Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 3

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * Your statements above are inaccurate. I did not revert your edit. Look at the edit history. And I have no power to block you from editig. That is for an administrator to do. Also, there is a difference between a block and a ban. Secondly, you should not make a statement in an article with the intention of later providing a citation. Add the citation when you make the edit. Otherwise it is subject to deletion.
 * A more important point relates to your edit in the article. I have read Meyer et al. (2001), and I think your intentions were not entirely in good faith. I think you intended to give an impression that the total of Exner's work was done in secrecy and not subject to peer review. That is simply not true. I need to read the article again for details, but you may be referring to a single request made of Exner for some of his raw data, which he may not have had available (if that's the case, I'm not defending loss of data, but it's a far cry from "refusing" to share data or bypassing the peer-review process in the huge amount of other research that he published in peer-reviewed journals). So I ask you to give the specifics on this talk page that indicate that he "refused" to share data, and to explain how this goes beyond a single instance of not having the data. Tell us the details about the entirety of his work and how he refused to abide by the peer-review process. Then your statement will be justified. Otherwise, your statement was at best misleading. And remember, a core principle of Wikipedia is that "any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited", so don't add something if you don't expect to be challenged for misleading comments. Ward3001 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The question of the display of the picture and Wikipedia Censorship
Hi.

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


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


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


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


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


 * So because it is a difficult task to draw a line, we just abdicate? The fact that there is a reasonably valid question on self-censorship makes it an important issue and worthwhile to pursue based on rational arguments.
 * I put forward the following basic premise: The mental health establishment supports the Rorshach test. My reasoning is that there are thousands of licenced psychologists that rely on this test to make their diagnosis and decide on treatment options. The fact that there is dissent within the Mental health community is not indicative of lack of support. On the contrary, debate is expected from a scientific community. And the existence of such debate along with the lack of institutional action against the rorschach test, from the mental health community, also supports my premise.
 * I also perceive that the arguments for rorschach image publication were written as if we were in a vacuum. They are out of context. The reality is that this is the wikipedia and as such it has propose. That is why people care to write and read it. Because people share an interest in knowledge. If this article interferes with the administration of the test as it is argued by the psychologists who use it, then based on current scientific knowledge, this article harms people. I think harming people has to be contrary to the propose of the wikipedia, and we should do something about it. There are many guidelines on article writing for the wikipedia, and they emphasize the common good, they discourage profanity, rudeness they also promote welcoming newcomers and assuming good faith. These are some of the guidelines written by the wikipedia administrators and their spirit has made the wikipedia what it is. I believe harming others while not expressly addressed in the guidelines is definitely contrarian to the wikipedia spirit.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we do not abdicate. Hundreds of editors have weighed in on the question, and the clear consensus is that Wikipedia is WP:NOT.  Not for this, or any other article.  We have compromises, for example, there are only drawings and not photographs in List of sex positions, and in this article, there is a link you have to click to actually see the picture after being warned.  That is the result of the active engagement on the issue.  If we bowed further, the far grater numbers of Islamic editors who want pictures of Muhammad removed would demand equal treatment, arguing that salvation of immortal souls is far more important than some psychological test. MilesAgain (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First I want to clarify the problem, I disagree with having even one image. But much worse than that, are the two links on the references section to web pages with ALL the images. And next to the links are comments that say "here are all the images". So according to your post, to follow the already existing consensus, those links should be removed. The replacement of photos with drawings besides being a reasonable compromise, is censorship. The equivalent in this case would be to show an inkblot but not one in the test.


 * I think we are not communicating well enough in this discussion


 * I'll take the first step in making a bigger effort. I'll try to address your argument that talks about Muhammad. The censorship required from Muslims has to do with showing respect for their religious beliefs. After all, any image of Muhammad would be a interpretation of what he could have looked like. Since there are no photographs of Muhammad, and therefore no true image can be made available. My argument is not about a request of respect, or even a religious one. I argue that according to current scientific thought, showing this images harms people. And it does it directly, and by directly I mean that there is no third party involved. Like you could say of a terrorist (3rd party) that may act as a consequence of Muhammad's image been shown. The only thing that Muhammad's example has in common with this case, is censorship. I hope I did not sound too confrontational, but that is why I used the term abdicate. Because Muhammad's image is a clear example where it makes sense not to censor, but it is still one example. I think this is a valid issue in it's own right.
 * OK, I hope my effort comes across as such, I also cordially request that the premise I put forward in my January 9 post be addressed. I just want to know if people agree or disagree, because I am trying to build a case, and that premise is my cornerstone. (I know I sounded like a lawyer ;) )--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * There is the idea that "Either it is censored, or it is not", and I challenge that. Many people have died thinking you were either a man or a woman, but today we know hermafrodites exist. We should look at what censorship means, and how recognizing it is useful for society. The wikipedia article on censorship talks about a group that restricts free speech. Traditionally military throught force, later mass media or corporations throught economic control. Here we are trying to reach a reasonable consensus in good faith. And I am suggesting to use current scientific thought as a guideline. We have to make choices about what we say and what we don't say everyday. Does that mean we censor ourselves? maybe metaphorically speaking we do, but that use of the word is not practical. Never before was there a medium like the wikipedia where anyone could come and discuss in good faith to reach consensus, and have the result reach such a wide audience. I think we should be more thougthful about how we decide what to write in this medium. Maybe we should adjust the use of the word censorship to better serve society, maybe in that context the term "semi-censorship" or "self-censorship" might help us discuss better.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think that the current consensus is being violated by the reference links at the bottom, and that the unintentional suggestion from MilesAgain from the 9th of this month is a great idea. I'm talking about removing the current link at the top of the page and placing an inkblot that resembles the original ones, but when looking at them side by side is clearly different. This will convey the same information to the wikipedia reader, without compromising the test. And if no one has any objection I will make the changes.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I suggested that, intentionally or otherwise. I like the way things have been for the past months, with a modesty click-through and our usual adherence to WP:EL which includes links that contain more content on the subject that the article would contain if it became featured.  If you want to get all ten blots out of public view, it would be more productive to ask Google to remove the results. MilesAgain (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I was only trying to give you credit for bringing it up. I also plan to ask google on the same grounds argued here, and hopefully we can do this here first insead of looking for leadership in google. I appreciate that you like things the way they are. I do not understand why you did not comment on my premise from January 9th. After all we are trying to reach consensus in good faith. And communication is essential. On my part I have done my best to address the concerns of other's, and I will continue do do so. I sincerly encourage you to say if you agree or disagree with my premise, and we will be on our way to maintaining consensus.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

