Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

All 10 images

All ten images add nicely as an image gallery to this article. Any comments?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In light of previous discussion that would be inapropriate, to say the least.Faustian (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Would disagree. Maybe we should hear from the rest of the community before you continue with you unilateral removal?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you unilaterally added it despite multiple comments about more images not adding to the article, apparently out of personal anger. In light of the sensistive issues regarding images, such moves should follow not precede discussion.Faustian (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Assuming Good Faith :-) I think the images add very well to the bottom of the article as an image gallery. I think I have made this comment before. Other than you and Ward lets see what the rest of the community has to say. I would recommend we leave the images there so that others may see what they look like presented like this during the discussion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the controversy, it might be better to wait until we have other comments, especially since we already have people sayignthat this is unnecessary. I would have unilaterally made some of my own changes but have chosen to wait for further clarification. As for assumptions of good faith, sorry I doubt that your latest move following Ward's not very pleasant comment was a coincidence.Faustian (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From a previous discussion:

I don't see what additional inkblot images would add to this article. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that I actually see that gallery I think it does add to the article. One can be under the mis-impression that all of the inkblots are of the same style, the multi-colored ones are particularly interesting. If we don't add them to the article it would be more because it is just so damn hard to argue against very stubborn people, not because the article does not benefit from them. The edit warring does not help. Chillum 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Will post them below than will I file the 3R.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with putting them there... it adds more information about the variety. I would recommend putting the version currently at the top with the paper background into the gallery and the white background up to the top, for consistency sake. DreamGuy (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More than one inkblot is completely unnecessary. I'll ask everyone to wait for a clear consensus before adding more images. Ward3001 (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy that we should use the paper background instead of the floating in white versions. Ward, we generally don't need a consensus to add verifiable relevant information to an article. If you want them removed then get a consensus for them to be removed. Chillum 14:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gee Ward you just removed the images. I don't see any consensus that they are not relevant(Only you and Faustian are objecting). Perhaps you should get consensus before removing them? Please self-revert, that is the best way to stop an edit war. Chillum 14:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The pot is calling the WP:KETTLE black when someone who is edit warring without consensus tells other people to stop edit warring. One of thsoe "do as I say, not as I do" things, I guess. DreamGuy (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear who you are referring to here DreamGuy. Chillum 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I could not help but notice that Faustian used 3 reverts, just missing the 3 revert rule, then the reverting was taken over by the other person who objects to the change(there only seems to be 2). A careful reading of WP:3RR will show this type of gaming can still lead to a 3RR block, even if you only revert 3 times. Beyond the repercussions it is just bad tact to use such methods. Chillum 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, respectfully, please assume good faith. There is no "gaming" here on either side of this issue. If an editor violates 3RR, then they should be dealt with. But don't make accusations that have no basis and of which you have no knowledge. I have not communicated with Faustian about his matter. We have operated independently with no "gaming" any more than the editors who have added the images repeatedly. But no one, either adding or removing the images, is "gaming" anything. I personally don't plan to remove the images any more for a while. The more ridiculous this article becomes, the less credibility it will have. Ward3001 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have brought these actions to the Administrators' noticeboard: [[1]] Hopefully this will help the development and subsequent enforcement of a consensus.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen all of the images and think they are very interesting. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Gary they are interesting. They are hardly homogeneous such that one image is able to sum up the appearance of all ten. The only reason to exclude them is attempts at censorship.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The censorship issue has been well refuted in many previous discussions. There are a variety of issues here, but censorship is not one of them. Ward3001 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the censorship issue has not been refuted. In fact it stands. I think this is censorship plain and simple because it is an outside force seeking to remove information from Wikipedia. It is not Wikipedia's job to protect the test you use. When outside forces start infringing on our goals that is a problem. Chillum 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, tell us specifically what are these "outside forces"? Are you saying that those of us who oppose adding all ten images are "outside forces" and that those who want the image are not?Ward3001 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to remind the people who have been repeatedly adding the images that policy is that no controversial additions should be made without consensus. I have removed the images in the hopes that we can agree to wait for consensus, a RfD, or or other dispute resolution process to occur before pushing a change. LK (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Doc and Gary that the images are interesting. I also think they are informative and relevant. I think it is a real shame our readers are being denied this information through edit warring. No valid policy based reason has been given for removing these images, only the interests of an outside group has been presented. Chillum 15:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be balanced with the fact that this provocative display against consensus will guarentee that no expert will edit the content of this article, other than to periodically delete the images.Faustian (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Periodically deleting the images would be the act of someone unwilling to accept consensus and would likely find Wikipedia incompatible with them. I don't find your assertion convincing and think there are plenty of professionals and experts who do not seek to suppress information. I don't accept that a whole class of knowledgeable people all share your opinion. There is no consensus against this display, and while a small handful of people do find it provocative the majority of Wikipedians not directly involved in the subject outside of Wikipedia(read conflict of interest) find them informative, verifiable and relevant. Once again your arguments are not based on Wikipedia policy, but rather the feelings of an outside group. Chillum 15:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've requested full protection of the article while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent further revert warring over the images. I would respectfully remind all parties of WP:3RR#Not an entitlement. –xeno^talk 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The "outside forces" we are all referring to just to make it perfectly clear is the "American Psychological Association" and their stated attempt to suppress any information available to the general public about this test. This organizations opinion is the antithesis of the purpose of Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, the issue is one of ethics whose purpose is to protect the public and do no harm. Ethics is not antithetical to wikipedia, as much as some would like it to be. Indeed, policy is clear that wikipedia integrates ethical concerns: [2] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." (emphasis mine). But who cares about policy, right?Faustian (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Doc, that is precisely what I was referring too. Chillum 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

James and Chillum, I have asked repeatedly for you to tell us which editors here are acting on behalf of the American Psychological Association, but no one has given a reply. So now, for about the fourth time, tell us who represents the American Psychological Association here? And give the evidence for that. If you can't, we can safely dismiss your ridiculous hyperbole. And because James has decided to repeatedly make this assertion, if you can't provide some answers but continue to make false claims, I plan to bring this up for discussion at WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that it is not just the general public that uses Wikipedia. Lots of professional use it as well. Almost 50% of physicians use Wikipedia to look up clinical information. I am sure psychologists and psychology students look up information here as well. They as well as other health care providers would find these images informative.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Basically every psychologist here has condemned the use of these images: [3]. Indeed, putting them up here basically guarantees that no psychologist will edit on this psychology-related article. So you are sacrificing content for the sake of images (or ego). Nice work contributing tot he wikipedia project - make sure no psychologist edits a psychology page. Faustian (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here [[4]] is the overview of the claim that both Faustian and Ward3001 are practicing psychologists. But WP:ANI may be able to help clarify things for you.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

James, I assume by that you mean that Faustian and I are the editors that you have repeatedly stated or implied represent the American Psychological Association. If so, please share with the rest of us how you acquired the knowledge that the APA bestowed that power on us: was that something that we won in an APA election; or did APA draft us to represent them; or is this some sort of secret mission that APA sent us on? Further, please acknowledge to everyone here that you are representing the American Medical Association. (I got my information about that from the same place you got yours.) Ward3001 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The French article for example puts all ten images in the lead. [[5]] By the way I am Canadian so it is the Canadian Medical Association but no worries.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions, James. I've asked them several times. And so you acknowledge that your represent CMA on Wikipedia? Ward3001 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am associated but beyond that it is not of significance and therefore none of your business.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. James feels that he can assume anything he wants about other editors representing organizations here (as he has done over and over and over again, with no justification except for his own inexplicible reasoning), but the rest of us can assume nothing about him. James repeatedly makes references to other editors representing organizations, but when repeatedly questioned about where he gets this information, he provides no response. Yet, if someone uses his same logic (if it can be called that) to assume that he represents an organization, he tells us "it's none of your business". This tells us a lot about James. World, look at the kind of people who are in control of this article. This leaves little doubt about why this article is quickly moving on a trajectory that can only be considered laughable. People who know nothing about the test thinking they're improving it. Anyone with an semblance of knowledge about the test being effectively told to go away. And any newcomers who understand the test and stumble across this article will immediately dismiss it as junk. This article effectively has been shot dead in its tracks. Thanks James. Is this your understanding of "Do no harm"? Ward3001 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would thank both of you to stop this discussion if you're not going to conduct it in a manner that is in any way conducive to article construction. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point CC. I think the best thing an expert on the Rorschach can do for this article is to go ahead and let it turn into an even more ridiculous mess than it already is, not make any factual contributions so as not to lend any undeserved credibility to the article, and let everyone see a disaster for what it truly is. And I have no doubt that's the path this article will take in the foreseeable future. It's not a coincidence or because of any lack of available psychological expertise on Wikipedia that the text of this article has had no substantive additions of any quality in a long time. There is no "article construction" possible under these circumstances, so it's best that those of us who know something about the test let the "article destruction" continue taking its course. Full steam ahead. Ward3001 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrific, I'll hold you to that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That won't be very hard. Neither I nor any other psychologist on Wikipedia that I know of has any desire to put any effort into improving this article. I'm glad you consider an article's destruction and driving away of the last remnant of expertise "terrific". That's really "conducive to article construction". Keep up the good work. Ward3001 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since all 10 images have been added I have learned some interesting things about them. For one I thought they were all black and white. Now I know some have a color inkblot and some have a shaded background. I believe that people coming to this page want to know about the test. What the ink blots look like. How answers are evaluated. Some history behind the test...etc. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction (edit: so far as arguments against them go) between having a single and having all of the images. This is quite informative, and isn't out of the article's scope. I'd argue that it's on the ugly side (it's not wide enough on this monitor, looks a bit stupid), but that's more due to the <gallery> tag. Having them in the lead as the French article does is even uglier. It doesn't occupy too much space down at the bottom there though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The images are useful and informative. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, intended to inform people. We have less appropriate images (first 2 links NSFW) on this website. Object to those if you have to object to something. Nobody will be offended by an inkblot. One argument that comes up often is that the images will affect the results of the test, but it's not a good idea to look up any test (Asch's conformity tests would be thrown out the window if anyone read about them, for example), and the images are already available elsewhere (Google Images anyone?). Put the images at the bottom of the article, in a gallery, and let people get on with their lives. There are more important issues to deal with. Dendodge _T\^C 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

They're available right on a single page on the Commons as well. The link appears to have vanished from the article, but it was part of the article for awhile. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

FYI, I've just dropped a note at WT:PSYCH & WT:MED seeking more and fresh voices on this. –xeno^talk 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Interstingly it looks like, so far, all 3 editors thusly summoned support some sort of limitation of the images (2 comments here, another on a talk page).Faustian (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Darn! I was bracing myself for the stampede of experts that some have predicted would rush in and rescue the article. Ward3001 (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I reject the repeated false dichotomy that we have to choose between experts contributing and showing the images. The "I am taking my ball and going home" argument carries little weight, you can edit or not but don't use that as a trump card to get your way. I am sure there are plenty of professionals with a more open mind towards our ideals. Claiming that your point of view represents the point of view of an entire professional class is unrealistic. Chillum 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reject away Chillum. Let's see how many of your "professionals" rush in to fill the void. Do you honestly think the only psychologists who have looked at this article in the past year have been Faustian and me? If you do, you are sadly naive. There are quite a few psychologists on Wikpedia. They just don't want to get into all the crap it takes to try to get anything reasonably close to quality in this article. And I suppose you have some inside knowledge about the views of "an entire professional class"? Lord Almighty, even I didn't think this discussion would turn so unbelievably ridiculous. For a while there, I thought you were just engaging in hyperbole to push your point of view, but now I know I was wrong. You honestly believe that your stating something here ("I am sure there are plenty of professionals ...") will make it come true. I apologize for misjudging you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I know enough about people to know they have varied opinions on matters. You have leveraged the expert card so often that it is really losing meaning to me. We have never taken experts as an authority, only as a source of contribution. Even if your opinions are universal amongst experts in this feild, I really don't think every last one of them is going to go off in a huff because they don't get their own way. Pretty much everybody at Wikipedia has to accept that they won't always get what they want, most don't leave and those that do were not well suited for a consensus based environment anyways. Chillum 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, there isn't anyone here who can "leverage the expert card" except Faustian and me. A few have tried to pretend they have some expertise, but that was painfully obvious even to most of the non-experts. You continue to confirm my new impression of you: You honestly believe there are 8 or 10 experts just waiting to jump in and bring this article to FA quality because that's the way you want it to be. And you're right, no other experts are going to "go off in a huff"; that's because they're never going to be here in the first place. Ward3001 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me go at this from another angle. If we were using the wrong images, you as an expert would be well suited to point this out to us and provide sources to demonstrate this. As an expert we appreciate your ability to find sources and provide information. What being an expert does not do is give you any special authority here. There is no dispute about the accuracy or the relevance of the images, the reasons for excluding them are entirely non-encyclopedic. Being an expert does not mean we have to do what you say, it means you can argue your position better(in theory). Being an expert gives you the abilities that being an expert give you, but it does not give you any special position here beyond what those abilities convey. You stop contributing to us in retaliation for not doing it your way, but that is not a content based argument and won't change any of the issues at the table. Far better would be to accept that some things here don't go your way and continue to contribute in other areas. Chillum 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's right. As long as we get those damn images in the article, the quality of the text doesn't matter in the least. Keep writing Chillum, please. The more you write, the more people really see how this article turned into crap. Ward3001 (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I still reject your proposed dichotomy that we must choose between obeying you or the article collapsing into a pile of dung. I seriously doubt that there isn't anyone here who can "leverage the expert card" except Faustian and you. You must realize how that sounds to us mere mortals. There are in fact other experts in this world, some will not mind the images and of those that do mind many of them won't run off because they didn't get what they wanted. If you wish to stop editing this article for personal reasons then so be it, but if it is an attempt to influence then I suggest you think of another way. Chillum 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When I said "can leverage", I was referring to those who have contributed to this talk page over the past few months. There are a number of psychologists on Wikipedia who probably could make good contributions to this article. But they don't. And there's a good reason for that. Most psychologists here who have looked at the article immediately see that it's a poor article. Then if they glance at the talk page, they know for sure that there's no point in trying to improve the article. Once again, do you honestly believe that the numerous psychologists on Wikipedia have never looked at this article? (Yes, I suppose you do.) They look at it, see hopeless crap, and move on. Ward3001 (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The only dichotomy is the one you create by refusing to take into account expert opinion as demonstrated by your refusal to compromise. You are the side demanding your way or no way. The fact is that to experts, displaying these images is grossly inappropriate and that is why it is highly doubtful that any would bother editing this article. The fact is that display of the images is unethical because it is harmful. How many experts will contribute to a harmful unethical enterprise - which is what you have chosen to turnt his into. The disgusted comments by all the experts contributing so far: [6] suggests that this is indeed how it is. But that is your choice - to go against consensus and thereby limit expert opinion to expressions of disgust for the sake of having your way and no other way.Faustian (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has objected to people improving the article. Chillum 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has to object to it. The article has not been improved in the past few months. I removed some horribly outdated sources a while ago (but that's the last substantive edit I'll make, at least unless some of the irrational crap here goes away). I think Faustian may have recently changed a few things. Other than that: nothing. And driving away any expertise is an excellent way to prevent improvement without objecting to improvements. That is the most outstanding "accomplishment" for this article over the past year. Ward3001 (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To Chillum: you set up conditions that make improvement unlikely or very limited by insuring that experts will stay away. The consensus within the field is that the images are harmful. This means that anyone making contributions to an article displaying harmful images is collaborating with that harmfulness. I doubt that many will agree to do so, and indeed as I've posted already the reaction from experts to this article has been limited to outrage: [7]. Here's a quote from an editor who identified her real self, a Ph.D. with a background at MIT and the University of Virginia who has published in peer reviewed journals: "I deleted the image of the blot the last time I visited this page, but it was restored. I will continue to remove it every time I visit. Placing the image in a public forum compromises the validity of the test for all the reasons previously discussed." Yeah, let's antagonize and drive away such editors. That does wonders for the project. Being devoted to this wikipedia project, I attempted to salvage the article by balancing ethical concerns with wikipedia policies to forge some sort of hopefully acceptable compromise that would permit experts to feel comfortable making contributions. Apparently the majority among the amateurs here are unconcerned about this. So instead of having contributions by actual experts in the field we'll have an article written by people who know nothing about it, fumbling through sources they are unqualified to interpret or judge accurately to produce some sort of shoddy product. But at least all the images will there, because the pretty pictures are the most important thing. Good luck.Faustian (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Chillum's arguements are excellent. If any editors want to go off ~~in a huff~~ just because they are unable to get their way all the better for Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, not everybody approaches this like a child would, James.Faustian (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from being insulting. It lends nothing to the argument and only inflames the situation. Consider rewording or outright retracting that comment please. Chillum 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

