that research cited unethical at the time that it was conducted? If it conformed to past ethical standards but not modern ones it is okay to cite it. The ethical breach of revealing the images has been around for decades, certainly longer than wikipedia.Faustian 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al decided it was unethical at the time. And it is a breach of a professional code not ethics. Makeing up your own system and calling it ethics is the kind of thing relgious cults do. OF course we ignored them as well.Geni 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So - you are comparing professional ethics codes to the dictates of religious cults? Is that where you have to go when you have to admiot that something represents a violation of professional ethics?Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends to the degree to which people attempt to inforce them. The Royal Society of Chemistry has a code of ethics of sorts but they don't go to the degrees you claim that Rorschach followers go to in order to supress information.Geni 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, look, I think I've made myself clear. The compromise of hiding the image with a warning that vieing it may invalidate a test is a very good one. I don't have a problem with that.

If it's okay to post those images given the ethical dilemna than I agree 100%, that this is the best way of doing so. It places the infromation out there while givign people the choice about whether or not they want to see it. I don't know Wikipedia rules well enough to draw a conclusion about the admissibility of including images when those images were very likely acquired through dubious means. It doesn't sound very nice to me, but perhaps it is acceptable. But it's a fact that hadn't been emphasized on this discussion and it seems like an important point to consider. The images appeared on the internet through someone violating their ethical code, or through fraud (getting the cards by presenting oneself as a professional to the seller when one wasn't) or theft (taking them from someone's office or using them without permission).Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the very unlikely event that the cards may have come into someone's possession without there having been a breach of ethics, I can see a number of possible scenarios.

Can you describe some possible scenarios?Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the circumstances are, and they may have been obtained unethically, but there are possible scenarios in which that doesn't hold. Since we don't know the circumstances the argument is just speculation. The chain of ethical responsibility is a very big argument (see Peter Singer and here [4] search for "chain"), which I don't think can be made with much force in this case. MarkAnthonyBoyle 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't listen to the broadcast. However the chain seems straightforward. Someone posts the unethically obrained image on the internet. Someone else puts this image on the wikipedia page. In Mosacow, buying and legally retaining a car stolen from Berlin is more complex.Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, in order for a crime to be committed there has to be some pay-off. You are comparing against car theft. Obviously there is a gain in that situation. I can't see what the payoff is in posting the inkblots on the net for free. Secondly, and I'm only speculating here F, but lets say a psychologist dies suddenly, without warning. Lets also say he doesn't have any close family. He leaves no will. His patient records are destroyed, but his books and effects are sold to pay off his debts. Anybody could buy this stuff. There would be no requirement on the auctioneers to ensure that only other psychologists bought the blots. Somebody might have bought them, maybe in a box of other books, out of curiousity. That's just one possible scenario. The chain of resonsibiltiy argument goes that guilt by association has to stop somewhere.

Alan Saunders: And presumably there is somewhere, an end to a chain of responsibility? I'm thinking about the animal liberationists in Britain who are opposed to animal experimentation, and for them the chain of responsibility seems to go to a hell of a long way, like the pub that serves drinks to somebody who works at a laboratory where animal experimentation is carried on. There must be an end to the chain of responsibility somewhere, mustn't there? Peter Singer: In some theoretical sense, I guess, if the publican could make a difference by saying, I'm not going to serve drinks to you because you're torturing animals for a living, then that's what the publican ought to do. But I'm certainly not defending what everybody in the animal rights movement does, and I think some of the people, in Britain particularly, who've been opposed to animal experimentation, have actually done the movement a disservice by targeting people who in the general public's view are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and sometimes the families of people. And that just doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help the cause of animals, in fact it harms the cause of animals, plus it's nasty to children perhaps, who live in fear because their father works in the lab, so I certainly don't want to defend that. And again, it's the difference between what you ought to do in a practical matter of protest and whether in some theoretical sense, you can say that someone bears some responsibility for something. I don't know. That's quite different from saying whether they ought to be made a target of a protest because of that.

So for Wikipedia, it is not at all clear that some ethical breach has taken place, and even if it had, given that the blots are already on the net, it serves no moral good for us not to make them available to those who will not be disadvantaged by seeing them because (like me) they will never undertake the test. Our not displaying them will have no effect on that original poster, whether they were acting unethically or not. MarkAnthonyBoyle 21:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Here is a scenario with no ethical or legal breach in which the cards could be posted on Wikipedia. A licensed Psychologist, who practices in a home office, takes reasonable steps to ensure that testing materials are used only by him (i.e., he keeps them in a locked desk drawer, etc.). The psychologist dies of a sudden heart attack while away from home (never having violated APA ethics guidelines). His family decides to move shortly after his death. While packing up his father's office, the psychologist's teenage son happens upon the Rorschach cards. The son has absolutely no ethical or legal obligation to keep those cards hidden (the thought doesn't even occur to him). So, after ensuring that the images on the cards are actually in the public domain in the U.S., he scans the cards and uploads them to Wikimedia commons (with servers based in the U.S.) in order to do what he can to build and enhance an encyclopedia that is currently seriously lacking in the visual department (have you seen Encarta and Britanica lately?). Where is the ethical/legal breach? Who has neglected any obligation? The images were neither obtained unethically nor as a result of custodial neglect (the owner died). If there is no violation, and you can't prove that the image was not uploaded under these (or similarly innocent) circumstances, then the argument is really pointless. — DIEGO ^talk 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there's another scenario. Given that the cards were first published 80 odd years ago, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of sets out there in the community, owned or obtained by non-psychologists in perfectly ethical ways. WP is not condoning or supporting any breach of ethics by publishing them. The only argument that stands up is the spoiler one. So they should be made available to those who won't be affected by that spoiler. MarkAnthonyBoyle 22:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please come to a consensus

I see in the page history that the image has been edited and reverted over 50 times over the past few weeks. Please use the talk page to discuss, as you are doing above. Further reverts may result in this article being protected from editing. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been protected, to prevent further edit warring over the display of the image. Use this talk page to come to a consensus. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough!

This is not the place to debate the validity of Rorshach test. The viewer should be given a choice to see the image, with a warning, as is the case now. I hope when the page is unprotected nobody tries to change the way the image is again. Amit@Talk 14:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest changing the warning to "...may invalidate the test for you" Amit@Talk 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The validity (or lack thereof) of the Rorschach is central to the argument to censor the picture. If the test itself is not a valid measure of anything, then censoring the picture is pointless, because only invalid, essentially worthless results will be "compromised". — DIEGO ^talk 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my comment above: You apparently have little or no knowledge of the psychometric properties of the Rorschach. First year graduate students have more understanding than you have demonstrated. Ward3001 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Even the International Rorschach Foundation themselves are showing all ten images on the web

The above discussions on whether the article should include the image are quite lengthy, but it seems to me that a few arguments still haven't been mentioned:

• The central argument against showing the image violates WP:NPOV. It consists of the claim that readers who see it suffer personal damage. (Almost every Wikipedian who has taken part in this discussion or edited the article has been "victimized" in this way; it might be worthwile to stop for a moment and reflect for a moment on how large this damage to one's personal life really is.) But in fact - as noted above and in the article - this is clearly a view that is not universally held, in fact, there are organizations who claim that it is even beneficial for individuals to have invalidated the test for themselves by reading about it and seeing the images beforehand. For example the "Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center", whose page is linked in the article, says "If you don't wish to take the Rorschach test (and we suggest NOT taking it in the context of a custody dispute if at all possible), tell the psychologist that you are familiar with the Rorschach test, have read about the test and have seen the inkblots." Now it would be POV to base Wikipedia editorial decisions on this view ("OMG we have to save people from this quack test by showing them the image"), but it is equally POV to base them on the opposite view ("OMG we have to preserve this life-saving test for people by not showing them the image").

But somebody can argue both ways on any kind of potential damage caused by reading a type of wikipedia page. Is there a wiki page detailing the steps necessary to produce crystal meth (someone can say the knowledge can be helpful or harmful)? How about one describing how to build a pipe bomb? How to pick a lock? How to steal personal identity? Etc. etc.Faustian 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Crystal_meth#Synthesis largely meaningless any halfway competent organic chemist could come up with a dozen routes. Lock picking actualy since you bring that up you might want to read Matt Blaze. Then of course we have Nuclear weapon design.Geni 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me just comment that websites devoted to advising parents about the Rorschach in custody disputes are likely to cause the parent more problems because of fallacious information and advice they give. That's not to say that use of any test in a custody dispute isn't controversial, but the advice on the websites is given by people with little knowledge of the test. At best it's inadequate, and in some cases it is simply wrong. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But I suppose you are not disagreeing with the "Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center"'s statement "Any ethical psychologist will decline to administer the test upon learning [that you are familiar with the Rorschach test, have read about the test and have seen the inkblots], and the issue of the test's validity will be a moot point"?

Apart from that, I am not saying that your opinion is wrong. But it *is* a matter of opinion (yours against theirs); maybe these organizations and the other critics are wrong, or maybe the Rorschach test is worthless and dangerous - I am just saying that per WP:NPOV it is not ours to take sides here, and that is is against NPOV to base our decision about the image on such an opinion. Thus your reply has precisely confirmed my point.

Regards, High on a tree 13:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• The damage argument made against the image could also be made against the whole article - certainly reading about the test can also influence the responses. Anybody who has choosen to read this Wikipedia article has already chosen, to some degree, to compromise the validity of the test for themselves, should they take it in the future.

