Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 12

Staying on topic
It is very easy to allow a talk page to become just another web forum - such as one lengthy debate above, which drifted far away from the topic of the Request for Comments (displaying the inkblot images) and onto topics of pseudoscience and utility of the test.

Lengthy talk about the article content, however, is what Wikipedians are here for. While it might be irritating to see lots of edits on our watchlists, polite and robust debate about edits is not disruption.

Might I suggest to contributors that stray justifiably off topic, that they voluntarily return and delete their own postings - and encourage debate about the tests (not the article) on other websites?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Until 'Wikipedia - debate arena for topic X' is set up discussions such as these will always occur. Some talk pages develop in two directions - discussing the specific topic and 'analysis of people's opinions on the field of which the topic is part and of opinions espoused by others involved in the discussion.'

There is also 'the usual division in attitudes' towards issues affecting the body and issues affecting the mind, and the perception that the one can be analysed more or less objectively and the other appears to involve more subjectively.

In the case of the subject of discssion, the likely outcome will be a shift in response to a presumed question - Have you come across the Rorschach tests? - No; Vaguely; Butterfly-like images where analyst interprets the interpretations; have interacted with before; expert, and a few questions along the line of 'I am not one of the (percentage) who see (listed response) to image - what does this mean?'

For any system of analysis to 'persist in remaining effective' it will have to adapt to external situations including increased awareness of information previously available to experts (or, occasionally the reverse - it was possible for 'anyone interested' to learn BASIC - now we leave most programming to specialists): this will apply to Rorschach tests as much as any other areas. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hroðulf, your complaint about off-topic discussions is off-topic itself, and the discussions you complain about have ceased, so there is really nothing to complain about. Please ignore these discussions if you are not interested in them and please don't create further off-topic discussions, they cause the problem, don't solve it. --rtc (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please accept my apologies, Rtc. My intent was not to add to the complaints. My position is that we must merely ask our fellow editors not to go off-topic, and must not threaten them with topic bans.


 * However, you are right, that RfCs are about content, not about choosing disciplinary actions. I am off-topic too, when I discuss process not content, and you (or anyone) is welcome to delete or archive this section forthwith, or ask me to delete it.


 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting piece on the Rorschach by a psychologist
"But if people can review our psychological instruments ahead of time -- before they have to take such a test for real -- then it will affect the results." That very well may be the case, but there's very little evidence that actually shows that any type of pre-exposure to the inkblots taints the results. In fact, I couldn't find a single study that examined this issue. So while it is a widely-held belief amongst many psychologists, it's not a belief grounded in scientific data for the Rorschach (what some psychologists might refer to as an "irrational belief"). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, Doc, how would such a study be ethically performed? (I think I just may have asked this question in response to this point, about 10 times before, but I have yet to see an answer). And could you tell us who was the mystery psychologist you have quoted and from where? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Research on mental health topics is difficult to perform ethically. This is why so often "healthy volunteers" are used instead. Test one group after "pre-exposure to the inkblots", and compare with test results of a second group without "pre-exposure". This method is not ideal, as pathological populations may react differently than healthy, but it may generate some testable hypotheses that can be pursued. Undoubtedly this method has been used, and the results reported.  &mdash; mattisse  (Talk) 14:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed in the paper by Dr James Wood(The Controversy Over Exner’s Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak) there are examples of studies done on healthy people to determine the rate of misleading results. The findings were interesting, and they managed to conduct that study ethically. I also find the concept of "It is really hard to prove so you just have to believe us" to be considerably less than convincing. Chillum  14:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference being they weren't designing a study in which people would be harmed as part of the study. It may surprise you but some people take ethics seriously, you know. However many studies show the effects of priming which is a general phenomenon.Faustian (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent so we all agree that the "pre exposure to this test effects the results" is just a statement with no evidence to back it up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt we could all agree that the sky is blue. Chillum  18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Chillum, where in his paper does Wood discuss (or even mention) pre-exposure of test images? I see some discussion of inter-rater reliabilty, but none of test-retest reliabiity. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was responding to the point regarding how such a study could not be done, I was pointed how how it could be done. Chillum  18:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Chillum is referring to the fact that this test indicated that 1/6 of normal adults are schizophrenic. Saying that the research is unethical is just an excuse.  A sign of lack of ingenuity.  One can figure out have to address this question easily in an ethical manner. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Except, of course, that when I look at the nonpatient norms tables for the CS, the scores required to be positive on the PTI (which is not considered "proof" of thought disorder, merely suggestive evidence) are not found in even remotely 1/6 of the population. Mirafra (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So when is somebody going to make a study that shows that leaking the questions and answers to licensing exams is harmful to the public? Because, without the results of a study, we can demand to "show me the evidence."Faustian (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above "Erard cites an impressive body of literature that suggests that major tests are not significantly invalidated by prior exposure" and that was by someone challenging some of Erard's conclusions. Strauss devotes well over three pages to the complex issue of evaluating temporal stability (ie Test-retest reliability) and RØNNERØD, Cato (2003) "Temporal stability in the Rorschach method: A meta-analytic review" vol. 80, no3, pp. 272-293 [22 page(s) (article)] (2 p.3/4) showed high temporal stability for the Rorschach test.  In layman terms temporal stability is how repeatable the results on the same subject are with the same test.  Tests with low temporal stability have problems (including possible manipulation of results by subjects on subsequent go around).--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that "test-retest reliability" is not the same thing as "letting someone study the test and research extensively how the test is scored and what other people's responses have been." There is research on people deliberately trying to fake (look under keywords like "confabulation" and "malingering"), and I am aware of at least one in-progress study about internet exposure.  But the process of research is slow compared to internet time. Mirafra (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wholly concur with Mirafra here. Furthermore, there is also the possibility that people may see an internet image and be affected by it without realising. This is quite a different situation to either formal test-retest or to deliberate individual research. The conclusion must be that, even if we did have a good recently published test-retest reliabilty study, it would be very unlikely that it could answer the questions raised here about the contaminating effects of inkblot image pre-exposure. I suspect that, until very recently, such a topic of study would not have figured on any formally-funded university psychology research program. But I await Mirafra's hinted study with interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But we are not allowed to "study the test" but the picture used in the test and the resonances Beck (mostly 1940s), Piotrowski (1930s through 1950s for Zygmunt Piotrowski), and Dana (There are many Dana who have commented on results of Rorschach) provide in their studies. So two sets of these response came before Lee Cronbach "the world's leading expert on psychological testing" said in 1959 "The test has repeatedly failed as a prediction of practical criteria. There is nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations." It was only after the 1969 improvements that Cronbach in 1970 said that some of the Rorschach scores had a “validity greater than chance”.  So two thirds of these response come from a version of the Rorschach that has NOTHING in the literature to encourage reliance any the interpretations ie an OBSOLETE VERSION OF IT!--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So are responses as valid now as they were before Exner, because he simply improved the scoring? You seem to be hinting that, since the responses listed are interpretations of an obsolete version, they might belong only in the history section or perhaps not in the article at all? Or maybe they just need better sign-posting as to their age? I'd argue (of course) that any interpretations, regardless of age, even bogus ones, might have negative consequences on future test taking. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there are WP:RS that prove these claims (so far we have seen zilch in this regard) once could just as easily argue that the moon is made of green cheese.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you'd get a statement on lunar compostion from APA, or comments supporting the argument from expert users of the Rorschach test itself. But in the meantime, I was interested in your view of the usefulness and location in the article of the Beck and Piotrowski material. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about predicting cancer (1999-2001), or predicting pain relief by means of chordotomy (1962), prognostic aid in insulin shock with schizophrenics (Piotrowski 1940), as a possible predictor for response to psychotherapy (1993) and was touted as a predictor was continuation of psychotherapy (1959), predicting job satisfaction (2007), and host of other things that make you go "huh? What were they thinking or were they thinking?"--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I just meant the popular responses in The ten inkblots (but yes, what they thinking). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way "the world's leading expert on psychological testing" quote is taken straight out of the Institute for Psychological Therapies journal. Claiming it is POV is itself POV.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. The source is about the Rorschach, not about the expert. A source can be reliable about its primary topic but not about other topic it mentions in passing (especially peacock terms for a person - who cares whether it's in the source). It's true that we're talking about what is essentially a quote, but it's not treated as such by the article (actually, I would think it's a small, but unwarranted, copyright violation: it basically uses the Journal's commentary while quoting other people without changing a single word). Actually making it a quotation-marks-delimited quotation would be slightly absurd, though, since it's mostly just there because it contains other quotations. --LjL (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we are still awaiting clarification from Doc as to who was the mystery psychologist with whose quote he opened this thread, but I had assumed the topic was pre-exposure, possibly? As for Cronbach, I think "leading expert on psychological testing", or "expert and pioneer in the field of psychometrics", or even "President of the APA" might each do equally well. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(remove) indent. How about "pioneer in education psychology" and "president of the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association and the Psychometric Society, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Education, the American Philosophical Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences." straight out of Alexander, Meredith "Lee Cronbach, dead at 85" Stanford Report Stanford University School of Education Oct 5, 2001. Saying Cronbach is "an expert" is like saying Einstein is "a scientist". Sheesh. If marginalizing someone like Cronbach is not POV pushing I don't know what is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'd be happy to see all of those. But I guess space constraints mean that a single descriptive phrase with the wikilink might have to suffice? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Einstein would probably be simply qualified as "Albert Einstein" in an article mentioning him. His name speaks for itself, and even if it does, there's a link to click on for those wanting to investigate. --LjL (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no space constraints on Wiki just meeting the three policies. I should point out that PEACOCK does not say what LjL thinks it says.


 * "Do not hide the important facts--"When a person or event is in fact important, the reader must be told that—tell them how important and why."


 * "Stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what to find interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy."


 * "Exception for quotations--Do not impose Wikipedia style guidelines on sources that we cite or quote."


 * The correct policy in regarding the "the world's leading expert on psychological testing" would be a WP:SUBSTANTIATE issue and NOT a PEACOCK as the later is quite clear on direct quotes. Also by PEACOCK removing the FACT that Cronbach was a pioneer in education psychology and a former president of the American Educational Research Association and the American Psychological Association as documented in a WP:RS violates the letter and spirit of the "Do not hide the important facts" clause of that guideline while saying it can be looked up IMHO only exploits a loophole in the WP:CFORK guidelines as those only deals with creating daughter pages to "avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" rather than linking to existing pages to do what IMHO is basically the same thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUEWEIGHT states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". So showing Cronbach's prominence is NOT a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT but removing that fact is in violation of PEACOCK.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By including his opinion we are showing it to be notable. To go on and on about him, when he has his own article, is undue and peacocking. Verbal chat  13:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not just include the information? Who said it is of interest yes, but information about who said it is tangential to the article. If he has his own article just wikilink and people can learn about that subject if they choose too. Chillum  13:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because Notable is not the same as important. For example, McDowell was notable in his own time regarding abdominal surgery but in the long term he wasn't important as the work of Morton and Lister reduced him to relative modern day obscurity.  So in an article on abdominal surgery McDowell would be Notable but not important.  Also in some fields even important people might be unknown to the public at large.  For example, I doubt most non-anthropologists would know who Boas, Dunnel, and Binford are or what they are not only notable but why they are important.


 * I have already shown that PEACOCK's "Do not hide the important facts" clause applies here. It also IMHO gives the impression of WP:GAME in using one part of PEACOCK to avoid another part of the very same guideline.  In fact, the PEACOCK expressly states "Stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what to find interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy."  Also by WP:UNDUEWEIGHT mentioning  prominence Cronbach's would seem to be required.  Besides a slight retraction regarding Rorschach by him follows in the next paragraph.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In general I have to agree with BruceGrubb and Chillum on this over Verbal's objection. Readers aren't in any position to judge the weight of opinions in an article if they are given no background on the person's qualifications. Whenever any individual is named as holding a certain view it should always be accompanied with a brief description of who on earth that person is and why anyone should care. Yes, someone can click the link (if there's an article about the person), but it's a simple matter of reading comprehension to include that info in abbreviated form here. Saying "Joe Blowhard" says something means nothing to anyone unless we know something about Joe's credentials. Perhaps the version Bruce had had slightly too much information (maybe, though I'm not convinced), but in general that's exactly what our readers should have. It also seems to be a stretch to call that peacockery, as it was accurate and to the point, not trying to give a false indication of any sort or to slant perception. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object to a short description, but a description longer than the statement is too much. Verbal chat  14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It can't be called peacockery as the information is basically a paraphrasing of a WP:RS. I mean if a news release by Stanford University doesn't fit WP:RS requirement what the sam hill does?  Even the "the world's leading expert on psychological testing" part didn't meet PEACOCK requirements as the guildline expressly states "Do not impose Wikipedia style guidelines on sources that we cite or quote."  Also remember there are two references using Cronbach with the later one being more positive (though not WHY Cronbach felt Rorschach test had improved).--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember we have to meet Verifiability. Ironically the Stanford University source I found did NOT say Cronbach was an expert in anything and to avoid WP:OR we can only use what is stated there.  I agree that perhaps "pioneer in education psychology" was overdoing it but the later two since htey relate directly to Rorschach should remain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "pioneer in education psychology" is necessary for this article. Perhaps in the subject's article, why doesn't it occur there? –xenotalk 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Topicality fade out
What is the current page-viewing statistic - total and for 'ordinary passers by' (ie excluding those debating the subject)? Is the topic joining the other articles which 'create much noise and viewing of at the time and questions of WP's responsibilities but several weeks down the line have returned to ordinary levels?' (and the overall effedct is to increase vague familiarity with the images and what they involve) Jackiespeel (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can find the statistics at http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/Rorschach_test - the tool has no way to tell who's a regular editor and who's not, however. --LjL (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been made clear to those of us who disagree with the majority that we should shut up. Have fun. Mirafra (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with the topic? –xenotalk 18:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to the apparent lack of context I am assuming Mirafra meant to post that in another thread? Chillum  13:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those pageview statistics show the article was receiving between 1k and 2k views per day prior to the slashdotting, which gave us a boost, and then of course, a major boost after the NewYorkTimes'ing, and still hasn't quite returned to the baseline yet. –xenotalk 18:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know it's as much "shut up" as drop the stick. We certainly want our editors to continue contributing to the project. ;) — Ched :  ?  13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt 'someone looking for a statistical project' could do an analysis of the fade out patterns - including Featured Articles, 'put into the news elsewhere', 'controversial/multiple viewpoint articles' etc.