James stated "If any editors want to go off in a huff just because they are unable to get their way", implying that my argument is a cild's tantrum. You should have accused him of being insulting, not me. Why didn't you?Faustian (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from the context that he was referring to a hypothetical expert who would not edit that page because he did not get what he/she wanted, not a reference to you. Even if it was an insult to you that in no way justifies you insulting back. Chillum 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A very generous interpretation. It was also clear that I was summarizing James' expression - "go off in a huff just because they are unable to get their way " which is clearly childlike behavior , not directing my words at him or anyone personally. I would appreciate a retraction of your claim that I was insulting. On the other hand since his words pertained to those experts who would not contribute due to ethical concerns, they were indeed insulting words about editors. Faustian (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Faustian, but I really don't see anything insulting about a simple statement of fact. Do you disagree that "not everybody approaches this like a child"? Do you think that everybody approaches this like a child? Who has that insulted? If I'm wrong in my interpretation of Faustian's comments, I prefer to get his explanation rather than jumping to conclusions. Ward3001 (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion and find it daunting to attempt to catch up with the many words already written. However, Xeno appealed at WP:MED for fresh voices, so here I am. Until someone proves that the Rorschach test has no value, I find myself wondering if it is in my best interest to avert my eyes, thinking that I may one day need to avail myself of this test. If this isn't a copyright infringement against an individual, perhaps it is one against humanity. Showing all 10 inkblots would be akin to practicing the professional of psychology. See WP:MEDICAL disclaimer. This is the actual test in its entirety. I could somewhat understand if you must show one image. Such a compromise may serve the purpose of CONSENSUS. I would prefer that the image be a facsimile, but I respect the arduous process that has led to this point. I disagree with those who argue for authenticity because I find the ethics behind it to be overly simplistic. But I respect those who fight against censorship, considering the depths to which humanity has sunk in the past century and even in the present in the leadership of certain countries. I'm just surprised to see that that fight extends to this charitable medical procedure. Isn't there more important work to be done in the cause of truth and justice? Sigh! Anyway, keep your one image and be satisfied. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am here for the same reason. I must say that I did find the images informative and interesting, having not seen all 10 before. I also did a quick google image search and found them easily accessable. Anyone looking for them would find them either here, or elsewhere. That said, some people may just come here for information only, so perhaps 1 image and a link to the rest would be appropriate givin the misgivings about the ethics of including all 10. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose it seems to hide the images is the theoretical concerns that it will lead to depressed people not being picked up. Truly depressed people have symptoms such as loss of interest (which means they will not be surfing the web), decreased motor activity (ditto), extreme fatigue (more of the same), and poor concentration. People who are depressed are not at home studying psychological test in an effort to figure out what answers should be given so that they may than escape detection. So first of all they will not come across this information. And second even if they do there is no evidence that they will be misdiagnosed because of it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction to some blatant misinformation: As most third-year med students know, there are many depressed people (including those who are suicidal) who don't report enough of these symptoms for a DSM-IV diagnosis, often do "study" things (whether psychological tests or other matters they are required to study), and cannot magically remove their exposure to what they see in a Wikipedia article if they don't know it's to their detriment to see it. Most psychiatrists (and there does not appear to be a physician on this page who knows much about psychiatry) know that the test does much more than diagnose depression. And it is simply a lie (perhaps done out of ignorance rather than malice, but nonetheless a lie) to say that there is "no evidence" that those who see the image could be misdiagnosed. Ward3001 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, rarely have I seen so many misguided assumptions and gross over-simplifications crammed into one single comment. Are you seriously offering this comment in support of the display of one or more inkblot images? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense. What exactly do you expect to accomplish by removing these images from Wikipedia when googling the images shows them all? It is like trying to put an egg back into the shell, it just is not going to happen. The images are already out there for everyone to see, anyone looking up the test on the internet is going to see the images no matter what we do. The whole premise of removing the images is flawed, if it were the contents of a test that was not already plastered all over the internet then perhaps there would be some point to all of this. Chillum 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I agree that there's a lot on this page that doesn't make sense. As for what could be "accomplish[ed]] by removing these images", I would direct you to the many comments by everyone on this talk page and archives, not just those who have succeeded in getting the images in the article. If there are specific comments about not having the images that you don't understand and have not been thoroughly explained, you should ask about those specifically. Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have entertained this debate for years. The reason I am not convinced is not because I haven't been reading it properly. Chillum 02:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to direct you to the answer to a question that has been answered in many parts of this discussion. I didn't really want to repeat paragraph after paragraph after paragraph. I assume then that if you have read and understand everything, your questions have been answered; not that you must agree with the answers, just that you have understood the answers. Ward3001 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another argument that makes no sense is how does letting a group who want nothing about the test published in the public domain remove the images encourage them to come write about the test? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you don't know the answer to that question, so thanks for asking. Who is the "group who want nothing about the test published"? Be specific, including where you got this information. Otherwise your question doesn't make sense. And generally on Wikipedia a frequently effective way to get people who have knowledge of a subject to edit articles they know about is to actually listen to their opinions and respect what they have to say. That's done on many articles, just not this one. It also helps if people who don't have more than a superficial knowledge of the topic don't try to give the impression that they do. That really does nothing to encourage people who understand the topic. Ward3001 (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ward, "I'm not surprised you don't know the answer to that question" is an extremely condescending thing to say. You don't need to be an expert on psychology to know that you don't convince people of your point of view by belittling them. This sort of commentary on each others person poisons any attempt at productive discussion. Please stick to the issue at hand and not comment on the people with whom you dispute. Chillum 03:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, drop your false accusations please. And please stop assuming you can read someone's mind, first Faustian and now me. Why would he ask a question if he knew the answer? And how is thanking him for asking the question being condescending? You know, Chilum, false accusations is not assuming good faith. That's twice you've done that in just a matter of minutes. Please work on that, and do please stick to the issue at hand. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not reading your mind, I was reading the words you wrote "I'm not surprised you don't know the answer to that question". I don't have to assume anything, it is all right there. Chillum 05:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I must assume that you did not understand what you read, or that you read it incorrectly. There is no condenscension in acknowledging that someone does not know the answer to a question that he asks (or do you think he pedantically asked a question that he already knew the answer to?), or in thanking someone for asking a question. So I'll modify my admonition: Please either (1) don't make false accusations or assume you can read someone's mind; (2) read a statement more carefully to be sure you fully grasp the meaning before you respond to it, especially with an accusation; or (3) seek an explanation if there is any chance that you may not fully understand what you read. That covers all the possibilities, so you select the one that applies best. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test

Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Plate 5
Plate 6
Plate 7
Plate 8
Plate 9
Plate 10

I have altered the gallery tag to lay out the inkblots into two rows. What does this look like to people with different screen resolutions and browsers? Is it better than the default settings for you too? Chillum 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Gallery tag for more information. Chillum 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Better. The default of 4 columns looks poor on any display I've tried, and 10 isn't divisble by it. I've gone and changed it on the article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume such a change is not controversial. Thank you. Chillum 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the discussion on whether or not to use a gallery, whilst protection is in place, does anyone object to putting the true image into the gallery? (Perhaps putting the shaded-black on white into the lead - in consideration of the fact that it is the more iconic image - like others, I did not know the inkblots were coloured). Right now I am uncomfortable with having a false image in the gallery especially given the heading and no supporting text. –xeno^talk 02:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the "floating in white" version is not the most accurate. I think we should stick to the unadulterated background on all of them. Chillum 03:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just swapped them for now. The shaded background one, in the lead all by itself, kind of gives the impression of a poor quality scan or something (but when alongside the others, it looks ok) - so I'm partial to the white background image for the lead. I've made this change anticipating no objections. –xeno^talk 04:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me. It is good that the article could be improved, even if only a little, during this edit war induced protection. Chillum 13:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion is the default not exclussion until evidence can be found.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps the issue of removing the images can now be discussed without the din of an edit war going on in the background. Chillum 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes many thanks. Things seem to get out of control quickly in this area. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if either of you would have been so quick to thank Tanthalas if the protected version did not include the images. I came to this page with the preconception that there should be an inkblot in the lead, but frankly, I'm disappointed with the behavior of the editors here who feel that steamrolling a controversial page change is appropriate behavior. LK (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would and we would be here discussing the arguments just the same.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, why don't you petition Tanthalas to remove the images while their addition is being discussed? I mean this as a serious proposal - it would go a long way towards clearing the air. LK (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of m:The Wrong Version that somebody will be dissatisfied (and the opposed party please, I suppose) with the protected version no matter which is it? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a complaint to a sysop, I'm asking for a show of good faith, along the lines of what DocJames claims to feel. LK (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Protecting administrators aren't supposed to choose a version when they protect (except insofar as not protecting a version with BLP violations and the like). –xeno^talk 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually LK both Xeno and I made it very clear in our requests for protection that protecting either version was preferable to allowing the edit war to continue. Edit warring is very harmful. I would have thanked Tan either way. I am not going to petition him to remove the images because a) that would not be fair to those who seek inclusion, and b) that would reduce the quality of the article. Chillum 14:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments Pro

These discussions are held in an active subpage: Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Pro

#01 - The cat's out of the bag

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Pro#1

#02 - No evidence of harm

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Pro#2

#03 - Adds to the page

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Pro#3

#04 - removing the images amounts to censorship

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Pro#4

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

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Pro#5

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

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Pro#6

Arguments Con

These discussions are held in an active subpage: Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con

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

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con#1

#2 - It violates Wikipedia policy

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con#2

#3 - It interferes with the workings of another profession

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con#3

#4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con#4

#5 - It violates Wikipedia policy on indiscriminate collection of information.

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con#5

#6 - It violates Wikipedia policy on non-free content.

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con#6

Question

I've seen some studies posted here as to the prevalence of use of this test among psychologists, as well as a paper or two implying that priming might be an issue. Are there any reasonable, peer-reviewed studies presenting a conclusion that the presentation of these images to potential patients before-hand is harmful? I'd like an answer and if possible, citations, not a mini-essay reply, thanks. I may alter my viewpoint on the gallery dependent on this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be impossible to do such a study because it wouldn't pass the ethics review. Institutions don't take kindly to deliberately compromising an effective test and seeing whether someone will harm themselves as a result of having done that. There are plenty of studies showing the Roerschach's effectiveness across many situations in which harm is reduced, and there are plenty of referenced claims by experts that say prior exposure to the Rorschach and other psychological tests impacts the tests' effectiveness to do their job. I haven't come across any studies, however, in which someone proposed that the test might not work as well due to prior exposure, exposed someone to it, and then went to see if that someone got the wrong diagnosis/medication (or worse, hurt themselves) due to their prior exposure. If you don't want to take experts' word for it, however, you seem to be in a Catch-22 situation.Faustian (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't take expert opinions merely on their word, especially when it regards withholding of information (I am also uncomfortable with secret tests, same reason). There should be some way to actually arrive at this conclusion without hand-waving. A review of case studies in which patients admit to seeing the test beforehand or something. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Or hell, a study involving people who have already taken the test successfully once (and thus have been exposed/primed). For that matter, how do they study the test and the particular blots used within it in the first place? Is it all based on real-world clinical psych situations? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

CC, you may have a hard time accepting experts' opinions, but do you actually expect researchers to violate the restrictions placed on them by university research committees by engaging in research that could get them thrown out of their universities, out of the profession, and into jail? As for case studies, published case studies these days are quite rare and largely very weak in conclusions. And it is poor prioritizing of resources for a researcher to spend millions of dollars and endless amounts of time trying to find a handful of clinical cases across a nation or around a world in which a patient's test results have been invalidated. If you had read some of my earlier comments, you would have seen that we can test non-clinical (i.e., healthy or normal) people to check the effects of prior exposure, but we cannot then place that non-clinical research subject in a potentially harmful situation to see the consequences of an invalidated test. These days, for any researcher (or the general public for that matter), that process is considered Hitlerian. We are talking very fundamental societal ethics here, not just psychologists' ethics. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Hitlerian"? "Potentially harmful" if they saw the images? Please, dial back the hysteria here, you aren't being at all realistic. DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please do all of us the courtesy to actually read a comment before responding to it. I said that intentionally exposing a research subject to harm is Hitlerian. Or do you think it's acceptable to intentionally harm research subjects? Read, DreamGuy. Please. Ward3001 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? It's as though you're intentionally making this difficult. I asked a few straightforward questions, how difficult is it to give a straightforward answer without trying your hardest to make me sound like some sort of bad guy? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with CC. The conversation here is becoming less and less productive. There is far too much commenting on the people making the arguments and far too little discussion about the argument itself. Chillum 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Chillum. Comments such as yours ("What exactly is this supposed to prove? That you are so invaluable to the article that we should just whatever you say?) and CC's ("you are trolling") are perfect examples of "far too much commenting on the people making the arguments and far too little discussion about the argument itself". Ward3001 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Faustian gave a clear and accurate answer to your question. You responded "I don't take expert opinions merely on their word", suggesting that Faustian was somehow not giving you all the available information, didn't know the information, or distorting what is available. That is essentially saying, "You need to give me more than that or I don't believe you", a demand for more information. You said, "A review of case studies in which patients admit to seeing the test beforehand or something", as if Faustian was somehow overlooking an important source of information that you thought would answer your question. I again pointed out the difficulties and impossibilities of getting useful information with case studies. You cast doubt on Faustian's veracity or his knowledge of the available evidence, demand non-existent information, and expect someone to supply that information or be considered untruthful or incompetent. Since Faustian had answered your questions fully and accurately, and since you didn't want to accept his answer, and since your case study suggestion is not a feasible way to answer your question, then the only remaining possibility to provide you with impossible answers is to intentionally inflict harm on a research subject. Unreasonable demands for impossible information will often get a reply that illustrates how unreasonable the demand for the information is. If you don't want to know the realities of existing data; if you make an a priori assumption that you won't believe a responsible answer to your question; then maybe you shouldn't ask the question. Ward3001 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I never stated Faustian was incompetent, I never questioned his knowledge on the field. I asked if such information existed, I did not demand it. I am trying to expand my knowledge to the best of my ability. You are not trying to help, you are trolling. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, let's spell this out as plainly as is possible. Let's say I'm writing a term paper on sorting algorithms, and a PhD in Computer Science says that there's some crazy new variant of Bubble Sort that's O(log n). As a lowly undergrad, I can not hope to compare my expertise to his own, and I might accept it. However, curious as I am, perhaps I decide to look up a proof. Lo and behold, nothing is found. Do I still include this in my paper? If I ask him for a proof, and he tells me that I should not question him being lowly as I am, and he presents claims by other experts as to running time of this new algorithm (again, without proofs), do I request his forgiveness and include it then? Maybe you're confused because I'm not approaching this the way you would, but in the fields in which I have any knowledge this is not the normal way in which discussions take place. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then please tell me something, CC. If you don't want to accept Faustian's comments that case study data are not available, and you don't want to accept my statement that case study data are not available and unlikely to provide any useful information, and you question in advance that you're getting reliable information from an expert, then how do you propose that we get the answers to your questions? If you don't accept the unethical, illegal, harm-the-research-subject scenario, then what is you method for getting the answers? As Faustian said, "you seem to be in a Catch-22 situation". The experts don't have the answers, and you don't have the answers (unless I'm wrong and you can tell us here how to get the answers). If you can agree that expecting an answer in such a situation is unreasonable, then I can agree to apologize for misunderstanding you. But you can't have it both ways. You can't expect answers, not believe the experts, and not come up with the answers yourself. Ward3001 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you use the information. If it's just someone's word spoken to you then it's not enough. But if that expert has published his claim (with or without proof) than the published claim ought to be sufficient, even if he doesn't publish his proof with his claim. I agree that the proof is preferable. In this case "proof" in the sense that you seem to want - a controlled experiment - is impossible for ethical reasons. So you'll have to trust consensus within the field as reflected in ethical guidelines as evidence, unfortunately.Faustian (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not how science works in any way shape or form. You publish you evidence / reasoning. Just a one off remark is in no way proof and evidence for that matter.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's evidence for what the consensus among the scientists is. How they arrived at that is an interesting question but doesn't change the fact that this is what the scientisits agree is true. You claim it isn't harmful. I showed with reference that the consensus within the field of experts is that it is harmful. Now if you believe that all these experts are somehow worng, the burdon of proof is on you to show the contrary. Your personal preferences don't trump expert consensus, sorry.Faustian (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not how science works. Scientific consensus without evidence is only useful in establishing what the consensus is, not in actually providing any useful evidence of any sort. Experts are not given free reign to make claims without associated evidence. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are making a specific claim. You are not providing evidence. You expect me to trust this claim merely because you are an expert. That is not science. You make it sound as though I am particularly skeptical of psychologists ahead-of-time. This is not so; I can not take any specific scientific claims as true simply because the individuals making them "know what they're talking about". I need to know how they've come to this conclusion, and whether it is a well-supported one. There are a number of well-educated MDs who somehow arrive at the conclusion that alternative medicines work because they've seen it for themselves. They're definitely experts, no? Then how do they arrive at conclusions which are not supported by relevant scientific material? That's simple: they're not conducting science, and are falling into the normal traps that result. This is why we have the Scientific method. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, if you can provide anything solid I may be open to some compromise, I'm not exactly enjoying the edit warring and talkpage arguments. I'm trying here, just give me something other than "experts say". I've looked, I can't find anything myself, but not being as familiar with this area I may not be querying the databases with the correct keywords. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