Interpretation of censoring guidelines for image publication that results in harm to others.
This is only an issue if in fact image publication can be considered harmful. Otherwise it's a mute point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone who would Wiki those psychological analyses he plans or expects to undergo has likely already invalidated them. And so I don't see a compelling need to censor the images here. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Important question, that: would reading the article do just as much damage as seeing the image, anyway? Is this similar to cases where magicians have wanted us to remove articles describing the methods by which their tricks are performed, arguing that such content damages the audience's ability to enjoy the tricks (and, by extension, the magician's ability to make a profit)? – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A very important question, and the answer is that only looking the images invalidate the test. I encourage everybody to learn more about the test (without looking at the images of course). There are several psycologists that have contributed to this talk page as well as the article page.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's not our job to protect the accuracy of this test. We don't plaster these images all over the encyoclopedia, ruining the test for hapless bystanders; these images are displayed on the article on these very images, and if someone is already trawlling the internet for info on the Rorscharch inkblot test, I don't think shielding his eyes serves a purpose. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is not about the images or the inkblots; it is about the test itself. Your argument would make better sense if it was a specific article about the inkblots themselves.Faustian (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Someguy1221 please clarify, are you saying that there is no harm done? --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any user who knowingly navigates to this article is inviting that harm unto himself. We don't have to hold his hand. I elaborate further below. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone lookup up the test at the library they would see the same picture. If people are specifically trying to learn about the test then that is their choice and if that invalidates the test then that is the cost of the research they have done. We can't hold back information from people because we think them knowing it will harm them somehow, that is for them to decide. (1 == 2)Until  17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is holding back the information. Rather, by having someone click the image we are not forcing them to see it against their will.  This is a big difference.  If we were holding back information, we would not have it on the page at all.Faustian (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Having the images present in no way forces people to see them. If they don't want to see the Rorscharch inkblots, they shouldn't have navigated to this page. Just as if people don't want to see images of sexual intercourse, they shouldn't navigate to any articles on the subject. And while it would be reasonable to ask that the images only be presented on the relevant pages, it's not our job to hold readers' hands and warn them of everything they might not want to see. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, to make sure it's clear, and you can correct me. You agree that a portion of the article's audience that looks at the images will be harmed. And that this harm is voluntary since each user navigated to the page freely. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would word it that a portion of the article's audience may suffer harm, although it wouldn't matter to me yes or no, so it's actually an irrelevant change. And yes, this harm is voluntary. And we have no obligation to protect from harm those who willingly risk it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was irrelevant, we should still be accurate. When you say may do you mean it's probable? On the other hand the wikipedia has no obligation, but certainly we make choices.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I say "may," I mean that some argue, but I'm not convinced. And I say it's irrelevant because even if I was convinced, it wouldn't change my mind. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research objection
Back at the beginning of october 2007 Faustian suggested this idea for the first time and  DIEGO talk Agreed. At that time user High on a tree said "Such original artwork violates WP:OR." Back then Faustian clarified that the image proposed at the time did not represent original research. And I agree.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone into detail on my other misgivings, below, but I'll concede that images traditionally have more latitude with regard to original research (see No original research). It's not entirely without precedent, although I suspect it'll still be a point of contention in a case where we already have a "true to form" image freely licensed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the same information objection
A psudo-Rorschach inkblot does not convey the same information as a real Rorschach inblot.Geni 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposal does not attempt to do so. It actually tries to remove the harmful information, while retaining the encyclopedic value. Just like in the List of sex positions the offensive or inappropiate "information" was removed. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

By that sort of argument, would any old picture of a car do for the Honda Accord article? As long as it's a similar car, say another Honda, it's pretty much the same thing, right? It seems quite obvious that showing a "clearly different" automobile and describing it as a Honda Accord does not "convey the same value of information" -- how is this case different? Not trying to be snide, just curious as to the response. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but just to a degree. If we really follow my proposal we would be placing an image of a car that would resemble a Honda Accord, but that when put side by side to a real Honda Accord would be clearly different. This is a very difficult thing to do given your example, and not difficult at all for a rorschach inkblot. If somehow we succeeded at the difficult task of creating such an image for a Honda Accord we would in fact be very close to "conveying the same value of information". At this point the harm inflicted by the damage to mental health care around the world is far greater than the imperceptible difference of information presented.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So in conclusion, then, a completely different car is acceptable because...? What, because the uninformed reader won't know the difference, anyway? That's quite an approach to take to academic integrity. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of the "Harmfulness_of_image_publication". This is a big deal, I know of several individuals whose test might be invalid and crucial information for treatment might be compromised. Do you disagree that showing the image is harmful? There is enougth already written on this page for anyone to express an opinion.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No harm is produced objection
''Refactored out of, above.