Any damage from reading the article is minor compared to viewing the images Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• The damage argument is also remarkably at odds with the fact that even the International Rorschach Society has been showing all ten pictures (in shaded, not b/w versions, one even in color) on their web page since at least 2005 [5] - in smaller form lacking some detail, but it is still perfectly possible to look at them and prepare answers to questions that are asked in the actual testing situation. For example, I can look at them and say that no. 4 looks like a motorbike rider from behind, and no.5 resembles a bat upside down. (This is "the" Rorschach organization, an association of professional psychologists founded in 1952, connected with Verlag Hans Huber. It publishes two journals, "Rorschachiana" and "Bulletin of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods". Shouldn't the editors who are criticizing Wikipedia for showing this image first accuse the International Rorschach Society of professional misconduct?) Also, it should be noted that the article claims "The official test is sold only to licensed professionals", but the order form for the test cards on Verlag Hans Huber/Hogrefe's own web site does not mention any such restrictions. In any case the Exner system of scoring is freely availabe in libraries and bookshops all over the world.

A key phrase you wrote is "in smaller form". What you see is a distant photo of the blots already miniaturized about tenfold, so the actual amount of reduction is probably about 100 times. I'll acknowledge that I prefer they not be shown that way, but the amount detail not shown is sizeable. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

True, some detail is missing (btw, the image in the article is also much smaller than the original). But the point is that these renditions are large enough to form the kind of associations which comprise the answers in the testing situation (as I demonstrated above), and enable a person to prepare such answers in advance.

If the missing details make a difference, that only means even greater damage to the validity of the test.

The point here is the International Rorschach Foundation is obviously much less concerned about this issue than some Wikipedia editors who nevertheless claim to speak on behalf of the community of professional psychologists.

Regards, High on a tree 13:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because the order form doesn't mention restrictions doesn't mean than that you can actually purchase the Rorschach without proper credentials. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a proof, but it is evidence that you can purchase the cards without producing credentials. On the other hand, does anybody have a reference (or even just evidence) for the claim "The official test is sold only to licensed professionals"? If not, I am going to remove it from the article per WP:V. Regards, High on a tree 12:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is that claim: [6]. On the Pearson Products website, the premier site where psychological tests can be purchased, the Rorschach page [7] (which incidentally features a copyright) under "quick facts" lists the Qualification level as "3". Qualification level 3 [8] is a licensed level psychologist.Faustian 13:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia strives to create encyclopedic content that can be used in different forms, not only as a web page but also in other forms (as PDF, in print or on DVD). JavaScript tricks like the image show/hide button flatly contradict this goal - even on the web they require a JavaScript enabled browser - and should only be used in the article text when they are absolutely necessary. (The use of show/hide buttons in navigation templates, i.e. outside the main article body, is less controversial, since these templates are mainly used for web navigation.)

Summarily, I think we should go back to the solution from a month ago, before the edit warring started: Include Image:Rorschach1.jpg without the JavaScript code. As noted above, this is already a compromise solution, since from a purely encyclopedic perspective it would be desirable to show all ten cards (and also describe some exemplary responses and their evaluation).

Regards, High on a tree 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have made some valid points, but I also think some of your statements are somewhat misleading and/or inadequately explained. Please see my comments within the text you wrote. And finally, let's face it, if someone is unscrupulous enough, he can probably get his hands on a set of Rorschach cards. But I think we're talking about what should be done on Wikipedia, not the lowest common denominator. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be fairly trivial to purchase them through ebay. Otherwise I would assume the british libiary has a copy.Geni 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See the replies above. As for "lowest common denominator": Sure, but having just one of the ten images in the article is way off from that - describing and revealing the full test would be quite another story. Regards, High on a tree 13:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents. This is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to be informative, neutral, and uncensored. It is not bound by the norms of any professional organization, religion, or nation (except where the servers are hosted or some other nation somehow manages to bring a credible case). This test does not need to be "protected" any more than magic tricks or religious taboos need to be protected. Wikipedia already has a general disclaimer that says that reading it can be harmful to your health or something to that effect. And frankly I don't understand such a big effort to "protect the results" of a test that is so controversial to start with, that it has even been compared with fortune telling and cold reading.[9] Finally, regarding the [show] button, I don't think it's a good solution because it has accessibility problems (it doesn't work without javascript, for example), and IMO goes agains the spirit of the no-disclaimers-in-articles policy. --Itub 08:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 207.160.240.251

How come no one has metinioned Anne Anastasi's comment about the inkblots? "The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them. These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects." I guess she recognizes a scam when she sees one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.240.251 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this comment from the top of the page and placed it here in (roughly) chronological order with other comments. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring

Please stop editwarring over the image. Use this talk page to come to a consensus. The next revert will result in the article being protected once more. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are not accepted at present. I see no reason for further debate.Geni 14:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the term "spoiler" is appropriate in this context (the Rorschach is not a movie or book) is not resolved, nor are numerous other issues concerning the image. There is no consenus yet on whether or not the image should be here, although an examination of the debates gives an advanatage of one to the side not wanting the image displayed openly, with no warning (hopefully noone brings sockpuppets or meatpuppets into the debate). The current way that the image is handled is a compromise between the various positions. Your numerous attempts to circumvent this have been noted.Faustian 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

as have your ongoing attempts to censor wikipedia.Geni 15:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

...And the censorship issue has already been discussed, and again no consensus has resulted. The image isn't censored if it's still on the page, just because people are given the choice about wherther or not they want to see it. The current way the image is handled is exactly a compromise between those who indeed want to censor it, and those who want eveyone to be forced to see it, denying them that choice.Faustian 16:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from those without Javascript enabled not being able to see the image at all and having no choice in the matter -Halo 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case the links at the bottom of the page send you to sites where the images are displayed.Faustian 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a links dirrectory. We should not rely on external links to provide information that should be included in the article.Geni 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Geni, you've been an admin since March 2005. You should know better than anyone else that editwarring is not the way to get your point across. If you believe that the image should be displayed in the article, argue your case on this talk page. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to debate with people who are seriously prepared to claim the the image is more controversial than the whole autofellatio thing and then ignore all evidence to the contry.Geni 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Issues regarding Images

The Rorschach card images are held in copyright by Hogrefe & Huber, based in Germany (hhpub.com). The Hogrefe family was has held the copyright for three generations and carefully renewed it in all international settings. I am a test development professional and, quite frankly, not a real fan of the instrument, at least as it has be overextended in use over the years. All of that academic and scientific controversy is quite beside the point however: the images are protected by international law. Public display destroys their commercial value and is both unethical and illegal. There is zero controversy that the images should not, ever, be displayed on Wikipedia or any public site.Plskmn 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hermann Rorschach died in 1922 and the cards were published shortly before that date. Thus both life +70 and the US's rather more complex system of copyright terms (pre January 1, 1923 see) have expired. There is no requirement on us to preserve the commercial value of the images once they have entered the public domain.Geni 11:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the above two comments to this section, as they were placed above the talk page header. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I have archived all material from 2005 through 31 July 2007. This talk page could use two or three more archives, but I opted to leave the remaining comments, given their possible relevance to the current discussion over the content of the article. I also moved several comments from the header, as indicated - please revert my moves if you do not believe they were proper. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on Reaching Resolution

Genie, in reading through recent comments it seems clear that people want to reach resolution on several issues, but that it is proving difficult to do so. Could you help me by clarifying what you believe to be an authoritative source of information on 1) copyright limits and 2) rectricted access.
Regarding 1) Do you need to hear from Hogrefe & Huber? Or do you need to hear from their legal representatives? I will be glad to provide you with specific contact information direct to the Managing Director's office, if that will be of assistance.
Regarding 2) The Rorschach pictures are sold in the US through no more than about four of five sources (Pearson, Harcourt, WPS, PAR and MHS). All are psychological test publishers. All have specific procedures requiring every customer to document their educational level, licensure, and coursework specific to the use of one or more tests (e.g., Rorschach, MMPI, Weschler tests). I work for one of the named companies, am a licensed professional, and--for several decades--have had specific responsibility for reviewing customer documentation when restricted tests of these kinds are ordered. Yes, if someone presents false credentials and lies about their background, it is possible that they may obtain materials improperly. The existence of improper access does not validate claims that access is free, nor justify Wikipedia's providing improper access.
Test materials of these kinds are also provided in university and other research libraries. For all cases I am aware of (e.g., several Ivy League, Big Ten, Pac 10 schools), test materials are maintained in separate, locked rooms. Students in training and other qualified people have access. The materials are not in open circulation. Yes, it is possible that some libraries are unaware of author/publisher/professional association policies on the release of these materials. That does not make faulty practice correct. Nor does it provide a good and ethical model for Wikipedia.
Regarding sales on ebay or other on-line sources. These are also improper. Ebay has a specific procedure, set up in agreement with the American Psychological Association and the Association for Test Publishers. Any listing of a restricted test is taken down immediately and without question. Yes, ebay is huge and No the ebay staff cannot be personally responsible for vetting every single new entry of this kind before it goes up. But in every case, when notice comes in from a proper source (e.g., publisher, licensed professional) the protest is accepted at face and the materials are immediately removed.
It seems to me that either of my points here is sufficient to require that the Rorschach pictures be taken down. At this point Wikipedia should be in "active proof" mode: you should have a specific written statement from Hogrefe & Huber, granting permission to display their materials, not flounder about trying to sort out conflicting claims from people who appear much stronger on opinion than in authoritative facts.Plskmn 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

we've heard from Hogrefe & Huber. We were not impressed. They are hardly the first group to send us baseless legal threats (another would be the royal society although they did have a case just in the wrong legal system). As and until we see some kind of reasoning for their legal claims we will continue to rely on our own determination. 1)it is questionable that the works qualify for copyright under swiss law (swiss law is a little odd in what it allows to be protected by copyright. Really quite an interesting subject) 2.) Swiss law is life pluss 70 so copyright has expired (dito german). 3)The works appear to have been published before the cut off date under US law.