CC, I truly appreciate your good faith efforts here. I agree that the best evidence would be a controlled experiment. Unfortunately as outlined previously, doing so would be unethical. So it seems we are stuck with expert opinion. I don't think that anyone is expecting you to trust me or Ward or any editor here because we are experts. Rather, what we have to go on is the position of all the experts collectively as represented by the APA. With respect to your analogy concerning alternative medicine, the difference here is that the AMA or CMA or other collective body does not endorse them. On the other hand, the collective body of psychologists does endorse the idea that spreading the image around is harmfull. Such evidence is still not a specific study as you and I would prefer, but it's a lot more than just an expert or just a group of experts claiming something. It's the consensus of all the experts collectively. Returning to analogies involving medicine - what if the American Medical Association issued a statement claiming procedure X is harmful so don't do it. Should we ignore this collective proclamation if we personally can't find the specific studies to back it up? Or should we decide that the burdon of proof ought to be on us with respect to disregarding the collective opinion of experts in the field?Faustian (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen any evidence provided yet, never mind clear evidence. And again, the burden of proof is on the one making a claim. I can and will ignore anything from any organization if there is nothing to support it, especially when it regards the restriction of access to information on research methods. Proper science is not conducted secretively, proper scientific conclusions are not based on whims or collective decisions based on personal opinion; science is evidence-based. The AMA wouldn't make such a claim unless there's some evidence, and it certainly wouldn't be hard to find (more than likely, they would simply provide it along with their statement). If it did, it would be challenged, it would not simply be accepted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone present a formal statement from the APA either, though I could have easily missed or forgotten it. Where is that? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to [8] or something similar? That still doesn't help as far as evidence (or rationale) goes, and is in no way specific towards this test. Nor is the APA claiming that its ethical guidelines apply outside of its members. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Consumed Crustacean, could you possibly explain exactly what you mean by being "uncomfortable with secret tests" and why this is relevant to the discussion here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone is an expert in their field does not mean they are experts in building an encyclopedia. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone can contribute to Wikipedia doesn't mean he knows what he's doing. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they don't know what they are doing. DreamGuy (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Very true Ward. That's why we have policies and guidelines to help anyone edit Wikipedia. Believe it or not we encourage this. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly true. Anyone is encouraged to edit in most of Wikipedia. In a few articles, but not most, you are encouraged to edit unless you actually demonstrate that you have expertise (not just pretend that you have it). In a few articles, if experts are in the minority, they are steamrolled until they give up. Thank goodness that not's the case with every article because, if it were, there wouldn't really be a Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We encourage anyone to edit any article. Chillum 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the standard line, of course. Just as communist, dictator-run, North Korea's official name is Democratic Republic of Korea. Reality is quite different, of course. I've edited about 300 articles, a few of them extensively. A select group of editors are more discouraged on Rorschach test than any other article with which I have been involved. In fact, except for the trolling that some articles attract, I've never been discouraged to edit on any article except this one. Amazingly, my opinion has actually been sought and listened to on a few articles. Ward3001 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We encourage anyone to edit any article, providing our policies are followed. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you shouldn't be editing here. You're statements and actions here seem to be actively pushing a POV, which is not allowed. If you stop doing that, then you'll be fine. If not, well, then I guess you should expect to be frustrated. DreamGuy (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is discouraging you from editing this article Ward, we just are not doing what you tell us too. You can still edit the article all you want as long as it is in line with consensus. Chillum 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, if you're so encouraging of people who have knowledge of the Rorschach, where is that stream of experts on the test that you knew were out there (I can link to your comments if you can't find them) and were going to step in to polish up the article? It's not because there aren't any psychologists on Wikipedia. Chillum, any of us can regurgitate the "official" policies of Wikipedia. It's an altogether different matter to demonstrate that no one has been discouraged here. Ward3001 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone discouraging you and simply feeling discouraged. Chillum 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just feel discouraged. Since you again appear to be reading minds, how do all the experts you said would come in to fix the article feel? Ward3001 (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the majority here is violating policies concerning Wikipedia:Consensus:

Wikipedia:What is consensus? "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."
"A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""
"[9] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

The majority steamrolling their version through is clearly violating this policy.Faustian (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading the whole policy it also says: "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors." We are not going to bypass neutrality and not being censored because of a small group of editors. Chillum 19:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You quoted selectively. The full section reads: "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors. For example, a few editors may consent to edit warring, but it does not change the fact that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Even if there is large scale interest in promoting an original theory or hosting personal information, it does not mean that Wikipedia should accommodate it. That said, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and editors should make efforts to update and modify policy to reflect actual practice." In light of this example, the point here is in my favor, not yours. Just because a majority on this particular article seek to ignore wikipedia policy on consensus by using majority rule, they cannot override policies and guidelines agreed to by a wide range of editors. So whether you decide that edit warring is appropriate or that majority dictates the article with no compromise, you still can't override wikipedia policy and guidelines which I've outlined for you. Faustian (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to modify policy to allow for deviation from our stand against censorship go ahead an propose the idea at WT:NOT. As for neutrality that is a Foundation issue and not up for debate. Nobody is attempting to ignore the policy on consensus, it is the policy on consensus that says consensus does not override our policies that have been agreed on by a wider range of editors. Yes we should normally attempt to represent all minority views in a consensus, but not those minority views which go against our policies. I can't figure out by which logic you are keeping score, but it does not change much. Chillum 20:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you are changing the subject from consensus to other things. No, I do not wish to allow for deviation against our stand against censorship. I do, however, wish that we would follow our policy regarding consensus. As for the subject changing - how is what I am proposing violating nuetrality? As for censorship - not including every possible image is not censorship. I cannot add whatever image I want everywhere and cry censorship when someone feel it's inapropropriate for whatever reason. There is not a single image of Muhammad in the Islam article btw. Does that violate censorship policy? Faustian (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving so much credence to one outside organization that we remove otherwise relevant and verifiable information is a deviation from neutrality. Neutral coverage would take not of the objections from outside sources, giving citation to them, and then go on as normal showing the images. We cover all reliable significant viewpoints, we don't obey them. Chillum 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't remove information because the APA said so. Their judgement reflects the consensus that it's harmful. And it's the harmfulness that we take into account when creating the article, not APA's decisions. As wikipedia policy clearly states, "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." Nothing shockinjg about that. We take into account Muslims' considerations when we refuse to place an image of Muhammad on the Islam page, we ought to integrate scientific considerations as well as religious ones on this project.Faustian (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If your argument was to not put the images on the APA article then that would make sense. Chillum 23:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You think ethics applies only to psychologists?Faustian (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Chillum 03:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

~~The behavior of Faustian and Ward fall significantly below that recommended by the code of ethics they claim to support / follow. What they are attempting to do is unethical as per this code.~~--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Was this personal attack really necessary to bring the conversation forward?Faustian (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

~~Since James didn't answer the question, I'll attempt an answer. No, the personal attack was not necessary, especially from an editor who has repeatedly accused other editors of incivility.~~ Ward3001 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For CC, I have found 1 peer reviewed journal article regarding malingering and the Rorschach. There appear to be some dissertations done on this subject, but in looking at their description they don't look to be high quality. The article I found indicates that when people are informed and want to malinger, they will do a better job at appearing psychotic than truly psychotic individuals. There definitely is harm implied there (unnecessary hospitalizations, waste of sparse resources, possible different outcomes in forensic cases), but this is a small study and I didn't see any replication. Here is the citation: Albert, S., Fox, H., Kahn, M. (1980). Faking psychosis on the Rorschach: Can expert judges detect malingering? Journal of Personality Assessment 44(2), 115-119. I think the lack of research on this subject really cries out for an interested party to do some. Considering that psychological tests are administered and re-administered to obtain validity and reliability data I really can't see how an IRB would reject a well-designed study assessing the Rorschach based on "ethical" concerns. Such a study should be conducted by someone well-versed and a "true-believer" in the Rorschach though. Brehm77 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for actually bringing something, I appreciate it. That particular paper indicates that fakery is difficult for Rorscach experts to detect, and moreso if the person has knowledge of the psychosis they are faking; it didn't state that previous knowledge of the test aided the fakers. In fact, the fakers were played a 25-minute long tape describing paranoid schizophrenia with no information about the test whatsoever. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another interesting article. AGain, nobody had access to the Rorschach beforehand. This one seems to suggest that it is resistant to malingering, but the authors suggest that if someone knows more than cursory details about the condition they might be more likely to successfully fake it. This also appears to address the question of what professionals can do to help determine if the results they get are valid. It also has a lot of other good journal articles it references. Ganellen, R., Wasyliw, O., Haywood, T., Grossman, L. (1996). Can psychosis be malingered on the ROrschach? An empirical study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1) 65-80. Brehm77 (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of research papers from the fifties on the specific effects of taking the Rorschach two or more times. They dealt more with scoring issues, than non-scoring issues. Their conclusion was that the more exposure one had, the easier it is for the testee to manipulate the results. The "harm" in exposure is either _if_ the testee intentionally manipulates the results of the test, or the tester doesn't know how to factor out scoring deviations as a result of prior exposure (IOW, tester inexperience/incompetence.) jonathon (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For most, if not all tests, "testee manipulation" is an issue. "Testee inexperience/incompetence" is solvable by testee training, and an apprenticeship in adminstering the specific test. For this specific test, Rorschach inkblots, scoring issues are much more difficult, if the testee has had exposure. Thus, due to tester incompetence/inexperience, harm can result to the testee.jonathon (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One other datapoint. With this test, it is slightly easier to provide false/misleading data to skew the result in a pathological direction, than in a non-pathelogical direction.jonathon (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for the input. Chillum 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots?

Just a suggestion. Perhaps it would be better to display the Rorschach Test inkblots in a way that the reader doesn't inadvertently have to see them, using {{hst}} and {{hsb}}?

For example,

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Plate 5
Plate 6
Plate 7
Plate 8
Plate 9
Plate 10

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiding images is a form of censorship. The first image was originally hidden until policy forced the change. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If we're using that argument, then not adding the ten images would be a form of censorship as well. Renaissancee (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, hiding the images is a form of censorship, not adding them for the same reasons is also a form of censorship. Chillum 16:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, considering they are public domian, I believe it would be. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gary, For my information, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the policy page section that was used. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure Bob. Many policies. Here is a link to the discussions. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Link doesn't seem to wanna take us to number 13 of archive 3 (I think it's too long) but there are many good discussions there on policy violations. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gary, Thanks. That was helpful. I was able to find the talk section that you directed me to, and here's a link to it that works, Why is there an image hidden...? . In reading that discussion, no one appeared to point to the specific part of policy that deals with the show/hide issue. However, if you came to a consensus regarding the show/hide issue, that would be sufficient to determine its fate. Thanks again, and good luck to all of you with your article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We do appreciate the suggestion, though, Bob. And I'm sure the regulars here are happy to see a few new faces =) Take off your jacket, stay a while ;> –xeno^talk 17:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the invitation. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding a spoiler alert and inserting a {{hst}} and {{hsb}} as a possible way to achieve consensus. This aids the reader and puts the responsibility for health decisions firmly in his or her hands. I disagree with the spirit of the argument that this is a "form" of censorship. I interpret that to be hyperbole. While I agree that censorship comes in many "forms," I also think that it also comes in many degrees. Censorship, in its extreme form, is much, much more than a mere spoiler alert: Book burning, for example. In less severe forms, it can be a simple movie rating: Rated R, or PG-13, for example. Unfortunately, the English language does not offer us many synonyms to describe proportions of censorship. We should be careful with the use of this word. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't put spoiler alerts in articles. And to label this a health decision is just absurd. If someone saw the images and goes to counseling and they say they're going to administer the Rorschach test, they can decide there to either not worry about it or have the counselor administer a different test, as it's not like counseling suddenly screeches to a halt because they can't perform this one test. The attempt to hide this from Wikipedia readers because people with financial and philosophical stakes in promoting this test complain about their inclusion here is censorship, pure and simple. DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We also already have a general conent disclaimer. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Attributing financial motives to opposition is not very nice, and saying "who cares if the test is spoiled, they can take another" is not a very good reason to spoil the test. Would this excuse with respect to, say, compromising the effectiveness of a flu vaccine (no big deal, use another one...and the doctors opposed to compromising it only do so because they're making money off it).

The spoiler alert wouldn't be applicable in this case as it refers to entertainment media. Moreover, saying that "Viewing the test may invalidate the results" or something like this is not a spoiler, it's a statement of information and a such is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please review spoiler policy. Faustian (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:I don't understand. How can you say that exercising the choice to view the images is not a health decision, and then turn around and argue that the patient, in session with his or her health professional, can together "decide there to either not worry..." or to "administer a different test" Are you sure you want to stand by that thinking? Can I convince you to offer a different argument? For myself, I'm considering the possibility that my argument is "absurd." I can concede a point or two if I must. That's what arguing in good faith means, right? My motives are good, here, and I'm not heavily invested in any outcome. My biases and my philosophy are subject to change when confronted with a good argument. Give me one please, and I'll consider it. As for censorship, what degree of censorship do you object to? Any and all degrees of censorship? Can I get you to consider measured proportions of this word, censorship, please, understanding that the English language makes this a difficult task? It's very easy to take terms to their penultimate meaning. If we can avoid doing so, then perhaps we're close to consensus. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we could work an encyclopedic line into the lead that mentions that test results can be tainted by prior exposure. On that note, who is this "Society for Personality Assessment"? It doesn't make sense to me to point out that it's the is "the second most widely used test by members" of that red-linked org, if they're not notable enough for an article. Perhaps they are, though. Anyone feel like article writing? =) –xeno^talk 19:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, Regarding one of your points that has been mentioned by others too, "The attempt to hide this from Wikipedia readers...is censorship...". I presume you are referring to the show/hide mode for the inkblots. How is it censorship when it is available in the article to the reader? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I intended to read all of the arguments before contributing but I got sick of the personal attacks. I like the idea of the show/hide mode as a middle ground. Failure to include the images is pure censorship. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information for researchers. The show/hide feature makes them available for this purpose but reduces the likelihood of tainting. The tainting issue is not a valid argument against including them, however. They add considerably to the article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone could provide reasonable evidence of harm than I would agree to the show / hide mode. Not because I think it is the best idea but because this compromise if agreed upon would allow all to move onto something more productive.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can you say that exercising the choice to view the images is not a health decision, and then turn around and argue that the patient, in session with his or her health professional, can together "decide there to either not worry..." or to "administer a different test" I think you just proved my argument, which is that Wikipedia's actions here can necessitate the forced substitution of the advice of a medical professional. It's a violation of Wikipolicy to insert Wikipedia into the sacred relationship between a doctor and his patient. See WP:MEDICAL I don't think this argument is "absurd," as you say, but I'll reconsider it if you ask me to. My motives are good, here, and I'm not heavily invested in any outcome. My biases and my philosophy are subject to change when confronted with a good argument. Give me one please, and I'll consider it. As for censorship, what degree of censorship do you object to? Any and all degrees of censorship? Can I get you to consider measured proportions of this word, censorship, please, understanding that the English language makes this a difficult task? It's very easy to take terms to their ultimate meaning. If we can avoid doing so, then perhaps we're close to consensus. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Including all 10 Argument #5

If removing the images is censorship, then the question becomes is including them beneath the removable cover of a hide/show button also censorship? I invite editors to discuss this question here.

Others have argued and will argue that this is not censorship because nothing is being deleted or withheld. I, however, concede that this is a "form" of censorship in the same sense that the motion picture rating system has been criticized as censorship. The word, censorship, does a poor job of describing the degree or measure of access to information, and thus must be carefully defined. However, after everything's been said and every perspective acknowledged, I predict that the hide/show button will be an acceptable solution because it will not remove or significantly hamper access to information. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If it would settle the on going arguements than yes it may be acceptable. But if it accomplishes little or nothing then I see no justification.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If the image is taken off the lead and the gallery (even if it includes all images) is hidden in the present location, requiring a click to see, I would be satisfied and would not complain. This solution would cause no further harm to the reader who happens upon the page and would enable him to make an informed choice about whether or not to see the image, rather than force him to see it (we may assume that someone looking up ana rticle on the inkblotds would expect to see them; the assumption that someone wondering about the test would want it spoiled for themselves is much less clear). There is little difference between clicking it and googling it, so it would not add more harm. Of course I seem to be the only one willing to compromise around here :( Faustian (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The urge for arriving at consensus can be either internally or externally motivated. Rarely do we arrive at it at the same time unless externally motivated. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

New expert sign-up section

Since we are expecting some new psychologists (or at least editors knowledgeable about psychology) to join the group of editors in charge of this page, it is important for us to have some idea about how that's coming along. So it's a good idea if these new experts would identify themselves here and possibly include a bit about their training and background in the Rorschach. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's pretty obnoxious (there's no other way to describe it) to insist that the editors here who disagree with you are not knowledgeable about psychology just because they disagree with you. For the record, as I've already pointed out, I've had training on how to administer the Rorschach test and am by no means an amateur on this topic. Do not think that calling people from outside who agree with your opinions to try to take control of an article here is an acceptable way of proceeding. You have proven your intentions here to be completely at odds with the fundamental founding principles of Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are such an "expert" that you claimed surpise that it is being used even though 80% of clinical psychologists doing assessments use it, as is referenced in the article.Faustian (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a WP:NPA violation and also an attempt to mislead others with false statements. The original claim was that 80% of all psychologists use it, which is clearly wrong and not even what the source said. On top of that, anyone active in clinical psychology/counseling would find the claim that 80% of them use this test dubious, as it's only a limited range of them who even consider projective tests valid in the first place. Behavioral psychologists certainly wouldn't use the test, as just one example. The source is dubious, but the original statement you were trying to make was even contradicted by that source. And, frankly, even though I don't claim to have the kind of knowledge someone would need to be to call themselves a subject matter expert, my knowledge on the topic is clearly superior to yours because you seem to live in some sort of alternate reality where this test isn't controversial in the slightest and everyone uses it and if they don't it's going to cause irreparable harm. Even the devoted projective psychologists I know wouldn't be so bold to try to claim that 80% of clinical psychologists use it. DreamGuy (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

More personal attacks coming from you, accusing me of "attempting to mislead others using false statements" (assumption of bad faith). The references source stated that 80% of clinical psychologists doing assessments use the Rorschach, and that 80% of graduate programs teach the Rorschach. The fact is that the Rorschach is not generally controversial, although a very small number of psychologists (I'd estimate 10% or less, but that's just my estimate) object to its use. The fact that a very small number object to something doesn't make it controversial (unless everything is controversial). If the Rorschach were indeed controversial, 80% of clinical psychologists perfoming assessments wouldn't be using it, nor would 80% of graduate programs be teaching it, would they? I'll chalk up your comments about my "alternate reality" to just more personal attacks.Faustian (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, this is for new experts joining the editing of this page. And it was not me who is calling for experts who agree with me to take control, DreamGuy. Again, you failed to read what I said. I said that others (not me) have said that new experts would be arriving here. Ward3001 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is this supposed to prove? That you are so invaluable to the article that we should just whatever you say? Chillum 20:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not supposed to prove anything Chillum. Please assume good faith. I personally think anyone with expertise on the Rorschach should be welcomed here. Do you disagree? This is a way for us to get to know newcomers with that knowledge in one central location. The article needs all the help it can get. Just because I was rudely discouraged from editing this article doesn't mean I don't want others with some expertise to add to it. Now please, if you have problems with me, address that elsewhere, not this section. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a major WP:KETTLE violation for you to complain about you being treated rudely when you and Faustian have been belittling everyone who disagrees with you and claiming that they don't know what they are talking about just because they disagree with you. DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The list starts here:
1 - I havent been on wikipedia that long, but this seems completely out of keeping with wikipedia. I might be a clinical psychologist with 15 years experience (in 2 western countries) or I might be a bloke in the pub. For what it is worth, I have never used this test and dont work with or currently know any colleagues who use it. The source stating that 80% use it does need to be checked...maybe in the US in certain fields, but I dont think it widely regarded or used anymore. It is always difficult to find this sort of evidence (ie a reliable source of how common or rare a practice is...how often do family doctors test your reflect by hitting you with that little hammer - just like on TV!!). Probably time to just get back to basic wikipedia principles? I have nothing else to add to the article. Keep up the good work. I found the article interesting and looked up some of the good references cited Earlypsychosis (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looked at the reference and it did indeed say 80% of clinical psychologist use it at some point. Other refs available say routine usage is much less. This point could probably use clarification.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