The crux of my point wasn't "other people have done it, so we should do it, too," but rather that you haven't demonstrated that the image produces actual harm in a situation where the image is already available freely and widely, saturating the public awareness in a way that publishing this image is nothing new. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your main point that "harm" is in question. I do not think that in developed countries the image has reached the awareness that would warrant the adjective "saturated". I think if you walked up to random people on the street many would have never heard of the test or seen the image. And when I think about the entire world population and the millions of kids that turn to a internet usage age every year. I think is clear there is a very significant group of people that have not seen the image before. Given the world-wide success of the wikipedia and the millions of new internet users I think it's not a matter of if it may happen or not, but how often it does happen.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If people look up the test, then they are going to see the test. They would get the same thing if they went to the library and got a book on the subject. (1 == 2)Until  16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A member of your family may get the wrong medicine because of this. Is that in line with the wikipedia community ideals? Are we really going to make a decision based on plausibility? If a teenager really wanted a gun they could get it, so let's put a free gun page on the wikipedia. We make choices.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A member of your family may get the wrong medicine because of this - wikipedia does not give medical advice, your disclaimer is de facto medical advice and I would argue goes against the qualification placed around the general disclaimer and use of additional disclaimers. Would you like to try "will someone think of the children!" next? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If I interfere with a doctor's diagnosis they may end up giving someone the wrong medicine. Do it a million time and doctors will certainly give many people the wrong medicine. How is this medical advice? it's just common sense. I am not trying to be dramatic, I just get the impression that people think this is just bickering, and I want to put this in context. This is not a difference between a 130 or 135 in an IQ test. This is used to figure out if people are psychotic or bipolar ect...--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "If a teenager really wanted a gun they could get it, so let's put a free gun page on the wikipedia." The analogy doesn't hold water -- to keep right on using it, though, we're effectively a gun shop and people should expect to find guns here. Our product being information, people should expect to find information. Dela, your argument is still focusing on "this causes harm," without actually demonstrating that it does so. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was an argument against the wikipedia facilitating harm since it is plausible that harm can happen on it's own. It does depend on arguments that harm is made. The summarized argument you are asking for is in the "Harmfulness of image publication" section. You can also find many angles of it, throughout this talk page.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't we cause harm with this article? shouldn't we consider the harm? it might put ideas in people's heads. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It might. But any article on the subject might too, there is nothing we can do other than avoid the subject completely. In the rorschach case only original inkblots interfere, any other would not. That is why I propose to replace the image, with very small impact to the article content. Plus giving away a test used for clinical diagnosis is much more proactive than writing an article about suicide.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Already in other websites objection
''Refactored out of, above.

If there is a rub, that'll be it. I for one have seen the inkblot in Image:Rorschach1.jpg dozens of times previously, even before ever coming to Wikipedia. I'm of the opinion it's already pretty much saturated on the net and in general culture, and that's it's been plastered all over the place to most anyone who goes looking for the test. Without even getting into the grit of the argument, I suspect the damage is already done before a reader ever navigates to Wikipedia -- the ship has already sailed, so to speak. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia is a different website and we need to make our own decisions. The policy article "What the wikipedia is not" is very explicit on this subject. It includes the section "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" that reinforces the fact that we make a choice of what is included on the wikipedia whether we are aware of it or not.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but we needn't make those decisions in total ignorance of the world around us. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. Clearly we've decided to have an article on the test; clearly the image is relevant to that article. Inclusion of the image is in no way "indiscriminate" in the way the policy section you're linking intends the word: is this image a list of frequently asked questions on the topic? Is it an overly long plot summary regarding a work of fiction? Is it a database of song lyrics? Is it a lengthy list of statistics without context? Is it a blog or news report? Is it any of the things mentioned in the snippet policy you've linked, or even related to any of those things? The crux of my point wasn't "other people have done it, so we should do it, too," but rather that you haven't demonstrated that the image produces actual harm in a situation where the image is already available freely and widely, saturating the public awareness in a way that publishing this image is nothing new. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We cannot prove that anyone coming upon this page has or has not seen the image before. So IMO it's better to assume that they have not and to act accordingly.Faustian (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * why is it better? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When making an assumption isn't it better to assume on the side of caution? Do you think that in every case someone has gone to a page other than wikipedia first?Faustian (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I make no assumptions, it's not wikipedia's place to prejudge where people have been before here - it's not our problem and against current thinking on NPOV to write an article on the basis of where and whom might read the article - that's why the Muhammed article is not censored due to arguments that "it's mainly Muslims reading it and it upsets them" or "People are likely to come here first for their information, so they might be shocked". I don't see any difference here. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to disagree with the proposal at the end of the "Interpretation of censoring guidelines for image publication that results in harm to others" section. But are not objecting based on the content on other websites. I think Faustian response was in case you had that objection--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus objection

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


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


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


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


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

Click [show] (or here) to view the first card in the test (may invalidate the test).
The current warning-headline is:

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

I would suggest to change it with:

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

That info would have been more useful than a template threat. Be nice. I'm not as experienced here as you appear to be. I use Wikipedia a lot for reference, and if I see something I think should be changed, I change it, following the "Be Bold" invitation. If somebody doesn't like my edits, they're free to revert them, and that doesn't bother me in the least. What does bother me is threats which violate policy: The principle "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the policy of not biting and guideline of assuming good faith. If you prosecute and judge people because they are ignorant of our policies and guidelines, you are in fact violating our policies and guidelines! (from: Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers) --208.124.148.174 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

why is there an image hidden in breach of policy on NPOV, discliamer, censorship etc?
Why does this article start with a hidden image? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * Perhaps you should discuss, in the relevent sections on the talk page, why you feel it is censorship, NPOV, disclaimer, etc. before making changes or before repeating old arguments again, since all of these charges by you have been addressed already. Or are you not really interested in discussion?Faustian (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true. I tried to remove even simply the disclaimer (not even the hide box) and I was promptly reverted. Wikipedia has no disclaimers. The policy doesn't need to be cited. It's the entire policy. It is a disclaimer, and Wikipedia "has no disclaimers", therefore, it needs to be removed. Please describe why you feel that it should stay the way it currently is, and which policies back up your opinion. Thanks,  нмŵוτн τ  20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide the link to this policy? Because every wikipedia page, including this talk page, has disclaimers at the bottom (the same row as privacy policy and about wikipedia), and "about wikipedia" states "Wikipedia, in common with many websites, makes its disclaimers highly visible." Faustian (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure! The one I am specifically talking about is No disclaimers in articles. However, Content disclaimer, Wikipedia:Not censored, and Options to not see an image are all relevant. Hope that this helps!  нмŵוτн τ  21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at the top of the disclaimer article it is stated: "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The specific case of the image in question doesn't meet any of the criteria under the heading "why they should not be used."  But, in the section why some people say they should be used, "The user does not know where objectionable or disturbing content may appear, and it may therefore catch them off-guard".