Moveing onto your second point. You claimed the copyright protection was international which presumably includes the US. As you may be aware when the Rorschach inkblot test first appeared things that wanted to be protected by copyright in the US were required to register with the United States Copyright Office a process that involved sending a copy to said body. Such copies are publicaly availible.Geni 16:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my second point was not a copyright point, it was regarding restricted access. And I note that you do not address questions of professional convention, established policy in major research instituions, ethical responsibilities independent of legal requirements, etc. On the other hand, I suppose your legal arguement regarding copyright--and I do accept it and appreciate the detail--may obviate the this second aspect. It simply puts Wikipedia in a fairly radical stance regarding materials used by mental health professionals. It is a problem regarding tests in general--for example, IQ tests, achievement tests, aptitude tests, etc. These all rely on evaluating tested individual's responses to materials under similar conditions--that is, in the absence of prior knowledge and exposure. Seems pretty clear then that the Rorschach's value more or less evaporated in 1992, since the absence of prior exposure, and so comparability of current responses to the historical research data base, can no longer be assumed. Guess to only solution is to develop, standardize and validate new (and newly copyrightable) test materials to get at that same information. Long time job security for test publishers. (Oh, that would be me?! Thanks!!).Plskmn 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

For those of you who claim that the copyright is still in force, can you point to a court decision which agrees? It would seem that if the inkblot in question was published before Rorschach's death, then the copyright has expired. Publicola 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I do think that the copyright issue is resolved. Genie was explicit: the Hogrefe and Huber concern, the sole original copyright holders, presented their evidence. It was found wanting and so the images are not, in that sense protected. Or at least until Hogrefe & Huber are willing to mount a more effective defensive of their claims. [And that is not to be cute: copyright claims are rather like "easements," if they are not vigorously defended, they become lost. So the burden now is, indeed, on Hogrefe & Huber.]

What I do feel is still open is whether the claims of licensed mental health practitioners, the conventions of major research libraries, the statements of major professional and trade associations, the views of serious academic researchers deserve consideration. Significant members from each of these groups claim that, for some specific and documented purposes, the Rorschach materials do have a legitimate, validation. Every such purpose is undermined when the images are provided for public view. Is there consensus that, absent specific legal requirements of copyright, there is an adequate rationale to deny these other individuals and institutions the value of the historical database that is the Rorschach legacy? Dothe contributors to Wikipedia feel sufficiently well-informed and justified that they wish to become a signficant tool in removing this venerable (even of ocassionally misused or abused) instrument from any role the field of mental health?Plskmn 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently holding in my hand a book that for it's time (I hope it is seriously dated) provides a reasonable description of how the test is conducted and scored (it also contians the card outlines). Fairly trivial to obtian through my local libiary. The views of various academics and trade associations should of course be recorded in the article but beyond that are not something that really applies to us. See Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers.Geni 23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright claims generally do not depend on whether they are enforced; that quirk belongs to trademark law. There is the doctrine of laches (equity), but Wikipedia policy never takes advantage of laches (for one thing, it's a crapshoot.) If all ten of the 1921 blots were not so easily available in full colour and high resolution from a few minutes of web searching, I might feel differently, but given the current state of affairs I see no reason to censor any of these images. If the members American Psychological Association wish to follow the spirit rather than the mere letter of their ethical guidelines, then they might advocate that a new copyrighted set of blots be normed for the test rather than clamoring to censor public domain information that any schoolboy could find in minutes. Publicola 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment (without regard to the copyright issue) about the suggestion that the APA "advocate that a new copyrighted set of blots be normed". This statement reflects the problem when non-experts get into the business of deciding what should be included in Wikipedia. There's a lot more to creating a test than just establishing a set of norms. If the Rorschach becomes unusable there's a lot more lost than just a set of norms. Decades of research, on which interpretation is based, become obsolete. That's why there has been very little effort to create a new inkblot test. Splattering some ink on sheets of paper and spending a few thousand dollars to collect norms would produce a test that pales in comparison to what the Rorschach has been able to offer for diagnosis and treatment. Ward3001 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Given modern computer databases and publish or perish requirements toy produce large amounts of data combiened with the view of even Rorschach supporters that much of the early work had problems I doubt it would take more that a few years to rebuilt. However given fair use the general lack of respect for copyright on the net and the speed at which information can travel on the net I doubt any such system would be able to maintain it's secrecy for long in the 21st century. Magicians and freemasions have already discovered this. Scientology used every weapon an organistation below the level of goverment could use and still lost. Secrecy will become a far more valuable comoditiy in the years ahead.Geni 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"I doubt it would take more that a few years to rebuilt". Once again, this statement shows a gross misunderstanding of how difficult it is to accumluate four decades of research on one of the most widely used psychological tests in history. Ward3001 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

4 decades so post 1967 is legit (or 1969 with the Exner system?) Anyway assume 5 hours per test an analysis 10 people working 35 hour weeks 4 weeks holiday a year that would be 3360 tests per year. Building up a fresh dataset would take significantly less (a couple of orders of magnitude perhaps) rescources than developing a new pharmaceutical compound. Throw in what must logicaly have been learned from building up the Rorschach dataset and yes a few years is all it should take. But as I said I doubt there would be much point in the long run.Geni 04:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One more time. It's a lot more than just "Building up a fresh dataset" (i.e., norms). Five-thousand research studies on a single test cannot be completed in "a few years". A psychologist, Wayne Holtzman, tried to create a new and improved inkblot test, and it basically fell flat on its face because a test without the thousdands of studies to build its interpretive base has very limited value. The analogy with a pharmaceutical compound is absurd. A few dozen or so well-conducted studies on the safety and efficacy of a drug are sufficient to get it on the market and established, if it is approved by the governmental regulating entity. Pharmaceutical companies have their own challenges, but conducting thousands of research studies before marketing the product is not one of them. Ward3001 15:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Given modern computing capacity and statistical analysis building up a fresh dataset is likely to be the main issue since one you have the data analysing it should be fairly trivial since you have those 5000 or what ever Rorschach papers to tell you how to do it. The number of studies is not a good measure (since after all drug companies tend to not want to publish data unless they have to for commercial reasons. Modern chemical screening and parallel synthesis techniques could probably produce enough material for 100 papers in an afternoon). The key factors are the number of subjects. It is not unknown for Phase III trials to go into the thousands. If there was a will to do it it could be done although as I have outlined above I doubt there would be much point. Security through obscurity has lost much of it's effectiveness and there is little reason to think that the trend will be reversed.Geni 17:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the analogy with a drug study has very little merit. Drugs are used for treatment. Psychological tests are used for diagnosis. If a drug is shown to be safe and to effectively treat a specific problem (e.g., reduce blood pressure), most of the research to get it on the market is done. With a personality test there may be a thousand different personality factors that need to be studied. And the size of the sample if you study one of those variables says little or nothing about the other 999. If I have a sample of 10,000 subjects and study one variable, I know nothing about the other variables. Each of those variables must be studied separately, in a separate study that usually must be replicated at least once. That translates into thousands of research studies, regardless of the sample size. As for "those 5000 or what ever Rorschach papers to tell you how to do it", that is a relatively minor consideration in terms of time and expense in conducting the research. And regarding "modern computing capacity", the best computers in the world cannot design the research, find the subjects, and collect the data. Your analogy may reflect some knowledge of pharmaceutical research, but it has no bearing on psychological test development. Companies that sell psychological tests make money on those tests. If it was so easy to develop a test, why hasn't it already been done? Why did the Wechsler intelligence scales have a near-monopoly on intelligence testing for many decades? Because it is difficult to create a new test. Ward3001 17:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do to the way the Rorschach is structured is should not be a major problem to study more than one variable at a time. You would after all expect the drug company to be able to handle the apearance of more than one side effect. The monopoly can be accounted for via brand recognition and first mover advantage. Computers can't gather the data which is why I stated that gathering the dataset would likely be the main issues but post data gathering analyis would be must less of a problem.Geni 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Conducting a massive research study in which you investigate 10 different variables is just about as hard as doing ten separate studies, if not more difficult. And if you need separate data for preadolescents, adolescents, and adults, you have to have separate studies; you can't instantly change the age of a person. This discussion has strayed from "Copyright", and I don't wish to go back and forth on a topic that any minimally trained psychologist could see is based on a completely erroneous analogy. This is my last post regarding developing a "replacement" for the Rorschach. Ward3001 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. What does it say about psychologists' ethics when they continue to use the blots after they have passed in to the public domain and are all so easily found in clear detail? The issue is not that the blots have been exposed to the public, but rather the response thereto. Clamoring for censorship is pointless at this juncture. There is only one truly ethical course of action, and that is to replace the test images. Publicola 02:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"What does it say about psychologists' ethics when they continue to use the blots after they have passed in to the public domain". About as much as it says about uninformed editors who would ruthlessly destroy a test that has contributed significantly to mental health. Ward3001 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It says that the internet attracts nihilists - nothing new. However despite the troubling nature of such actions, I would not be concerned. Even if the images are readily available to those who seek them, the general population and most people giventhe test probably will not have been exposed. It's not as if they have as much exposure as the O.J. trial.Faustian 04:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I explained above why I rather doubt that would work.Geni 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding publicola's comment on whether or not the images may be displayed, regardless of professional objection: I find them direct, ruthless, definitive. I like that and can live with it. I consider that there is consensus on the point that imaage may be shown. Next topic.