Most people would accept that particular pschological conditions/areas of ability/other aspects will produce 'particular sets of markers' in response to particular standardised tests - and that a selection of tests will be more accurate than any single one 'all other factors being allowed for' (different socio-cultural environments are likely to generate different baseline patterns). What seems to be a major issue is that the works of Freud and other writers, the Games People Play of Transactional Analysis and suchlike are generally available and so can influence the interaction between the 'curious patient' and the 'person doing the analysis' - but there seem to be claims that mere presence of the Rorschach test images on WP (without the in depth analysis) is enough to totally spoil the interactions. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychological assocations against Wikipedia
Well it seems that psychological associations are attempting to interfer with Wikipedia. Today I just received a message from my college saying that a number of psychological associations have put forth official complaints against my having linked the images from Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia. I will post these comment if anyone is interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think many people would be interested to see the details. But does the Wikipedia organisiation not offer you some kind of protection against such complaints? As you know I disagee with your position in this debate, but it doesn't seem fair that one single editor should be singled out as you seem to have been. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like bullying especially as there is nothing to support the claims they are making and one expert has gone on record that prexposure does no harm. Also given that as resent as 2003 one expert called the Rorschach test pseudoscience on par with frenology (insert Bugs Bunny joke about bumps on your head here) trying to push this could blow up in their face.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with BG here. This is appalling behaviour. You may be able to contact the WikiMedia Foundation for advice. This would bring attention onto the test and further disseminate the images, acting against their claimed interests. The parallels to Simon Singh are clear, and the Streisand effect. Verbal chat


 * I think you should consult a lawyer (possibly Wikipedia's or the Free Software Foundation's) before deciding whether to post any warnings you have received here. If you do decide to post them and/or the name of the associations involved, though, I would like to point out at this point that editors who are members of those associations should step up, clearly declare they have a WP:Conflict of interest, and stop editing. This is just too much. --LjL (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that there are all sorts of real-world consequences to actions taken on wikipedia. This is not psychological associations vs. wikipedia. It is psychological associations vs. someone leaking questions and answers to psychological tests onto wikipedia. It is not at all surprising that the associations would seek to defend the vulnerable people harmed by compromising tests that help such people and that help society. Wikipedia is not a game or an island split off from reality - what people choose to do here has repurcussions in the real world. If making it harder for psychologists to identify people at risk for suicide or homicide, or to help make decisions about whether a criminal and society would be better served by treatment or incarceration, or to see if a head injury means someone is too impaired to pilot a plane (docjames has also chosen to place images of neuropsychological tests used to determine the presence of subtle cognitive deficits onto wikipedia, potentially spoiling those tests as well), is not "too much" than how are these actions by psychological associations "too much." Shame on those who are more concerned about the leaker than about the hundreds or thousands of people put at risk by his actions.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Faustian, given the veiled threats you made about just this sort of thing, I would disassociate yourself from this incident instead of taking the opportunity to say "I told you so". I am willing to assume good faith in that you had nothing to do with this, but if it does turn out that any Wikipedian has taken outside action of this sort against another(dirty pool), it would be the sort of thing that has resulted in bans in the past. Chillum  14:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your (correct) assumption of good faith. I took no outside action myself; if I was going to that I sure as hell wouldn't have been warning people (which you had interpreted as a legal threat). Having endured 8 years of Bush's playing with the language ("Operation Freedom" for the invasion of Iraq, "regime" for governments opposed to the US, "insurgents" rather than resistance, etc. - now we have "death panels" during the healthcare debate) I am sensitive to manipulations of the language for the sake of redifining something to meet one's needs. So I corrected this here.  It is not psychological associations vs. "wikipedia" it is psychological associations vs. leaking tests and answers to psychological tests that are designed to help vulnerable people and society. Similarly, it is not censorship of "scientific information" but censorship (if that is even the right word) of questions and answers to psychological tests so that those tests don't lose their effectiveness.Faustian (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wholly concur with Faustian that Wikipedia cannot be treated like some island of knowledge detached from the real world. But I tend towards seeing the organisation as a body, ratber than any one individual, as being culpable here, especially when we are told constantly that the `collective responsibilty' arising from "strong consensus" overrules the opinions or efforts of any individual editor (and regardless of which side of the fence they sit?) I do not wish to try and score points here. Nor do I wish to stray "off topic". But surely this is an example of the very likely outcome from enforcing such a hardline stance on "the Wikipedia principles of free speech"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We are hardly acting in isolation from the world. We have every intention of following Florida law. It is just that when people try to control things that they do not own, and are in fact owned by the public, that we do not obey. Chillum  15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fairly absurd to try to hang this on one person's head. James did put them up initially, but then there were several others who restored them when they were removed by others, as well as people who opined that they should be kept in. To ascribe responsibility to one person is quite shortsighted and missed entirely the point about Wikipedia being a collaborative endeavour. –xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure more than one person is responsible. It doesn't mean that nobody is.Faustian (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question to consider. IMO (IANAL) any potential liability on James ended at 13:23, 16 June 2009 when someone removed the images, and he did not revert . –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is the larger Wikipedia community that needs to figure out how to be a responsible participant in the world. You can claim that you're an island and that what you do is morally neutral, but other people can disagree without being "against" you.  I don't think that attacking any particular editor is the right way to handle it -- if James hadn't done it, someone else would have, and now that he and LjL and others are putting up more information that continues to damage the commons (on this and other test pages), and the community has, as a whole, made a decision that they do not want to consider the social ramifications of their actions, then the community as a whole should consider themselves responsible.  I agree with Faustian that the notion of "no one is responsible because we all did it" is, well, best understood in the context of some of the classic-but-depressing 1960's social-psych experiments (Milgram, Asch, Zimbardo, etc).
 * For the record, I was not involved with the actions against James. I did send a message to the relevant folks at APA and SPA, before the NYT article came out, not naming any specific editor, and emphatically stating that I felt that taking legal action would be highly counterproductive.  I wrote specifically because I felt that the APA was likely to misunderstand the Internet culture and to think, as the folks from Huber Hogrefe did, that legal action would be a good way to resolve the problem, when it would, in fact, tend to blow it up worse.   I strongly encouraged them to approach the WP leadership from a collaborative and culturally-sensitive stance, to figure out together how the problem of test security could be handled in a responsible fashion.  I continue to hope that they will do so.  There is, of course, nothing stopping the WP leadership from doing the same.
 * Chillum, I think the question is a very interesting and subtle one. "Ownership" has many different flavors here.  There is the strict legal sense of who "owns" information, to be sure, but there is also the ethical sense that society has assigned a profession the job of doing certain tasks for the good of society, and that profession has designed certain techniques for doing those tasks effectively.  The sense here, then, is that WP is "steaing" or "vandalizing" something that is jointly owned by everyone, and attempting to remove other people's freedom of choice to make use of the professionals and the techniques that are jointly owned.  Mirafra (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The legal issue is all speculation at this point, since we do not know what JMH's college has said to him. The key issue will be the ethical guidelines of his college.  It may not have to do with what he has put on wiki at all, but what he has said or how he has presented himself in interviews.  For example, some ethical guidelines have sections on treating other professionals with respect, and how one presents oneself in public etc.  His college will have certain expectations about his behaviour and that will be between him and them.  JMH has already said that he can handle any legal issues and he would prefer that these be dealt with off-wiki, so I don't think we need to address this.  --Vannin (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Vannin's speculations are off topic and should be removed. The behaviour of many editors here has fallen short of ethical, and I don't include DJ in that category. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually directly has to do with Wikipedia. It states "complaints alleging unprofessional conduct by you in publishing common interpretations of the Rorschach inkblot test on Wikipedia".  However as I am sure everyone is aware I did not add the common interpretations.  I can handle my legal issues but I am sure Wikipedia as a whole will be very interested in the outcome.  Wikipedia has received legal threats aswell.  This is an issue of freedom of speech.  Of public domain content.  And weather or not an organization is allowed to bully and threaten people based on what they write.  There is also an attempt to claim copyright of what is in the public domain. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Freedom of speech" to leak questions and answers to tests used to help people and society, thus damaging the tests and causing concrete harm to people and society, is comparable to "freedom of speech" to yell fire in a crowded theater. Please don't present your leaking of test answers and questions as "freedom of speech" of yourself as a crusader for freedom of speech - it is insulting of those who are indeed persecuted for freedom of speech.Faustian (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it may be very difficult indeed for other editors to judge the rights and wrongs of this case, without all of the detail. And I think DJ may have very good reasons why he wishes to keep some or all of the detail private. But I agree strongly with Mirafra's points about "ownership" above. What appears to be "bullying" to some will appear as "duty of care" to others. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't stand for any concern trolling of Doc James in this thread, his talk page, or any other. I have no interest in perpetuating this discussion if it means that editors (namely Faustian and Vannin) will speculate in public about what might happen were some ethical complaint lodged against Doc. James or harangue him about what may or may not be good for his career. Doc, I strongly suggest that you avoid discussing this kind of thing on the project pages because it will only lead to trouble. If you think there is some serious effort to undermine wikipedia then make evidence of that public (rather than alluding to it). If there is no public evidence then it behooves us all to be relatively quiet about it here. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I do reserve the right to continue correcting him or others if they try to cover what they doing - publicising and leaking questions and answers (essentially a cheat sheet) for a test used to help vulnerable people - with lofty words such as "scientific knowledge" or "freedom of speech."Faustian (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I definitely don't want to curtail discussion about how/whether/where etc. with regard to the images in question.  That may obviously include taking normative stances. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We've already had those discussions. The losers are just being harassing and disruptive at this point, and it's long past the point where the ban hammer should have been pulled out. DreamGuy (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's freedom of speech ... enforced with a "ban hammer"? I thought the discussions were still being had at the RfC. Do I have to wait to be banned to be classed as "a real loser"? DJ seemed to want a discussion, I think he deserves one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone who can actually wield the ban hammer intends to do so in the fashion that DG described. He does have a point that discussion about the images themselves has kind of finished.  I don't think that we need to threaten people who disagree or who feel strongly about it, though.  I don't have a problem with general discussion of the suitability of those images, so long as it doesn't escalate to subtle harassment or persist past its expiry date. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods (ISR) (formerly known as the International Rorschach Society; one of the organizations that User:SPAdoc represents, first link at Rorschach_test) is among these psychological associations?

Then it might be worthwhile to point out that this organization has itself, in the past, made images of all ten cards available on its website for more than nine years (not in high resolution, but in a size suffient to prepare answers for the actual testing situation; and after all, Doc James only inserted thumbnails, too). It would be interesting to know what sanctions the ISR took against the society or staff members who were responsible for that decision.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the one things that makes me feel better about this is how most people have clearly showed what they'd think of such frivolous legal threats in the current Request for Comments about displaying these images. --LjL (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask DJ if he thinks it's frivolous? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a mind of my own, and I can opine any legal threat or action about this is frivolous, without asking anyone. But thanks for the suggestion. --LjL (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The threat of legal action is frivolous. The alleged bullying attempt is not. Resolute 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it might be, HaeB, if it were one of those organizations, but DJ hasn't told us, has he, so we don't know, do we? But that was in the past, wasn't it? So, no law suit very likely? And who exactly is User:SPAdoc? 21:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs)


 * Look at the archives (and/or to his contributions) and you'll easily find the answer to that question. --LjL (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He is a representative of the Society for Personality Assessment and the International Rorschach Society, I have confirmed this via an email from him that matches the email listed at the websites of both aforementioned organizations. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, both LjL and xeno, for the clarification. But it now seems that he has outlined his (lack of) involvement in this discussion thread (see below). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We really should not be discussing things like liability on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the content of the article or building an encyclopedia. It has been established that our use of the images is both legal and within the scope and goals of our project. All of this other stuff is off topic, and also contrary to our goal of keeping legal issues off wiki. Chillum 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I say DocJames is trolling. An allegation of an anonymous complaint means nothing. We do have some interest in the official positions of the psychological associations, but only if we get to see exactly what the associations are saying. Hearsay is useless. Roger (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be useful for Doc James to post the allegation as he offered, subject to legal and/or professional ethics evaluation of the propriety of doing so. I don't find it so hard to believe that someone has brought this Wikipedia dispute to yet another forum.  I just looked over the APA code again and noticed, "1.07 Improper Complaints.  Psychologists do not file or encourage the filing of ethics complaints that are made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation."  Hopefully the psychologists themselves will put a decisive end to this strange idea that linking to one public domain resource from another is a violation of confidentiality. Mike Serfas (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the word "fire" is no longer copyrighted doesn't mean one should now shout it in a public theater where it could cause a stampede and hurt someone. In other words, just because the test questions (the images) have become public domain doesn't mean that it is morally acceptable for someone, particular a practitioner in the health care field, to put them on a widely used website where people will be harmed by his actions. No disrespect meant to you, but I think that psychologists know their ethics code better than you do.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since individual words cannot be copyrighted in the first place per "Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. " (US Copyright office) Faustian is talking nonsense.  The requirement as established by Schenck v. United States (1919), Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), Rice v. Paladin Press (1997), and through Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists (2002) that "clear and present danger" must be evident.  Such cannot before proved regarding the Rorschach test especially as the images have been floating around in the public arena for well over 30 years and even a person challenging Erard's 2004 report in a peer reviewed journal had to admit an "impressive body of literature" was presented suggesting "that major tests are not significantly invalidated by prior exposure."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruce, I’d argue that Faustian was comparing by analogy and not literally and so is not talking nonsense, But your choice of cases to support the notion of the relevance of “clear and present danger” is interesting..Rice v. Paladin Press (1997) was the case of a man convicted of a triple murder who claimed to have used a book published by Paladin as a guide and so is about the part played by a book in planning a crime.


 * Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists (2001) concerned the release of a flier and “Wanted” posters with complete personal information about doctors who performed abortions and so is about release of personal information which might have led to crimes.