James, are those data not available in the one journal article you read about the Rorschach? If it needs clarification, you should read another journal article, or two, or three ... or several hundred. Ward3001 (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This barrage of personal attacks has got to stop. No one will consider any of you credible if you don't stop sniping at one another. If you must disagree, please do so civilly. Stop nitpicking each other's posts, and stick to the facts. You're embarrassing yourselves. Why on earth would new experts want to jump into this fray, just to be insulted regardless of which side of the issue they're on? The only relevant question here is whether excluding the images violates the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and it does. And by the way, compromise means that you agree to give up something and take a position in the middle, for the purpose of bringing the discussion to a conclusion and moving forward. If you have to be convinced that the middle ground is 100% correct before you'll agree to it, that's not compromise. Show some goodwill and stop this bickering. You sound like schoolchildren.ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%, thank you for putting it so well.Faustian (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see you agree 100% with ThreeOfCups. I also agree about 98% with ThreeOfCups, particularly the parts about the importance of being civil and how excluding the images violates the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I am open to compromise, as long as the compromise does not violate the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Our fundamental principals are the one thing we should not be compromising. Chillum 12:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that our definition of "fundamental principles" and "exclusion" differs. I agree that excluding any image in any way violates wikipedia censorship policy. It does not follow however that we must place images in the lead of the article or that we must display every single image. But anyways I am curious - what kind of compromise do you propose? I have consistantly been working on forging some kind of compromise and you have been in the group that has rejected all of them. So what ideas do you have that we can we work with?Faustian (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the gallery would look better if the pictures were larger, however I don't think this is needed and I am willing to let this go. Beyond that, it is a bit hard to find middle ground when the opposing point of view wants to remove relevant, informative, and verifiable information from the article with no clear basis in policy. We also have not gotten the evidence in the form of a reliable source indicating that your argument about potential harm is accurate, all we have are you and Ward's claims of expertise in the field to work on. Chillum 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not placing an image in the lead is not removing information, nor is hiding the gallery removing information from the article. THe evidence for potential harm is not simply my claim, it's the judgement of psychologists collectively as shown by their call not to distribute images. So basically, you seem unwilling to compromise, unfortunately.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, we need an independent reliable source. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Chillum 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep asking for more conditions. The APA represents psychologists collectively. This is referring to a psycholgocal test. The experts (psychologists) are a reliable source for psychology. If by independent you mean nonpsychologists, why would what they have to say about a psychological test be relevant? If the issue were one involving medical standards would you demand someone other than doctors as a reliable source, for the sake of "independence"?Faustian (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a source that says psychologists should make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code. I don't see what that has to do with us non psychologists. It does not mention this test, it does not mention that it does harm to them. We are meeting the law and our contractual obligations and we have our own set of ethics. This source is not supporting what you are claiming.

If we work building a psychological work then that would be a great source, but this is an encyclopedia written from the neutral point of view. Chillum 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some guidance can be found from this excerpt from WP:BLP

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

Although this refers to biographies of living people, it has the precedent of considering possible harm caused outside Wikipedia.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and what about the harm from not showing these images? This could easily be greater than the harm from showing them or it could have no effect at all. No reasonable evidence has been provided showing benefit or harm either way.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

First some background from the APA website.[10]

Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.

This seems like an authoritative source for information regarding the issue. Also, there doesn't seem to be any authoritative source that suggests that it is better to disseminate the test material to the general public. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more than the general public as I have stated above. Almost 50% of physicians use it to look up clinical information and the same I presume would apply to psychologists. The work of experts holds little weight if not back up by evidence. This has been one of the most significance changes in health care in the last 25 years with the advent of evidence based medicine (EBM)--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When an authoritative entity such as the APA takes a position, and individuals such as yourself dispute the correctness of the position, I feel that the burden of proof rests with you. Can you cite a reliable source that states that the APA is wrong? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing the APA. First they do not say that harm results from seeing these images. What I do dispute is some editors interpretation of the APA. And second even if they did say harm results and they do not all I am asking for is evidence. No evidence has been given to keep these images off of Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the APA material that has been referred to.[11] If it's something else, perhaps someone can help out.

9.11. Maintaining Test Security

The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.

I don't think you dispute the fact that Rorschach inkblots are test materials, in this case stimuli, so the above pertains to them.

You are correct that it is an interpretation that this means that it would cause harm to the testing process, but it is a reasonable interpretation. Did you have another interpretation?

Positions related to psychology by an organization like the APA can't be dismissed. By saying that their position needs to be proved before it is given any weight, is effectively dismissing their opinion and starting from scratch. Whether test material is put into Wikipedia by members of the APA or others, it appears that it is contrary to the APA's position.

Although editors of Wikipedia aren't subject to the ethical code of the APA, there is precedent (as I mentioned previously) that Wikipedia editors should consider possible harm that can be caused outside Wikipedia, in this case possible harm to using the Rorschach test, either in treatment or forensics. -- Bob K31416 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What does referencing the APA have to do with anything? It just seems to be an attempt to appeal to authority without providing anything they said that's even relevant to this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just agree to disagree. The majority of editors here and the consensus remains to keep the images on the article page. This is not going to change without actual evidence ( ie. more than just some editors interpretation of the APA' ethics guidelines ). All the rest of the conjectures of harm are unsupported and just as likely as conjectures of benefit. These arguements are thus meaningless.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why refuse to address Bob K31416 's points above, James?Faustian (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

James, I would appreciate it if you would stop making claims that are contrary to what has previously been presented in these discussion. It is not true that claims of harm are no "more than just some editors interpretation of the APA' ethics guidelines". It is not true that other evidence of harm are "conjectures of harm ... unsupported and just as likely as conjectures of benefit". Evidence of harm beyond APA ethics has been presented at various points in this discussion over the past few weeks. It was even summarized in a response to Luna Santin's claims (similar to yours). If you need to, I ask that you re-read the entirety of the discussions, including the archives. You have selectively picked information from a vast amount of information in these discussions to present a narrow interpretation of the facts, just as you selectively "cherry picked" information from a journal article several weeks ago to try to support your point of view. That is not good editing, and it is even worse science. Again, if you don't remember the details to which I'm referring, please read this page and the archives again. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of harm therefore we do not need to worry about ethics.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, James. Read the entirety of the talk page and the archives again. Ward3001 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Scoring the Rorschach using _any_ method is difficult. Having to factor in prior exposure increases the complexity of scoring. It takes a lot of training, and experience to correctly factor in that data. Harm to the subject can easilly result, if the scoring method provides inaccurate results. Whilst the arguement that "the tester needs more training" is valid, Economics and time usually mitigate against this additional training. Instead of the current 12 - 18 months of training,one would spend 36 - 48 months, just on this test. Other courses, starting with Psychology 101, would take an additional 36 - 48 months.jonathon (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

James, re: "No evidence of harm therefore we do not need to worry about ethics." Could you please explain to me how it would be possible to obtain this evidence? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are tests on malingering permitted? What of test-retest stability studies? I can find a number of each. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Crustacean, could you tell us more about any test-retest stability studies you can find - surely these might be relevant to assessing the effects/ possible harm of image pre-exposure? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a bajillion. Google Scholar is the quickest one, so there it be. Many seem to indicate stability in certain conditions (often where the Rorscach is considered to be relatively reliable, including Schizophrenia), and less stability in others. They can kind of be indirectly applied to this discussion, but it's difficult to be certain of that because they were not targeted to this type of situation and weren't controlled for it. This line of discussion sounds as though it may be interesting though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

2 -

Consensus

I don't know why we're even wasting our time arguing. We work via WP:CONSENSUS here. There's a clear and overwhelming consensus to use the images in the article. There are only two or three people saying we shouldn't (although they are saying it quite loudly and uncivilly) and at least double saying that we should. Problem solved. We're not going to please everyone all the time, as some people simply will not be happy with anything except the specific thing they want to do. An outside expert shows up and says something they didn't want to here and they immediately went from saying new voices were good to insulting them. At this point all we can do is go with the consensus, and if there are editors who refuse and become disruptive we can look into getting them blocked as necessary. Hopefully it won't come to that. DreamGuy (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we ought to follow consensus. The policy regarding consensus is quite clear:

Wikipedia:What is consensus? "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."
"A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""
"[12] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

We have not one or two, but approximately 1/3 of involved editors supporting some sort of limitation of the images (20 versus 40). So to achieve consensus we ought to find a compromise between the two positions, rather than merely steamroll what the majority wants. Previously when there were compromises the page was stable. As for accusations of incivility, let's keep personal attacks out of this, okay?Faustian (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy's interpretation of things. Consensus is clear, all that is left is endless filibustering. I fail to see how we can compromise when the minorities opinion is such an absolute position as to remove the images. Should we remove 1/3 of them? Perhaps just remove them on the weekends? If most people want the images there and a few don't want them there then how do we compromise between these diametrically opposed positions?

We can't, so instead we make a decision. The majority support the images, no evidence has been given to remove the images, the arguments to remove the images are not based in policy. The outcome is clear. Chillum 20:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your agreement is not surprising. But to clear up an inaccuracy, it is your position that is inflexible. We are not demanding to remove every image; you are demanding to show every image. I asked you to propose a compromise and you couldn't do so. I have proposed many compromises. You should just admit that you refuse to compromise rather than inaccurately accuse others of doing so.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The preference of the community is clear. You cannot bypass consensus just by insisting the same thing for months on end. Your ideas did not have consensus a year ago, and they don't now. Chillum 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the preference for the majority is clear. The majority is not the community. And consensus isn't merely majority vote, as shown above.Faustian (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, the community minus you and Ward. Chillum 03:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been around here long enough to know that in the last consensus review 1/3 of the involved editors supported limiting the image in some way. That was 20 people, not "me and Ward." Since then additional people have raised questions about showing all the images. You know this, you've interacted with them. So why do you state "the community minus you and Ward." Please, be honest.Faustian (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How about we just watch the poll and see what people really think. Chillum 03:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. And again, if the majority thinks one way, it's still not the community. It's just the majority. And if the majority chooses to ignore the minority, the result is not consensus, at least not per consensus policy. It's just the majority steamrolling its way through. Until there's compromise, there's no consensus. That's what those points I posted and which you choose to overlook indicate. BTW we have two blatant, to put it politely, innacuracies written by you just in this section. You claimed "minorities opinion is such an absolute position as to remove the images" which is blatantly false. You also claimed "community minus you and Ward" which is also absolutely false. What do you have to say about that? Faustian (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think Wikipedia waits until 100% of the people on a page are in agreement? If we did that then nothing would ever get done. This is not just a majority, it is a majority making policy based arguments for over a year against a minority that is not making policy based arguments. You can slice it any which way, but it always comes out the same. Chillum 04:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, yet another inaccuracy by implying that I state that there ought to be 100% agreement. I never claimed that consensus meant 100% agreement. Obviously there does not need to be 100% agreement. Wikipedia policy is clear that consensus is not unanimous. In this case, the minority opinion is not held by one or two or three people. It is held by, according to the last review, a third of them - 20 people. For this reason according to consensus policy their opinion needs to be integrated into the article rather than just listend to and then ignored, as you would like to do. Claiming that I demand 100% agreement is already the third time that you have obviously misstated something, just in this section. It seems that if your position was correct you wouldn't have to be, to put it politely, writing inaccuracies so much of the time.Faustian (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am misrepresenting you. I not only addressed the numbers in my comment, but also the basis or lack thereof in policy of the arguments. I really think we should just wait for the poll to finish instead of more back and forth. There has not been an original argument by either side in weeks so there really is no point, we are just going in circles. Hopefully we can come to some sort of lasting stability with the new demonstration of consensus. Chillum 12:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, there is a compromise on the table(the drop down box), if this compromise satisfies more of the positions than the other options then it will be taken, if such middle ground satisfies less of the positions then it is not really a compromise. Chillum 13:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When you stated "Do you really think Wikipedia waits until 100% of the people on a page are in agreement" you misrepresented me and when you stated "the community minus you and Ward" you misrepresented how many people oppose you. YOu did not address any of the points I provided above, choosing instead to misrepresent facts and then insist - without addressing the actual points outlined concerning consensus policy - the consensus is basically just what the majority wants.Faustian (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. First off "Do you really think Wikipedia waits until 100% of the people on a page are in agreement" was a question, not a statement. I have your answer now. And regarding "fine, the community minus you and Ward", I am sorry. This comment of mine was an exaggeration and was not helpful to the discussion. Now please lets just wait for the poll and stop with the accusations? Chillum 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. Now, before we got sidetracked by the misstatements, you have not addresed the points about consensus that I placed here:

Wikipedia:What is consensus? "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."
"A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""
"[13] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

Do you have specific comments regarding these components of policy? I hope that you would not prefer that we get sidetracked instead.Faustian (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a compromise on the table(the drop down box). The purpose of a compromise is to increase the number of people satisfied with the result. If this compromise satisfies more of the positions than the other options then it will be taken, if such middle ground satisfies less of the positions then it is not really a productive compromise. I fully support the idea of finding a route that will maximize acceptance, and if you have any other ideas than the drop down box that you think will be more appeasing to all parties please present them. In the end we have to go with the solution that has the most acceptance, that is to say the best solution that we as a group can achieve at this time. Chillum 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Then we're back to square one: a majority that refuses to compromise and that by doing so violates wikipedia policy regarding consensus. With respect to your quote "the best solution that we as a group can achieve at this time"; the full quote from the policy page was "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions." Are you and others in the majority cooperating by rejecting every idea involving compromise?Faustian (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should choose the path that has the greatest level of consent. If a compromise can increase the level of consent then we should do that, if the compromise results in less consent then it is not working towards consensus. If we can't get 100% consent, then we will take the option that gives us the most consent. Chillum 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument basically amounts to, if the majority refuses to follow wikipedia policy by refusing to compromise, then they can ignore wikipedia policy because they are the majority. This subverts the very idea of consensus as defined by wikipedia policy. On the one hand, you refuse to compromise, thereby forcing a deadlock. Then, due to the deadlock you created, you say that the most acceptable version is the one the majority wants. In other words, according to you, wikipedia policies don't matter as long as you have a majority on your side on a particular issue. Is that a correct interpretation of your approach?Faustian (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How would consensus accommodate those editors, like myself, who believed that test materials per se should not be visible in wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Old debate

It seems like we are going in circles so to prevent typing the same arguments I thought I would copy/paste a few pertinent links. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_4#Rorschach_Images_have_been_in_public_domain_for_50_Years

I sympathize that seeing the images before the test may damage test results. Certainly if Wikipedia was the only place one could easily see the test images the above arguments would have much more weight but that is not the case. Not only have they been in the public domain for a very long time but are lambasted all over the internet. Trying to track down these images and having them removed or hidden seems virtually impossible and going to one particular site like Wikipedia (IF we were to remove or hide them) would also seem a pointless and thankless task. My point is the damage has been done and we cannot put the genie back into the bottle.--Garycompugeek (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is much like trying to unring a bell, or put an egg back in the shell. The secret it out, hiding the images now will accomplish exactly nothing(other than compromise our goals as an encyclopaedia). Chillum 20:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This argument has already been made. "If someone else did something bad, we can too." "If the harm is already out there, we can add to it." This is morality?Faustian (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is much simpler to defeat an argument by altering it to something simple and flawed, but it is not very accurate. Nobody is saying "If someone else did something bad, we can too." The arguments are "Not showing the images will not reduce their availability" and "No evidence of harm has been presented". Chillum 23:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One less site that has them is of course reduced availability, as for no evidence, you should clarify that by stating "no evidence that I like." APA's statement is clearly evidence, just not the type you like.Faustian (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The source given does not mention harm, it does not mention the ink blots. It does however mention that it applies to psychologists, not the public at large. I don't see how it is relevant. It does not support the claim being made. If we were psychologists writing a psychological work and interpreting the dictated ethics broadly then it would be a cogent argument, but we are Wikipedians writing an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view. Chillum 03:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Faustian. One less site, is indeed, less availability. I don't believe it's accurate to argue that the information is out there; nothing we do will help. That's analogous to saying that the "levy has broke" and water is rushing everywhere. I don't think that's the case here. People don't surf the web endlessly, like water seeking its own level. People surf with limits to their time and energy. I think any effort to reduce unwanted exposure will have an effect. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting, status quo, and survey re inkblots

Since there are a number of admins active in this article, this might be a good place to ask about procedure re this article, but of course everyone is invited to respond. This is just a suggestion and any criticism or agreement would be appreciated.

Here's an excerpt from the section When to revert of Help:Reverting. Although this isn't from a policy page, it is from a page that is listed in the See also section of the policy page WP:3RR so it seems to be considered of value.

Don't revert to undo a good faith reversion of your change. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives.