Rationale and Scope for Image Display

Now that we agree that the images may be displayed, perhaps we can address several topics that are now open for discussion: 1) What will be the purpose of displaying the images? The existing article, above the "Controversy" bar seems pretty succinct. Is that, as it stands, an adequate "general purpose encyclopedia" level discussion? Where does the display of one or more images fit in? Perhaps people may have some curiosity about what the images look like. Are there a more specific and salient reasons? While we are no longer discussing principle, we are discussing relative values: professionals have reason to ask that these images not be widely promolgated. There is some onus on those displaying them to develop a concrete and specific counter-rationale.

2) What should be the format of the display: how many of the 10 images, what size, what degree of image precision, outline or complete, with or without color? Again, with reference to countervailing concerns how extensive a display is _required_ to meet the objectives of the article.

3) What amount of additional text is justified to support the images used? Certainly this is not a test manual. Certainly this is not a document to describe the psycholgical meaning of any given response to any given image or portion of an image (in fact all such "meanings" reflect the impact of all other scores on all other responses to all other images and so, individually are quite improper). Any specific comment is likely to open a considerable controversy regarding the scientfic basis of the instrument.

So, where exactly are we going with this new found consensus?

I strongly urge that there be discussion and additional consensus on these issues before images are re-instated.Plskmn 01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) As usual, the purpose is to illustrate the subject; (2) the current faithful reproduction of the first of the ten images is sufficient to show what the inkblots look like. There is no need to show one with colour, as that is easily imagined; (3) I don't understand the question of (3). Publicola 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for example, there is an external link at the close of the article that explicitly (and accurately) states that is discloses all 10 cards in full color and detail. Why does that remain, given this current conversation?" And does it not seem strange that the link at the top of the article, where the lind to the single card occurs, the text explicitly states that going to the link has potential to invalidate the instrument? Recall, copyright aside, we are talking about a tool that many conscientious, serious professionals find useful. Such a tool should not be destroyed (that is what invalidated means to test) lightly. So, given that a great deal can be (is) verbally provided and discussed in relation to the test in the article, what specific and pressing rationale is there to show even one card. Earlier you suggested that the APA underwrite the development of new cards. As a subsequent writer stated (accurately although perhaps somewhat shrilly) that is a very expensive, very time consuming task and one that would be undertaken by an a large host of academic researchers or a commercial test publisher, not a professional trade association. Wouldn't it be better to show a similar card, created just of demonstration purposes, that could demonstrate what "ink blot" means without undermining the actual instrument? And wouldn't it be better for all if Wikipedia did not unnecessarily contribute to undermining a tool in which several thousand researchers and other professional have invested tens of thousands of hours over the course of now close to 100 years. That historical data base, one that cannot be reassembled in anything much less than a complete and equally daunting a recreation is what is being destroyed. Not something as nominal as a single image, inside or outside of copyright. Note, this is not an argument about legality, it is a discussion of a proper balancing of countervailing interests. It seems to me that the public's right to understand what the Rorschach is about can be easily satisfied without our venturing into explicit exposure of material that publishers, researchers, and professional groups all agree has a legitimate reason to be provided in a professionally restricted manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plskmn (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia's responsibility to protect special interest groups (or indeed anyone up to and includeing major goverments).Geni 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that the instrument has been seriously undermined since the advent of internet search engines or before; long before Wikipedia. And there is not even an attempt to quantify the extent to which it has been? 123.111.94.195 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious ethical problem: heads in the sand

Am I to understand from the above that professional psychologists, when confronted with ethical questions about this test, respond only with ad hominems and complaints that replacing the inkblots would be too much work? Is there really no other dialog forthcoming? This test is used in serious decisions including those where a subject might be held against their will. Yet there are psychologists who think that it is still acceptable to administer the test, without any quantification of how many people have already seen the inkblots? That is preposterous! Would a meat inspector refuse to order a recall if they found that some unknown number of ground beef samples tested positive for dangerous E. coli contamination, even if, "most people probably will not be exposed?" Of course not! Both issues hold people's lives in the balance, because setting a dangerous patient free due to incorrect test results can be as bad as eating tainted meat.

For a test with serious controversies, I would say this kind of behavior from its advocates is just digging their own graves. And speaking of the controversies, WP:LEAD clearly states that the major controversies should be mentioned in the introductory section. Why is that not the case in this article? LKirkby 10:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The comments above are based on the false premise that someone would use this test on an individual without first assessing whether or not that person has been exposed to it.Faustian 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the people for whom it is most important to ascertain exposure to the images are precisely the people who are most likely to lie about it. LKirkby 09:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you are falsely assuming that psychologists do not assess the honesty of the people they are testing. That is why we have malingering tests and validity indices on other tests (no test, whether the Rorschach or MMPI, is given in the absence ofother tests in potentially dangerous circumstances). As for the people for whom this information is most important being most likely to lie, this is not necessarily true either. Most psychotic, potentially dangerous people, aren't psychopaths.Faustian 14:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You also falsely assume homogeneity of people who are administered the test. Some examinees in forensic cases may lie about previous exposure to the test (e.g., in a custody evaluation) because they feel that they have something to gain by doing so (although that may very well not be the case). Very few clinical patients who are being administered the test for diagnostic and treatment purposes have any motivation to lie about it. Ward3001 16:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point.Faustian 16:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Think about what you are saying here. The subset of potentially dangerous people who do lie about previous exposure are exactly the ones for whom it is most important to ascertain truthfulness. And what if validity indices suggest the subject is lying? We still have only the other elements to decide with, and if the patient has researched and anticipated the test, relying on it is a mistake. 85.25.147.144 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as LKirby did above, your statements are based on false assumptions. First of all, no responsible psychologist would base an assessment on results of one test or one procedure, nor would he/she use the Rorschach to draw conclusions if there is questionable validity (as might be the case with previous exposure and/or problematic validity indicators). So I think we can safely dismiss that concern as long as the psychologist does what is ethical and responsible. Secondly, psychological tests, including the Rorschach, are not very good at predicting dangerous behavior toward other people, and a competent psychologist knows that and would avoid jumping to conclusions about danger based on the Rorschach or any other test. The Rorschach is better than most tests at identifying suicidal potential (and again, it should only be one component of a comprehensive assessment), but none of them tell us very much about the other types of danger. Ward3001 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A minor caveat: although no test can predict risk itself, the Rorschach is a good instrument (which even Lilenfeld admit) at detecting psychosis, which is a risk factor. There is of course a difference between being able to point out whether a risk factor is present and actually making a prediction of whether or not someone is violent.Faustian (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Rorschach

I normally don't like to tout my credentials, but I'm an expert on the Rorschach and know hundreds of psychologists from all over the world who use the test. I have never heard the test pronounced "ROR-shack", with the last syllable rhyming with "tack". I've heard many laypeople say it that way, but not those who know about the test. There may be some who pronounce the name of the town differently, but that's not the same as the test. Please do not revert until others have had a chance to express their opinions. Ward3001 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Framing the Criticism

Introducing second paragraph with the phrase "Critics have..." is quite a wonderful addition. It provides focus and perspective. I am afraid that I think the "Exner" sentence just invites addtional refrutation comments and so would acquiesce to comments that it be "reverted/deleted."

Is there any chance, however, that similarly rational criteria can be applied to the "External links" section. It is a clear hodgepodge of provocative and well grounded critcism (e.g., the Scientific American article) and inappropriately inflamatory and clearly inappropriate links (e.g., the Spanish languge site that reveal all images, in clear violation of the consensus to reveal only one image). Guess I am appealing to the Lkirkby WPlead to provide leadership here.Plskmn 08:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite open to rewording the Exner information, but Exner and colleagues have been THE major factor that advanced the Rorschach over the last 30 years. Much of Exner's work was in response to the pitfalls of the test that are mentioned in some of the criticisms, especially subjectivity of interpretation, validity, and reliability. Even the norming criticism has been recently address with Exner's renormed data. Why would mention of his work not be an appropriate counterbalance to the criticisms? What else, if anything, would serve that purpose? Ward3001 14:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "The most systematic efforts to address these concerns have been provided by John Exner and those who have contributed to the Exner scoring system and the data base that supports it."