 * Schenck v. United States (1919) concerned a first amendment right of free speech against draft in the First World War, which hardly seems relevant here. And The Skokie Affair was a Supreme Court case about freedom of assembly. But perhaps you could explain the relevance to our inkblots? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Paladin case was interesting. Someone published a how to guide to being a hit man. This book was used by an actual novice hitman.  "In November 1997, a U.S. appeals court ruled 3-0 that Hit Man was not protected by the free speech/free press clause of the First Amendment and thus Paladin Enterprises could be held liable for a triple murder committed by one of its readers." The publisher chose to settle rather than pursue the case further.Faustian (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that is an interesting case. Especially if one compares the mens rea and `wilful harm' aspects of that case with the case of the inkblots here, where the reader may be, by contrast, a hapless victim of published material which may negatively impact his or her mental health. But I am still struggling a little with the relevance of those other cases. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, neither the Society for Personality Assessment nor the International Society had anything to to with an alleged complaint filed against anyone in conjunction with this issue. For the record, I do not even know if what DocJames did in initially posting the images constitutes an ethical violation according to his medical board. Were he a psychologist, there might be an issue, since test security is specifically an aspect of the ethical principles of the profession, but not necessarily of others. The general issue here of individual v. collective responsibility is an interesting and important one. As Mirafra points out, there is a solid social psychological literature on group mentality and the dilution of individual responsibility through the group or organization. Nonetheless, the law has long held that individuals still bear an individual responsibility regardless of the group context (see, for example, the Nuremberg trials, and no, I am not suggesting that what was done here is in anyway analogous to the Third Reich, just citing the principle of individual culpability in a larger context). My personal belief is that those in the helping professions bear a certain responsibility not to disrupt the work of others in similar fields, at least without consideration and, preferably, consultation with those potentially affected. I also believe that actions have consequences and Wikipedia editors cannot hide behind "freedom of information" or "free speech" platitudes to escape such consequences. I am not discussing the Rorschach specifically at this point, that debate has exhausted itself. SPAdoc (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The internal debate between editors seems, to many people, to have exhausted itself, but it seems that it's still capable of being very easily re-ignited by external events such as this one? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that something will be published on these allegations soon. A number of admins can verify them until than.  I do not believe that either SPAdoc or any of the other editors here were involved in these complaints.


 * I however disagree with SPAdoc in that I do not consider "free speech" a platitude and since Wikipedia is based on "freedom of information" I do not think anyone here takes it lightly.


 * One issue that seems to be brought up repeatedly is are people outside a particular field allowed to comment on said field. A number of editors here seem to be saying no.  This sort of contravenes one of the pillars of Wikipedia ( an encyclopedia that anyone can edit ) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Freedom of speech" and "freedom of information" are used by you as platitiudes to try to dress up what you are actually doing - leaking questions and answers of tests onto the internet, potentially putting a lot of people who depend on those tests at risk. Your action is as much "freedom of speech" as is yelling fire in a crowded theater.Faustian (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Except of course that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is actually illegal, while publishing public domain information on an encyclopedia is not. --LjL (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly.Faustian (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now this is just getting silly. Providing information in one spot which is freely available in the public domain and published psychology journals is in no way like inciting panic.  There still seems to be the implication that I have managed to pull this off all by myself in statements "what you are actually doing".  My addition lasted for only a few brief moments and it was others who both added further content as well as added the interpretations and others yet who locked down the page and subsequently created a bot to prevent further removal of the images.


 * The correct way to phrase this maybe: psychologists are allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater but no one else is allowed to infringe upon their turf or their tugs will go after you.


 * Anyway this is all besides the point. We are all allowed to discuss all areas of science regardless of our qualifications period.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But if we choose to discuss matters outside our area(s) of knowledge or expertise we may sometimes appear very foolish to those who are experts in those matters. And, perhaps more seriously, we may do things which have unforeseen consequences. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that most Wikipedians, certainly including myself, couldn't care less about "appearing foolish" to so-called experts who think they're holier than thou. Wikipedia puts everyone on an equal standing by requiring WP:Verifiability whoever a statement comes from. For the nth time, I suggest you people try Citizendium if you don't like the way it works here. --LjL (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who exactly are "you people"? And why is that "the nth time" - is that a big number? For me it's the 1st time - that's a small number. Amd I certainly wouldn't confuse knowledge with holiness. Where is the WP:Verifiability claim that pre-exposure causes no harm? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, despite my understanding of the difficulty in tracing past discussions inside such a huge talk page activity, I fear that repeating myself for the benefit of addressing every single person involved in the discussion with the very same arguments would merely make the talk page size even worse. The good news is that the archives can be searched. The n-th time is a relatively big number, but whether or not it's big, the argument is valid that Wikipedia does not really particularly value claimed expertize credentials, but merely contributions themselves, regardless of the credentials of the person contributing, and the main measure for judging them is verifiability. However, "verifiability of harm" is definitely not the criterion for inclusion; merely verifiability of the truth of introduced information is. (For that matter, anyway, "where is the WP:Verifiability claim that pre-exposure does cause harm?". It's been repeatedly stated that there isn't, and there can't be actual evidence of that. Not that it matters, because you've misunderstood the concept as used on Wikipedia in the first place, but if it did matter, you'd be in trouble, as the burden of proof would obviously be yours). --LjL (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The professionals who create and use these tests, and the official organization that represnts them, state that it is harmful to diseeminate the test materials. You have chosen to do so anyways.  You are not, of course, the only one to have created risk of concrete harm t o others by your action; the fact that others did it too seems like apoor excuse. You have also added test stimuli to other tests on other articles. When told about the potential harm, you responded by dismissing the opinions of the professionals and threatening to practice psychology without a license (i.e., using the tests for which you have had no training nor supervision on your hapless ER patients). Let's not be silly with the claims about the materials being out there on the web already.  Test materials, questions and answers, in professional journals or textbooks is not the same as all the test materials being integrated and put together on a very popular websites.  Your analogy is quite far off base.  As I said, adding these images onto wikipedia is the equivalent of yelling fire in a theater.  Psychologists don't do so either btw - in fact they are here on this talk page trying to prevent harmt o the  general public by keeping the questions and answers to these useful tests from being leaked by you and others. Faustian (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Faustian, what you say is just not true. The Rorschach inkblots were created by Rorschach, and he is dead. He does not oppose dissemination. No professional organization has said that it is harmful to disseminate the inkblots. The APA only objects to its own members releasing the inkblots. As I demonstrated to you, the APA says this to preserve the income of its members who charge money to administer the tests. If some professional or some organization were to documents some harm or potential harm, then I think that we should consider that. But as I see it, publishing the inkblots has a lot of obvious benefits, and not even a coherent claim of any harm. Roger (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The APA's ethics code is quite clear as to its purpose : "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." No mention of income; this must be part of your conspiracy theory which you have indeed shared with us several times.  The Rorschach administration and interpretation is hardly an income-generator btw; this claim of yours is, sorry, laughable. As for the rest - the test system currently most used was originally devised inthe 1970's and continually revised since then.  Several professional organizations have stated that release of test materials caused concrete harm to the public. If you claim that somehow they specifically did not mean the Rorschach when they mentioned that thre release of testingmateirals causes concrete harm, despite it being one of the most commponly used tests, the burden of proof is yours.Faustian (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Roger, you still haven't told us how much Psychologists make my administering these tests, have you? So your comment is opinion supported by no evidence. Can you substantiate your claims so that they do not appear to be just ignorant prejudice? Your argument that there can be no harm because Hermann Rorscharch has not said so (because he is dead) is a little naive, don't you think? The reason that no evidence of harm can be produced is because such evidence has not been collected and indeed could not be collected in an ethical way. The Rorschach Test is considered a valid psychological test by the relevant professional bodies and they have clearly advised that making any test materials public may be harmful. The arguments which seem to be left open are: whether or not Wikipedia has any duty of care to these concerns expressed by external professional bodies such as APA, BPS andf CPA and (more laterly) whether, even if it does not, may such concerns be legally enforceable. Who exactly is guilty of IDHT here? 22:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and where is your evidence that there are "lot of obvious benefits"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much money psychologists make on inkblot tests, and I don't care. I know that they do make money, and they make enough to complain about release of the inkblots. I also know that neither Rorschach nor the APA nor any other professional organization has claimed any harm in releasing the inkblots. If you have some quotes or links to the contrary, just post them. This argument that it is ethically impossible to collect evidence of harm is absurd. Again, not even the APA says that. There is no duty of care because those organization have not expressed any specific concerns about harm in disclosing inkblots. Roger (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence aside from your own opinion that test security is being pushed because of money-related matters, while on the other hand harm has being claimed about releasing test materials by relevant associations, and quotes and links have been posted already. Drop the matter. I want the inkblots published at least as much as you do, but your refusal to acknowledge what people say isn't helping any cause, this one included. --LjL (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I am not going to acknowledge that the APA has claimed harm to publishing inkblots, because the APA has never said that. The Canadian APA said that there are not ever concerned about the Rorschach test per se. Faustian is posting false statements about the professional organizations. If you do not believe that the psychologists have monetary motivations, do you think that the psychologists are doing these tests for free? Do you think that the test material makers have monetary motivations? Go ahead and post your own theory, if you wish, but the APA has never said that releasing the inkblots causes harm to the public. Roger (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, in my view Faustian is not posting false statements at all. The very simple deductive logic goes like this: 1. the APA warns against exposure of test materials, 2. the Rorschach is a test, therefore 3. the APA is warning against exposure of Rorschach test materials. Do you expect the APA (or any other national Psychology Association) to warn against exposure of test materials and then go on to specifically list every single psycholgical test and technique by name? That sounds very unreasonable and very unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I expect the APA to say whatever it can to promote income of its members. Just as I would expect the Teamsters to advocate whatever helps its members. That's why the APA statement is only useful to the extent that it provides verifiable evidence in its support. But the APA statement does not even allege any harm. (Comment deleted.) If Faustian were just saying that the APA opposes release of test materials by its members, and that Rorschach is a test, then I would agree with him. Roger (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And what of the CPA and BPS statements? I am sorry I cannot continue this discussion with you which still seems to be based on your own personal prejudice. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And you're this far from getting an ANI report, I suspect. Quit the personal stuff already, it's gone way too far. --LjL (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I removed the comment. The CPA statement does not allege any harm to releasing Rorschach inkblots. It appears that their concern is about other tests. I did not see the BPS statement, but if they allege harm, then please post whatever evidence for harm that they allege. Roger (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It looks like spanish magicians are going through similar difficulties as the field of psychology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since discussing magic tricks doesn't cause concrete harm to the general public, as your action does, there is no similarity in difficulty.Faustian (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence of this "concrete harm"? Couldn't someone just create a new set of plates that are original and copyright-able and go through the same procedures and tests that make the Rorshach tests "useful" to psychologists? Vivaldi (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless Roger or others can explain otherwise I don't see how such evidence can be produced because of practical and ethical diffiulties. There is no reason why anyone couldn't produce some new inkblots, of course, but it would take quite a while to replicate the "procedures and tests" that have been performed with the real inkblots over the past 88 years in many thousands of cases. The Rorschach literature, where the constructs underlying the procedure (especially since the 1960s based on the work of Exner) have been discussed and distilled over many years, has been described "huge". So I guess the people who use them think it's a lot more satisfactory to protect what they already have. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see you admit that there is no evidence of harm. That 88 years of work probably included a lot of bad work. Maybe we will see some better quality work now that the inkblots are more accessible, and the work is not so sheltered by secrecy. Roger (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I think that over-esposure of the inkblot images and common interpretation is more likely to lead to a test that is clinically useless. And I still believe that, in the absence of evidence (on eother side) that we should heed the very clear advice of the profession. Martinevans123 (talk)


 * Except that the profession has not given any clear advice on the subject. Roger (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because APA, BPS and CPA have not cited the Rorschach Test specifically by name? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. I work in computers, and I'd consider it unethical to divulge details on a new security bug except to those who can fix it. On the other hand, if a bug is well known or already useless because no systems can be expected to be vulnerable to the bug, then there is no harm in divulging the bug. This is very similar to this situation. The Rorschach test is well known, there are many sources on the Internet where they can be viewed. I think any reasonable organization looking at the situation would feel that there is no significant effect by adding one more location where the blots can be viewed. I'm going to keep on believing this unless someone tells me specifically that they disagree. Gorillatheape (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My action? I am honored that you give me so much credit.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly your action, Doc, and the action of all the other editors who have added the images and information. Not action like squeezing the trigger of gun or cutting the brake cables of an automobile maybe, but action nonetheless. This is not to say there would be difficulties in proving any "guilt" in that action - I seems that your edits and those of most other image publishers are in good faith and are based on a sincere belief that no harm will arise. Other editors, of course, may not even know there is any controversy; some may believe that the risk of is outwieghed by the `benefits' of publication; some may believe that harm would arise and wilfully try to cause that harm; some editors seem to want to publish the inkblots in order to cause financial harm to the users of the test; there are also simple vandals. Such a spectrum of opinion is reflected in the RfC of course. But I'd suspect that any successful legal action would probably have to be taken against Wikipedia itself for "allowing" editors, whatever their motivation, to add the material - a kind of guilt by negligence? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How, it doesn't cause concrete harm?! Magicians provide entertainment. Knowing the tricks they use removes the entertainment in watching them. A psychologist should know that entertainment is important, and lack of it may cause very concrete harm to the psyche of an individual. These people trying to destroy the magicians' tricks are vandals and should be sued. --LjL (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice analogy - whether or not one is entertained is comparable to being better able to tell whether or not someone is at risk to harm himself or others, or whether or not someone about to drive a bus or pilot a plane has a subtle cognitive deficit that puts him and his passangers at risk (that's the other test docjames is trying to spoil). Thanks for letting us know where you stand.Faustian (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) From reading the many comments regarding this on the WWW very few people consider the release of this data to have the potential to cause harm. Most editors here are not happy to just take the word of psychologists. If someone wishes to push this point they will need research to back it up. I personally think the posting of this is beneficial. Till there is research there really is not much more to say... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a professional opinion over that of anonymous bloggers and Wikipedia editors. Chillum, Melodia, and others have been giving you bad advice about ignoring "external influences" and sources of information.  Wikipedians are supposed to rely on published statements by experts as the basis for our opinions and actions.  My advice to you is to stop reading the opinions of bloggers and Wikipedia editors on the WWW and start reading professional journals.  If you can find something, anything, even a simple letter to the editor, that supports your opinion and contradicts the 1996 statement by the APA, you'll be on much firmer ground.  Do a Google Scholar search for the 1996 statement and read everything that's ever been written about it.  Rogers and Erard had an interesting point/counterpoint on the subject in two separate papers in the Journal of Personality Assessment in February of 2004, but I don't think either one advanced the idea that there was no risk of harm to the public should security fail and the test questions and answers were published generally.  Did Garb or Lilienfeld ever question the validity of the 1996 statement?  Did someone else?  Anyone?  Try to get your hands on the following paper:  Kelland, D. Z., & Pieniadz, J. (1996). To report or not to report (quantitative data that is): a survey of actual practice and training in neuropsychology. Presented at National Academy of Neuropsychology Meeting, New Orleans, LA, October.  It contains a survey in which 86% of respondent opposed the release of test data in certain kinds of mandatory reporting functions.  What about the other 14%?  Did they agree with you that such release would not be harmful?  I don't know what these nebulous people were thinking.  Maybe one of them wrote a paper explaining their position.  Good luck and keep your chin up.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe 86% of psychologists doing Rorschach inkblot tests have the opinion that publication of the inkblots will be harmful to their incomes or reputations. But there is no evidence of harm to the public. Your citations are about like citing astrologers in opposition to publication of planetary positions. Roger (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be obsessed with psychologists' alleged sources of income. Why? I mean, if someone spoiled the latest batch of flu vaccine and physicians complained about it, would you also be proclaiming that the physicians are just upset that they won't be making money off the vaccine? Or is your paranoia limited to psychologists.Faustian (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the flu vaccine company tries to cover up data about the effectiveness of the vaccine, then yes, I might assume that the company is just acting in its financial interests. Psychologists are not the only ones acting to protect their incomes. Roger (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right, I don't want to take the psychologists' word for it. Especially when the psychologists are not even claiming that there will be any harm, and when they have two obvious motives for spreading FUD about the inkblots. They want to protect their income from administering the tests, and they don't want public scrutiny about using a bogus test. Roger (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the whole thing. I do not take anyones opinion on a matter such as this.  What I want is evidence, show me the evidence of harm, but alas there is none.  Experts who are evidenceless are often no better than the man on the street.  Specially ones with a conflict of interest.  I can give you many example: hormone replacement therapy before the WHI, much of alternative medicine, etc. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, you never heard of Priming (psychology). Break an MRI, and use that broken MRI on people who need to use an MRI. See if they are harmed by what you have done.  That is comparable to the "evidence" that you demand.Faustian (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Priming I think is called life. Thanksfully it does not break anything and may actually be good for people.  There was a response that this could be studied on normal populations pre and post exposure to the Rorschach.