 * Basically, it appears that wikipedia policy does not preclude consensus from being the arbiter in this specific case. Which is what has been done.


 * As has been noted already ad nauseum, censorship does not apply to this case as the images are not deleted, instead the choice is given to the viewer abbout whether or not they want to see the image, given that it may invalidate the test for them. regards,Faustian (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why some people say they should be used, not why they should be used. It says that, in summary, "consensus is that these should not be used" and that "when spotted, such text should be removed."  нмŵוτн τ  21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiding the pictures sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow it on this article we must allow it on all articles.  It is understood why you are doing for respect for the test but in reality you are censuring the picture unless it is clicked on.--Garycompugeek (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.  нмŵוτн τ  21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue isn't about profanity nor Mohammad, and as noted at the top of the disclaimer pagepage, It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Please review Policies and guidelines, "policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature.". This is a guideline, not a policy. The consensus referred to above dealt with profanity.Faustian (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If "it is a generally accepted standard", why wouldn't one go along w/ it? It's simply redundant. "All articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages."  нмŵוτн τ  21:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) That said, it's a guideline which has years of respect (and even what you might call "enforcement"), including at the Foundation level. One major problem with in-line content disclaimers is that we'll then have to start justifying our failure to place them left and right, all over the place where people might find objectionable content -- not just in an editorial "why" sense, but also potentially in a legal sense. Calling this "just a guideline" is a bit like calling Evolution "just a theory" -- it entirely misses the point, as I see it. Is there an explanation for why we're intentionally violating this long-standing and well-respected community norm, beyond "it's just a guideline"? You say there's consensus for that on this particular page; given recent debate, it's clear that's disputed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you had read the discussion, you would have seen that the problem is not that it is objectionable. Seeing the image invalidates the test for those planning to take it.  So the decision to see it or not see it should be an informed one - the disclaimer in this particular case serves that purpose.  This particular situation is not covered by the disclaimers at the bottom of each page (your argument would make better sense if it were) so it is a good case for being one of the exceptions.  Remember, the disclaimer guideline page states "For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages".  And in this case, it clearly does not.  Faustian (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you misunderstood my intended meaning of "objectionable." You're clearly objecting to the image's placement, therefore... (at any rate, there's some newer discussion on the subject of harm above; that claim is disputed) – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any consensus that the images are to be hidden - I see lots of argument about it, so I have removed the disclaimer and remove the hide - because if this page is in dispute, surely we default to (as noted by Luna) the long-standing and well-respected community norm. Otherwise, I think we'll have to get involvement from the wider community. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, someone had reverted me - I'm not going to edit war about this, so I'll ask for suggestions for which community forum is most suitable for the wider discussion? VP? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You edited without the discussion playing itself out. What did you expect?Faustian (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Perhaps a WP:3O is on order? Or should we wait it out after further discussion?  нмŵוτн τ  00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This precedent will not stand. Consensus doesn't appear to favor hidden images.  Policy clearly dictates against it.  Why the revert?  Your admins.  Enforce policy. --Garycompugeek (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins also try to stay out of edit wars, though. Actually, all editors should. =)  нмŵוτн τ  01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate - the disclaimer article states For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages. The disclaimer in question does not duplicate any of those guidelines and thus the disclaimer guideline does not apply in this case.Faustian (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, it does. See one of the 5: Content disclaimer (it claims that "Wikipedia contains spoilers") .  нмŵוτн τ  02:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that point doesn't apply because it's not a spoiler. According to the spoiler article, "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists".  The inkblot is not a narrative work.Faustian (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're correct, that specific point doesn't apply, but the Content disclaimer page still does.  нмŵוτн τ  03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why, since none of the specific examples in that article applies to the image?Faustian (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers."  нмŵוτн τ  04:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The full section reads: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." That's clearly not why the image is hidden.Faustian (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No response to this rebuttal.Faustian (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no good reason to hide the images, we don't hide spoilers. (1 == 2)Until  04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Spoilers have just been discussed and that reason doesn't stand.Faustian (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can add me to the list of people who believe the image should not be hidden. There appears to be a consensus emerging. Unless a lot of editors suddenly decide to support keeping the image hidden, the recent conversation here clearly indicates the picture should be unlocked. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone please point out the specific reason why this image is being unhidden? As per the above discussion, it's clearly not a spoiler and the disclaimer isn't covered by the reasons as stipulated by the disclaimer article guideline.Faustian (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Faustian, we are an illustrated encyclopedia, not a pop-up book. No good reason for hiding it has been presented. (1 == 2)Until  16:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the reasons described earlier throughout the discussion?19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Another objection, raised while editting, was the disclaimer that wikipedia does not give medical advice. An examination of the relevent page, [Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer], states:


 * "Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.


 * The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor.


 * None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site.


 * Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine."