Somehow “effort to address concerns” feels a bit more neutral than “reduced some of these vulnerabilities to criticism”. Similarly “those who have contributed” versus “supporters of the test”. These more broadly correspond to and balance the "Critics..." that open the paragraph.Plskmn 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a modification of your suggestions: "The Exner system of scoring has addressed many of these criticisms systematically with an extensive body of research." Others may wish to add to this. Ward3001 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but here is my take: "...addresses..." left simple means "it's handled, done" and so reflects an opinion. Limiting it to "the Exner system" makes it sound proprietary and that provokes suspicion. Also, your version makes no mention of "others" (researchers) who have contributed to the supporting literature of the Exner system, people who exist in fact and give weight to the statement (without reflecting an opinion). Terms like "systematically" and "extensive" are unecessary and again reflect opinion. Frankly I like it reading "There are criticisms.....There is research addressing the criticisms." And leaving the opinions (e.g., about who is more right) out of the main article. You have helped me learn the wisdom of not provoking countervaling opinion wars. Can I return the favor?Plskmn 05:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting to a point where I would disagree. If you "neutralize" the statement(s) too much, there is no substance left. And, IMO, "There is research addressing the criticisms" is close to nothing, especially in comparison to the rather lengthy list of criticisms presented in the preceding part of the paragraph. I do appreciate your trying to avoid an edit war, and I'm not trying to stir one up, but at the same time I don't want to shrink from the truth just because some (possibly poorly informed) editors may not like what is said. Exner system of scoring is not proprietary, and those who know how it was developed realize this; we know that many contributed to the Exner system, even though Exner was originally the driving force. It's not terribly unusual to see "the XYZ system" in psychological testing, or something similar. Wechsler's name is inextricably linked to intelligence testing. There is a Koppitz system for scoring and interpreting the Bender-Gestalt and the Human Figure Drawing in children. I don't have a problem with mentioning "others" in addition to Exner; I was trying to be as concise as possible yet accurate.

I also think it's important to point out the extensive amount of research conducted on the Exner system. That clearly is more than just an opinion, which can be ascertained by examining the sheer volume of research and publications, as well as the dominance of the Exner system in Rorschach use that has existed for a long time. Even the harshest critics of the Rorschach can't deny the influence of and volume of research on the Exner system. (Incidentally, Exner himself did not use the phrase "Exner system"; he used the term "Comprehensive System", but that's rather vague to the unfamiliar reader.)

I used the word "systematic" primarily because it is accurate (maybe not essential), and because I took your suggested phrase "most systematic efforts" as a good one.

I can accept something similar to "The Exner system of scoring has addressed many of these criticisms with an extensive body of research." I'm open to rewording (including mention of others besides Exner), as long as it is an adequate counterbalance to the preceding list of criticisms, and as long as the extensiveness and influence of the Exner system are not unnecessarily minimized. Thanks for your discussion. -- Ward3001 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds clean enough for me. Not that different than yesterday's, so maybe I over-reacted. I encourage you to put it in in either form.Plskmn (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks! Ward3001 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And then what about a similar request to the "critics..."! However, I suggest that you simply put in the single best broad complilation from the Exner literature and let it sit. If the question does get raised on the other side, then one of the Lilienfeld ones. Obvious problem: the criticisms have been allowed to accumulate piecemeal, without citation and the Lillienfeld group has only specified some of those that are stated in the article here. Kinda messy. But all the more reason to try to keep it simple if possible. Sure it is not "fair" but at lest the defense side will have, at this point, a scientific cite to it's credit. Plskmn (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically citation not needed in lead because the issues are discussed later in the article, but I added one anyway. Ward3001 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ward3001. I was the one who made a recent change to the Rorschach article, which you changed back with about 2.5 seconds. You then sent me a notice saying that I had been warned for vandalism, and that I would be banned from edits if I made another change. However, this is in violation of the wikipedia rules, I believe: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." In that my edit was well intentioned, I don't believe it would be fair to use your powers to ban me. What I said in the edit was "Exner refused to show his data to other researchers. This is considered suspicious in the world of science, where transparency is cherished, and is maintained through the peer review system." I was then going to cite this reference: Meyer, G. et al. (2001) Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist Feb Vol 56(2) 128-165. - As soon as I figured out how.

Though I am not new to the Rorschach (I'm writing up a Rorschach report right now, in fact), I am new to wikipedia, so please forgive me for my not proceding exactly correctly. However, do not ban me.

Further, I would like to open the discussion for adding my edit back in. It is a factual statement, and can be traced to a published, peer-reviewed journal article. Thanks! (I don't have a username yet - I will sign up today.)

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.176.213 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statements above are inaccurate. I did not revert your edit. Look at the edit history. And I have no power to block you from editig. That is for an administrator to do. Also, there is a difference between a block and a ban. Secondly, you should not make a statement in an article with the intention of later providing a citation. Add the citation when you make the edit. Otherwise it is subject to deletion.

A more important point relates to your edit in the article. I have read Meyer et al. (2001), and I think your intentions were not entirely in good faith. I think you intended to give an impression that the total of Exner's work was done in secrecy and not subject to peer review. That is simply not true. I need to read the article again for details, but you may be referring to a single request made of Exner for some of his raw data, which he may not have had available (if that's the case, I'm not defending loss of data, but it's a far cry from "refusing" to share data or bypassing the peer-review process in the huge amount of other research that he published in peer-reviewed journals). So I ask you to give the specifics on this talk page that indicate that he "refused" to share data, and to explain how this goes beyond a single instance of not having the data. Tell us the details about the entirety of his work and how he refused to abide by the peer-review process. Then your statement will be justified. Otherwise, your statement was at best misleading. And remember, a core principle of Wikipedia is that "any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited", so don't add something if you don't expect to be challenged for misleading comments. Ward3001 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The question of the display of the picture and Wikipedia Censorship

Hi.

It raises an important issue, namely whether or not Wikipedia should appeal to interests outside of itself, or censor or semi-censor certain things. There have been lots of debates on these issues, for example with the infamous controversial cartoons published back in 2005. In this case, the claim is that posting the picture somehow degrades the test and makes it less useful (although whether or not this is significant is debatable -- one point that has been raised is that the test, especially the first image, has been plastered all over the place. Plus that first image is the only one mentioned on the page here.), in the other, it's because people's beliefs may be offended by the material. In either case though we have non-Wikipedia interests affecting Wikipedia. Both are cases of a more general issue: should Wikipedia alter it's content to appeal to interests outside of itself? Also, I wonder about the interapplicability of the various solutions. For example on this article about the test, it is hidden. Should the same be done on other articles like that about those cartoons I mentioned? Also, how does this jive with official policy that Wikipedia is not censored? Could there be some problems with that policy, and maybe a change in policy is required? Wikipedia should never assume it's policies are perfect. mike4ty4 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you take that step, where does it end? If we delete something to help the psychologists, then why not delete something to help everyone else? I think publishing the images is a service to an extent, because the test is already spoiled because you can get all the images elsewhere on the web. Who knows how many people have? The fact that nobody knows means that the test is spoiled. The sooner this gets in to the heads of the people who don't want to bother with another set of blots that can be kept more secure, the better. 88.65.139.108 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does the censorship end is a flawed argument. In every single action we need to use our criteria. You cannot abdicate the use of reason for the sake of some unknown problem. The reality is that this test is used by many psycologists, who have reason to beleive their efficacy in providing their much needed services is compromised by having these images available. Wikipedia has become a great gift to humanity and in that sense in has trascended a group of people who are just publishing what they wish. And Wikipedia also promotes the involvement of the world society in maintaining the wealth of information that it contains. All this to further promote knowledge and to benefit human kind. I find it completely contrary to neglect the currect use of images for mental health by thousand of professionals. If anything Wikipedia should embrace psycologists that wish to censor this information.--24.174.8.32 (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) now --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So we've got the psychologists trying to hide pictures of the inkblots, who believe doing so will increase the accuracy of their diagnoses, and the Muslims trying to hide pictures of Muhammad believing they are saving immortal souls. Who has the more important reason? MilesAgain (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's just it -- where does one draw the line on what to censor and what not to? In the case of the religion, regardless of whether or not we agree with that religion, one has to take into account the _feelings of the people_ who follow it. Should those cartoons be "censored" (making them not appear prominently is not the same as censoring in my book, hence the quotes. Censoring = NO show AT ALL.) or not? What about the Rorschach tests? Should they be "censored"? After all, there is dispute as to just how good the test really is. Furthermore, we still have the issue of Wikipedia vs outside interest: should Wikipedia bend to outside interest or not, and if so, where is it appropriate? That's the question that needs to be discussed here. mike4ty4 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So because it is a difficult task to draw a line, we just abdicate? The fact that there is a reasonably valid question on self-censorship makes it an important issue and worthwhile to pursue based on rational arguments.

I put forward the following basic premise: The mental health establishment supports the Rorshach test. My reasoning is that there are thousands of licenced psychologists that rely on this test to make their diagnosis and decide on treatment options. The fact that there is dissent within the Mental health community is not indicative of lack of support. On the contrary, debate is expected from a scientific community. And the existence of such debate along with the lack of institutional action against the rorschach test, from the mental health community, also supports my premise.