 * The analagy with MRIs has been done. They have take a group of people and screened them with an MRI and another group they screened with a broken MRI.  And guess what they found the normal population screened with the functional MRI did worse.


 * Many radiologists thus consider it unethical to do MRI screening.


 * So YES this is the evidence I demand for MRI screening and this is the evidence I demand for the Rorschach. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reread the section on priming. Reading the questions and answers to the test is not "life." How are you going to tell if a "broken" Rorschach works to detect possible thought disorder when your subjects are normal and don't have the potential of having a thought disorder? And I didn't mention MRI screening, I mentioned when people need an MRI.  Are you going to give such people a broken MRI just to prove that a broken MRI won't work?Faustian (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is just bad form for the APA and other psychological associations to come up with statement of harm based on well, nothing. Than try to push this down the rest of the worlds throats.  They maybe able to convince themselves that they are right and quell decent among their members but the rest of the world is not going to bite.


 * Claims that the evidence is to hard to collect, to expense to derive, unethically just because you say so, these are that statements one would expect from either a pseudoscientist or a drug company with a finicial conflict of interest. Sorry the MRI analogy does not hold weight.  Partly because those studies are actually done.  They have compared care received / outcomes when MRI are avaliable and when they are not in febril seizure and lower back pain for example.  WRT hyperbaric medicine it is the standard of care to give HBOT for severe carbon monoxide poisoning.  The evidence however is not completely solid.  They still do studies even though harm might result.  One is currently ongoing in Turkey.


 * The rest of science pushes forwards and does research to back up their claims. These psychological associations should either provide some evidence or shut up.  Cheers. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not yet given any evidence that a broken MRI works as well as a nonbroken one. Where is the research in which a sick person in need of an MRI was only given access to a broken one and was harmed as a result?  Until this study is done people should have the right to break MRI equipment and to then demand that the complaining physicians "provide some evidence or shut up." That's basically your argument, applied to the Rorschach, to justify your attempt to "break" the Rorschach.


 * There is plenty of evidence that the Rorschach is useful. Even its harshest critics within the field, Woods et al admit that it's good at some things such as picking up thought disorder: . Since you are proposing the amazing idea that leaking the answers and questions to this useful test in advance won't' affect the test's results for those people who have read the questions and answers, it would seem the burdon of proof ought to be on you for finding support for your amazing claim.Faustian (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Psychosis - thought disorder is not particularly difficult to detect anyway, so I personally wouldn't get too excited that Rorschach is a robust diagnostic method. I could take a psychotic person and make up a test say analysising people walking past in the street and "detect abnormalities" because of their psychotic interpretation of just about everything.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's that easy, isn't it? Obviously there are many cases (the man who knows that his coworkers are spies plotting to kill him so he's quietly thinking of killing them first; the kid holed up in his bedroom to escape being "bugged" who won't tell anyone not even his family about what's going on, etc.) where the person suffering from psychosis is not obviously apparent. Working in a locked medium-security forensic unit, I've known just such people who went untested until it was too late. Not all psychotic people are homeless, talking to people that don't exist.  Those obvious one's don't need the Rorschach of course.  It's the subtle cases - someone maybe perhaps a bit "odd", etc. - for which this sort fo test is used.  It is exactly these sorts of people (and those whom they encounter) who are harmed by what Heilman has done.Faustian (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was being oversimplistic but was trying to make a point. I was referring to the statistical significance in research studies in thought disorder, I was not saying all cases of psychosis are obviously apparent. It doesn't get away from the subjectiveness of the test. What about false positives? People getting diagnosed incorrectly, it affecting whether they stay in jail or not. What about false negatives? How do you know the benefits outweigh the risks? Could the risks outweigh the benefits? I actually don't have strong views on this subject matter. I have just been following the drama here a bit more intensely as things escalated lately to the point of legal threats.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Rorschach is a tool which is not meant to diagnose and which does not diagnose - the person using it makes the diagnosis. Patterns of responses indicate thought disorder and the psychologist uses the results of that tool in combination with other data to make the diagnosis. It's probably not for amateurs here (or individual psychologists for that matter) to sort out and make a judgment that most of us are not qualified to make and perform actions that affect people's lives accordingly. Here is a summary:  and here is the chapter from the Oxford Handbook of Psychological Testing: . By compromising the Rorschach James Heilman is removing (or reducing the effectiveness of) a tool used to help a lot of people. Faustian (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the complaints as published in the NYTs  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I"m kind of surprised noone went after you for threatening to practice psychology without a license when you threatened to risk harm to your patients by using a neuropsychological test on them without the requisite training and supervision.Faustian (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is just the evidence backing up my previous claim, as was requested above. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Priming may be part of life on the streets, but it's not part of Wikipedia
Thanks, Faustian, for supplying the word for which I've been searching for a little over 60 days, now. Priming (psychology) describes perfectly the problem with publishing the Rorschach. We're priming our readers and skewing subsequent test results. DocJames just shrugged off priming as being "a part of life," but I wonder... I suppose we all influence each other's thoughts in our normal day to day interactions on the street; but when it comes to psychological testing, I think the profession requires a more sterile environment, the same way that a biology or medical laboratory requires air scrubbing equipment and white suits, masks, and hair nets -- also a steady hand using disposable utensils so that content from one sample doesn't contaminate another sample. Is that a fair analogy?

This word, priming, also describes one of our core policies: Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view, which by definition of the word neutral, means one that does not produce (or reproduce) the thoughts or biases of others. The reader should be free to make a choice about what he or she thinks or believes. "If possible," we can neutralize the effect of biased information by offering opposing view points. This is called balancing. But if balancing is not possible, it's better to leave off information than to violate one of our core policies. Better to have no information than non-neutral information, I think. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The Rorschach does not need an especially sterile environment.  Like most other tests (medical licensing exams, etc.) it just needs that the person taking the test doesn't have the answers and questions - a cheat sheet - for the test.  A cheat sheet isn't "part of life" with respect to test taking and is much more than just not providing a sterile or artificial envirnment.Faustian (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It took a while but I found them
These two quotes have been thrown all over the internet but there was no clear indication where they same from:

"Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The ink blots are scientifically useless." (Bartol, 1983).

"The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them. These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects." (Anastasi, 1982).

Well after a lot of digging I found a paper (Mclver II, William (1997) "Behind the Prison Walls" IPT Journal 9 (1/2)) that give full references to these:

Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological Testing (Out of Print)(Paperback - 1989 Edition). New York: McMillen and Co., p. 582.

Bartol, C. R. (1983). Psychology and American Law (Hardcover). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

The more we keep looking the more problems with the Rorschach test we find.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool, you found some obsolete 26 and 27 year old quotes written about a way of using the Rorschach that is rarely done anymore. What next, a 60 year old article written by anthropoligists unable to use the test?  Oh, you'v done that.  Or something from 1959?  Oh, yeah, you've done that - and it's even in the article. You always have Wood though, whose small group are the only modern critics of the Rorschach.  But then, even they state that it is good at a few things, so maybe you'd better avoid them too. The problem is that your idea that the Rorschach is utterly useless is an extreme fringe belief, akin to the belief that the Earth is flat.  This is why you have to dig up obsolete papers (and then quote them selectively), papers written by those who know nothing about the Rorschach such as anthropolgists, etc.


 * Next you'll attack astronomy for its erroneous pre-Copernican idea that the sun revolves around the Earth.Faustian (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are always very quick to dismiss sources critical of this test. Chillum  21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if they are ridiculous. Interestingly you are very quick to accept nonsense, as long as it is critical of the Rorschach. Here is Bruce Grubb's author, who quoted the obsolete 25+ year old texts one of which is out of print: "William Mclver, Ph.D., a former clinical psychologist in private practice in Oregon, spent eight months in prison in Oregon in 1988-1989.  His license was also then revoked by the Oregon Licensing Board.  Dr. Mclver had been active in assisting defendants charged with sexual abuse of children up to the time of his imprisonment." Like everyone else in prison, Dr. McIver didn't do it of course, he's really a victim.  The prisons are full of them. Hmmm he wouldn't be disgruntled about this stuff, would he?Faustian (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the test is 80 plus years old it is not at all supprising to see research from 25 years ago. It not like they are using different inkblots or anything like that.  Ones reseach stands on it own and is not infact as is implied disqualified by other activies they may take part in. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The inkblots are the same, the system currently used to interpret them was formulated in the 1970's and continually and significantly revised since then (new norms, new scales, etc.) The fact that you don't know this simple fact after months of participating on this article is shocking. Attacking the Rorschach based on 25 year old articles is akin to attacking pediatrics based on, say, the belief 25 years ago that babies ought to always be placed on their stomachs (we now know that this is a risk factor for Sudden infant death syndrome). The article we are talking about, written by the guy sent to jail who had his license revoked, wasn't even a research article BTW so your statement "Ones reseach stands on it own and is not infact as is implied disqualified by other activies they may take part in" like most of your other claims is based on a false premise. Faustian (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from your problems with the author and the age of the sources, what is wrong with them? What is the method you speak of that isn't performed any more? How, exactly, are the sources "obsolete"? I ask because you dismissed the sources off-hand without really explaining why you believe they are irrelevant. --clpo13(talk) 05:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The quotes are vague: "Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The ink blots are scientifically useless." and false. "Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach repsonses objectively." Really? Ever hear of the Exner system? "The ink blots are scientifically useless." Really?  Have you read the other sources in the article?  Even Wood et all don't say that.Faustian (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More OR nonsense by Faustian as shown by Bornstein, Robert F. Joseph M. Masling (2005) Scoring the Rorschach: Seven Validated Systems Lawrence Erlbaum Associates that shows the Exner system is NOT the only way the Rorschach can or is used. You have the Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale dating all the way back to Klopfer in the 1950s; Masling, Raie, and Blondhein's 1967 ROD scale (still in use after 35 years according to the article and "appearing in about 80% of all published studies involving projective assessment of dependent personality traits"); something called the Pripro scoring system, Lerner Defence Scale, and several others.  Exner is not the only game in town and I would love to see the evidence that supports the Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale or the ROD scale as useful or "Validated" as this book claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you include this information in the article to make the article even more ridiculous?Faustian (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm starting to see a pattern... any source that states there exist other methods of interpretation than Exner, and they're valid (either that, or all of them are claimed to be invalid, Exner included), is ridiculous. Is that it?
 * A funny thing is that on the Italian Wikipedia, someone noted that we should add some information about the Exner system, because the article primarily deals with other methods. --LjL (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just reflecting the state of the field. But go ahead and put in the "fact" that Blondhein's 1967 ROD scale is really widely used; it will fit in with the rest of the article. Don't let me get in your way.Faustian (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe now that the inkblots are more widely available, we will have some more up-to-date criticism. If you have more recent info about the inkblots, go ahead and add it to the article. Roger (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Faustian is clearly trying to salvage a "test" that many reports hold to be questionable for what it is used for and a 2004 Europian report called pseudoscience. He is also clearly unaware the sun center system was proposed in 200 BCE by Aristarchus, long before Copernicus ever lived, but politics and religion caused the flawed Earth centered system of Aristotle and Ptolemy to be shoved down everyone's throat.  This can be shown by the fate of Giordano Bruno who not only held to a sun center solar system, but also there were other such solar systems out there, there could be life on other worlds, and the perception of the world was relative to where and when you looked.  The Church's prompt reaction to this was to put Bruno on trial for heresy, eventually convict him, and burn him alive while wearing a Heretic's fork.
 * While not as extreme the treatment of Alfred Wegener's 1915 theory by the scientific community was nearly as bad. Instead of even considering if his theory had merit it was dismissed out of hand with no efforts to see if it was even viable.  Then the predictions Wegener had made started to be found and the scientific community had to eat crow and admit continental drift was NOT the "delirious ravings of a mad meteorologist" (Barcott, Bruce (April 4, 2004) "School of Rock" New York Times) as they had once said.
 * Bruno and Wegener show that ideas that upset the status quo are not easily excepted as there are often too many people with vested interests in the old model. In his "Day the Universe Changed" James Burke called it "holding on like grim death" and Carl Sagan in Demon Haunted World devoted much of the chapter "Antiscience" to the issue and the reasons behind this situation.


 * Daruna, JH (2004) "Book Review: The Rorschach Test Challenges Science with the Complexity of Imagination" Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral is a favorable review of Wood's "What’s Wrong With the Rorschach? Science Confronts the Controversial Inkblot Test." while point out the test a long series of challenges.