 * It seems clear that this applies to medical advice such as, "to treat a fever, do this..." In the Rorscharch context, this might mean a disclaimer in front of information stating, "the Rorschach is useful for such and such purposes..." In such cases, a disclaimer is indeed unwarranted.  But this is clearly not why the image is hidden, and therefore the case does not apply here.Faustian (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will also add that the discussion in this section deals with the disclaimer - the message - not with the image being hidden or not hidden which is a related but different topic (the image can still be hidden but with a message that isn't a disclaimer, but rather a description). Faustian (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Since one of my (minor) changes got reverted in the middle of this controversy, I thought I'd chime in and give my opinion. Short summary: I am strongly against hiding the image, and I am against a disclaimer (but not as strongly). I agree that we could have exceptions to the principle of not having disclaimers in articles, but this exception should be extremely well motivated, especially in the context of the Muhammad pictures. &mdash; Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)


 * The Muhammad images clearly fall under objectionable content and thus should not be hidden or disclaimed.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either hiding the image or adding a formal disclaimer would be very helpful here. Are there really many people who would be looking for information about this test and would not want to see the image ? Either the person is not planning to take this test (or does not know he will be taking it), and he won't care about looking at the image, or he knows he is going to take it and I bet that he is even more likely to look at it ! &mdash; Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)


 * These are speculations. But I can think of people who are planning to take it, or might take it, and are thus curious about the test but don't want to invalidate it for themselves.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is about these inkblots, it is not very meaningful without the image. &mdash; Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)


 * The article is about the test, not the inkblots themselves. If there was an article specifically about the inkblots, how they were made and chosen for the test, etc. than this argument would make better sense.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also another factor that makes me think that the hiding is useless: I have never taken the test, and I have never searched actively for the images of the cards; however, I could have described pretty accurately at least the first card of the test, because I have seen it countless times in movies, comics, etc. To me, it is public knowledge, and I don't think it makes any sense to hide it. &mdash; Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)


 * Well, that's you. I haven't come across the first card in the popular culture.  Where have you seen it?Faustian (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then your eyes must be closed pretty tight. Try a quick Google search, or even an image search. I've seen some of these images on a pretty regular basis, particularly the first card. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a technical point: Wikipedia pages should be written so that they are as versatile as possible; hiding the image under a "show" button does not help very much if the article gets printed (I just tried — even if you expand the image first, and then click on "printable page", the page is hidden by default). And before anyone asks, there is at least one person who regularly print Wikipedia articles (me, obviously :-) &mdash; Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)


 * This is a good point, but does it outweight the points against? Do we rob people of the choice to se/not see the image for the sake of the ability to print it in an easier way?  BTW, there is (or at least was) a link to the wikipedia image which can then be printed.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

However, I am entirely in favor of adding to the article and to the description of the image a (sourced) note indicating that some people believe that viewing the image beforehand may invalidate the test; this is an encyclopedic piece of information that I think is very interesting; it should not, however, have any influence on our policies and the way we present this topic. Schutz (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This would, essentially, mean to the reader, "Btw, guess what - now you can't take the test because you've seen the image - sorry, bad for you." Doesn't that seem wrong?  respectfullyFaustian (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If one wants to actually take the test without knowing anything about it, he/she shouldn't research it on an illustrated, uncensored encyclopedia.  нмŵוτн τ  20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about knowing or not knowing anything about the test, but about having it invalidated due to seeing the image. Wanting to learn more about a test is not the same thing as making the decision to not take it or have it invalidated.  As a hypothetical thought exercise, what if the wikipedia page about antibiotics included an image of an antibiotic that automatically popped up, magically rendering the viewer incapable of using antibiotics.  Shouldn't there be warning, preserving the right of those who ant to see the image to see it, while not forcing everyone to see it?  There is plenty of info on the page without that image.  What you are doing is setting it up a situation in which the test is invalidated without giving the reader any choice in the matter.  The reader may not know that seeing the image invalidates the test.  After all, no other page on any other psychological test provides info that would invalidate the test for the reader.  Why not allow the reader to make an informed decision?  What is so important that it weighs against this?  Clearly, not policy nor guidelines per the previous discuission.  So then what is the reason?Faustian (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on the inkblot image (to gain consensus)