I also perceive that the arguments for rorschach image publication were written as if we were in a vacuum. They are out of context. The reality is that this is the wikipedia and as such it has propose. That is why people care to write and read it. Because people share an interest in knowledge. If this article interferes with the administration of the test as it is argued by the psychologists who use it, then based on current scientific knowledge, this article harms people. I think harming people has to be contrary to the propose of the wikipedia, and we should do something about it. There are many guidelines on article writing for the wikipedia, and they emphasize the common good, they discourage profanity, rudeness they also promote welcoming newcomers and assuming good faith. These are some of the guidelines written by the wikipedia administrators and their spirit has made the wikipedia what it is. I believe harming others while not expressly addressed in the guidelines is definitely contrarian to the wikipedia spirit.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not abdicate. Hundreds of editors have weighed in on the question, and the clear consensus is that Wikipedia is WP:NOT#CENSORED. Not for this, or any other article. We have compromises, for example, there are only drawings and not photographs in List of sex positions, and in this article, there is a link you have to click to actually see the picture after being warned. That is the result of the active engagement on the issue. If we bowed further, the far grater numbers of Islamic editors who want pictures of Muhammad removed would demand equal treatment, arguing that salvation of immortal souls is far more important than some psychological test. MilesAgain (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First I want to clarify the problem, I disagree with having even one image. But much worse than that, are the two links on the references section to web pages with ALL the images. And next to the links are comments that say "here are all the images". So according to your post, to follow the already existing consensus, those links should be removed. The replacement of photos with drawings besides being a reasonable compromise, is censorship. The equivalent in this case would be to show an inkblot but not one in the test.

I think we are not communicating well enough in this discussion

I'll take the first step in making a bigger effort. I'll try to address your argument that talks about Muhammad. The censorship required from Muslims has to do with showing respect for their religious beliefs. After all, any image of Muhammad would be a interpretation of what he could have looked like. Since there are no photographs of Muhammad, and therefore no true image can be made available. My argument is not about a request of respect, or even a religious one. I argue that according to current scientific thought, showing this images harms people. And it does it directly, and by directly I mean that there is no third party involved. Like you could say of a terrorist (3rd party) that may act as a consequence of Muhammad's image been shown. The only thing that Muhammad's example has in common with this case, is censorship. I hope I did not sound too confrontational, but that is why I used the term abdicate. Because Muhammad's image is a clear example where it makes sense not to censor, but it is still one example. I think this is a valid issue in it's own right.

OK, I hope my effort comes across as such, I also cordially request that the premise I put forward in my January 9 post be addressed. I just want to know if people agree or disagree, because I am trying to build a case, and that premise is my cornerstone. (I know I sounded like a lawyer ;) )--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

But I could also make the point that the JPMC also harms people without a third party being involved. They may be emotionally harmed by the image if they have the right belief set -- and a third party does not cause the harm. Furthermore, what viewing the Rorschach image does is not damage the person themselves, it damages the usefulness of the test on that person (that is, if the test is even very useful at all.). The way I see it: The JPMC may harm people directly if they have a given set of beliefs, otherwise it may not. The Rorschach images may damage the usefulness of a test on the person, a test they may or may not be required to take. Since we do not know who is on the receiving end of the pictures, what they believe or may believe, or what they will do or have to do in the future, one cannot predict when real harm will actually occur with certainty. This therefore raises the question of whether or not the mere potential to cause harm, to even some individuals, is enough to warrant partial censorship, or if WP:CENSOR should be taken to the letter and these concerns thrown right out the window. mike4ty4 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You bring again matters of belief, and it just does not seem to be the proper standard for this case. It's problems like this that may change our definition of censorship. I do take your point on potential, but I do know of specific individuals who needed and took the test and had seen the images online. This is a very real problem. Please read my response below with this same date. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the JPMC? 209.77.205.9 (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But this still leaves the question of why the JPMC should be displayed prominently in the article as opposed to being hidden, like in the case of these tests. The point I had is this. WP is not censored, you agree on this, everyone agrees on this. OK, so it's not censored -- but then why is bowing to a special-interest group on this article any better than bowing to one on that article? Does not this imply a sort of semi-censorship? If we want no censorship, then why not plaster all 10 tests right there on this page right up there prominently for everyone to see? What I'm talking about is what is censorship? and how far does the prohibition on it go?. mike4ty4 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this concept of "semi-censorship." Either it is censored, or it is not. Having the interested viewer click to see an image after having been given a warning, rather than forcing everyone who happens onto the page to see it, is not censorship of any kind.Faustian (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So then why did it fly here but not with other controversial images? mike4ty4 (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If by "it" you mean censorship, there is nothing to fly. There is no censorship. Read Faustian's comment immediately above yours. The image is available to anyone with a click of the mouse. Ward3001 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

By "it" I mean this image-hiding (no, not the same as censorship, since the images are still available). Why didn't it fly with other controversial images, like those religious cartoons I mentioned? mike4ty4 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The click-to-see in the Rorschach article was a compromise reached by consensus. Apparently that consensus has never been suggested or reached in the other articles. Ward3001 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is the idea that "Either it is censored, or it is not", and I challenge that. Many people have died thinking you were either a man or a woman, but today we know hermafrodites exist. We should look at what censorship means, and how recognizing it is useful for society. The wikipedia article on censorship talks about a group that restricts free speech. Traditionally military throught force, later mass media or corporations throught economic control. Here we are trying to reach a reasonable consensus in good faith. And I am suggesting to use current scientific thought as a guideline. We have to make choices about what we say and what we don't say everyday. Does that mean we censor ourselves? maybe metaphorically speaking we do, but that use of the word is not practical. Never before was there a medium like the wikipedia where anyone could come and discuss in good faith to reach consensus, and have the result reach such a wide audience. I think we should be more thougthful about how we decide what to write in this medium. Maybe we should adjust the use of the word censorship to better serve society, maybe in that context the term "semi-censorship" or "self-censorship" might help us discuss better.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think that the current consensus is being violated by the reference links at the bottom, and that the unintentional suggestion from MilesAgain from the 9th of this month is a great idea. I'm talking about removing the current link at the top of the page and placing an inkblot that resembles the original ones, but when looking at them side by side is clearly different. This will convey the same information to the wikipedia reader, without compromising the test. And if no one has any objection I will make the changes.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I suggested that, intentionally or otherwise. I like the way things have been for the past months, with a modesty click-through and our usual adherence to WP:EL which includes links that contain more content on the subject that the article would contain if it became featured. If you want to get all ten blots out of public view, it would be more productive to ask Google to remove the results. MilesAgain (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I was only trying to give you credit for bringing it up. I also plan to ask google on the same grounds argued here, and hopefully we can do this here first insead of looking for leadership in google. I appreciate that you like things the way they are. I do not understand why you did not comment on my premise from January 9th. After all we are trying to reach consensus in good faith. And communication is essential. On my part I have done my best to address the concerns of other's, and I will continue do do so. I sincerly encourage you to say if you agree or disagree with my premise, and we will be on our way to maintaining consensus.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(back left) I do not disagree that the test is supported by large numbers within the mental health community; I think that goes without saying since the test is frequently administered. However, I have to agree with the others who have pointed out that trying to censor the images is tilting at windmills. Why do you choose to advocate hiding the images rather than the creation and normalization of another set of blots which would be subject to copyright and trade secret protections that the ten 1921 blots lack? Is the effort of normalizing another set of blots really more, in your estimation, than the effort it will take to keep the current public domain blots hidden? MilesAgain (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating another set of blots would be an extremely difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and possibly futile effort. It's not just a matter of splattering ink on paper and asking a sample of people what it looks like to develop norms. There is a huge volume of research that occured over a period of over 30 years on which the intepretive strategies are based. Even if there were a team of dedicated researchers who had lots of money to try to conduct that kind of research, it could take many years and eventually possibly not produce much usable information. Developing another test equivalent to the Rorschach is nothing like developing, for example, and alternate version of an intelligence test. It's apples and oranges, and I doubt that you could find single researcher who would try to take on such a massive undertaking. In fact, there was some effort to create another inkblot test that generally produced nothing in terms of a test that is useful in a clinical setting. Ward3001 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but my question was: Would it be more or less effort than trying to censor images that have fallen out of copyright into the public domain? MilesAgain (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it's not possible to "censor" an image that is in the public domain? It might be possible (but unlikely) to make some rules about it in Wikipedia, but in the larger world there's no way to restrict use of an image that is not protected by copyright. Developing a set of blots, however, that are psychometrically and clinically equivalent to the current Rorschach would be an extremely formidable and perhaps impossible task. I know most of the leading researchers in this field, and I don't know of anyone who would be willing to undertake such an effort. Anything is possible, but I can't imagine it happening in my lifetime. That's not to say that other useful techniques will not emerge, techniques that may have nothing to do with inkblots. But new techniques generally require many years to develop. Ward3001 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think the new research MilesAgain suggests is a positive thing, but I don't think it is relevant to this discussion. To illustrate, suppose I said to you "There is a lot of worse censorship happening around the world, why don't you spend your efforts combating it" I would be deviating from the issue at hand. After thoughtful consideration I decided to add sections down below to be clearer, and to make editing easier.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the organization responsible for promulgating the ethical requirements of handling this test could mandate that the test must be administered with another, proprietary set of blots, and the results from both old and new blots along with the overall diagnosis must be sent in to researchers normalizing the new blots. MilesAgain (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's complicated. The "organization" would be the American Psychological Association, and secondarily the various state licensing boards (in the USA) that usually fall in line with APA's ethics code. First of all, the APA will not mandate required use of a test that does not exist. And another set of blots with equivalent psychometric and clinically useful properties does not exist, and is extremely unlikely to exist in the next few decades (see my comments above in this section). Secondly, APA's ethics code already requires a psychologist, as much as possible, to use tests that do not have compromised reliability and validity; to consider a variety of other test and non-test data (when possible) in making decisions (thus often more than one test, procedure, or source of data is used), and to exercise informed, prudent judgment in interpreting test results. Because there are no perfect tests, and no psychologist has absolute control over the many variables that might influence human behavior, conformity to those ethical principles has some gray area. Most of us do the best we can with what we have. But we can't do the impossible.