 * Robert I. Simon and Kenneth Tardiff's 2008 Textbook of Violence Assessment and Management American Psychiatric Publishing points out "research has yet to demonstrate a consistent pattern of findings suggestive of clear concurrent--let alone predictive--validity." (pg 65) while also notice that the Rorschach indices are possibly useful in other areas.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that sources critical of the tests validity have been far too quickly dismisses here, neutrality requires we cover these significant points of view as well. Chillum  14:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, they should be covered in the same way that the idea that global warming isn't man-made is covored in the global warming article. I'm just describing what the consensus within the field is. If you want an article based on 50 year old texts (somebody quoted Cronbach's 1959 article), the writings of a disgraced psychologist who was sent to prison and lost his license (a gem provided by Bruce Grubbs), 40 year old anthropology articles, and overemphasis on Woods' minority viewpoint which has been around and given a lot of exposure for over 10 years yet has not really resulted in the Rorschach being dropped, then you will have the kind of Wikipedia article that serves as a basis for parodies such as this: .Faustian (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I don't take your word regarding consensus within the field, your interpretation of sources in the past have been heavily skewed towards your own person beliefs. Perhaps there are reliable sources discussing what the consensus in the field is? Chillum  17:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a false accusation. I never interpreted sources in the past in a way that was heavily skewed to my own personal beliefs (which you don't even know). The fact that 80% of psychology graduate programs teach the Rorschach, the fact that it is one of the most widely used tests, etc. tell you what the overall consensus within the field is. Here's an overview from the Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment  although no doubt you and others prefer the articles written 40 years ago, or by disgraced incarcarated ex-psychologists to guide what you believe to be "consenus within the field."Faustian (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Faustian, that looks like a good source for "what is the consensus of the literature?" -- it puts things into reasonable context, including comparisons to medical judgments (which people often think are more reliable than they really are). We've also frequently posted the white paper from SPA/ISR, which cites the literature extensively, including the same neutral meta-analyses.  Mirafra (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is the "Personality Assessment with the Rorschach Inkblot Method" by Irving B. Weiner and Gregory J Meyer paper in of Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment that Faustian points out stated that in 2007 there appeared to be with issues Rorschach in the curricula with it being shoft shifted or totally omitted. They also admit "On the other hand, there is still much research to be done and much to be learned about how, why, and when the RIM works."  If we "still need still much research to be done" on when the RIM works then that means there are issues if the test is being use in a correct manner if the reasearch in those areas is lacking.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for you - you are able to cherry pick bits of information to support your POV. BTW "still need still much research to be done" doesn't meanthe test is bad, no more than the fact that "still need still much research to be done" about genetics or cancer or HIV or whatever means that the current information we have and the current methods we use are bad and should be tossed away.Faustian (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If 80% of psychology graduate programs teach the Rorschach, then that is all the more reason to have the inkblots. If Rorschach is that important to a psychology education, then others should be able to learn about it also. Maybe we should also make sure that the DSM-IV and |MMPI are on WP. Roger (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now those would be clear copyright violations. --LjL (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed (on the copyvio issue. I'm not going to continue to debate Roger.).  However, there's a website that got permission to post the complete text of the diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV-TR, and I just went ahead and added it under "External links" on the DSM page.  Those are not even remotely secret, nor is anyone from the psychological community claiming they should be, although they should not be used for self-diagnosis. Mirafra (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about the copyvio? I thought that a lot of those MMPI questions were plagiarized from other tests, and may not be copyrighted. It may be that dozens of questions can be legally posted. I added another DSM-IV link. Roger (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The MMPI is a copyrighted test. There is a specific statement on that page about the fact that it is a copyrighted test.  IANAL.  I am also not going to support or suggest anyone either attempt to weasel around copyright or break test security.  Mirafra (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The exact wording of the questions are copyrighted but similar questions are not and thus could be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? So, using a thesaurus, could you rewrite Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone as "Gary Porter and the Wizard's Rock", with use of word-for-word synonyms, and sell it for half the price of Rowling's book, and make money that way?  Or better yet, obtain a leaked version, and sell it before the original goes on sale.   Actually no you couldn't do that - even a much more loosely based version (Russia's Tanya Grotter) is banned in the US and other Western countries: . I think this principle may apply to some of the info in this article currently btw. Since the methods are copyrighted rewording the copyrighted materials and placing them here might be akin to "Gary Porter" and thus unacceptable.  But I'm no copyright expert.  Faustian (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It shows. Anyway, you may report suspected copyright violations on this noticeboard. --LjL (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of harm and precedents
I've found a passage that seems interesting. Note that (as I said a few times) I personally don't believe we should base our decision of publishing the inkblots and other data on any sources, but since other people seem interested in this approach or in the sources themselves, let's use this section for that. (Let's not use it to discuss whether we should give sources any weight in this matter to begin with, please).

"For his book on notorious criminals, Dr. Snitler has sought and been granted permission by the publisher to reprint copies of the Rorschach plates in achromatic reduced--size format. Many clinicians would assert that doing so and listing common responses represent a serious unethical act. Other would note that one could easily find more detailed Rorschach testbooks available in public areas of many university libraries and suggest that the impact of reading such a book on potential test takers' subsequent performance is questionable. While a psychologically well-adjusted individual of sophisticated ability might have the ability to fake a disturbed Rorschach protocol, it seems most unlikely that a troubled client could muster the psychological resources to simulate a psychologically sound protocol no matter what information was available in the public domain. Again, the impact of this disclosure remains unknown, although the author certainly used questionable professional judgment."

(emphasis mine) --LjL (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a very honest scientist that says something is not known, rather that starting with a point of view then insisting on it despite a lack of evidence. This is a very good source and would fit right into any section discussing the release of test material. Chillum  14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Before harm can be claimed from viewing these images on Wikipedia a number of things need to be proven:


 * The test is of more benefit than harm.
 * Learning about or seeing the test makes it less acurate.
 * People upon whom the test will be used will see it on Wikipedia.


 * As not one of these is currently supported by evidence harm has not been proven. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Refuting a secondary source is possible, but such a source must explicitly claim to do so.  (See WP:MEDRS)  This source does not claim to do so, and its conclusion actually supports the 1996 statement.  For you to draw a conclusion different from the authors, or to take its statements out of context, (i.e. "the impact of this disclosure remains unknown.") is original research.  See WP:NOR  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Err... what?! I'm not following any of the things you say. Since when does WP:NOR apply to sources themselves, for a start?! --LjL (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An intersting passage indeed, and one that seems to leave the question open with "questionable professional judgment". But Koocher and Keith-Spiegel seem to be confusing the relative importance of unintended priming and deliberate cheating here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, when a shrink says, "the author certainly used questionable professional judgment," it generally means "I personally think this was unethical, but I'm not the ethics review board." Mirafra (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The similarities to the current plight of magaicians is incredible. Both groups use the same language calling it unethical and questinable professional judgement to give away any secrets.  Then you have your magicians guide guidelines ( which would be secondary source analagous to the statements of the APA ) that speak about the code of ethics of the profession.


 * You have people saying that you should just come up with some new plates vs come up with a new trick and not tell anyone. Both groups are attempting to claim copyright were none exists and are threatening lawsuits to attempt to get their way.  Both groups make it sound like their livelyhoods are on the line.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Mirafra, not just shrinks, surely? Probably even stage magicians. But Doc, what about relative importance of unintended priming and deliberate cheating? 20:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you keep insisting on deliberate cheating. Don't you plainly see that, while public opinion (and that of Wikipedians) may place some importance on the issue of people having their test allegedly "ruined" for them by accidentally seeing the inkblots, virtually everybody will boldly state that it's none of Wikipedia's business to decide for other people whether they should deliberately cheat on a test or not (as if we were really talking about about something as bad as someone setting off an H-bomb like some have mentioned, meh)?
 * I might choose some of the psychologists here to be my psychologist, but I haven't found many I'd have as attorneys: they seem to be good at pushing the wrong part of the agenda. Not that I'm sorry about that, quite the contrary, but it's getting to a point where it's surreal. --LjL (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I "keep insisting on deliberate cheating"? (That's another one of those question thingies). I had not even realised that I was pushing a surreal agenda as both your non-psychlogist and non-attorney. Please forgive me. My word, "may", a breakthrough (of sorts). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The English language is silly in not having two separate pronouns for the second person singular and plural. Last time I tried to work around that by using the expression "you people", but it didn't work out too well, so I thought I'd just leave it unspecified this time; however, I did not mean "you" specifically, as in User:Martinevans123, but "you" as in "quite a few of the people who are against publication of the inkblots". In other words, I've seen an argument about deliberate cheating being a more serious issue than (or at least as serious as) accidental viewing a number of times, on this and related talk pages. --LjL (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, now, that is crystal clear. LjL, thank you. And we actually agree. Still clingong on to that "may" earlier on though! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's no mystery... at least, while I'm hardly representative of public opinion, I've said from the beginning (don't make be dig archives, just trust me if you will) that I'd have nothing against making it clear to readers that maybe they should not view the images; using an actual disclaimer banner to achieve that is against WP:No disclaimers, but there's always the "trick" (which is not really even a trick I think) of just plainly stating the truth prominently enough, such as in the lead section ("most psychologists believe viewing the images invalidates the test", or something) - that is already being done, so I don't see a problem here. Let's also not forget that I'm still willing to move the first inkblot further down and use another - and ideally a better - image in its plate: that would fix the issue of one inkblot being visible before the reader has had any chance to check the article contents.
 * So yes, a part of the community (I'd say a minority, but not a very minor one, maybe it's even the majority) may care a bit about inkblots being accidentally viewed; it's just that this concern doesn't trump Wikipedia's principles of being an uncensored encyclopedia with no disclaimers. --LjL (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My faith in the possibility of compromise as part of consensus now being restored. Well, partly, at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I don't see myself (I might have spoken too much for others already in the last posting) compromising on much more than the location of the lead image. A not completely negligible amount of editors on the RfC have stated they would consider also having some of the inkblots removed, but as I think I've said on the RfC talk page, 1) their rationale for that is weak 2) I fail to see how having, say, 5 of the images instead of all 10 would make the situation any better from even your point of view. --LjL (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Deliberate cheating has always been there and Wikipedia changes nothing. If the theories of magic tricks makes their way into general knowlegde as has been stated previously a bit of joy may potentially be lost.  But I think the risks are exceedingly low.  Science has not banished religion.  Even when one understands an optical illusion it does not make the optical illusion go away. Psychology will not be decimated by exposure to the light of day.  The points is that secrets in science are a thing of the past and attempts to inforce them will only bring greater exposure.  As one can easily see Wikipedia's impact was exceedingly minimal before this controversy erupted ( less than 200 page views a day and most probably from ourselves ). Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again: cheat sheets including questions and answers to a test shouldn't be labelled "secrets in science" and leaking questions and answers to tests isn't "bringing science to ligth" or whatever. Let's not make grandiose and dishonest statements. All you are doing is leaking the questions and answers to tests.Faustian (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply Doc. But what I am asking is this: the basis of Koocher and Keith-Spiegel's qualms over "Adolf" (did they mean Arthur?) Snitler's re-publication of the inkblots (the reference to which they do not provide, but it must have been back in the days when permission was required) is that those images might be used by people to "cheat". How do "questinable ethics" in this analysis transfer to the ethical questions surrounding priming? or they two wholly separate cases? Also Doc I think you may be confusing stage illusionists (magicians) with optical illusions - two very different things (and sorry but I'd don't see how either Koocher and Keith-Spiegel or Snitler have anything to do with stage illusionists or optical illusions). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was refering to three differnt things. One that seeing an optical illusion does not make it go away. ie. Seeing a Rorschach in passing is not going to effect the results down the road. Two that magicians are dealing with similar issues as psychology. And three that Wikipedia having this info does not mean it is going to be widely seen unless psychologist continue to protest as loudly as they have been calling for the censorship of this matterial.  No one would come and look at it unless you tell them that they cannot. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth I could care less about the Rorschach test per say. For me it was a passing curiosity in a University psychology class.  What I do care about is 1) the fact that we have a small group attempting to force their POV on the majority of Wikipedians and 2) some have made claims that no one other than those within the feild of psychology should be aloud to comment on issues within the feild of psychology.


 * Attempts to silence scientific discourse is bad form. And I think this is something that the rest of the Western world would agree with. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "rest of the Western world" would agree that tests questions and answers ought to be leaked? Really?  This entire argument is about only one specific type of information: test answers and questions.  Nothing else.  To mislabel your posting of cheat sheets of test questions and answers as "scientific discourse" is as misleading as it is grandiose. Posting these cheat sheets as you are doing is not furthering "scientific discourse".  On the contrary, by rendering a test that is used in scientific studies less useful, which is what you do when you leak its questions and answers on wikiepedia, you are hampering scientific discourse. And btw, I've noticed that you have done this multiple times, but the word is "allowed" not "aloud," Great Scientist.  Faustian (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Faustian this is about principles. There is no real difference between publishing it here on Wikipedia than in a scientific journal.  If the test is harmful as stated by some than making it less useful is a good thing.  The whole point is that psychology does not get to hide in their secret lair and discuss their science in private.  If you think otherwise good luck convincing the rest of the world.  I am sure comments about spelling will add to your arguements. :-)  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, not giving out questions and answers to tests onto a popular website (in essence, mass producing cheat sheets) is not the same thing as "hiding" in a "secret lair" and "discussing science in private." I'm sure you wouldn't vilify those not desiring to leak other kinds of tests online such as medical licensing exams, the SAT, etc. as "hiding in secret lairs." Your argument amounts to using false words to add window dressing to what is actually done: leaking questions and answers to a test used to help vulnerable people, thus causing concrete harm to those people. Your quote "If the test is harmful as stated by some than making it less useful is a good thing" can be interpreted to mean that making the test less useful also plays a role in such actions.  I hope that isn't part of your motivation.  Could you clarify that please?Faustian (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons
Can someone answer my question as to what differentiates the Rorschach test from other categories of psychological testing - in that information on the others is freely available, but, despite the images being available elsewhere on the web 'for anyone wishing to look for them' having the inkblots on Wikipedia, which avowedly requires information to be derived from other accessible sources, immediately spoils their usefulness? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, there is... no difference? This debate has already extended to other psychological tests, where psychologists claim the same things they claim about this one (i.e. that information should be suppressed). This one just happens to be 1) famous 2) very much out of copyright. --LjL (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Rorschach is usually called a "projective test" (although not all psychologists are happy with this description). But, Jack, are you saying that test items from, for example the MMPI, are "freely available" on the web? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

They are - just put in 'inkblot tests' on your favourite browser: two examples are the online inkblot text [theinkblot.com/], and what some people might define as a rant at.

The point is - the discussion is veering towards the 'I said, you said, I did not say' category.