 * A) Image should be hidden & have a disclaimer
 * 1) It's not a breach of guidelines per the discussion and there are reasons to give the page- viewer a choice about whether or not to view the image. Why deny choice to the viewer?Faustian (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Readers should be given an option to view the image after reading a caution about invalidating the test (not a violation of policy), rather than have the image forced on them as soon as they open the article. There has been a long-standing consensus to this compromise. Ward3001 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And where was this consensus established? because I cannot seem to find it - can you link to the section or talkpage where this occured? --Fredrick day (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a hot debate and multiple edit warring on this page over the last two years or so, with some editors stating that they wanted no image whatsoever (for reasons described extensively) and others that they wanted the image on there period. Between the two extremes, several compromises were attempted (a simulation of an inkblot rather than a real one; a blacked-in inkblot).  Eventually a compromise version was reached and settled on.  This version had the hidden real inkblot with warning, giving the viewer the choice of seeing the image or not rather than forcing every viewer to see the image.  This version was the most stable one on here for a few months.  For whatever reason this has now been destabilized in the last two days, and apparently a flock of newcomers descending upon it will cause the consensus to change (I would still like to wait a couple of days).Faustian (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Newcomers? Newcomers to this article or Wikipedia in general? Also, it's better to have new, unbiased people voice their opinions rather than people with personal feelings on the subject matter.  нмŵוτн τ  23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This seems more akin to hiding the punchline of a joke before someone has read the question than censorship. If I was going to be taking a Rorschach inkblot test in the near future and I decided to check out the Wikipedia article, it would be nice to be warned before I actually saw the images. I certainly wouldn't object to the images being available, but it would be nice to not ruin the test for people. Kaldari (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not trying to be nice or mean but maintians WP:NPOV. People should not go searching for information if they do not want to find it.--Garycompugeek (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But the information they want may not be about the image, but about the test. The title of this article is Rorshach Inkblot Test, not Rorschach Inkblots.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs) 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I would have been bitterly disappointed if I'd glanced at the image before being able to read about it. Hiding it for a moment made it more interesting, and made the article about the inkblot tests make more sense. As Kaldari says, it's more like the punchline of a joke. Those who cry WP:NOT are missing the point – it's not frigging censorship. Censorship is unfairly burying or removing relevant information because somebody else doesn't like it. But here, we have the image box perfectly visible, with a note about what it is. All it takes is one quick click to make it visible. I also think that as a disclaimer, it's a fairly trivial one. I honestly do not think it matters that much whichever way it's done, though my preference is keep it hidden when the article first appears. • Anakin (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So in summary we are talking about wikipedia supporting the act of compromising of a test that most of the field considers to be helpful (thus, we will be harming people for whom the test would be helpful, and the consensus in the field is that it is indeed helpful) for no proven reason - remember, no guidelines support doing so, per the previous discussion - other than, apparently, the caprices of some wikipedia editors.Faustian (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of opinion. It's Wikipedia's rules & guidelines. Also, note that it's the fact that it's a disclaimer is what most people are stressing. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page, so there's no need for one at the top too. It's redundant.  нмŵוτн τ  18:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer page outlining the guideline is crystal clear in stating "For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages, which are: *General disclaimer;Use Wikipedia at your own risk;Wikipedia does not give medical advice;Wikipedia does not give legal opinions;Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable. The type of disclaimer on the inkblot does not duplicate any of those, go to the link and read for yourself.  Briefly, going through the list, the image of the inkblot - the thing being disclaimed, as it were - is not valid/invalid, it is not potentially innacurate, dangerous, or misleading, it is not medical advice, it is not legal advice, and it is not a spoiler.  The image itself is none of these things.  I am more than happy to discuss each of those points in further detail.  There is nothing in the guidelines opposing this particular disclaimer. So, then, what else is the reason not to give the viewer the choice to see the images or not?  It seems, merely the opinion or caprice of enough editors.Faustian (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's crystal clear in stating that. And we've made it clear that it is covered by those. Therefore, no need for it. Let me know if you have any more confusion on this topic, and I can help explain them more clearly to you. Have a good day,  нмŵוτн τ  19:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have certainly made it clear that you feel that it is covered by those. But you have not referred to where, within the rules.  I have referenced the rules themselves to show you that this case isn't covered by any of them.  Merely repeated "they are" isn't an argument, it's just your baseless assertion.  I've provided the wiki-links to each of the possible reasons under which, per the guidline, the inkblot could be covered.  Someone mentioned that it's a spoiler, which when one looks at the actual article, it becomes clear that this isn't the case.  Medical advice?  Is the inkblot medical advice?  Etc. etc. Faustian (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If we decide to collaborate in spoiling a medical diagnosis tool it's our choice. What I see are 3 mayor objections against not showing the original inkblot. And every time one of the is proved wrong or close to it, people just jump to the next one. And then the next one, so there is never an opportunity to reach a conclusion. This is easy to see by looking at this rambling of a talk page. Evidently that is why the majority imposes their view. I challenge the people who want to show the original inkblot to give a definite argument of why to show it. Maybe we could straw poll which is the most important argument and go from there. Otherwise there is no consensus, maybe "democracy", but not consensus.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's probably where the discussion should start, but I feel that you have incorrectly reversed the burden of proof; we are building an encyclopedia, and we want it to be as comprehensive as possible, so by default, we are here to provide information. This test is an encyclopedic topic, and the image is without doubt of interest in relation to this topic (I don't think anyone disputed that); from this starting point, I believe that people who do not want the image are the one who must provide the definitive argument. I have read these arguments, and I think I understand them, but to me, given the evidence presented, they do not carry enough weight to go against this basic principle of providing the information. There will never be an opportunity to reach a conclusion (and I don't see how any objection has been proved wrong, on one side or another); I think all the arguments have been presented, and different people will take them into account in different ways and will make their mind accordingly. Schutz (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct Shutz. The burden of proof rest on this side.  We do not hide images or give disclaimers per policy.  The A side is trying to set the precedent.--Garycompugeek (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is more reasonable, I accept the burden of proof is on the side of who does not want the image shown. The problem comes after, when there in no specific counterargument. Even in your response you say that the arguments do not carry enough weight but you did not specify the criteria you used to arrive to such conclusion. So there is an unsurmountable and undue burden of defending an argument against no specific counterargument. So I will rephrase I challenge the people who want to show the original inkblot to give a definite counterargument of why to show it. Having said that, I am not confortable engaging on another one to one discusion without some "pre-consensus" that what I just explained is a problem in reaching final consensus.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Garycompugeek is wrong about one thing, however - not using disclaimers is a guidline and not a policy. And this case clearly isn't covered by the disclaimer guideline.  The disclaimer page outlining the guideline is crystal clear in stating "For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages, which are: *General disclaimer;Use Wikipedia at your own risk;Wikipedia does not give medical advice;Wikipedia does not give legal opinions;Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable.  The type of disclaimer on the inkblot does not duplicate any of those, go to the link and read for yourself.  Briefly, going through the list, the image of the inkblot - the thing being disclaimed, as it were - is not valid/invalid, it is not potentially innacurate, dangerous, or misleading, it is not medical advice, it is not legal advice, and it is not a spoiler (defined, remember, as "a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists) .  The image itself is none of these things, it's an inkblot.  Therefore, a disclaimer aimed at those other things isn't applicable in this specific case.  Thus this particular reason for denying viewers choice - the disclaimer rule - is invalid according to wikipedia rules.  Faustian (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer argument is a red herring and irreverent. There would be no need for a redundant disclaimer if the image wasn't hidden which is what this poll for consensus is for in the first place.--Garycompugeek (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you are correct in pointing out that here there are two different issues. Whether the disclaimer rules apply  or not (they don't per wikipedia rules, though other editors seem to prefer to ignore the rules or not address them specifically) and the seperate issue of whether or not the image should be hidden.Faustian (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The main purpose of wikipedia is to provide information to the users, nothing more. Hiding the images will not deprive the readers from seeing it if they want to do so. Another point is that the very hiding of the pictures provides some extra information (the fact that seeing it will influence the test).--Be happy!! (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * B) Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer
 * 1) This is in breach of Wikipedia guidelines & policies. Also, for this reason.  нмŵוτн τ  18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which guidelines and policies? We have already gone over the guidelines and policies and we see that they don't cover this example.  There was no response when the guidelines and policies that were previously proposed were addressed. Faustian (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Documents are always in flux. There is no permanence.  This is to show consensus.  We have tried to show and explain numerous violations to policy.  It does not matter at this stage weather or not you agree or understand them.--Garycompugeek (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which policies? All of these attempts have been shown to be mistaken, with no counter-response.  It seems as if rather than following policies or guidelines you are just following your opinion that the images should not be hidden.  Please point out where the rebuttals above were wrong, rather than just that they were.Faustian (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Faustian, that's because no one wants to debate policy w/ you. We know what the policy says, and we know what it means. There's no need to debate that here. If you disagree with the policies, please see those pages to discuss them. This isn't the place. You did not prove that the guidelines don't apply here. You helped stress the fact that they do, actually. I didn't write the policies, and also note that I never let me own POV affect my editing, and neither should you or anyone else (see WP:NPOV). Thanks,  нмŵוτн τ  18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is a guideline, not a policy. So how can you know what it says or means.  I'm not trying insult you, but if you're going to base your argument on a guideline you should know what it means.  Your refusal to actually address the guideline every time I've copied onto this discussion page tells me that you're not really interested in the actual rule but your idea of it - an idea clearly not supported by the actual rule.Faustian (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried to discuss them directly. I brought them up. However, I am simply not going to argue with you. Let's leave this for the community to decide. Everyone here needs to remain civil.  нмŵוτн τ  20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You brought them up, but when I quoted from them you refused to engage in further debate. Another editor, Fredrick day, at least admitted that it's not a spoiler.  But what about the guideline?  I've included all the details in a new section of this talk section at the bottom, please point out how this case applies according to the guideline.  And by the community deciding, I hope you do not mean that if the majority doesn't care about actual guidelines, then that's okay.Faustian (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I concurr with HMWITH.--Garycompugeek (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed. Any reasonable person who purposely views a Wikipedia article (or searches for it on google and then opens random websites) will expect to see images or other representations of the subject. As such, we have no obligation to hold readers' hands and warn them of any content that some people don't want to see. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) The suggestion that an image illustrating the topic causes harm does not seem credible to me, if the person chose to research the test then that is the cause of any harm, not the information source that has the pictures. If a person looks the test up at the library they are likely to see a similar image. It is up to the doctors to decide if the test is effective, not us. We are an illustrated encyclopedia, not a pop-up book. We also must not be giving medical advice, that is a big no-no, so even putting our dislike of disclaimers aside we could still not do it. (1 == 2)Until  20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The suggestion might not seem credible to you but it is the consensus among the people in the field who IMHO know more about such matters than you do.Faustian (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Agreed. The article has a disclaimer that breaches the spirit of our policies on disclaimer and I'd argue also breaches "no medical advice" - we have a general disclaimer for such matters. More broadly, there is NO consensus on this page to hide the images and therefore we fall back on accepted community thinking on such matters - images are not hidden. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which general disclaimer do we have? And the image itself is not medical advice.  Read the section on medical advice in the disclaimer article, please.Faustian (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The general disclaimer is at the bottom of every page. I've read it - by saying "this may invalid the test", we are providing a medical view in breach of the medical disclaimer. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The medical disclaimer refers to medical information being disclaimed. For example, if a wikipedia article about multiple sclerosis describes treatment options, then a disclaimer about that information would be inappropriate because it would be covered by the disclaimer section at the bottom of the page.  A disclaimer in breach of policy would read something like "warning - the following medical information may be innacurate." The inkblot itself is not medical advice.  Please reread the  relevent section.Faustian (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, have you read the rule? Clearly, according to the rule, a disclaimer in breach of the policy would read something like "warning - the following medical information may be innacurate."  The inkblot is not medical advice.  Any comment?  Please, read the description of the rule.A lot of the arguments against the particular disclaimer above are based purely on misreading of the rules or not reading them at all.Faustian (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This image should clearly be openly available as per WP:NOTCENSORED, unless there is consensus to hide it per WP:IGNORE. The consensus emerging is to unhide the image, and I concur strongly with that sentiment. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing is censored, because the information is still there; it simply requires a click. Faustian (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Per my lengthier posts above. No need to repeat myself for the sake of making the page longer. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my post above. Schutz (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) IMO it's ridiculous. Anyone who has enough interest to actually examine the inkblot in detail will do so, and those without the interest probably won't be "tainted" in any meaningful sense by glancing over it. But regardless, we shouldn't be making special exceptions to our standards based on the sensibilities and opinions of tiny minorities like this. Heck, we shouldn't do it even for large populations (such as the Mohammed matter). Bryan Derksen (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed. - oahiyeel talk 10:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Agreed. Don't censor/disclaim to benefit movie studios or medical field or religions.  -MasonicDevice (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * MMHH, where exactly did you read an argument for benefit? All that has been said is harm to the user. At least even when that reason does not make sense, you did give a reason.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misread the comment: "Don't censor/disclaim to benefit... studios... medical field or religions." I can't speak for MasonicDevice, but I assume their view is that we shouldn't obscure an image because a particular organization asked us to -- they'll have to finish the line of thought on their own, if that's the case. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Luna read it correctly. You can add patients to that list, as well, I suppose. -MasonicDevice (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No patients or doctors are asking anything. Myself and other wikipedians are just trying to use what is common knowledge in the medical community to guide the wikipedia. We can do whatever we want once we reach new consensus. Just like doctors would like us to have personal Hygiene.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No way. Can't believe this is even getting this much delay honestly.   Jmlk  1  7  10:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) No. In addition to the various arguments noted above, "the lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits" (quoted from WP:NDA). Moreover, the arguments used to justify the use of this disclaimer could justify the presence of a disclaimer on virtually any medical article. After all, one could argue that an encyclopedia article discussing the symptoms of a disease could be "fuel for the fire" for a hypochondriac. Should those articles have disclaimers? No disclaimers in articles is unambiguous: no disclaimers in articles. No exceptions. Black Falcon (Talk) 14:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in psychology. Policies cited above are quite clear on this. Prolog (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) One is spared my usual verbosity here, as Black and Bryan, inter al., put the case quite well. Joe 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