Two more points: No organization or licensing board is going to force psychologists to participate in norming a new test. That sort of totalitarian technique is illegal and largely impossible.

And here's something about a point that has been raised several times on this page but non-experts seem to be having much diffuculty grasping (that's not a personal attack, just an observation). There is a huge difference between collecting norms and developing a clinically useful personality test. If you gave me several million dollars, I probably could come up with some norms on a new inkblot test in a year or two. But what you would then have would be a set of useless norms; nothing else. Getting the norms is just the starting point. The norms tell you nothing about what the scores mean. Test scores do not interpret themselves. That requires research, and lots of it. Exner developed norms for the Exner system of scoring, and then spent the next thirty years (along with many other researchers) figuring out how the data from those norms should be interpreted. Norms are essential for most tests, but norms alone are useless. Ward3001 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The current solution, I think, is a good one. People wanting to learn more about the test don't see the blot unless they make a deliberate effort to do so. After all, they can see all ten images from 15 seconds with Google if they are willing to make such an effort. As for the underlying questions you raise, I will just say that I think WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy instead of just a guideline for very good reasons. MilesAgain (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people have argued that the Rorschach test is actually harmful when used in forensic an occupational settings (among others) because such an questionable test may end up determining people's lives (for example, see [10]), Therefore, one could argue that exposing the inkblots actually helps people by invalidating the test. I don't expect Wikipedia to decide what is "good for the people". We just provide the information. See [[11]] for more details. --Itub (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The "harmfulness" is a minority view and making decisions based on this minority view is somewhat like making decision concerning global warming because a minority od scientists dispute that it is a man-made phenomenon. In much scientific work there are controversies and disagreements.Faustian (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So then you agree that displaying the image harms people (although only if they take the test. See, that's the rub -- we don't know oif they will or won't take this test. Should we defer to that risk there? If so why don't we do that with the religious cartoons where people may get offended by their prominent display?). Furthermore, why must one base the decision on the amount of people agreeing with the view, as opposed to the view with the most solid logic behind it? If a view has 100% rock-hard logic and evidence backing it, the question of whether it's in the minority or majority is irrelevant and should never enter in. mike4ty4 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In most matters, you'll find many people who will challenge what you believe to be "100% rock-hard logic". That's especially true in the field of psychology and even more so among Wikipedia editors. That's why we have consensus-building. Otherwise there would be constant edit wars with nothing productive happening. Ward3001 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Harmfulness of image publication.

Several people including myself have stated that the display of rorschach inkblots interferes with the practice of the mental health community, and therefore should be considered harmful and should be avoided.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of censoring guidelines for image publication that results in harm to others.

This is only an issue if in fact image publication can be considered harmful. Otherwise it's a mute point.

In this talkpage people have expressed that the wikipedia policy says that the wikipedia is not censored. And that it has to be taken literally, regardless of whether harm is being inflicted to others.

But such a wide interpretation of the policy leads us to contradictions. As we can see in the text of the policy itself that reads "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content ... and do not violate any of our existing policies". A wide interpretation would mean that relevant information will be CENSORED if it violates existing policies. Along with the policy of "Wikipedia is not censored" and honoring the title of its' article page "What the wikipedia is not", there are several policies that say what should NOT be in the wikipedia. Or using the same wide interpretation what should be CENSORED.

A second interpretation that is not contradictory, is that there should not be an expectation of censoring by the wikipedia or any other entity. So if someone was to look for some authority that would censor a particular article they could come to this page and find this policy that reads "The wikipedia is not censored". Furthermore the policy also explains that such censoring cannot be done because of nature of the wikipedia, and mentions how consensus is done by discussion open to anyone interested in a given subject.

Also on the same page there is a policy that reads Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy saying that we should "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines" and that "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."

Lastly I want to offer examples of widely acceptable self-censorship that happen regularly. Phone numbers, addresses, credit card numbers ect.. are removed from articles, videos and photographs to prevent crime, harassment and to protect privacy. Competition organizers omit crucial details that would render their competition results meaningless. Scientists and other experts do not publish data that they judge inconclusive and misleading. All those are examples of positive self-censorship. While the Muhammad image example is highly controversial and censoring it might not be widely considered appropriate, using it to deem all self-censorship as inappropriate is a false generalization. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose to remove the current image at the top of the page and replace it with an inkblot that resembles the original ones. And the image should be clearly different from the originals when looking at them side by side. This will convey the same value of information to the wikipedia reader, without compromising the test.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should Original Rorshach test inkblot be replaced

Sections "Harmfulness_of_image_publication" and "Interpretation of censoring guidelines for image publication that results in harm to others" describe the argument and put forward the proposal of replacing the inkblot image. To organize the discusion I added objection sections below, so we can discuss them independently.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Precedents

A similar issue was raised at the List of sex positions talk page. And the solution was the same. To provide with images that were not "true to life". But conveyed the relevant information of the subject of the article.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research objection

Back at the beginning of october 2007 Faustian suggested this idea for the first time and DIEGO ^talk Agreed. At that time user High on a tree said "Such original artwork violates WP:OR." Back then Faustian clarified that the image proposed at the time did not represent original research. And I agree.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the same information objection

A psudo-Rorschach inkblot does not convey the same information as a real Rorschach inblot.Geni 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The proposal does not attempt to do so. It actually tries to remove the harmful information, while retaining the encyclopedic value. Just like in the List of sex positions the offensive or inappropiate "information" was removed. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

By that sort of argument, would any old picture of a car do for the Honda Accord article? As long as it's a similar car, say another Honda, it's pretty much the same thing, right? It seems quite obvious that showing a "clearly different" automobile and describing it as a Honda Accord does not "convey the same value of information" -- how is this case different? Not trying to be snide, just curious as to the response. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, but just to a degree. If we really follow my proposal we would be placing an image of a car that would resemble a Honda Accord, but that when put side by side to a real Honda Accord would be clearly different. This is a very difficult thing to do given your example, and not difficult at all for a rorschach inkblot. If somehow we succeeded at the difficult task of creating such an image for a Honda Accord we would in fact be very close to "conveying the same value of information". At this point the harm inflicted by the damage to mental health care around the world is far greater than the imperceptible difference of information presented.--71.41.16.18 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus objection

Since Nobody has commented on this interpretation, unless anyone has an objection, I will remove the current image at the top of the page and replace it with an inkblot that resembles the original ones. And the image should be clearly different from the originals when looking at them side by side. This will convey the same information to the wikipedia reader, without compromising the test.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't do that. The absence of a response does not imply agreement. Consensus has already been established to leave the image as it is, and you cannot change consensus with one person's opinion. That's not the way it works in Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But I thougth I was following the guidelines. I read I should wait three days. I was planning to wait those same 3 days again before doing changes. I should have written that too. My assumption is that someone will come here and discuss why should I not do it, and we mantain consensus. And if everybody agrees with this new proposal then consensus changed. Please help me understand if I did something incorrect. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Waiting three days is to give others an opportunity to comment. It does not imply agreement if there are no comments, especially when a consensus was already established. If there had never been any disagreement regarding this issue, you might be on more solid ground. But if you will look carefully at the talk page history (including the archives), you will see tremendous disagreement, discussion, arguing, edit warring, and protection of the article because of edit warring. And some of this disagreement was over the very change that you propose. In fact, a fake inkblot at one time was placed in the article, sparking more controversy. Eventually the consensus was for the compromise that now exists. And that consensus was hammered out after long and difficult debate. You can't unilaterally change consensus just because others are tired of arguing and have ignored your suggestion. I'm not assuming bad faith; you're intentions may be fine, but your methods are not in accordance with acceptable Wikipedia practice. In any event, since I have now expressed disagreement, there is no change in consensus with one opinion in favor of changing and one opinion opposed to changing. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your main point on consensus. This has been contested for too long to pretend consensus in a short time. To address it we should wait longer to see other wikipedians opinion on the matter. Noting that nothing was said about the validity of the argument itself, and that people who disagree on the merits of the argument are encouraged to comment.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who would Wiki those psychological analyses he plans or expects to undergo has likely already invalidated them. And so I don't see a compelling need to censor the images here. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Click [show] (or here) to view the first card in the test (may invalidate the test).

The current warning-headline is:

Click [show] (or here) to view the first card in the test (may invalidate the test).

I would suggest to change it with:

Click [show] (or here) to view the first card in the test (may invalidate the test).

In other words, we've to replaced a non-standard HTTP-LINK with a standard WIKI-LINK. Wiki-links are everywhere on wikipedia, and they all works fine with all browsers (just like a http link does).Btw, both kind of links are recognize even if javascript is turned off (in the internal wikipedia's subsystem, wikilinks differ by http-links only because they have a different CSS class associated with them) but for internal linking and interwiki linking, we MUST use wikilinks in place of httplinks because on wikipedia we must have wikilinks everytime this is possible.