It seems that the status quo was the situation before the 10 inkblots were recently added to the article. Since they are disputed, perhaps they shouldn't be added until a consensus for their addition is indicated by a survey on this talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should take a survey. There has certainly been enough discussion on the matter, we have been repeating ourselves for a very long time now. I also accept that the status quo should be the state of the article as long as the outcome of this informed survey is respected. All parties have had every opportunity to change people's minds, lets see where people's minds are at now. Chillum 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify your remark "I also accept that the status quo should be the state of the article as long as the outcome of this informed survey is respected." - Did you mean the state before the inkblots were recently added? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the group of 10 inkblots that is, the one in the lead has been there for some time. As long as the results are respected I have no problem with the change being postponed. The protection of the article should be over tomorrow, and I think it would be wonderful if we could settle this with a demonstration of consensus instead of further edit warring. I appreciate someone not already entangled in the mire of this discussion coming to bring some semblance of order to the situation. I hope that all sides of this debate accept your proposal to settle this matter through consensus instead of an endless repetition by both sides of things that have been said years ago. Chillum 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the endless months of debate regarding one single image, immediately declaring "victory" and shoving all ten images in seems hasty, to say the least. I'm grossly disappointed to see so much sniping going on, here. There's far too much talking going on to have so little communication; we need to stop talking past each other, stop belittling each other, and stop trying to turn such civility into a cudgel -- if any of you read "stop belittling each other" and thought of snarkily mentioning a specific name, I have to say that you're missing the point. It's true that expert opinion is not a golden rule on Wikipedia, but neither should it be ignored wholesale; compare our article if you will to the article of any other encyclopedia or similar source. Many (I should hope all) users here believe they're doing the Right Thing, and all of them have some reasoning for it. No one here is trying to damage or harm Wikipedia -- we simply disagree about how best to go about improving the article, which should of course be our goal. To claim that "no evidence" of harm has been produced is, I think, not entirely spot on; Ward was actually kind enough to enlighten me here, and while I'm still "on the fence", what I now know is enough to give me pause. Yes, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Yes, our goal is to enlighten people. No, I don't think we have any right to ignore human decency in the pursuit of that; if hosting a gallery of images is likely to produce real human harm, I don't see how anyone here could possibly condone posting such a gallery. Ethically, the possibility is very troubling. Rather than talking past each other, still and to infinity, why not take a day to review the many past discussions, to do some research, and to actually reach a thoughtful view of your own? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah thank you, I will look over those sources. It has been a while since May and recent requests for those sources have gone unfulfilled. I did in fact search through the archives for Wards sources, but he would not re quote them or even tell me which section to look in(I was pointed to a different section). I was not present while this part of the debate took place so I am glad somebody has provided this link to the archives. Once I review the sources I will review my position. Chillum 12:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wholly agree with the sentiments expressed by Luna above and I have tried to urge caution all along. Whatever happened to xeno's second ping and how do the numbers on each side stack up now, I wonder? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The ping went out on the 16th only to those who hadn't weighed in. It added three people to the "object to image not in lead". Of active voices, there remains a large majority to show the inkblot in the lead. If someone were to create or find an high quality image of the test being administered, I have a feeling it would be accepted by most as a more descriptive image for the lead. Administratively speaking, I am hands off the issue about all ten inkblots. –xeno^talk 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

a bit off topic

Off topic

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry to be a bit off topic, but I would simply like to point out a false accusation by Chillum about me, which he has made repeatedly here, on another user's talk page, and on his own talk page when he was making unreasonable demands on me (apparently because he was unwilling to read the relevant sections himself). I have no idea if it has been done with malice or out of ignorance. I told him that the information is available in the archives, I gave him a link to a summary I gave to another user, and I even told him that I had provided diffs for Luna Santin in his request (which Luna Santin graciously acknowledged above). Above he pretends that it's not the same informtion I gave to Luna Santin, but the fact is that the section I linked for Luna Santin is exactly the same section I linked for Chillum. The first couple of times this happened, I politely asked Chillum on his talk page to stop making false accusations about me. He continued, so I made a firmer request (although not a warning). Now he continues again, so I feel that addressing the issue on Chillum's talk page is pointless and needs to be mentioned here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward3001 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 19 June 2009

I was not attempting to make any sort of commentary on you. I was simply explaining why I had not yet considered the sources in question. "The archives" you pointed me to are huge, all I wanted was for you to tell me what the sources were. Well now it is a moot point because I have found out through people you were willing to tell. This topic belongs on one of our talk pages, not this page. Chillum 15:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to what sources you have or have not considered. I am referring to your statements here and to other editors that I was unwilling to give you the information or gave you the wrong information. That is a blatant false accusation, which I have tried many times to address on your talk page. I gave you a link to the very same section I linked for Luna Santin. Ward3001 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it is clear we have different memories of the event, there is no point in disputing it here. My talk page archives are available to anyone who wants to make up their own mind. This is not really relevant to the issue at hand. You are always welcome on my talk page. Chillum 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Memories" have nothing to do with this. The fact that I directed you and Luna Santin to the exact same information is quite obvious in the links for anyone wishing to click and follow them. I provided the very same information to two editors besides you, linking all of you to the same sections of the archives. The other two editors had no difficulties finding the information and, in fact, acknowledged that they did. You said it was "not there". The fact that you told Luna Santin that your request to me went "unfulfilled" and that I would not tell you "which section to look in" is written just a few lines above. And I can provide the link to your telling another editor that I was "unwilling" to give you information. I can link to the sections of your talk page in which I repeatedly requested that you stop making such false statements about me (and don't push this issue or I will provide all the necessary links). The fact is that you were and are wrong that I did not provide exactly the same information to you (and more) that I provided to Luna Santin and another editor. Don't compound your errors by now attributing it to a "memory" of an event. It's all on this and other talk pages. I have no idea whether you made these accusations about me with malice, or because you didn't bother to check the information I linked for you, or whether you simply overlooked the information that could readily be found by following the links. But regardless of your motives, you made false statements about me. Ward3001 (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to argue with me, please do it on my talk page not this article talk page. There is already too much space on this page being used by this. That last thing it needs is a dozen more paragraphs of zero sum bickering. Chillum 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an argument. It's a statement of the facts. I DID take it up on your talk page, many times. You repeatedly denied what I have very clearly pointed out above. I politely asked you to stop. You denied, and continued making false statements about me. I continued to ask you to stop. You continued to make false statements about me. If you had either acknowledged your errors the first, second, third, or fourth times I took it up on your talk page, we would not be discussing this here. If you had stopped making false statements about me the first, second, third, or fourth time I asked you to stop, we would not be discussing it here. And now you continue to deny. I laid out all the facts above. If you will stop denying, that will be the end of it. If you continue, I will continue. Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page, this has nothing to do with Rorschach test. Chillum 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You made your talk page a moot point. I tried your talk page four times. You refused to stop making false statements about me. Now it's time for others to see your habits. You have been told repeatedly throughout these discussion, by several editors, to stop misrepresenting other editors. You never stop. Stop denying, and stop making false statements about me, and that's the end of it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Another WP:KETTLE violation. You're the one who needs to stop misrepresenting what other people said and personally attacking others. DreamGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And quite obviously, DreamGuy, you haven't taken the time to follow the links I've provided about this matter to demonstrate that I gave Chillum the same information that I gave to two other editors (both of whom acknowledged finding it), nor to read my multiple requests on Chillum's talk page, nor to read his multiple denials followed by his continuing to tell editors that I was unwilling to provide information or that I gave him the wrong information. Ward3001 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, based on what I've seen here and on his talk page, you seem to have a problem with Chillum. If that's the case, please take it somewhere else so as not to clutter this page any further with arguments that aren't directly related to the subject. If you think he's making false statements, file it somewhere where your case will be heard. This talk page is already sprawling enough without adding to the drama. Dayewalker (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Chillum personally. I have a problem with Chillum's habit of repeatedly makes false statements about me. And please note that I have taken it to Chillum's talk page multiple times, but he continued the false statements every time I did so. And I'm not the only editor on this page who has pointed out his mispresentations. Ward3001 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I know you've taken it to his page but regardless, this page isn't the place for continued personal conflict. File an RfC if you don't feel the problem was resolved on his talk page. A personal argument in the middle of an article's talk page isn't going to resolve anything. Dayewalker (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that I took this to Chillum's talk page many times. If he'll stop denying and stop accusing, we can put this behind us. Ward3001 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please Ward. Go to WP:AN, file an RFC, talk to me on my talk page or yours, draw scrutiny towards my actions in any appropriate venue, but please do not continue to bring this unrelated dispute to the article talk page, it suffers already from too much unrelated text. You have now been asked by multiple people in the last 24 hours to not continue this tangential dispute on this page. I will take great care to respond only to topical issues on this page, we all should. Chillum 16:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to take care not to make additional false statements about me, if I'm interpreting that correctly. I assume that includes not denying that I gave the same information to you, Luna Santin, and Bob K31416. If so, we have put this behind us. Ward3001 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You can interpret it as me being unwilling to discuss it with you here. Please stop trying to push this point on this page, it is disruptive. You know very well I disagree with your interpretation and I have invited you about 7 times now to seek outside scrutiny in an appropriate venue. If we don't agree and you will not seek outside opinion then we can just agree to disagree. I won't be pressured into accepting your point of view in exchange for you not arguing unrelated issues on this page. Chillum 16:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion to everyone. It seems like all sides have had their shots and anything else would be repetitive or not useful. I think that the more discussion there is on this, the less inclined people are to follow it or consider it worthwhile. Time to put this behind us? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a good point, Bob. If Chillum can stop denying that I gave you and Luna Santin the same information I gave him (which effectively is another false statement about me), and if he can refrain from making any more false statements about me, this is behind us. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

back on topic

The books quoted are not readily available to me, not quickly at least. Quotes of the relevant passages would help a lot in assessing their value and relevance as sources. Chillum 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. The "leave the status quo" clause is for situations without consensus. There is clear and overwhelming consensus to include the images. Sauying that any sort of disagreement whatsoever means the article cannot be changed means we may as well permanently lock all articles from editing and only make changes after everyone on a talk page agrees. That's not how things work here. I can't believe that was even offered up as an argument. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I find myself once again agreeing with DreamGuy. This all seems very strange compared to the rest of Wikipedia where such an overwhelming consensus would simply be acted on. I think we have all really gone out of our way to give tremendous consideration to the presented arguments above and beyond what would normally be expected. I believe the fact that we debated these arguments for over a year and still have not come around to them lends great weight to the consensus that has formed. Any sort of status quo that may have existed before the page was protected has been replaced with a new status quo. Chillum 15:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Any chance that the relevant passages from these sources could be quoted here? I don't have easy access to these sources. Chillum 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

An informal survey for the inclusion of the 10 inkblots

A reminder that consensus is not determined by vote counting, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward3001 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 19 June 2009

Ward, do you really think there has been a shortage of discussion? Chillum 01:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said there is a shortage of discussion. I simply pointed out two Wikipedia policies relevant to this section. Ward3001 (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You said "polling is not a substitute for discussion". I think there has been plenty of discussion, there has not even been an original argument in weeks. Chillum 02:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, please stop trying to provoke an argument by nitpicking. I was simply giving everyone a reminder that is frequently placed at the top of polls and straw votes. I've seen it dozens of times. I've seen it placed by administrators. That statement comes directly from a Wikipedia page that discusses the concept in detail. Do you disagree that polling is not a substitute for discussion? If so, take it up on the talk page of the page I linked above. If you agree, then please drop it. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course polling is not a substitute for discussion, but we don't need a substitute because we have plenty of discussion already. Everyone in this debate has had ample opportunity to convince others of their position. I am not provoking or nitpicking, I don't know why you would say that. I am simply questioning what you meant by "polling is not a substitute for discussion" in this context as it does not seem to fit. No need to take it personally or to consider it provocation. Chillum 16:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging you agree that polling is not a substitute for discussion, a commonly used phrase that many editors have placed at the top of many polls and (up to this point in my experience) have never been questioned for doing so. Please, let's move on. Ward3001 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Chillum 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Include Not In a Dropdown box

(please include if you could or could not live with a dropbox)

Support as lack of evidence of harm, they may be helpful ( ie inclusion may prevent harm ), and they are encyclopedic --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep the images To remove topical, verifiable and relevant public domain information form an article with only the policies of an outside organization and personal opinion as a basis is a violation of our goal of writing from the neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not censored, and removing these images for reasons based on professional rather than encyclopedic goals is just that, it is also a conflict of interest. No policy based argument has been made to remove these images, only irrelevant sources and personal opinion has been offered in the idea's favor. No evidence of harm has been demonstrated through independent reliable sources, only through the claims of Wikipedians. There have been months of this debating and I have not seen any new arguments in some time. All parties involved have had every opportunity to change the minds of those who disagree with them. Chillum 01:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Faustian added "(please include if you could or could not live with a dropbox)". I did not mention this because the header for this section is "Include Not In a Dropdown box" so I sort of thought it would be clear. No, I don't think the drop-down box is a good idea for reasons I have already expounded. Specifically, to do so for the reasons given is a form of censorship, we are an encyclopedia not a pop-up book. Chillum 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support As above. They're a helpful aid, and WP is not censored. Dayewalker (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support inclusion of gallery. It illustrates the different inkblots and I do not think the health of possible patients is something that we should worry about in our capacity as wikipedia editors Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Weak support. I'd rather this than a dropdown, but I'd still be content with the dropdown. Either way the images are useful, informative, and encyclopedic. As made clear previously, I've still not seen scientific evidence provided, and do not consider non-scientific evidence to be relevant when control of information regarding a testing method is at issue. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support The images are public domain and should be included in the article. They are interesting and informative. The images should not be hidden. Wikipedia is not a pop up book. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support -- They are informative, public domain, cause no harm (except to people hoping to profit from hiding them), are already out there elsewhere anyway and we don't cave in to POV pushers ust because they complain loudly. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - Informative, public domain, etc...As I've said for over a year, any "health decision" that viewing the inkblots might entail, our readers have already made by Wiki'ing or googling "Rorschach test" or "Rorschach inkblot(s)." Wikipedia has no responsibility to protect readers from their own curiosity. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. I am unconvinced of any theoretical harm produced by showing the pictures. The only benefit of a drop-down box is for stylistic purposes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. It appears that the drop down box causes issues with some browsers. I'm not convinced of the "harm" argument at this point. I agree with the "Chillum" line of thinking. As I understand it, the pics are not in violation of copyvio - and we aren't censored. This isn't a "NOHARM" argument, but rather what is the best encyclopedic information we can provide. — Ched : ? 03:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Per all above. Renaissancee (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - I don't see how a dropdown box would add value to the article. Bryan Derksen (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. Wikipedia doesn't omit relevant information and it doesn't use drop down boxes. At least not for issues ranging from the cartoon images of Mohamed to the Virgin Killer album cover. There is a hugely broad consensus that Wikipedia does not censor, and that it does include verifiable and relevant information as much as possible. R. Baley (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Include in a Dropdown box

Include but hide Including but hiding the images addresses both the problems with censorship and ethics concerns about possible harm to patients. LK (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Complete agreement with what was said above.Faustian (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a compromise position. There are some very obvious problems with scoring, when the person taking it has had prior exposure to the ink blots. Problems that can be remedied by _adequate_ t raining in scoring. To the point that those who hide in Ivory Towers fail to instruct students in scoring the inkblots when the subject has had prior exposure, those instructors are fostering, and inflicting deliberate incompetence by design, upon those students. It is not the place of Wikiepdia to preserve incompetence by design. jonathon (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support There is ample evidence to show that the test is still in use and that previous exposure to the images creates problems in scoring. Therefore, I believe looking at the inkblots is a health decision. When I made that argument above in the section entitled Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots? the responding argument was flawed because it countered by saying that the patient and doctor could, in session, decide to ignore the pre-exposure or to do an alternative test. The counter argument fails to negate the idea that a decision is being made, one that can affect or "substitute for the advice of a doctor." I am quoting directly from wikipedia medical disclaimer WP:MEDICAL This talk page flew past this recklessly and way too fast, and I invite all to go back and respond. Until shown a better argument, my opinion remains that looking at the images is a health decision. Readers should be alerted to this and given the opportunity to make that decision before deciding to look the images. This is not censorship in its ultimate form because nothing is being deleted or removed. Instead, something else is being added: an opportunity to make a health decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danglingdiagnosis (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm changing to the drop-down box option as a compromise; it's not my first choice. But in accordance with the true meaning of consensus (and bringing all of this to a close), I accept this option. Ward3001 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not include

~~#Do not include, as there is evidence of harm that has been discussed on this talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)~~

When I left the discussion xeno was sending a second prompt for clarification to all editors in an attempt to strengthen concensus (by some deadline?), and consideration was being given to alternatives to the actual inkblot in the lead section in the form of (a) a novel inkblot and/or (b) an image of the test being administered. I now see all 10 inkblots are displayed in the main body of the article. My opinion remains, like that of Danglingdiagnosis, that the advice of the relevant professional body regarding test materials should be heeded. I might have agreed with Ward3001 that, for the sake of consensus, the images should be allowed in a dropdown box, except that (a) the other nine inkblots are less well-known/ accessible and are thus likely to do even more harm through pre-exposure and (b) my previous non-objection to display of the image lower down in the article lead to it eventually being displayed at the top and has now, it seems, led to all 10 images being shown in full. I realise that concensus is important, and that concensus may change. But I have yet to see any new argument(s) that convince me that the professional advice should be wholly ignored. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

It looks to me like consensus has been reached to include the inkblots in the article. If this is wrong, could those who feel that the inkblots should not be included indicate their position in the Do not include section above.

Perhaps now, discussion should focus on the two ways of including the inkblots: Include Not in a Dropdown box or Include in a Dropdown box. Those wishing to change their position may do so in the informal survey above by using ~~strikeout~~. Just for clarification, I presume Dropdown box has the same meaning as the term "show/hide mode" that was discussed previously so that the inkblots would look something like this:

Click on show to view the inkblots of the Rorschach Test.

Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Plate 5
Plate 6
Plate 7
Plate 8
Plate 9
Plate 10

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment in the survey above makes my position clear I believe. Chillum 23:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Inkblots: In a dropdown box versus Not in a dropdown box

There are a number of aspects to consider: harm, censorship, style. And I suspect there are other aspects too, which don't come to mind right now.

1. Harm - I don't think there's much difference between the two regarding harm. If someone has made the effort to find info on the Rorschach Test online, they probably wouldn't avoid clicking to see the dropdown box. So the harm aspect wouldn't be a reason for putting them in a dropdown box.

2. Censorship - I don't see that the dropdown box is censorship since the inkblots are readily available to the reader. So this wouldn't be a reason for not putting them in a dropdown box.

3. Style - Not using the dropdown box might make too big a split between parts of the text, spacewise. The reading wouldn't seem to flow as well. So I think this is a reason for using the dropdown box.

Right now they're at the end so there isn't a break, but this doesn't seem appropriate since the inkblots are important and are referred to earlier in the text. Considering style, a better place for the inkblots would be near the beginning of the Methods section of the article. They could be put there, without taking up too much space, using the dropdown box.

~~Thus I'm leaning towards using the dropdown box for style reasons, but~~ I would like to see what others think. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical

There are numerous reasons why Javascript contraptions like Template:Hst should not be used for encyclopedic content. (This has been debated on this talk page before, and elsewhere, e.g. here is a short village pump discussion.)

They are reflected in the fact that at the moment there is only a single page in the main space using this template (Fermi–Dirac statistics, where apparently it was you who added it?).

For example, kludges like this violate the principle that Wikipedia content should be reusable in other media, such as in DVDs and other snapshots, or as a browser printout, or using the recently introduced PDF function - readers who have printed the article or downloaded a PDF of it (using the link in the "toolbox") for later reading can't click "show" when they arrive at that section, so for them the dropdown solution amounts to deletion of the images. This is not a suitable compromise.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Haeb, Thanks! I wasn't aware of that. I just tried printing out that part of Fermi-Dirac statistics and it wouldn't print, even though I clicked on show to display it on the screen before printing. And yes, I was the one that put it into the article. Thanks again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It also does not work on some browsers, and worse can unpredictably in others. On my browser it shows the images for a few seconds then suddenly closes it and all of the text reformats, very annoying when I am trying to read. This also causes my browser to have to render the page twice slowing everything down. That is why I un-collapsed all of the show/hide windows for my talk page archives(see User talk:Chillum). Chillum 02:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Chillum, good to see you again. Anyway - would a "scrollbox" be an option to the drop-down, or would various browsers have the same issues with that as well? — Ched : ? 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "scrollbox", do you mean something where only one row of images is visible and you need to scroll down to see more? Chillum 03:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, kind of like this, but with pictures instead of text. — Ched : ? 03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If we had 40 images I would see the merit, but at 5 across we only have 2 rows of images. Chillum 04:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, Re "It also does not work on some browsers, and worse can unpredictably in others. On my browser it shows the images for a few seconds then suddenly closes it and all of the text reformats, very annoying when I am trying to read. This also causes my browser to have to render the page twice slowing everything down." -

Viewing the show/hide of the inkblots in the above Comments sub-section of the survey section, I was unable to find any viewing problems using Safari, Firefox, and Explorer. Are you currently experiencing any of the problems that you mentioned with respect to viewing the inkblots in the above section? If so, is it possible that your computer's problems are caused by a virus, spyware, etc. ? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am using Firefox 3 in Ubuntu 9.04. It is not just that there are several browsers that are the issue, it is also that these browsers have several versions and that they run on several operating systems. This causes great variation in the response to the same javascript. For me the page draws, then the javascript is ran, then it has to redraw a few seconds later. It is very unlikely that I have a virus as I am not running Windows, but a linux operation system which has much better security. Chillum 13:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum is right, javascript wizardry often renders during the page load where you will see brief flashes prior to the hiding coming into effect. –xeno^talk 13:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There are also the people that are running old versions of the browsers. I work with javascript professionally and I know to avoid it whenever possible because the combinations of browsers, browser versions, and operating systems make for a very wide range of responses to the same code. Also, this effect of the page being drawn twice is far worse for people who run older computers. Chillum 13:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Perhaps a warning should be put up at template:hst.

There were a couple links there to other templates that hide: {{Hidden}} and {{hidden begin}} . Do these have the same type of problems? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Any template that uses javascript to set the CSS property { display: none; } after page load is going to cause the same issues, particularly with printers(display:none tells the browsers not to print this content). That is why it is generally only used on discussion pages. Chillum 14:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I will describe specifically what happens when I load this talk page. I go to the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rorschach_test#Inkblots:_In_a_dropdown_box_.C2.A0_versus_.C2.A0_Not_in_a_dropdown_box and it loads the page and goes to the correct section. I start to read the thread but before I get 2 sentences in javascript sets { display: none; } on all of the templated content and all of the boxes collapse. Now I am at the bottom of the page instead of the thread in the url. This means I need to scroll back to the top and click the table of contents. Chillum 14:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to design a template, without a Herculean effort, that does the hide function without these problems? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything that alters the code of the page to hide something after the page has loaded will result in a double page render(it is possible to delay the rendering of the page until everything is loaded and ran, but that will slow down the loading of all pages). The mediawiki software could be reprogrammed to hold back information at the server level, but then it would require a new page load to get the information. I don't think the developers would be interested in this as it has nothing to do with the functionality mediawiki is meant to have. Chillum 14:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info! --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

An afterthought. I looked into the use of {{hidden}} in Wikipedia and found this. Similarly for {{hidden begin}} I found this . Could you check to see how your browser works with any of those articles? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess most of those are related to collapsible navboxes. –xeno^talk 14:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

They do seem to be navboxes. They do however do the double render thing, as well as appear open for a while before closing. All of these templates work by rewriting the CSS to add { display: none; } after the page has been loaded, so they are in essence the same thing. Chillum 14:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked the printing for one of the articles (Physics) that uses {{hidden begin}}. In the Navbox I clicked the "show" that was with "Branches" to display the hidden part on the screen. Then I attempted to print it and it did print. This is an improvement over {{hst}} which didn't print the hidden part that was displayed by clicking "show" before printing. However, I'm not sure that the Navbox used {{hidden begin}}.--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again this behavior varies between browser, browser version, and operating systems. In some combinations all will print, in others none will print, and in some the results will be mixed. Chillum 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you try the above print test on your computer? That is, click show to display the hidden part and then print. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, the use of such templates for navigational content (such as the navboxes in the examples mentioned by Bob K31416) is less problematic than their use for encyclopedic content, for example because links are not of much use on paper or in a PDF anyway. Many navigational templates are automatically excluded by the PDF function, cf. MediaWiki:PDF Template Blacklist and Category:Exclude in print ("Navigation links are useless and distracting in exports"). Of course it would be very undesirable if the PDF function treated any encyclopedic content in this way.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you are referring to situations where specific templates, for example Template:'The Works of Aristotle', are intentionally suppressed and if they weren't intentionally suppressed they would print. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My browser gets different results with the different templates when I print. However when I use the PDF converter it is left out each time. HaeB makes a very good point about nav templates not being encyclopedic content and of little use once they are no longer links. Chillum 16:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the PDF converter and would someone use it if they simply wanted to print a page from a wiki using their browser's print function? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A PDF converter turns something else into a PDF. You would use it if you wanted to take a list of articles and arrange them into a book for example. The various tools that are used to mirror content onto other websites like answers.com will have similar problems. Chillum 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

To sum up my thoughts regarding the above technical discussion, I feel that there are some technical inconveniences that are a consideration for not using the dropdown box. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling

When a reader comes to the article, the group of 10 inkblots are at the bottom of the article and hence are effectively hidden naturally. The reader has to scroll down to see them. The reader can make an informed decision to scroll down and see the pictures if the information for that decision appears before the inkblots are scrolled onto the screen. At present there is some info for an informed decision in the section immediately before the inkblots. The info can be moved higher up in the article or similar info can be added higher up.

This may be a good reason for not using the dropdown box because it doesn't add much to the protection of the reader from inadvertently viewing the inkblots, if info for the informed decision is located higher up in the article.

Introduction of these points began with LK's (Lawrencekooh's) remarks and the discussion is ongoing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For shame!

I think all of you should be ashamed of yourselves for putting such dirty pictures on a website that can be accessed by innocent children. --Captain Infinity (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are posting in an ironic fashion? It is hard to tell with just text. Chillum 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One suspects that the projections of children, especially `innocent' ones, might be rather less `dirty' than those of Captain Infinity himself? But such self-deprecating irony rather obscures the more serious question as to the relative harm for younger pre-exposed test subjects. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Harm

(I took the liberty of moving the next 3 messages from the top of the next section level up, to here. I hope that's OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

I think harm exists, because people curious about the test, but ignorant about the implications of viewing an inkblot, would be given the opportunity to make an an informed choice about whether or not to see the images if they are hidden. Otherwise they do not have that choice. So there is potential for harm.Faustian (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I and many other editors find your harm claims unconvincing, and they are at odds with the fact that several reputable organisations show the images publicly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This was largely debunked. The books weren't published at a time when they were widely accessible and the main web site you listed took the images down. And, of course, the APA is more authortitative than a random website, don't you think?Faustian (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: people becoming informed by the article about the problem of viewing the test that is in the dropdown box, so they can make an informed choice -

As the article appears now with the test not in a dropdown box, they may still have the choice since taking the test involves looking closely enough at each inkblot in order to form an interpretation. Thus they still have the choice not to look at them to the extent that they form an interpretation.

Also, if they form an interpretation, it may be likely that they keep that interpretation for the actual test, which would seem like no harm. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bob, your suggestion about "informed choice" seems to rest on the tacit assumption that those who may come upon the images in this article also read enough of this article (or learn elsewhere) to know that they might be at risk of harm if they continue to look (for an indeterminate length of time) at the images. But, more seriously, the deeper assumption that they may "have the choice not to look at them to the extent that they form an interpretation" seems to be asking just a bit too much of the involuntary "sub-conscious" processes on which the test is supposed to rest. The test seems to rely not on the forming of this or that particular interpretation, whether or not this may be "held onto" until an actual test session ever occurs, but rather on the fact that the interpretations are not considered or consciously formed at all, i.e. are not the subject of rational or logical thought. Is this not so? And what of the order of image presentation, which may be wholly ramdom when all 10 are presented at once? Martinevans123 (talk)

Actually, it was Faustian's point in the 1st message re informed choice. I suggested that the informed choice might still be useful, even though the images were not hidden. The information for the choice is contained in the 1st paragraph of the section Protection of test items that is just before the images in the article. I'll let your analysis stand as info to consider since I would just be speculating again if I responded. But others who are more informed might give a good response. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the argument offered by Faustian has to do with reader choice, which must be a good thing, especially if, when he reads the article, the reader is an unwitting subject for any possible future test session. But I am not sure that, once the images have been revealled, that choice extends to any interpretation(s). What interpretation(s) subsequently mean seems ever less clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if people who take the test are asked before the test if they have ever taken the test, seen the images elsewhere, or have other knowledge of the test. The percentage of people being evaluated who would have looked it up on Wikipedia may be quite small. (More speculation.) If there are other ways to evaluate a patient, perhaps it's no big deal to use a different diagnosis technique? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The forced substitution of one diagnosis technique for another is, I believe, harm. You've effectively removed one of the tools available to a patient. This is the reason, presumably, that the American Psychology Association (APA) asks that test materials and "stimuli" be kept secure. Here's the link to the code of ethics I recognize this code, not as an ethical code for my own conduct, but rather as expert testimony. From this testimony, I derive motivation to apply our own code of ethics (see WP:MEDICAL) and not do anything that might "substitute for the advice of a medical professional." Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, in some cases there is no other adequate test. With children, for example, inventories such as the MMPI are out of the question. With some diagnostic issues, as in some cases of psychosis, inventories may not be effective or multiple techniques might be important. Ward3001 (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover in a lot of forensic cases the MMPI results come out invalid.Faustian (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Regarding children and psychotics, these cases wouldn't be helped by a dropdown box, which would require responsible actions of the reader to be useful.

2) If forensic MMPI were invalid from faked responses, this situation for Rorschach tests wouldn't be helped by a dropdown box either.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as "informed choice" goes, there is not nearly enough data in the article, for a person to make a fully informed choice as to whether or not they may be negatively impacted by viewing the images, if, at some future point the test is to be given to them. My experience _as a subject_ is that prior exposure outside of the testing situation is not asked. Whilst alternate diagnostic tools exist, availablity and training in use of those tools usually is not present.jonathon (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest...

...I think that both polar sides (and I am sorry to say that the sides are mutually exclusive, compromise can't seem to work itself into equation) have compelling arguments.

At the moment, I feel that a strong majority of the active participants rest on the side of open display. The main thrust of their argument could be rendered as the age-old hacker refrain: "Information wants to be free"; i.e. we are an encyclopedia, if we have encyclopedic information to provide and it is legal to do so and makes sense in terms of encyclopedia-building, we should provide the information - without shying away from the consequences of the information now being "out there".

However, those who want to reduce the impact of the image being seen also have a line of argument that may demand examination in a wider venue. It's a line Faustian has been asking us to look at in the consensus policy itself:

“

Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions.

”

This sentence has expanded our requirement for inclusion from concerns strictly legal and encyclopedic in nature and added ethical restrictions. If we are willing to accept even a small possibility for harm to occur as a result, are we then obligated to attempt to minimize the possibility that a reader will see the Rorschach image(s)? Ethical is subjective term. Is worrying about ethical concerns compatible with encyclopedia building? How far do our ethical obligations reach?

Should the word "ethical" even be in the policy? –xeno^talk 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethics is a tricky thing that varies from person to person and organization to organization. The fact that several reputable sources such as authors and museums have had no ethical qualms about showing these images in places such as book covers and public websites indicates that this particular ethical concern is not universal. When ethics are not clear it is up to consensus to make that determination in my opinion. Chillum 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The book covers are from books published 20 years ago or so, when the books were not widely available. They were basically books for professionals, sold at university bookstores or through specuial order at the time of publication. People didn't anticipate that one day they'd be widely available over the internet. The main public website removed the images - that should tell you something.Faustian (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, my recent edit during protection did not administratively prejudge the inclusion or non-inclusion of the section / all ten images (I assume the same for CC's). It was an editorial decision that I invited comment upon at #The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test. I would also like to note that I have invited FNG Ched to the table. He's fresh off the administrative press and probably has zero prior involvement in this debate. –xeno^talk 18:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the policy should include the word "ethics," personally, but I guess that is something to bring up on the policy's talk page. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you don't. You wrote: "...let's assume that, indeed, the test will be invalidated by this page and that that will cause the death of some 15 year olds. We really shouldn't care (in our capacity as wikipedians) how many 15 year olds commit suicide because of this article; preventing the suicide of 15 year olds is not part of the mission goals, nor any consensus approved guideline I can remember. What IS our goal, however, is to create the best articles possible. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Faustian, I indeed wrote that and I stand by it. What is your point? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaimeastorga, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe you misstated yourself in the midst of a heated debate. Are you really suggesting that editors should not care how many 15-year-olds commit suicide because of this article? I realize that you might not agree that the article could contribute to a suicide, but do you really mean we shouldn't care? Ward3001 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There certainly are few absolutes in ethics when comparing different organizations such as APA and Wikipedia, and one organization is under no obligation to follow the ethical guidelines of the other. But that certainly doesn't mean one organization cannot consider the ethics of another organization. Ethics can never be entirely separated from any human endeavor. We all operate by some sort of ethical principles, even if we give them little conscious thought or if others consider them wrong. As Luna Santin said (paraphrased), ethical concerns and the potential for harm (even if you don't agree that harm has been conclusively proven) should give any of us pause. Ward3001 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly is an abundance of reading material for me to peruse in order to get up to speed here. I've skimmed it at this point, but my initial reaction is that the pictures should be included. As I understand it at this point, they are free from copyright restrictions in both the originators country (Sweeden) and in the USA where the Wikipedia-en servers reside. I haven't come to the part where these pictures would have some sort of "suicide" effect on a teen, but I'll try to find that part. If the idea that the pictures should be removed is a "poison the well" argument, I'd have to disagree with that. If someone wants to find the pictures on the Interent - trust me, they are available, even if it's a matter of "knowing where to look". I realize (and agree) that our articles should carry a sense of responsibility here - but censorship just for the sake of "being nice" isn't our goal either. (I'm sure someone has pointed to WP:NOTCENSORED by now). I'd also mention that we're not being Poundstone by reporting facts that are verifiable by reliable sources, we're merely acting as a tertiary repository of the knowledge. I'm not sure of the use "ethical" at this point, but I'll do some homework here. It may help if we ask our resident copyvio guru User:Moonriddengirl, she may be able to shed some light on the matter. — Ched : ? 02:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship wouldn't apply with respect to images being hidden or image placement.Faustian (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It does when printers and pdf converters and all sorts of tools meant to copy Wikipedia pages just skip by the template. Lots of websites mirror the content of Wikipedia, and this javascript is so non-standard it is more often the case that such content is simple not included. See above. Chillum 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it wikipedia's job to take care of non-wikipedia websites? Isn't it their problem if they don't copy wikipedia articles appropriately?Faustian (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is one of our primary goals that other venues use our materials. It is the fundamental basis behind the licenses we have chosen. Chillum 03:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but my point was if those other sites aren't careful is that Wikipedia's problem?Faustian (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of being careful. The correct action for { display: none } is to not display it. Simply following the CSS specifications will result in missing the information. Chillum 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that the word "ethical" did not appear in WP:CONSENSUS until March 23, 2009. I've removed it as it appears to have slipped in there without any discussion as to the propriety of the expansion in the scope of the policy. See WT:CON#Ethical. –xeno^talk 07:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Information can be dangerous. It is not compatible with our mission to be concerned of this as long as we follow our inclusion policys. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I see nothing ethical about holding back information for a persons own good. People can decide for themselves what they want to learn about. Heck, an article about the age of the Earth could be dangerous to your standing in the community if the community believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago in 7 days. You could learn something that might make you an outcast, still not our concern as Wikipedians. I am sure that you have a better chance of confusing a lie detector test once you learn that it only measures stress and not lying, still not our concern as Wikipedians. Chillum 18:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Except lie detectors aren't used to diagnose clinical conditions and improve healthcare. As for "holding back information for a person's own good", why then do teachers not reveal the contents of tests before giving them to students (I know, Wikipedia is not a teacher. That's an analogy)? After all, the tests are for their own good; why not show them the tests in advance, let them memorize the answers, and score very high on the test? (And I'm not referring to take-home or open-book tests; I refer to tests whose purpose is to determine whether the person actually learned material so the teacher knows that he/she is ready to move on to more complex material.) Ward3001 (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We aren't trying to judge the intelligence of our readers to give them a standardized grade, we are only trying to inform them. If the teacher was only interested in teaching and not interested in measuring how much the student has actually taken in then they would not need tests. Different goals, different actions. You will see in the Polygraph article that known methods of defeating the test are mentioned. If someone was about to administer that test it would not be in their best interest to mention that, if the goal is to teach about the test then it is in the best interests to mention that.