interesting paper
Roots of the Rorschach controversy Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 25, Issue 1, January 2005, Pages 97-118 Howard N. Garb, James M. Wood, Scott O. Lilienfeld and M. Teresa Nezworski seems to have some interesting and useful material in it, people (who have that sort of access) might want to read and assess it for inclusion. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as an FYI, Lillenfeld and his colleagues' viewpoint is a minority one within the field, comparable to the minority of scientists who claim that global warming isn't caused by humans.Faustian (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to be well-cited in all the right places, not generally the sign of crank science. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So does some of the research suggesting that global warming isn't man-made (please note, I am not comparing Lillenfeld and colleagues to the intelligent design people). But in both cases they are minority viewpoints within the field.Faustian (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems to guilt by association - this isn't my area but I don't find it very impressive that you are doing the politicians trick of linking people (to create a mental association) without providing any actual support. You could be entirely correct but you've provided no support thus far. IMHO. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Faustian is just saying that one article is not sufficient. Just like it is not in the popular global warming debate. In this very chaotic talk page this has been discussed in plenty of detail before. My personal frustration is not that you express your disagreement, on the contrary. But that every single counter-argument to hiding or replacing the original inkblot. Has already been made, and in my "biased" personal opinion refuted somewhat successfully. Yet there is a huge communication failure. It's almost impossible to maintain a coherent argument when 10 people write 3 arguments 10 different times in 30 different places, and don't stick around for a conclusion.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just making the analogy. This article summarizes the consensus within the scientific community :.  The fact that, as the article states, "The Rorschach is currently the second most commonly used test in forensic assessment, after the MMPI, and is the second most widely used test by members of the Society for Personality Assessment" (all of its users being Ph.D.'s or M.D.'s) attests to its high mainstream standing inthe field also.  The Test is also one of the acceptable ones by the U.S. government for Social Security Disability Evaluations:  "Personality measures and projective testing techniques. Results from standardized personality measures, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Revised(MMPI-II), or from projective types of techniques, such as the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), may provide useful data for evaluating several types of mental disorders. Such test results may be useful for disability evaluation when corroborated by other evidence, including results from other psychological tests and information obtained in the course of the clinical evaluation, from treating and other medical sources, other professional health care providers, and nonmedical sources. Any inconsistency between test results and clinical history and observation should be explained in the narrative description."  So the consensus amongst the scientists within the field is that it is acceptable.Faustian (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So in summary we are talking about wikipedia supporting the act of compromising of a test that most of the field considers to be helpful (thus, we will be harming people for whom the test would be helpful, and the consensus in the field is that it is indeed helpful) for no proven reason - remember, no guidelines support doing so, per the previous discussion - other than, apparently, the caprices of some wikipedia editors.Faustian (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you cannot have it both ways - claim "consensus says the images are hidden" and then moan when the consensus (seems to be on current reading) goes against you. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is "moaning?" If the consensus goes against me I'm notr reverting.  The consensus for months among people invovled in the topic had been to hiode it.  Now a bunch of newcomers to the topic have alighted, and changed the consensus.Faustian (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy on the newcomers....see WP:OWNERSHIP.Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guideline Review
There are several given reasons why not to hide the image of the Rorschahc inkblot. One of those is wikipedia guidelines. Let's look at this one issue, and either get it out of the way or not, rather than confuse several issues at once.