A user asked me to get some "consensus" before doing this change...(lol), well what do you think? Bye!:)--DrugoNOT (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

since no one had something to complain, i've updated the page. Bye!:)--DrugoNOT (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Society for Personality Assessment

I removed a line about the Society for Personality Assessment from the article, and user Ward3001 reverted it, and threatened to ban my IP. I have put the edit back, and here's why: first, the Society for Personality Assessment used to be called "The Rorschach Institute," so the fact they use the Rorschach test is meaningless since they obviously have epoused it from the beginning, and given the organization's new official sounding name, it's also misleading. Further, this instutute isn't significant enough to even have a Wikipedia stub, so which methods they use is a matter of trivia, not encyclopedic content. --208.124.148.174 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement "second most widely used test by members of the Society for Personality Assessment" is true, regardless of whatever opinion the SPA, you, or anyone else has about the Rorschach. There is no justification for deleting a true statement. If you want to add additional information to the article in regard to the SPA, please do so as long as it's sourced, but don't delete a statement that is relevant to the Rorschach that is true. That's POV-pushing. As an analogy, it would be perfectly appropriate to make the statement on the WISC-IV page: "The WISC-IV is the most widely sold test by The Psychological Corporation" if such a statement were true, even though Psych Corp has a vested interest in the WISC-IV. Now if the statement in the Rorschach article were "the second best instrument on personality assessment", that would be an entirely different matter. But the statment in the article about SPA is simply a fact; it is not an opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The main issue here, is that if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but don't go threatening to ban my IP for a sincere edit. As to the case in point, I make no statements about the accuracy of the deleted bit. There are plenty of justifications for removing a true statement. My argument was that it didn't appear important or useful enough to warrant inclusion. If this group really is influential in the industry, then that information is worth something, and should be included in the article, and an article about SPA should be at least created. If not, it's trivial. --208.124.148.174 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletions without explanation can be considered vandalism. That's why we have edit summaries and Talk pages. When you originally deleted the statement, you gave no explanation, so it is reasonable to assume vandalism. And it is perfectly appropriate to post a warning about vandalism. Now that you have explained your edit, it will not be confused with vandalism. But I assumed your original deletion, with no explantion, was vandalism. (By the way, there's a big difference between a ban and a block. The warning I put on your talk page was about a block. And finally, I hope you will register and make your edits as a registered user. It's free and easy to do. Registered users are much less likely to be suspected of vandalism.) Ward3001 (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is no page on SPA does not mitigate the truth of the statement in the Rorschach article. Most editors have to set their priorities, and creation of new articles is very time consuming. Some day I may create such an article, but right now I'm too busy putting out fires on the Rorschach page. Ward3001 (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That info would have been more useful than a template threat. Be nice. I'm not as experienced here as you appear to be. I use Wikipedia a lot for reference, and if I see something I think should be changed, I change it, following the "Be Bold" invitation. If somebody doesn't like my edits, they're free to revert them, and that doesn't bother me in the least. What does bother me is threats which violate policy:

The principle "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the policy of not biting and guideline of assuming good faith. If you prosecute and judge people because they are ignorant of our policies and guidelines, you are in fact violating our policies and guidelines! (from: Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers)

--208.124.148.174 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so that the issue not devolve into a heated dialog between two individuals, could we go back to the central content of the edit? It seems to me that Ward has asserted that there are certifiable facts to support the cluase about the Society. The somewhat anonymous 208.124.148.174|208.124.148.174 has asserted that, since the Society used to have a name that contained reference to the Rorschach, their avid use is not a good reason to cite them in the article. So far, as an observer, I'd say that citing the Society appears ill advised. I'd like to see a cite referencing use by a group that is less biased (e.g., APA or other broad group of practitioners). Please note, I do not suggest that the article be changed at this point, I simply assert that, so far, I personally find the suggested edit to be a good one.Plskmn (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There are implicit assumptions in removing the statement: (1) The SPA's primary purpose is to advance the Rorschach to the exclusion of other personality tests; (2) The change to the name "Society for Personality Assessment" was done to hide the SPA's goal of focusing exclusively on promotion of the Rorschach; (3) Therefore, inclusion of a statement about use of the Rorschach by SPA members reflects an inherent bias that is POV. All of these assumptions are, in fact, inaccurate and themselves POV.

The SPA focuses more on other personality tests besides the Rorschach. Even a layperson could look at the topics in the SPA's publication, The Journal of Personality Assessment, and see that there are more articles about other tests than about the Rorschach. And the fact that there are a substantial number of articles about the Rorschach does not indicate Rorschach-pushing by the SPA; instead, it reflects the fact that the Rorschach is one of the most frequently used personality tests and therefore one of the most researched. If the SPA's main agenda was to push the Rorschach, why would the Rorschach be the second most used personality test? Why not the first? The answer is that the use of tests by SPA members reflects the same pattern of use among American psychologists in general, regardless of whether they belong to SPA.

The name change for the SPA was not intended to hide a biased agenda. Instead, it reflected the fact that its members had a much broader interest in personality assessment than just the Rorschach. It was the need to expand rather than restrict the SPA's interests that the name was changed.

As for citing a reference by the APA or other organization, if someone wishes to dig up such data (if it even exists), please do so. I think that is a good suggestion as an addition but not instead of the statement about the SPA.

The SPA is the only American organization that focuses exclusively on personality assessment. As I said above, any editor is free to add additional statements about the SPA, as long as they are accurate and sourced. But eliminating a factual statement about use of the Rorschach by its members because of falsely-assumed Rorschach-pushing has no justification and, in fact, is POV. Ward3001 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a question of bias or ulterior agendas. Question of relavence to the short, opening section of the Rorschach page. If the instrument were less widely used, then reference to an organization as small and academic as the Society might be warranted. But then it might not warrent much interest on Wikipedia (and almost certainly would warrent less controversy). Realitically, however, it the instrument is not used solely for "personality assessment" and the opening section of the article should address things on the larger stage. As much as Ward and Irv Weiner may be right about legitimate uses of the Rorschach, there are, unfortunately, many times more weak, unsupported and unjustified uses. The opening section should be as scientific and value-neutral as possible, but it should reflect (be in relation to) reality. I have not seen enough discussion to warrent removing the cite, but I remain open to additional discussion.Plskmn (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

208.124.148.174 said: "the Society for Personality Assessment used to be called 'The Rorschach Institute,' so the fact they use the Rorschach test is meaningless since they obviously have epoused it from the beginning, and given the organization's new official sounding name, it's also misleading." That clearly is an argument that the SPA and the statement about the SPA in the article are biased and have an ulterior agenda.

The SPA is not "small and academic". A large portion of its membership are practitioners, not academicians. And, as I noted earlier, it is the only American organization that focuses on personality assessment. There is no other similar organization from which to obtain statistics about frequency of use of the Rorschach. The APA focuses on a vast number of topics, of which personality assessment is only one. The APA division on assessment is concerned with much more than personality assessment (cognitive, neuropsychological, career, achievement, etc.).

With all due respect, I am baffled by the statement that the Rorschach "is not used solely for "personality assessment"". What else is it used for??

The "weak, unsupported and unjustified uses" are not really relevant to the issue of whether the statement about the SPA should be included in the article. Those misuses of the Rorschach are the result of poorly informed and/or unethical psychologists, not the SPA. If anything, the SPA is one of the major advocates against such misuses of the Rorschach.

I still contend that there is no justification for removal of the statement about the SPA. I see no credible argument to do so except the misperceived, poorly informed, and false assumption that SPA is biased and has a Rorschach-pushing agenda. Ward3001 (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Accessibility to image

The current version has been disabled so there's a link to the image so you can still view it with JavaScript turned off. The current version doesn't work with JavaScript turned off (it won't expand) - this is using FireFox 2.0.0.11 on Ubuntu 7.10 -Halo (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How are you getting that? When I turn off Javascript in Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP, the {{hidden}} version loses it's [show] link, but the table displays just fine. It is hard to believe that there could be such a cross-platform difference. Would you mind uploading screenshots of the behavior, please, so that we can take this up over on the Mediawiki talk:Common.css discussion? In the mean time, since Windows has a larger base than Linux, I'm reverting back. MilesAgain (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When I've got the page loaded in my browser and then turn off Javascript, the "show" link loses its functionality and the table won't expand. But if I then hit reload the table appears expanded by default. So I don't think that part's a big deal. Something potentially more annoying is the fact that I have to expand the image manually before I can print the page, the printed version shows the table hidden by default too. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

First of all, I'm not a psychologist, have very little knowledge about the subject and just came by this article by chance. Still, I find the controversy-section of this article remarkably soft compared to the German version of this article and also considering that one of Germany's foremost journalistic writers on judiciary matters (Gisela Friedrichsen of Der Spiegel) referred to the use of the Rorschach test in court as "proven bogus" in an article I once read. It is of course possible that those two are wrong, but I find this discrepancy noteworthy. Malc82 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

why is there an image hidden in breach of policy on NPOV, discliamer, censorship etc?

Why does this article start with a hidden image? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the talk page and find out. regards,Faustian (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read it thanks, that's why I ask, I'll be unhiding shortly unless I see some policy based reason why it should be hidden. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should discuss, in the relevent sections on the talk page, why you feel it is censorship, NPOV, disclaimer, etc. before making changes or before repeating old arguments again, since all of these charges by you have been addressed already. Or are you not really interested in discussion?Faustian (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)