As I make clear above - I distinguish between 'the tests' and 'the methods of analysis' - revealing the latter would be more definitely in the category of 'acting against the ethics and principles of the organisation.'

It is much easier to define different categories of physical illness or weakness than the 'mental or psychological' aspects; it can be convenient to define different categories of 'mental or psychological behaviour' but the boundaries are not distinct and external aspects can affect perceptions of the behaviour and the way in which it is manifested, while definitions and presentations change over time.

And it is Jackie (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Jackie, there isn't really any fundamental difference between what folks are doing here and what they could be (and may well be, I haven't been checking that much) to any of the other secure test pages. It's just that (1) because the Rorschach is so widely studied and has been in the literature for so many years, it's easy to find information on it, and (2) the Rorschach, with its combination of rotten face validity (it doesn't make any obvious sense why what someone says about a bunch of inkblots could possibly tell you anything about their personality) and excellent clinical validity (nevertheless, it does turn out to be, based upon a huge amount of actual research, extremely useful in the hands of a well-trained professional), seems to be the lightning rod for much of people's anxieties about what it is that psychologists do and how. Mirafra (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest that you leave analysis of people's anxieties to your paid time as a professional, and here, instead, just assume that the reason that people are trying to defend the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia is simply for the sake of defending the encyclopedic nature of an encyclopedia?
 * Also considering that while you seem to think for some reason that the Rorschach test is a "lightning rod", I can assure you that, lately, I've sought to find out for quite a few test whether or not the material for that is available in the public domain; for the few I could find it, I added it, but most of them are either not in the public domain or it's very difficult to ascertain their status (probably because everyone keeps "shush" about it). But I assure you that, for example, once I find out for a fact that the material for the Thematic Apperception Test is in the public domain (which it probably is according to my research so far), I won't wait a minute to add it to the article. --LjL (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, silly, don't assume that it's all about you, nor that it was a personal attack. I was speaking more in general terms about the position of the Rorschach in popular culture, at least here in the US.  I don't know much about how it's viewed in Italy. Mirafra (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't assuming that, I was only pointing out two things: that maybe "people's anxieties about what psychologists do" are hardly at the top of "people's" priorities, generally speaking, and that there are some strong but merely practical legal reasons why the Rorschach, more than (though not instead of) other tests, is the subject of this debate. --LjL (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the TAT, why don't you contact the publisher and ask them for permission? Perhaps,  "This test is sold on the understanding that the plates are not to be publicly displayed and may be purchased only by authorized persons," means, "if I can find the pictures on Google, I can do whatever I want."  Mirafra (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And how about Jackiespeel's MMPI? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I've mostly investigated test based on visual materials for now. I do believe the MMPI is copyrighted, though, and while it's true that paraphrased questions could probably be used, I'm not sure that would be very much of encyclopedic value; but, again, it's not something I've really investigated. --LjL (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the MMPI is copyrighted. I already posted this.   "The University of Minnesota Press is the publisher of the MMPI® instruments, representing the Regents of the University of Minnesota which hold copyright on the instruments. As publisher, the Press, working with its consulting board, is responsible for the substantive development of the tests, including any revisions to them. The University exclusively licenses Pearson to produce, market, and sell the MMPI test products and to offer scoring and interpretive services." Mirafra (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Hit again
Been watching with interest, but staying out due to internal conflicts. I wanted to warn the community - Switched.com pulled up the NYTimes story again today (Aug 24th '09) - watch out for renewed edits and lots of newcomers influxing to rehash the debate. Apologies for the unsigned commentary - public-use IP address. 198.204.92.91 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)library lady

http://www.switched.com/2009/08/24/rorschach-wikipedia-entry-angers-some-psychologists/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.76.136 (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It has and is continuing to explode all over news sites.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/31/rorschach-test.html

http://www.livescience.com/culture/090731-badscience-rorschach.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090731/rorschach_090731/20090731?hub=TopStories

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/july/Rorschach-Fail--The-Test-s-Validity-Is-Again-Scrutinized-as-Plates-Appear-on-Wikipedia.html

http://www.leaderpost.com/health/Moose+doctor+involved+Wikipedia+controversy+over+inkblot+tests/1850363/story.html

http://postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=152&num=247958

http://news.health.com/2009/07/29/fighting-alcoholism-with-a-pill-building-a-better-burrito-and-the-tummy-tuck-tax/

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6735610.ece

http://www.techjackal.net/internet/2009/07/31/a-rorschach-cheat-sheet-on-wikipedia/

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/what-do-you-see-here-the-answer-could-say-a-lot-about-you-1765887.html

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/CanadaWorld/2009/08/01/10332366-sun.html

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-rorschach-test-sex-and-marriage-material/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=answers-to-the-rorschach-test-revea-09-08-02

http://trueslant.com/nickobourn/2009/08/01/the-open-source-inkblot/

http://blogs.courant.com/bill_weir/2009/08/do-rorschach-tests-even-work.html

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Inkblot+secrets+spilled/1852115/story.html

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=2f71584b-a9ea-410f-82ea-f98152bb0444

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/article1025849.ece

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/business/24inkblot.html

http://io9.com/5344390/all-of-rorschachs-secrets--revealed

There are most likely a lot more media stories. Some of these may make good citations for the controversy section of the article. Regards.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another: A doctor is under investigation for misconduct after publishing 10 inkblots used by psychologists to get insights about a subject's frame of mind. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/inkblot_wikipedia_post/ Tangurena (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright claims in the article
The article currently states two things:
 * 1) that the inkblots are out of copyright in the US
 * 2) that they are out of copyright in Switzerland
 * 3) that Swiss law has copyright expire after 70 years post mortem auctoris]

Let me clear up immediately that the state of those claims in the article it totally unrelated to our right to display the images. Things like WP:SYNTH don't apply to our research on copyright status of works we display in Wikipedia; otherwise, given it can be quite hard to find direct references about a given work, we'd hardly ever display anything.

That said, I do believe those claims call for valid, direct citations in the article itself.

It's easy to find a citation for point 3 (the one that has already been provided is fine); it's also common knowledge. It's much harder to find sources explicitly stating "the Rorschach test is in the P.D. in the US and Switzerland", however: you will perhaps have noticed that the citations I previously provided regarding the US are strictly articles written after and about the very Wikipedia debate on displaying inkblots (although I choose the sources that most seemed to make the "no copyright" claim independently from Wikipedia; several also displayed the inkblots themselves, further proving they endorse the claim).

You may also notice, on the other hand, that I did not add what could be called the "obvious" citation, namely one fromCornell. Why didn't I? Because it never states that the Rorschach testspecifically is in the public domain, only that works created before 1923 are. Making the connection would be, strictly speaking,WP:SYNTH. Am I being too strict? Maybe. As a matter of fact, this is an extremely basic syllogism. However, what have we got to lose by saying, in the article, something like "The Rorschach test was made in 1921, and according to US law, works created before 1923 are now in the public domain", instead of plainly stating "The Rorschach test is in the public domain"?

The situation with regard to Switzerland is more complicated, though. The official source talks generically about current law; it doesn't say anything about any previous, different laws that may apply to old works (as in the US; and I assure you that, as a matter of fact, the copyright situation is Switzerland is more complicated than just "70 years P.M.A."). Therefore, if we want to make the claim that the Rorschach is in the P.D. in Switzerland, we should directly substantiate it, or, alternatively, find something akin to US's Cornell copyright chart, and make a less direct claim.

I firmly believe the inkblots are in the public domain in both the US and Switzerland, but that doesn't exempt us from the usualcitation requirements for the content of Wikipedia articles. --LjL (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think in the spirit of SYNTH what can take (a) it has been 70 years after the death the creator and (b) Swiss copyrights expire 70 years after the death of the creator and reach (c) the Swiss copyright has expired. I don't see any need to interpretation here, just an objective application of facts that are not in dispute. I don't think we need a source that refers to this test specifically. Chillum  13:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not a routine calculation, that is a syllogism. How do you explain that, while sounding miserably, it fails egregiously when applied to US law? --LjL (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Chillum, 2+2=4 is not original research, and for that matter neither is your syllogism about copyright law: in fact, it'ssynthesis.
 * Why would that potentially be bad? Well, just see above. Making the same syllogism about US law would lead you to believe that, since the copyright term in the US is also 70 years P.M.A., and since it been longer than 70 years since 1930, then a work published in 1930 would now be exempt from copyright. Guess what? That is not the case: if copyright for a work published in 1930 was renewed, then it's valid for 95 years.
 * Now, it's quite likely that none of this applies to Switzerland, but "likely" doesn't equate "sourced". --LjL (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well, I have another idea, just a moment. We could reword it to say "Swiss copyright law also expires 70 years after the creators death." Let the reader make the conclusion, or not make the conclusion. Chillum  13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have another idea too: actually researching Swiss copyright and then neutrally stating the found facts in the article. Thearchived talk page on the Italian Wikipedia should be a good start, since the details and "a+b=c"'s specific to Swiss copyright law were discussed extensively by some editors there. I do suggest you have a quick Google Translate of it, just to get an idea of how the "logical" syllogism fails miserably (even though the end result is that the inkblots are in the public domain anyway, of course).--LjL (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Post-edit-conflict: yeah, that's the same thing I was proposing for the US part. Letting the reader make the easy conclusion is a trick that has served me well numerous times. --LjL (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the public domain status of these images in Switzerland has been established as far as I am concerned, and it seems that you yourself are not denying this fact either, if you want a better citation then I have no objection to that.


 * I would avoid excessive personal research into copyright law and stick to what sources have to say about it. The copyright law itself is a primary source and we should really stick to the interpretations of the primary source by reliable secondary sources. I also don't think we need a source that specifically refers to this particular work. Most information about copyright law in country X is in the form of description of the law itself, not as it applies to a specific subject. Chillum  14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's true, but 1) as you say, too, there's no actual need to explicitly state "X is in the public domain [ref]" in an article: we can let the reader make the conclusion by saying "X satisfied condition C [ref]; condition C puts a work in the public domain [ref]", 2) there's a difference between a source that says "Copyright law says works are protected for 70 years", and one that says "All works, regardless of age [or alternatively "all works before 19xx"] have their copyright expired as of year 19xx": I'd accept the latter as a source, I'd have doubts about the former, and the validity of my doubts is proven by the complicatedness of the actual laws.
 * And yes, I absolutely agree that the Rorschach material is in the public domain; I also agree that's been estabilished more than satisfactorily for the purpose of publishing the images on Wikipedia; I just think it might not for the purpose of stating it in the article.
 * Article content actually does have much stricter requirement of reliable sourcing then a decision of inclusiondoes: note that that was my whole reasoning behind saying that medical sources claiming harm in publishing the inkblots isn't a valid reason not to publish them, because that's a policy/inclusion decision, not actual article content. I'm merely being consistent with myself. --LjL (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Chillum  14:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec*2) The research has been done. The source linked to states without reservation that works are out of copyright 70 years after the author's death in Switzerland. Commons agrees as well. I don't see the cause for contest or concern. You've even conceded that the related statements are correct (see directly above). What problem, exactly, is even being discussed? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that statements on articles shouldn't be properly cited with a direct, non-synthesis reference, merely because we informally agree on their truth on talk pages? I don't think that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And the source linked is hardly as clear about that as Cornell is with regard to the US. My reading of it is that that's what the law currently states, not necessarily that it's valid for all works of all ages. Check this court decision as a matter of fact, showing how, at a point, they were this close to re-granting copyright protection to works that had already gone into the public domain.--LjL (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To claim that a source stating "In Switzerland copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the author" is not direct enough is nothing short of absurd. There is no ambiguity there, and the article makes no questionable inference in using that source. Come now. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk14:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try in small steps. Do you think this statement is overall accurate? "In the US copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the author". I'd say it's accurate; at least, I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find it in areliable source. However, it's not always been true (neither for the US nor for Switzerland), and for the US, counting 70 years from the death of any given author won't necessarily work correctly. Neither will it in Switzerland, for that matter:some copyrights in Switzerland have expired much earlier than 70 years after the death of the author. Don't you plainly see how simply relying on this statement to make a claim on a particular copyright does not in fact work? --LjL(talk) 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The source I gave does state that it applies to works that were 70 years older than the death of the creator in 1993. Things newer than that are less clear it is true, but in this case the age range has been specified by the source and our subject falls into that range. Chillum  14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had missed your source; it is indeed clearer than the one that was added before it. I have reworded the copyright claims according to that source and this discussion. --LjL (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An excellent improvement. Thanks. Chillum  15:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What this talk page is about
Is it about:


 * Whether the inkblots are in copyright or not.
 * The ethics of putting images readily available elsewhere on WP.
 * To what extent increasing knowledge of Rorschach tests from 'those butterfly things used by psycho-whatevers' to 'general background recognition (and wondering what the significance of having a non-noted response is)' affects responses and the ways in which those providing the tests have to modify their analyses.
 * To what extent the methods by which 'analysts of mental processes' (to cover psychologists, psychiatrists and all others of that ilk) operate should be available for discussion whether in overview or in detail.
 * Attitudes towards 'analysts of mental processes.'
 * Attitudes towards APA.
 * Assorted comments relating to the above topics, and responses thereto.
 * Developing the article on Rorschach test.

And - different times, different methods of analysis - see Humorism. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can cut that list down to about 1 item, "Developing the article on Rorschach test". But then, I am a crazy dreamer. Chillum 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

'Being tongue in cheek' (as should be evident). There are mild cases for 'brief discussion on clarifying the copyright issue' and 'how much increased awareness of what is involved will affect the analysis' (what may be called 'the psychological Heisenberg effect').

Ideally it would be possible for listings such as the above to be made and used for improving all relevant associated pages and 'generally informing the public.'