As for the test being different than a lie detector, if a person is trying to give the impression that they are not depressed when they really are and the Rorschach test reveals that, then it is functioning as a lie detector. Chillum 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never said that the Rorschach and a lie detector can't have some of the same functions. I said that it is not the function of a lie detector to assist with diagnosis and improve healthcare.

Is it our goal to inform readers at any cost, as long as laws and Wikipedia policies are not being violated? Stated differently, if all Wikipedia policies are being followed, should we then conclude that any information relevant to an article could be included, regardless of the consequences? Ward3001 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I don't think that the example you offer of the age of the Earth, where there is general scientific concensus, is analagous to this one where the test relies on fresh reactions to ambiguous test stimuli. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of other examples of information being dangerous. Articles on weapons and tactics for example could be consulted for terrible purpose. Should we delete them? Garycompugeek (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide examples? Is there, say, an article that describes step-by-step how to steal someone's identity? How to avoid being caught for committing a crime? However, my primary concern with respect to harm is focused on someone who did not make the choice to be harmed but will be harmed as a result of these images. It can be reasonable to expect that someone might be curious about the test and then would be forcibly exposed to the image, thus having the test invalidated without their consent. For example, after having been prescribed a medication, I might look fel like looking up information about it before taking it. Similarly, someone about to take the Rorschach might consult the page, and then discover that now his upcoming evaluation has been compromised because he saw the images. One can reasonably expect to have a book or movie spoiled by an article about the book or movie (hence, no spoilers woth respect to entertainment), but people with no knowledge about the Rorschach can't be expected to know that reading about it will spoil it - or more so, that seeing the image will spoil it and now - surprise! - they've been forced to see it.Faustian (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Should there be any restrictions on placing such information on Wikipedia, apart from legal concerns and standard Wikipedia policies (verifiability, NOR, etc.)? Is there a line that should be drawn that says "That kind of information poses too much threat or danger for inclusion on Wikipeida"? Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We are trying to reflect/store human knowledge in an encyclopedic manner. We disavow responsibility with what is done with this knowledge. Garycompugeek (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This applies in cases where people deliberately go out of their way to misuse knowledge. But I gave another example: what about someone who did not make the choice to be harmed but will be harmed as a result of these images. It is reasonable to expect that someone might be curious about the test and then would be forcibly exposed to the image, thus having the test invalidated without their consent. For example, after having been prescribed a medication, I might look feel like looking up information about it before taking it. Or I might want to read about a medical procedure I will be having. Similarly, someone about to take the Rorschach might consult the page, and then discover that as a result of doing so his upcoming evaluation has been compromised because he saw the images. One can reasonably expect to have a book or movie spoiled by an article about the book or movie (hence, no spoilers woth respect to entertainment), but people with no knowledge about the Rorschach can't be expected to know that reading about it will spoil it, no more than I would expect that reading about a medical procedure would spoil the procedure.Faustian (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are countless articles and countless reasons that people could claim accidental or unintentional harm. IE It would be easy for some to argue (and believe me they have) that articles about sex or drugs could easily damage or tarnish a young mind. It is simply incompatible to the projects mission to take these factors into account. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the same. In the cases you describe factors beyond wikipedia ought to prevent innocents from being hamred. The young person presumably could have parents or someone watching out for them so they do not find this sort of stuff. They might turn to sopme sort of parental control filters. In this case, however, there is no way external to wikiopedia to prevent the harm from occurring.Faustian (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

←OK, maybe it would help me get up to speed if I understood how Wikipedia is causing any kind of harm by displaying public domain pictures that aren't a copyvio. I'm not seeing any "HOWTO" things in the article, I just don't understand what is being debated here. — Ched : ? 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to begin with some information I gave to Luna Santin, Bob K31416, and Chillum; here's the link to my response when Luna Santin had a similar question, and which seemed seemed to help give him pause (his phrase): [14] (you need to follow the links in that post as well as read the section that is linked for sources). Also read a response I made to Bob K31416 at User talk:Bob K31416#Rorschach, which includes some comments about the legal and ethical restrictions on research pertaining to harm. That's not all that's out there. But it's a start. I also would add that it really helps to read the entirety of the archives to get the full context, but one step at a time I suppose. Thanks for your interest. Enjoy! Ward3001 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK ... I'll read up on that and get back to this page later this evening. Have a "Fathers Day" diner to go to, but I will follow up on it. Thanks Ward. Best to all. — Ched : ? 19:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

OK, first my apologies for the delay - much to read. Second, I haven't quite got the "concise" part of posting down yet, so apologies if this is a bit tldr. Item 1 which appears to be resolved in previous postings would be the copyvio issue, but I did ask just to make sure. That leaves the "ethical" questions that appear to be the center of the current discussion. First, I'll admit that I don't have the background or study time into this that Ward3001 does. Second, I do admire the responsible approach, and concern for others. Now the "but..." part of it. Psychological evaluation, and indeed any area of study which involves the human mind is far from being an exact science. Wikipedia is not here to make judgments on what is right or wrong, only to report verifiable information. Not only has the Rorschach test been debated as to its validity, but the Sciara & Ritzler book The little book on administration for the Rorschach Comprehensive System, as well as the Exner adaptations have also been considered controversial at times (example). I also skimmed through this to try to gather an understanding, but do admit that much of it is outside my line of expertise.

My current belief is that we are proper in displaying the images for this article, at least until such time as a legal action by the Rorschach Society finds a successful venue to recover any copyrights to the images. The article as it stands now does not describe a how to method of avoiding suicidal tendencies in testings, but rather an encyclopedic description of the topic. I think the line of reasoning that we are somehow being unethical in providing information is in error. The "avoiding detection" item is actually several points removed from this article. For example, we shouldn't blame the steel company that produced the material that made the gun that a robber used to shoot someone - we blame the robber. I think if we attempt to censure out this type of thing, we're looking at the removal of articles such as Pipe bomb as well - not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but rather a look at the big picture. What are we here to do? We're here to build a free on-line encyclopedic project consisting of the sum of human knowledge. Someone looking to avoid the detection of self-destructive tendencies does not find the information they're looking for in this article. To be honest, as noble as the idea of global community concern for individuals is - it's just not a functional reality. The responsibility to monitor and evaluate a teen who suffers these thing belongs primarily in the hands of the friends and families that know that teen personally. That's the best I've got at the moment, but I will continue to watch the discussion. Best to all — Ched : ? 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment for Ched. It's true that the Rorschach and Exner's system have been criticized. The Wood, Lilienfeld, et al. source you cite (and other sources by some or all of those authors), however, is not in the mainstream of personality assessment. There's a link to an article that debunks them in the External Links section. They have attempted to build their careers on criticizing the Rorschach but have selectively picked outdated and weak sources to back up their claims and have overlooked some compelling evidence contrary to some of their claims. I'm not saying that all of their criticisms are unfounded, but their bias is seen by the larger personality assessment community, even among those who aren't Rorschach enthusiasts. Interestingly, Lilienfield and Wood have had very little training in the Rorschach and do not appear to have ever attempted to learn how to use the instrument. Again, none of this is to say that the Rorschach doesn't have some legitimate critics, but I'm afraid you picked some critics who have the weakest arguments. Thanks again for your efforts here. Ward3001 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of giving information, can we have a disclaimer near the top of the article that viewing the images might adversely affect the ability of the test to appropriately diagnose the mental health needs of a patient. And have the images at the bottom of the page, so that a future reader can make an informed decision, about viewing the images, rather than having them pop up without any warning. Is there any 'encyclopedic' rationale not to do so? LK (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer might be the page you're looking for. I know that I've seen many discussion where consensus has said we don't add disclaimers to individual articles, although it's not a subject I've personally been deeply involved in myself. I suppose we could discuss adding WP:RISK to the "See also" section, but I suspect it would be best to get the regular contributors of the articles input first. — Ched : ? 06:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we already have a "Disclaimers" button on every page, that is all we need. Chillum 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The disclaimers button is on the bottom of the page; you get to it after scrawling down and seeing all the images first. Typical example of CVA that won't help the reader a bit. However, none of the disclaimers apply specifically to this particular issue. But here was something interesting: [15] "See a list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not." Apparently, warnings while not necessary, are not always prohibited either. A sourced warning can surely be crafted that is encyclopedic in quality and placed in the lead, or at the top of the article.Faustian (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

LK, not as such - but why not prepare a well-sourced statement to place into the lead and expand on it later down? If it's encyclopedic it wouldn't be considered a spoiler/disclaimer. –xeno^talk 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree if the information is sourced and accurate(based on what the source says) then it is encyclopedia content, not a disclaimer. We already have in the article "Supporters of the test argue that the inkblot images used on the actual test cards should be protected so that the respondent's answers are spontaneous." This seems to cover it. Chillum 13:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's quite vague.Faustian (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The source that supports the statement is even more vague than that. All that the source says(unless I am missing something) is "Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.". The part that says "so that the respondent's answers are spontaneous" seems unreferenced. If anything this should be more vague. Chillum 13:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is more to the source than what I mentioned, please enlighten me and I will reconsider. Chillum 13:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of the ethics code is to minimize harming other people:[16] "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline". Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the APA [17] is "a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide." So, a suitable warning would read something like this :"According to the APA, the scientific and professional organization that is the largest association of psychologists worldwide, in order to protect individuals and groups from harm it is recommended that test stimuli, such as images of the Rorschach inkblots, not be distributed or viewed. Previous exposure to tests may affect test results of those planning to take the test at a future time. (a reference should be added to that statement) The gallery of images is placed at the end of the article." Of course, those who enjoy exhibitionism of sorts (or perhaps may even be a little sadistic, defending against their sadism by hiding it through the use of selectively applied rules or "lofty" principles) will object to something like that, without doubt.Faustian (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

About the last remark, see User_talk:Faustian#Publicly_diagnosing_personality_disorders_in_other_Wikipedians. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think something from a 3rd-party source would be better, but in the interim something like that should be agreeable for the final paragraph of the lead. –xeno^talk 14:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "the largest association of psychologists worldwide" is really needed, this is not an article about the APA, we can just link to that article. Otherwise, assuming each claim is reflected in a source or sources, I find this reasonable. It should not be worded like a disclaimer however, rather it should be worded as encyclopedic content. Chillum 14:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifically the "in order to protect individuals and groups from harm" part has not yet been properly referenced to the best of my knowledge, the part of the book that talks about protecting welfare is not part of the book talking about test material, it is in the preamble. There is no reason to assume because the goal of the book is to protect the welfare of various people that they are also stating that everything they prohibit is due to harm. For all we know the rule is there for legal protection. This seems like a case of 2 + 2 = 5. "Psychologists should make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials" has been referenced, the specific reasons for this do not seem covered by the source. Chillum 14:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly why it's prohibited. Everything in that Code is in the Code specifically to avoid harm. I can't blame you for not having taken the Ethics course that all psychologists are required to take, but the whole purpose of the Code is to prevent harm. So, if it's in the code, it's in there to prevent harm. That's why stuff like not doing business with clients, not sleeping with them, etc. are also in the code. Rather than adding "so as not to harm anyone" behind each point, it's covered in the preamble, which very clearly states [18] "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline". When the APA put something in the code, it means that according to the APA, the largest worldwide organization of psychologists, doing that thing is harmful.Faustian (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups" + "Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code." does not equal "protecting the inkblots from viewing will prevent harm". It even mentions "consistent with law". Multiple editors have challenged this synthesis in the debates above. Surely if what you say is true then a source can be found in its whole, not one constructed out of snippets from different parts of the text? Chillum 15:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is constructed out of snippets nor is there any synthesis. The preamble clearly states that the Code is about not causing harm to the public. Keeping test stimuli secure is part of the Code. Therefore doing so prevents harm to the public. The Code does not list specifically each test whose stimuli's distributed would be harmful, any more than a statute against murder lists specifically whose person's death is a crime. If a source states "the following things are harmful" and then lists a buinch of items, A-Z without specifically stating, after each item, "this is harmful", it is not synthesis to state "X is harmful." I hope this is clear. Faustian (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it says "It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and group". It says nothing of harm. Protection can mean a lot of things. There is nothing there that indicates that the scope of everything in the book is limited to preventing harm to health. Once again, there must be something reliable somewhere that simple says that showing the inkblots is harmful to the test, once the claim is verified we could include that claim. Chillum 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See Fees and Financial Arrangements. This section has nothing to do with harm of health, it is all about fair business practices. The scope of this document is not limited to harm. Chillum 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually not doing so could be extremely harmful to clients. Not having a set fee in advance can lead to taking advantage of clients, etc. which would have a negative impact on therapy. In the context of psychological work things such as unfair business practices can have a huge impact - much worse than when this occurs not within such a context. Faustian (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support something along the lines of "The APA code of conduct for psychologists indicate that doctors should make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials including the Rorschach inkblots". The source does not mention the inkblots, but I believe it is non-controversial that they are indeed test materials. That statement is supported by the source. Chillum 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can accept on the face that harm prevention is one of the motives of the APA wrt to protection of test materials but I still think a 3rd party ref would be better. –xeno^talk 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The "such as/including" borders on original research, because of the innuendo that the Rorschach inkblots are an example where this is a particular concern (would it apply equally to, say, the description of the Sally–Anne test?), and the "in order to... " and "Previous exposure ..." claims should not be added without a reference.

If the public display of the Rorschach inkblots is indeed such a big concern to APA or at least the community of Rorschach practicioners as it is claimed here, it should not be hard to find a quotable statement from a reliable source. If such a statement cannot be found, this whole discussion would appear in a new light.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No original research as it is quite clear. The Rorschach is one of the most commonly used tests in assessment, so the implication that it might not have been though of (which might apply in the case of an obscure test such as the Sally–Anne test) doesn't apply here.Faustian (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read again, that was not the implication and your remark is beside the point. Instead, the question was: Are the problems that the sentence of the APA code refers to a particular concern in the case of the Rorschach test? The fact that a test is particularly well known does not mean that disclosure is a particularly serious concern for that test (more like the opposite, in fact). Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Code wasn't refering to the Rorschach specifically, but to tests in general. I would apply the same arguments with respect to the APA if someone tried posting actual items from an IQ test or the MMPI on wikipedia, too.Faustian (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like my argument, the part about the code not referring to Rorschach specifically. It also does not mention harm to people or the test. Chillum 02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the info at Arbitrary break II below, might be relevant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely if prior viewing of the inkblots is harmful to the test, which is plausible, there must be some reliable source out there that has said just that. I have looked around on Google but I am not an expert on the subject and may have used the wrong search terms. I could not find such a source. If someone would simply present such a source I would support a mention of this in the lead. Chillum 15:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that would be better, but this is sufficient.Faustian (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We ought deal with this in the usual way - Faustian, why not insert your suggested text as a new paragraph in the lead and then others can amend and tweak as necessary. –xeno^talk 16:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The standard I am holding is that of verifiability, I will amend and tweak based on this standard. Chillum 16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Faustian. There are many important aspects to the proper practice and business of medicine, the neglect of any of which could introduce harm to the patient. I accept the preamble to the APA's code plus later section 9.11 as sufficient verification from a reputable, outside source that harm is present. I believe that the introduction of danger is, by definition, harm. I understand Chillium's desire for a better, more overt source, with all the right words laid out in short order, and would applaud if one is found, because it makes the work of the encyclopedist much more simple, but I don't find Faustian's argument to be a terrible extrapolation. Indeed, I think it's extremely important to read the whole document and consider the whole context. Thank you, Faustian, for doing that. I confess, I forgot to read the pre-amble. You saved me from making that error. Good job. And thank you for guiding our footsteps as we venture into the profession of psychology with untrained eyes. I hope we don't cause too much damage on our way. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The source simply does not support what is being claimed. I am sure that if showing the images damages the test then a source can be found for that, if we can't find such a source then we should not be saying it. Sections of the APA ethics code have nothing at all to do with patient health, ie billing ethics. Due to this I find the given assumption about the source to be implausible. It does not say anything about the revelation of test materials causing danger or harm, it simply prohibits it. Chillum 23:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All sections of the Code have to do with patients' well being, including billing (do you think it wouldn't impact a client's mental health when their therapist, on whom they place their trust in a way that they can trust few other people, rips them off?). The Code itself is quite clear in stating this: [19] "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline". Once again, everything prohibited by the Code is prohibited because it harms patients. That's the whole point. That's what the APA itself states.Faustian (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit of a stretch. If my cab driver overcharges me it is harmful, but that is not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is medical harm, not financial harm or legal harm. See below we have found a reference where a published doctor presumes test invalidation. It is a bit week but it is the closest we have so far. Perhaps you can find something more concrete? Chillum 03:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is a stretch to you does not mean that it is not the case (do you honestly believe that you know more than the field of psychology about what constitutes harm in a therapeutic context?). Psychologists ripping clients off is indeed extremely harmful from the perspective of mental health. The level of trust in that relationship is much different than that between someone and a taxi cab driver. The repurcussions are much different too. Having been ripped off by his therapist, all the work the client has done, and the progress he has made, with that therapist may have been undone by having been ripped off by that therapist. The client may not be able to trust other therapists and may not seek help in the future. Etc. etc.Faustian (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... If you don't yet see that the APA source supporting the argument, perhaps I can help. The preamble states that the purpose of the code is for the welfare and protection of the individuals with whom psychologists work " (To me, a lack of protection, implies danger or harm, the same as a lack of a seat belt or child booster seat implies harm. Or are we in disagreement about that?) And then later down, in section 9.11 it states that reasonable efforts should be taken to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and stimuli. Those two things say it all, don't they? By making the connection from the preamble to section 9.11, (Thank you, Faustian, for making that connection.) this then becomes a credible source from experts stating that a failure to maintain the security of test materials can be harmful to patients. Or am I reading too much into this? I don't think we should be distracted by the fact that the code also speaks to other issues as well, including fair compensation and other legal matters necessary to the operation of a self-regulating profession such as psychology. Those issues are contextually interesting, but don't negate the point we're trying to make. Have I helped make this source more credible for you, or have you found another source that you think is better than this one? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How's that , then ? –xeno^talk 05:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

←I don't know if it is of any significance, but I was just reading through a page of The Rorschach Test Challenges Science with the Complexity of Imagination, and this page seems to indicate that the images actually reduce the effectiveness of the testing procedure. Would this be helpful as a WP:RS in some way? — Ched : ? 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

originally found at: this link — Ched : ? 16:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That source seems to indicate that the test is prone to misdiagnosis without prior exposure. I suspect the book itself may make a better source than a book review personally. Chillum 16:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Couple of comments. No test, whether it is the Rorschach, MMPI, Millon, or any other test, makes a diagnosis. Tests do no think for themselves. The diagnostic process is never as simple as "Give test X; test X tells us the diagnosis is ...". No responsible psychologist makes a diagnosis from a test alone. Tests are used to assist with diagnosis. So to say that the Rorchach or any test is prone to misdiagnosis is really quite misleading (although I'm sure not intended to be that way as stated above). Secondly, much of what Garb, Lilienfeld, et al. have argued has been debunked. In general, there is no reason to single out the Roschach from any other psychological test as being prone to "misdiagnosis" or as providing misleading or inconclusive results. All tests, including the Rorschach, have their limitations. See my comments above to Ched, and read this. Ward3001 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Misdiagnosis _might_ be the wrong word. What is at issue is the degree to which prior exposure to the specific inkblots has a negative impact on the results. For an inexperienced, or inadequately trained technician, that prior exposure is enough to distort the results to an inaccurate conclusion. jonathon (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

Re a previous request for a source commenting on prior exposure to the inkblots:

American Psychological Association rules of ethics prohibit my presenting an example of a Rorschach inkblot. (Presumably, prior exposure to these blots would contaminate the validity, if there were any, of any subsequent use.)[20]

The above excerpt is from the 2nd paragraph of the source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Prior exposure to the inkblots is presumed by some doctors to contaminate the validity of subsequent tests[21], and the American Psychological Association's rules of ethics require that psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials[22]." would be a verifiable statement. I also think it is enough for someone to make an informed decision. Chillum 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the ref Bob, I've taken a stab at it. [23]. Tweak as desired. –xeno^talk 03:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(after reading) I like your sentence a bit better Chillum. –xeno^talk 03:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure the wording could be made smoother, but I took great effort to give the information in a neutral, verifiable fashion so that the reader could come to their own determination. Chillum 03:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok for now. Go for it. –xeno^talk 03:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have put my attempt there. Feel free to adjust the wording. The references need to be fixed up, I will get to it later if nobody else does. Chillum 03:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent improvement. I hope that this will satisfy those parties seeking some sort of warning, as well as those who want the encyclopedia to be verifiable and on-topic. Chillum 13:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we could somehow write a line suchlike "...Because the Rorschach test can detect suicidality, corruption of tests results may have serious implications" - to stress the 'harm' angle. But I worry that may be treading into synth territory. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 14:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If we can find a source that says prior exposure to the test can lead to suicide sure, otherwise it seems like a synthesis of sources. In one source we establish "Rorschach test can detect suicidality", in another we establish "psychologists should protect test material" and in another we establish an individual doctor "presumes it is to avoid corruption of the test". Synthesizing that into a statement that seeing the test images can lead to invalidation of the test and thus increase chance of suicide(not exactly what your wording is saying but the implications are clear) is original research.

I honestly think that if these things are true some professional must have said just that in a publication. Why is nobody presenting this fact that is apparently obvious to any psychologist in an already published reliable source? I will tell you why I have not presented it, it is because I could not find it when I searched for it. The compromise sentence I offered is already very close to synthesis of multiple sources for my taste(the fact that the "presuming" source directly mentioned the first source gives me some comfort). Chillum 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

However I do think that it is not necessarily synthesis to put facts from different sources near each other. As long as they are not directly connected, Because the Rorschach test implies a connection that has not been demonstrated by the sources. However, if the facts are presented independently near each other then it is up to the reader to make or not make the connection. I have not looked at your most recent revision to the page so let me look at it before I pass judgment. Chillum 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, very good. Xeno your recent change satisfies my concerns about synthesis, there are no connecting terms between the separate facts implying more than the sources say. It is simply a series of topically related verifiable facts. Good work. Chillum 14:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has presented it, Chillum, because of the extreme difficulties of obtaining such hard data, a point that I have made repeatedly. Suicide is a rare pheonomenon; that alone limits the data. Case studies in which a patient has suicided and the psychologist may suspect an invalid Rorschach are not published; even if someone tried to publish it, journal review committees would reject it for publication because of the weakness of single case study data. It's not like we can do a double-blind controlled trial on invalidated Rorschachs and resulting suicide. We can't create suicides in order to create data, even if that was remotely ethical or legal. Sometimes we make the best connections we can with the existing data. This is not limited to Rorschach research. It might be done with very risky medical procedures that have potential benefit. It is quite unreasonable to demand impossible data, and to say that "if these things are true some professional must have said just that in a publication" (with respect) reflects a gross misunderstanding of the publication process for scientific research. Ward3001 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Ward. Some of these talk page debates have probably inspired suicide. (attempt to lighten talk page mood with humor) Garycompugeek (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

@Ward, I think we've already solved this problem by simply connecting some dots for the reader to draw their own conclusion (see lead pgh #3). –xeno^talk 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. If those changes remain intact, that is a major improvement. And I'll agree with Gary; this talk page has given me a few unwanted thoughts. Ward3001 (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. P.S., are you camera-shy? Do you know a decent photographer? #We need an image of the test being administered... =) –xeno^talk 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that hard evidence isn't possible for some of these aspects, such as the possible connections with suicide. However, opinions expressed in reliable sources, such as the excerpt "Presumably..." at the top of this Arbitrary break II section, are sufficient as indicated by its recent use in developing this wiki. So editors are encouraged to find such info for the wiki. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We need an image of the test being administered

I think the best way to ^{compromise and partially} satisfy the concerns of all involved is to obtain a more descriptive image for the lead. I think that most would agree that a high-quality image of the test being administered would serve that purpose. Such an image would effectively describe (at least the administration of) the test. The inkblot should be visible in the picture, but since it won't be the main focus of the whole image, it should at least give the reader an opportunity to read our newly minted final lead paragraph before observing the inkblot(s) in detail. –xeno^talk 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would find such an image to be a superior lead image, assuming the Rorschach inkblot is visible. Regarding privacy concerns, the patient could be a stand in, or photographed from behind, or with permission, or it could simply be taken from the point of view of the patient. Chillum 15:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This idea has been presented previously, but no one has located/composed (or at least not posted) such a photo yet. I do still think it would be helpful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, at last the golden image ticket that will bring an end to years of argument. Well, one can but hope. Would such a image need to be staged? Or taken with the permission of a real subject? Or do we not need to know? Would we need to select which inkblot card and specify its optical size? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think an over-the-shoulder shot from behind of a stand-in (I would assume ethical principles preclude taking and disseminating a photo of an actual therapy session) looking at inkblot #1 would be fine. –xeno^talk 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of answers here, but I would like to make a very strong plea to avoid future edit wars. If someone wants to try to create an image, please, please, do it in close consultation with a psychologist very familiar with Rorschach administration. I'm sure most of you have seen movies or TV shows in which the psychologist character is giving an inkblot test to a patient character. I have never once seen it done with any semblance of reality. And just any psychologist consultant won't work either. A psychologist who only administers a Rorschach every few years is not an ideal candidate. All of that having been said, I thank those who are pursuing this goal. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any pointers? Found this... http://imgcache.allposters.com/images/LIFPOD/656423.jpg –xeno^talk 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Oooo, scary!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, scary! And (as usual) very inaccurate. As for pointers, after a bit of thought, I need to communicate with Faustian backchannel to make sure I don't reveal more than professional ethics allows. Please, everyone, don't overreact. I'm sure there's a way to do this, but sometimes certain details about administration of some tests are off limits. Be patient. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks, –xeno^talk 21:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, I just wanted to commend you for your massive, excellent efforts here.Faustian (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that we can eventually reach a version of the article everyone can agree upon. –xeno^talk 03:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That is actually a decent poster: [24]. It's clearly not the "proper" administration but in many settings (i.e., prisons) it is actually administered that way because the proper way is impossible. I don't know how the free images thing works in wikipedia but could it be used?Faustian (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the image is probably non-free and we could fairly easily create a free one so it would fail the criteria. But creating a similar one shouldn't be difficult. But if we are going to create an image, and you are able to tell us the "proper" administration, it seems more ideal to show the proper way - to me, anyway. Else we'd be contributing to the spread of misconceptions, don't you agree? –xeno^talk 14:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if it's from Martinevan's "Whoa! Oooo, scary!!" or what, but I'm having a hard time taking that image seriously. Y'know, like thoughts like Dr. Moreau giving an exam on the Island of Lost Souls, Truman Capote doing community service, etc. Maybe it looks better to someone who hasn't been corrupted by the humor.

How about keeping the present image, turning it upside-down, and not having a caption. Without a caption, readers may not give it much attention, but it would still dress up the beginning of the article. The caption doesn't add much to the information in the article anyhow. Turning it upside-down would probably break the association with the 1st inkblot that a reader would see in a subsequent test. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Flippancy apologies all round. But demonstrates the power of pre-exposure, haha? I guess even the most hardened psycholgist may be as corrupted by humour as the rest of us. But the thought of an upside-down Truman Capote may be just too much to bear? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the motivation for the caption was that the Rorschach test isn't just about some inkblots, so it was made clear that the inkblots are only a part of the test. Not sure about flipping it... Wouldn't that have the potential to corrupt the results more - their first association being an inverted version? I still like the idea of an image of the test being administered, and I agree the one image I found above is poor - the guy has a goofy look on his face, can't take him seriously. Maybe this one? ;> http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mbc/lowres/mbcn442l.jpg –xeno^talk 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. NEXT! --Max Bialystock (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was only half joking. A cartoon showing a rorschach procedure might add to the article in showing that it's a fairly popular cultural meme. –xeno^talk 15:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were half serious. (I was MB.)--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. I'm not even sure if a Rorschach comic would make it past the FUR/NFCC. –xeno^talk 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But an excellent image suggestion. Perhaps as useful as at least two of our Talk archives, I'd say. Surely also non-free, alas. And might be confused with this comic? Too bad. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As I e-mailed to Ward, the less contamination the better and I am hesitant about increasing the level of harm that this article will produce by adding detailed descriptions of test administration procedure. For this reason if and only if the proper administration picture replaces the inkblot in the lead would I want to provide that info. Doing would so would signifciantly decrease the article's harm by not forcing everyone who goes onto the page to immediately be forced to view one of the inkblots and thereby contaminate a test should they take it. The harm of giving out yet more information about administration would be greatly outweighed by the benefit of not forcing the image at the top. Moreover, for those not interested in the harm aspect, the new image showing administration would be a much more accurate reflection of the 'test which is what the article is all about anyways (it isn't about the inkblots, after all). But I would not want to provide this information, and then have the Rorschach inkblot put back in the lead anyways. I have unfortunately been burned before, when people who went along with a compormise a few months later changed their minds, stating that "consensus changed." I guess I'd like some sort of commitment that people will defend the version with the adminstration vs. the inkblot in the lead, down the road.

With respect to your idea, instead of placing the image upside down we could use this one instead:

, with the caption "the singly most commonly represented image of a Rorschach inkblot", which it a correct statement as shown by google image search: [25] [26] [27] (out of the first 63 hits 10 were of this version of the inkblot and only 4 were of the real inkblot). Upside down isn't a bad idea. It would seem to be less harmful, and would not be inaccurate because the image can be viewed and rotated upside down by the testee anyways during the administration. Faustian (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would certainly defend a more wholly descriptive image, i.e. the administration of the test rather than just an inkblot myself, on its merits. That being said, however, we still need someone who can actually produce this image. So I don't want you to feel that you were compelled into revealing information about the administration and then no one goes ahead and creates the image based on your information! I've boldly split your final paragraph into a new section below, just so we don't lose the momentum of this discussion on a different issue - hope that's ok. –xeno^talk 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the black-on-white image - you should feel free to make that editorial change you mentioned and we will see if it creates a new consensus for the lead image in the meantime. –xeno^talk 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify per your edit summaries Faustian, I wouldn't say I "approved" the image, but I also don't want my ongoing presence here (i.e. wrt to the consensus review) to prevent anyone from making good faith changes per BRD and attempt to establish new consensus. –xeno^talk 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - you apporoved my making the change. You expressed no opinion on whether you wanted it this way or how it was before.Faustian (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as its clear =) –xeno^talk 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an acceptable image. I don't suspect the "deal" is practical. Also, if you are a member of the APA, aren't you bound by their code of ethics not to disseminate detailed descriptions of test administration procedure? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno and Bob K. I agree that ethics can and sometimes should be bent, but in this case, you shouldn't go against your ethics in the hope of "cementing" a deal. I think it's unrealistic to expect a "clear" consensus. Instead, we should be patient and trust in the process. We are still "building" consensus. As it is written in WP:CONSENSUS, "This can happen through discussion, editing [of the main article], or more often, a combination of the two." And if I may insert a grandiose statement, as President Obama reminded us of what Martin Luther King, Jr. said about "the arc of the moral universe. It's long, but it bends toward justice." To which I would dare add that it also bends toward rational arguments made in good faith. And there are arguments that have been made here that have not yet seen a response. Talk:Rorschach_test#Argument Con #2 - It violates Wikipedia policy I suspect the time is not yet ripe for that to happen, so productive is the attention being spent on the article itself. I think there's some good work going on there. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so nobody thinks I dropped in, typed my thoughts and left. I've been reading and watching - certainly one of the more enjoyable collaborations, and definitely one of the most productive I've had the pleasure of being a part of. Kudos to all, and certainly an education for me (thanks Xeno). I think in the end we may have a consensus to keep the images in one fashion or the other, but I do understand the concerns as well. — Ched : ? 17:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If the questions over the ethics of describing the procedure in detail can be resolved, should the article give some idea of the size and material of the presented images? Possibly the length of time typically allowed? Or even, could or should the images be presented by means of a laptop? Goodness me, the tester might even use a Wikipedia article to administer the test (Chillum please note my very sarcastic and yet thoroughly non-offensive tone here). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

list of reliable sources mentioned here

I thought I would start this section to keep track of reliable sources mentioned in these discussions that might be useful in the article and elsewhere. Please feel free to add to it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment
Psychologists' Desk Reference by Gerald P. Koocher, John C. Norcross, Sam S. Hill,
Chapt. 35 Thumbnail Guide to the Rorschach Method
Chapt. 36 Rorschach Assessment: Questions and Reverservations
Chapt. 37 Rorschach Assessment: Scientific Status and Clinical Utility
Giving up Cherished Ideas: The Rorschach Ink Blot Test
Statement on the Conduct of Psychologists providing Expert Psychometric Evidence to Courts and Lawyers
See the links in the section External links below.

Comments

Thank you very much for this effort Bob. I think we should continue to build the article as much as possible, that is the best way to inform the reader about the subject, up to and including potential harm they may have incurred by viewing the images. –xeno^talk 03:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. 1 was from a message of Ward3001 and 2 was from one of Ched. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding reference 4 -

"tests are invalidated by prior knowledge" --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From this website: These issues have been addressed in detail by the American Psychological Association in its Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data (1996). It points out that: "Availability of test items to an unqualified person can not only render the test invalid for any future use with that individual, but also jeopardises the security and integrity of the test for other persons who may be exposed to test items and responses. Such release imposes very concrete harm to the general public – loss of effective assessment tools. Because there are a limited number of standardised psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose (in some instances only a single instrument), they cannot easily be replaced or substituted if an individual obtains prior knowledge of item content or the security of the test is otherwise compromised."

Too bad that, with respect to article construction, some wikipedia editors are not as concerned about harming others as other wikipedia editors are. Interestingly, here is an excerpt the abstract for psychological research on wikipedia editors: [28] "Variance analysis revealed significant differences between Wikipedia members and non-Wikipedia members in agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness, which were lower for the Wikipedia members." (my emphasis added).Faustian (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good catch. I've added more. There's something funky going on with ref 7 (external link not rendering properly), anyone know how to fix that? –xeno^talk 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  - The ref 7 (BPS statement) external link works on my computer. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    - Yes, but for some reason it's showing the actual url instead of linking the url on the title the way it's supposed to. –xeno^talk 15:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      - Should be OK now. The culprit was a hidden line break in the title, which was incurred when the title was copied. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
        Thanks! That one had me real confused. –xeno^talk 16:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)