Setting up discussion pages so that 'assorted interested persons' can post comments however tangentally related to the topic and opinions of each other's comments is likely to lead to wheel-warring, wailing and gnashing of teeth, adoption of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells positions and references to Godwin's Law in various guises. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you all simply ignore comments not directly related to developing the article. Don't respond in any way, unless there are serious personal attacks or the bulk of the posts has become disruptive, in which case inform an admin. At some point, anyone posting comments not about article development will hopefully drop the subject when they find they're talking to themselves, or they'll take their concerns to the RfC, which is what it was set up for. SlimVirgin  talk contribs 22:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything new?
It has been a while since I asked this... so is there anything new? I am looking at the archives since the last time I asked for something new and it looks like mostly more re-runs(one exception would be the thread on improving the citations regarding copyright). Are we progressing on this talk page, or are we still going around in circles? Once again I will ask those who want to repeat prior arguments to use another thread. This thread is for examining our progress on this page in regards to building an encyclopedic article. I would love to hear people's opinions on that issue. Chillum 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that several users are doing a fine job of improving the article despite the fact that this talk page has been hijacked by a single issue minority. Even with a talk page where nearly every aspect of article discussion is pulled into the same single issue debate, we have managed to improve the article significantly. I think we need to stop using this talk page to endlessly repeat this single issue, and instead use it more for the improvement of the article as policy says it should be used. Chillum 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you define improvement as "a lot of information, some of obsolete, some not, put together in a semi-accurate way" as improvement than it is improvement. It is more of a simulation of improvement that looks more impressive directly in proportion to how little one actually knows about the subject.Faustian (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you could point out specific issues with accuracy we could address such concerns. You have made such complaints in the past but the lack of detail in your complaints has left us little ability to act upon them. Chillum 14:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Faustian's description. Add in "self-referential in a rather self-aggrandizing way."  And huge undue weight --there's a very strong POV expressed here. Mirafra (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the ongoing debate is to continue, perhaps a new subpage ought be created: /disclosure - for discussions related to the disclosure of test information in general. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to second xeno's idea of a subpage for the disclosure issue. The Rorschach, like a lot of other standardized tests (the U.S. citizenship exam, the SAT, the ASVAB) has a lot of supporters for both disclosing and keeping confidential the answers, and the arguments are nuanced and complex enough to deserve separate essays. Salvagebar

Wikipedia is not a debate club
I understand the proponents of both sides of this debate have strongly held beliefs, but the simple fact is that Wikipedia is not a debate club. I think that the RFC about to expire provides a fairly clear picture of community consensus on this matter. While I think the ongoing debates should probably cease per WP:NOT, if they are to continue, they should occur ata new subpage I have created for this purpose and barring objections, I will be moving any further discussions which do not directly relate to improving the article to the subpage. (I realize that those who feel that certain verifiable information should be excluded would be an improvement of the article, but this begs the question.) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. If consensus ever changes, it can do so on a sub page. It will allow for better development of the article here. Chillum  15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Normalized versions of the inkblots
According to brief previous discussion (that I can't find anymore) on this talk page, I've created manually normalized versions of the same inkblots scans we have, to obtain white backgrounds, as reported by various people in the real test.

It would still be interesting to know how the original images were scanned, and what the non-white backgrounds result from (especially considering the difference between "colored" and "black" inkblot cards). I will try to contact the author.

editsemiprotected

I cannot change the image links myself due to the protection filter in place; I therefore ask an administrator to add a "Normalized_" prefix to all images (except perhaps the one in the lead, if it is deemed more aesthetically attractive to leave the darker background in place).}}

--LjL (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've disabled the edit-semi request for now, this needs some discussion. I note in particular that 9 and 10 aren't entirely normalized in terms of the bleeding blue background. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They hardly can be normalized without actual elements of the image getting completely washed out. --LjL (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the question is: does this bring us closer or further away from an accurate representation of the plates? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We cannot know, without further information from the original uploader; we can however make an educated guess. The currently used cards have a white background (I don't have a source for that, but I've seen them, and a few other people on this talk page have reported the same). The original uploader didn't provide exact information about the source of the scans, or about color calibration of the scanner (which also mean that, if there was none, as is likely, the changes in colors caused by my normalization aren't "corrupting" anything).
 * Finally, I'd like to point out that when someone last brought up the issue in the archived section I cannot find anymore, everyone was apparently busy arguing about other things and I was the only one responding.
 * --LjL (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What source did the "original uploader" use? Surely not some physical cards copyrighted by their publisher?Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh please, don't even try. You can't "re"-copyright something simply because you publish it by making a slavish copy of it. Just check Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for instance, and seethis section about derivative works. It's clear enough that the cards are not the curren H&H ones (which are arguably a slavish copy anyway), but the original versions, and that's more than enough. Fortunately, to make the matter exceedingly clear,our own policy explicitly mentions this situation ("A work that is merely a 'slavish copy', or even a restoration of an original public domain work is not subject to copyright protection"). --LjL (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an old saying in photo restoration, "You cannot get information that is not there". Any sort of white balancing after the fact on a poor scan is going to destroy other information in a rasterized(described per pixel) image. I am not sure which is best for the article, but there is without a doubt corruption occuring. In a perfect world we would take new scans from proper prints. Chillum  18:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If people want to extract exact pixel or color information from these images... well, they'd better not do it in the first place. On the other hand, we have aesthetic issues to consider, too, and I'd say that those prevail when the fidelity to originals cannot be estabilished to begin with. Besides, I realize that there is technically "corruption" occurring... and that is why I didn't just upload new versions of the images onto the same names. --LjL (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, we have also the image on the right, which is clearly from a different source and has backgrounds that, while not white, are uniform in all the images; that hints to the fact that the different backgrounds for black and colored images may easily be an artifact. --LjL (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say your versions are more aesthetic, as for which set are more encyclopedic I am not really sure. Chillum  19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The image is much, much smaller than the originals, though. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The image to the right are not the ones being proposed, it is simply to make a point about the originals. See the first posting in this thread, the proposed images are not apparent(perhaps there should be a link to the proposed version in userspace?). Chillum  19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just check the gallery on Commons. --LjL (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Arriving in response to a request. It's hard to know what to do with low resolution images which are, after all, nothing more than inkblots. Due to the technical nature of the purpose and the keen stress laid upon the viewer's interpretation I'd hesitate to tamper with such images. Most of the material in use on the article page was obviously scanned from older cards: it's deficient in blue, as most older paper is, and has a characteristic fade pattern which anyone who knows how to apply a radial gradient mask could fix. Sometimes the right choice to leave bad enough alone, though. Does this answer the question?  Durova 306 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

oh, fer cryin' out loud. I don't think I'm harming test security to answer this. Yes, the cards are white. Many cards fade with age, hence the yellowish. Mirafra (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The set of cards I have seen (published in 1960s) certainly look cream-coloured and not white. But the article seems dead set on using images of the inkblots instead of images of the cards - this seems bizarre given that test-givers only ever use the cards and test-takers only ever see the cards. Of course, from the professional point of view, priming with the images themselves (at least with the sizes used currently in tis article) seems equally likely to cause harm. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information Mirafra. Chillum  05:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Err? I'd say we're "dead set" on using what's on Commons, or more generically on using whatever's actually available somewhere on the Internet, which is not likely to be a copyright violation (since Hogrefe & Huber claim copyright on their changes; it's probably bogus, but still). You're most welcome to upload better material. --LjL (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Err, what were the changes made by Hogrefe & Huber and do you have a reference to them? Why is their claim bogus? Is the article showing, via Commons, images of inkblots that are never used? Would it be an infringement of copyright to show the real cards being used in a test session? And how does one "prove" that any inkblot image "available somewhere on the Internet" is an accurate representation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, although there is one example here; I don't have a reference handy, although I certainly read it somewhere, and I thought it was common knowledge among this article's editors; it's bogus because the tiny "cleanup" changes they did are very short of any threshold of originality; yes, it is, but they were definitely used for decades, including by Rorschach himself, and they're also exceedingly similar to the ones currently used (besides, I thought it was clear, by now, that, for instance, the background color is not at all accurate...?); IANAL, but no, I really don't think so, and two newspapers seem to have done exactly that; you have no way of direclty "proving" it, just as you have no way of "proving" beyond any reasonable doubt that any image on Wikipedia is what it claims to be. That never stopped anyone.
 * I hope I have been exhaustive. --LjL (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to that Commons image - the discussion linked there is very enlightening. My point about the real cards was more - why do we show images of the blots instead of pictures of the cards? In Rorschach's own lifetime (and well beyond) there were never any electronic images at all, only paper or cardboard imprints on paper or cardboard. I am still surprised there is no Wikipedia verification mechanism for "proof", but then IANAL tooMartinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly not sure what showing complete pictures of the cards would add, though: a barely visible drop shadow due to the cardboard? Anyway, again, you're free to upload them if you have them. You may not have noticed, but if you cruise the web looking for Rorschach images, you'll find they're overwhelmingly the same images we have on Wikipedia (sometimes retouched). There would be many ways to make these images better, although I don't personally believe photographing rather than scanning the cards is one, but the problem is that someone must have the cards and be willing to provide them. --LjL (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I's suggest that complete pictures of cards might better convey the idea of their actual use. But, as you know, I have major concerns about the unwanted effects of primimg. Regarding `the Google Image search argument' - there has always seemed to me to be a problem of circularity - how does one know that the images `all over the interet' have not been copied from Wikipedia? Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reasons to think otherwise, but it doesn't matter anyway, my point is that at the end of the day it's always the same images that go around; that has to mean it's not so easy to obtain fresh scans (not very surprising when the test is only supposed to be sold to psychologists). --LjL (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now provided references to show that the inkblots (including the original ones) are on a white background. --LjL (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can take new pictures of the blots if people want. I have access to a set of ink blots.  Doc James  (talk · contribs ·email) 21:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC) 21:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To me the important things are to have the borders visible (the current images are cut with weird aspect ratios; it would be much better to just cover the entire card instead), to scan using the same exposure and color correction settings for each inkblot (colors should be consistent across the set, and we should know what gamma was used), and to know exactly what version of the set the scans come from. --LjL (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ... and whether there's a copyright statement on the back of the card. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Relevant copyright status must always be indicated when uploading material to Wikimedia Commons. --LjL (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Doc for your offer to upload new copies of these images. Please note that whatever the back of the card says, the relevant copyright status is "public domain". Chillum 23:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Give me a couple weeks. Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email) 02:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just a reminder, if you can, something lossless (like png or tiff) would be great! --Falcorian (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reasons not to alter the images
Replying to Miafra's comment above: the reluctance about altering the originals has less to do with the background color than with the ink blots themselves. See histogram equalization: when images that have been printed on paper get old they don't simply turn yellow (or in most of these examples, more magenta than yellow)--they also lose tonal range: blacks become dark grays, nuances between shades of gray get diminished, and the entire image takes on a haze similar to viewing a real life scene through a dirty window. In addition to that overall effect, when paper ages the edges tend to dry out and darken more than the center of the sheet. So it would be mistaken to suppose one simply whitens the background to restore an original effect. The concern in this situation is that subtle edits which attempt to correct for those factors may influence the appearance enough that the same viewer might place different interpretations upon different versions of the same card: new, faded, and restored cards might conceivably generate three statistically significant different sets of responses. I am unaware whether such effects have ever been studied in a controlled setting (and suspect they probably haven't), yet it seems unwise to introduce a new variable that may affect a test's outcome. The Rorschach Test remains in clinical use and Wikipedia is a reference work. If we were to edit these images based upon the assumption that such outcomes made no difference, then that would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by insinuating a value judgment upon the test itself. Durova 306 03:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sensible comment, Durova. I'd agree with all you say about paper aging. But surely your point about violation of neutrality applies to the display of any version, even the current one? It would be interesting to know at which point, if ever, a test administrator decides that a set of cards are "worn out" through fading and/or colour change. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Blacks become gray, nuances between shades of gray get diminished" - well, that's just the sort of thing that normalization reverses. And if normalizing may change the possible interpretations by people, then so can fading in the first place. At best, normalizing will restore something resembling the correct color balance; at worst, there will be no improvement over something that's already quite completely broken. Keep also in mind that 1) we have other images to compare to 2) these were probably also taken on an uncalibrated scanner, being viewed on an uncalibrated monitor. Your reasoning is invalid, because it assumes that, somehow, magically, the current images are any good to begin with. All chances are that they're far from faithful to the originals, and trying to restore it by making educated guesses cannot make it worse, except from an irrelevant information theory point of view. --LjL (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LjL, I think that Durova is making the point that you cannot reverse time. Normalisation does not reverse this type of damage, the colors don't all fade the same way, instead it create a fiction pleasant to the eye with a whole new set of inaccuracies. Regardless of the quality of the copies we are currently using any attempt to reverse this damage will result in a misleading colors. I agree that restoration of images needs to be done very conservatively to avoid letting our imagination fill in the blanks. In a perfect world we would scan one right off the presses, in reality we just have to make do with the best scan of the best available copies. Chillum 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And I'm making the point that there is no "whole new set of inaccuracies". The colors were completely wrong before, they're completely wrong afterwards (or slightly better, because normalization surely goes in the direction of restoring them). On the other hand, we're at least getting one thing right that wasn't: the background color. --LjL (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the evidence that "the colors were completely wrong before"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The paper has faded. You know, faded. The colors have faded. That's the whole thing we're talking about.--LjL (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment seems subjective. You know subjective. Your argument is subjective. That's the whole issue I'm talking about. In view of my oppositon to using inkblot images, it may be best for me not to continue in this thead, as there is a risk that my comments may be misconstrued as 'disruptive'. But I think this issue may prove to be quite a difficult one.Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, because paper looking brown rather than white is entirely subjective. Takes science-fiction technology to measure properly. Meh. --LjL (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are talking about going from "perhaps wrong" to "wrong for sure". This normalisation you are talking about is only really helpful for aesthetic purposes, it will not lead you to something more accurate. The information simply is not there, and while you can pick a part of it(ie the background) and force it into the color you know it should be this will not correctly alter the other colors. Durova has had much experience in this area and I tend to agree with her opinion in this matter. Chillum  22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Perhaps wrong"? I've provided three sources clearly stating that the background was always white. It's not white in our pictures, therefore it has faded, and the colors are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LjL (talk • contribs) 22:32, 31 August 2009


 * Okay, let me put it another way. If the pictures we have are wrong to the Xth degree, then if you force the background white it is more than X wrong, even if white is the correct color for the background. You cannot make them less wrong as forcing one color to be correct must force the other colors to be incorrect because not all colors fade at the same rate. There is also the issue of rounding errors due to the limited bit depth. Image restoration is littered with such difficulties, proper color balance generally needs to be done from the start. Imposing a color balance later can be done but only through the careful building of a curve based on observation and comparison to a proper copy(and if we had that we could just rescan them). Chillum  00:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I give up. Don't think I don't know about digital imaging because I do, and I'm entirely aware of things like rounding errors, which... are entirely irrelevant here. If there are gaps in the histogram, in this case, Nobody Cares. Nobody shouldcare; if somebody cares, then they are putting some degree of faith into the fidelity of the images that just isn't there (or in the best of cases, we don't know to be there): they're making a mistake. "You cannot make them less wrong as forcing one color to be correct must force the other colors to be incorrect because not all colors fade at the same rate" - rate or not rate, they quite clearly have all faded to an extent (it's not like it's just started fading), so they are already incorrect. But whatever, really, let James find pristine copies and stop this argument that's getting ridiculous. --LjL (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Am not a frequent visitor to this page, so two days late in followup. LjL, the misgiving is not in regard to the background color but in the fade pattern as it affects the ink blots themselves. Over decades, color shifts occur and shading variations diminish with attendant brightness variations occurring from the center to the perimeter. With respect, the matter of whether or not to include these images at all involves issues where I possess no special understanding. My opinion was sought regarding digital editing and in the absence of clinical or research data regarding specific issues it seems inadvisable to introduce substantial alterations on the existing files. Durova 310 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Following up with an example of how image deterioration affects human pattern recogition. Below is an 1891 albumen print of the aftermath of the Wounded Knee Massacre.  The Library of Congress bibligraphic record had identified the scene as camp debris.  During restoration, as more detail became apparent, I identified four human remains in the foreground.  Since that time LoC has updated their record and the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts drew upon the updated record for program notes of a current exhibit.  Interestingly, the museum uses the unrestored version and its program specifies the feature which is most readily identifiable from that version of the image: a shoe.


 * The above is an anecdotal example, yet I suspect it bears relevance here. There is a significant distinction between scattered blankets and human remains partially wrapped in blankets.  For the Rorschach Test, whose purpose is the interpretation of pattern recognition, both image degradation and attempts at restoration might affect viewer perception in significant ways.  Potentially this opens questions which probably fall outside the scope of Wikipedian editorial discussion.  (Has the card stock and/or printing ink changed during the nearly ninety years this test has been in use?  Do sets come with preservation/storage instructions?  Do older, faded sets generate statistically significant different responses from new sets?  How long does a typical set of cards remain in use before it is replaced?)  Not being a clinical researcher, those questions are beyond me.  But perhaps this does a better job of conveying the basis behind the reluctance to edit these cards.  Durova 310 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fact" and "Dubious" tags added by DreamGuy
These tags have been added to a paragraph in the article that I had created.

I don't understand the rationale behind them; I really believe that the statements are well sourced. The most relevant part of the source is the one that says "Many psychologists produce their data promptly when asked to do so by litigating attorneys. Others refuse, claiming that it is unethical to disclose tests or test data to insurers, attorneys or jurors."

It sources both "Psychologists sometimes refuse to disclose tests" and "based on ethical reasons".

I will remove the tags very shortly if there are no objections. --LjL (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I object, obviously. For the first part, we would need sources that it actually happened. The dubious part is impossible to source because we are not psychic. They may claim ethical reasons but that's different from proving that that was the actual reason. Objective wording is key, and claims made by sources on a side of a controversy should not be taken at face value and presented as if they were factual. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is the case then the problem is not with a lack of sourcing, it is simply a matter of adjusting the wording. Chillum  14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The expression "refuse based ..." usually means, as far as I am aware, "refused stating as a rationale that ...". For the first part, we have a source that says it happened. If you want to challenge that, feel free to do so at the appropriate venues! At any rate, as Chillum said, if you have small problems with word nuances, you can feel free to just fix them instead of slapping tags on them. --LjL (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was unclear that the source at the end of the paragraph was being used for the first part as well. Once that was clarified a simple rewording fixes it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not in the habit of adding unsourced material to articles. --LjL (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be running into some confusion because there are multiple related but not identical concepts operating here: "test data," "test protocols," "test responses," "test procedures," "test items," "test security," "confidentiality," "ask," "subpoena," "court order" spring immediately to mind, and I might think of some others if I work hard. Your statement is neither correct nor incorrect, it's mostly just kinda meaningless, because it's conflating so many different things. Unclear whether any of this is relevant to an article on the Rorschach specifically, because it's stuff that carries across all psychological practice. Agreed that the word "claim" in common American usage typically implies "but that's probably not the real reason, there must be something else sneaky going on." Mirafra (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe my statement reflects terms used in the cited source very closely, thus making about as much sense as the source does. It may be appropriate on the general Psychological testing article, but it's surely also appropriate here, as this article, opposed to other ones about tests, has a "Protection of test items and ethics" section. Unless you'd like to remove the section. --LjL (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that you're the expert on everything, so, fine, you don't need to take feedback. No, I'm not going to edit the page -- I've already made that clear.  And you've made it clear that you're very protective of your edits.  I'm being nice and helpful by giving you a clue about what the concepts are that you're confused about, because I don't think it harms test security to do so.  If you want to write something that makes sense to other people and is actually accurate information, you can find out more about what you're talking about instead of just parroting things you don't appear to properly understand.
 * Oh, by the way, you have not correctly cited the current APA ethics code, either. The section number referred to in the article does not exist. That seems like a simple fix, although the actual legal and ethical interpretation of the statement is much more complex than you might think, as I've alluded to above.  Mirafra (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Somehow, what you say above makes it sound like you don't quite understand the fact that Wikipedia is not about original research, but about citing reliable sources without altering their meaning. It's the "finding out more about what I'm talking about instead of parroting things", above everything else, that makes me think that. You aren't saying that I've altered the meaning of my source, you're actually saying that I "parroted" it, seemingly agreeing with my claim that I paraphrased it accurately. If you're challenging the reliability of my source, that's legitimate, but in that case please make it clear that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you're just inciting me to do original research rather than sticking to the sources, which is patently absurd.
 * And yes, I'm protective of my edits when they get multiply tagged in the middle of them with no reason, as they are very properly sourced. --LjL (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one who tagged them, so you don't need to get all huffy at me, nor do you need to bandy words about what I meant when I wrote. Here, in plain language.  Basically, I was under the impression that you wanted your information to be accurate.  Just because someone else wrote something doesn't mean that what they wrote was accurate or complete, nor is it a given that yourunderstanding of what they wrote must be accurate and complete.  If you want to talk about the issues regarding disclosure of information related to testing in legal contexts, you would do well to do more research on the topic, because you have failed to understand a number of crucial terms and distinctions, rendering your paraphrase rather useless for the purpose of informing a reader. Mirafra (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't interpreted what they wrote, I have summarized what they wrote. If you think I inadvertently introduced my own (correct or incorrect) interpretation, feel free to point out how exactly. If, on the other hand, the source was wrong to begin with, then there is a WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to discuss sources that seem reliable but might not be. I do get huffy at you simply because of the fact that I'm sick and tired of seeing my edits criticized without subtantiating the criticism. It's been done enough by Ward. Fix it, or shut up. I'm way fed up. --LjL (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already pointed out how you have incorrectly understood the content. Let me see if I can be a little clearer.   "test data," "test protocols," "test responses," "test procedures," "test items" are all different kinds of information from tests. I forgot to add "technical data" but that's also relevant to your discussion.  Each term has a specific meaning.  A true statement about one of them will not necessarily be true about any of the others.  Similarly, notions of "test security" should not be confused with notions of "client confidentiality" or "doctor-patient privilege" -- in this case, the concepts are completely different (confidentiality and privilege are related to each other but distinct, security is unrelated to either).  Furthermore, the US court system can ask for information in multiple ways -- an attorney can politely request information, an attorney can serve a subpoena, or a judge can issue a court order.  Each of those creates different legal and ethical obligations for a psychologist, with respect to those different concerns about security/confidentiality, about different kinds of information related to tests.  It would also be probably relevant to distinguish between expert witnesses and fact witnesses, also.  I am not going to take the time to write a dissertation on the topic for you -- this is plenty of material to guide your research.  If you are not knowledgeable enough about the topic to research it and write intelligently on it, that does not create an obligation on my part to do it for you. Mirafra (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the above is relevant, because I didn't discuss any of that in the paragraph. Your statement that "I have incorrectly understood the content" is patently contrary to your later claim (down below) that what I wrote is "certainly what the source says". I think I'll go with the latter. Thank you for your input. --LjL (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like what the source says to me Mirafra. We really should not put our any spin on the source, but rather just repeat what they say. If you have a greater understanding of the subject that allows you to summarize it more accurately then by all means please improve it. If you know how to improve it but have decided not to, well... we will just have to go with what we have. Chillum  15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's certainly what the source says (he's copied sentences wholesale). Too bad the source is also conflating the various ideas and is out of date to boot.  As the psychologists have been saying the entire time, it certainly makes it harder to write a good encyclopedia article when you aren't actually knowledgeable enough about the topic to read critically.  Whatever.  This is looking more and more as if it's about something other than writing a neutral encyclopedia article that would inform a reader in some coherent and useful fashion.  Have fun with it. Mirafra (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not copy "sentences wholesale", and since that would more or less amount to a copyright violation, which I don't want to be associated with doing, I strongly suggest that you either retract that statement or bring it to the appropriate venutes. Thank you very much. --LjL (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you get one crucial fact here. Building an article using ones personal interpretation of the subject is original research. It is not the place of an encyclopedia to challenge or excessively interpret sources, it is our job to present what sources say. Chillum  17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But it is the place of an encyclopedia to choose what information to include or not to include (otherwise, you end up in a sort of self-referential paradox), and to present a neutral and well-informed point of view. It's ridiculous to think that a random collection of statements from all possible Intertube articles related to a topic could serve that purpose.  The very nature of encyclopedia articles is to provide a thoughtful and balanced synthesis of the current state of knowledge on a topic.  If the reader wants to know about the various legal issues regarding the disclosure of information related to testing in the court system, then the writer needs to be clear about his terminology and about his statements.  Like I said, whatever.  If you wanted guidance on how to improve the paragraph, I think I gave it to you.  Mirafra (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC result
I have closed the discussion relating to this debate at Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. The result and my accompanying comments can be read there. Further comments and questions on this subject to my talkpage please - I will not be watchlisting this page for replies. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Great summary, well reasoned. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Only just checked back here. I agree with WTWAG, you summarised the events well and you're closure seems more than justified, but I suppose I am biased. I don't envy you for having to make that close though, and my apologies if you feel any of the adverse effects from a minority of editors. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 13:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuremberg Mind (1975)
The inkblots (along with quite detailed discussion of their forms) have been available to the general public since the publication of "Nuremberg Mind" in 1975. The blots were reproduced smaller than normal size, smaller than seen here on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chouxfleur68 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Contrasting Rorschach with other tests
Did somebody somewhere explain how the RT differs from other methods of 'analysis of mental processes' in having to have its means and methods obscured on Wikipedia? (As I have said, there is a certain logic in obscuring certain aspects to prevent the person being tested forcing a particular interpretation: and the interpretation will be based on more than 'reactions to a series of images' - including feedback based on reading the article in Wikipedia or elsewhere). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some three weeks later, and nobody has answered my question: 'somewhat odd given all the fuss previously.' So - 'playing field slightly changed and a few extra comments by the subject on interpretations' rather than 'playing field becoming unusable'? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your question wasn't answered because no expert will touch this article thanks to the efforts of some editors (experts aren't going to be unethical and contribute to an article that harms people). And, as predicted, no significant progress has been made to the article since the experts were all driven away. Nor have any experts eventually stepped in to help improve the article, as was predicted, despite probably evey psychologist in the world being made aware of this article thanks to the fiasco. That's some people's little contribution to wikipedia - insure than an article is poor quality by creating conditions that guarentee that experts won't contribute to it, while at the same time also causing concrete harm to people. Good job! (and now, I'll go back to ignoring this article and its talk page, cause experts aren't welcome here).Faustian (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Faust, if you have chosen not to edit here that is fine, but do not try to discourage others because you did not get your way. Chillum  14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is just as likely the "experts" aren't coming here because they can't produce reliable sources (WP:RS) to back up claims made. After I went on my research binge and pulled dozens of reliable sources (see the Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_11 section) we haven't heard much. As I stated before US v Battle (2001) ruled the Rorschash does NOT have an objective scoring system, State ex rel H.H. (1999) under cross examination Dr. Bogacki stated under oath "many psychologists do not believe much in the validity or effectiveness of the Rorschach test", and Jones v Apfel (1997) ruled Rorschash "results do not meet the requirements of standardization, reliability, or validity of clinical diagnostic tests, and interpretation thus is often controversial"
 * Drenth, Pieter J.D. in the "Growing Anti-intellectualism in Europe: A Menace to Science" part of the ALLEA (All European Academies) Annual Report 2003 stated the Rorschach test is "just as ludicrous" as "Szonditest, Koch’s Baumtest, the Pfister colour pyramid test, Lüsher’s Colour test, frenology [...] incidental trials, one-day flies, or eccentric beliefs outside the mainstream (e.g. Penn colour system, naildiagnostics or the Figure Preference Test)" [...] "Time will not permit me to demonstrate the unscientific basis of these tests and projective techniques, and the reader has to be referred to the critical literature on these instruments (Jackson & Messick, 1967; Drenth & Sijtsma, 1990). But I may bring to the fore graphology as a prototype of the pseudo-scientific diagnostic methodology."
 * Instead of WP:RS that challenged these and similar statements we either got WP:OR nonsense with no WP:RS backing it or nothing at all. In short, the "experts" when faced with the reliable sources could not or would not refute them.  What kind of experts are those?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could explain yourself a little more clearly. What are you trying to achieve? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Broke off into new section as this isn't strongly related to the RFC. -- Cyber  cobra (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

'All the fuss about having the all inkblot tests on display and claims that it will compromise their validity': now that 'it is just another article' again and calm discussion restored - in what manner does having the information available here compromise the interpretations in a manner that eg 'describing the games' in Transactional Analysis does not? JS
 * I'm not sure that discussion is even relevant to the article itself. Surely such a question is one that should be considered, but I don't think this is an appropriate place to do it. Gigs (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Any casually passing by non-expert will get a strong whiff of sour grapes 'We are the experts and we disagree with people trying to understand how the thing works.'

So #how does# this article harm people - given that the background to other means of analysis is available, and that analysis is going to be made on a composite of information on the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This talk page is about discussion relevant to writing the article, not discussion of the impact of this article. Gigs (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussing reactions to the 'images and percentage interpretations' is possibly part of the article.

With most other forms of analysis the basics are available to those interested (Freud 'things you have forgotten about will influence your activities', 'talking may help resolve problems (much as we might think aloud as to where something has been left)' CBT 'like a training course' ('by the end of this course you will be able to...'), transactional analysis 'people interact on different levels: change the pattern of discussion and the interaction will change' etc. The inkblot tests involve a complex processing, and #merely putting the images and percentages on Wikipedia# damages the whole process: the casual non-practitioner is likely to think 'summat very wrong if it is so easily damaged.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)