It seems many editors are basing their opinion to hide/unhide the images based on erronous or non-reading of wikipedia policies and guidelines, or ideas about those policies or guidelines that don't actually meet the guideline when the guideline is read. Policies and guidelines states that "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow." The issue of disclaimers is a guideline, not a policy. Let's look at the disclaimer page. It states, quite clearly, '''Disclaimers should not be used in articles. All articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages.''' Further in the article, under the heading "what are disclaimers", it is written: For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages:
 * General disclaimer
 * Use Wikipedia at your own risk
 * Wikipedia does not give medical advice
 * Wikipedia does not give legal opinions
 * Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable

In other words, the guideline that no disclaimers should be used applies to cases when that disclaimer is covered by one of those five official disclaimer pages. Anything covered by the above should not be in the article, per the guideline.

Let's look at each of the five categories individually.

General disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.
 * Therefore, a disclaimer stating something like "the following information may not be accurate" does not belong in the article, because such a disclaimer is already covered by the official disclaimer page.

Risk disclaimer states: USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS OR ILLEGAL. Some information on Wikipedia may create an unreasonable risk for those readers who choose to apply or use the information in their own activities or to promote the information for use by third parties...
 * Therefore, a disclaimer stating "do not try this at home" does not belong in the article, because that is already covered by this official disclaimer page.

Medical disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE. Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.

The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor.


 * Therefore, a disclaimer stating "the following medical advice may or may not be accurate, use at your own risk" does not belong in the article because it's already covered by the official disclaimer page.

Legal disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS. Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time — sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made on Wikipedia.
 * Therefore, a disclaimer stating "Warning: the following legal information may not be accurate" does not belong in the article because it's already covered by the official disclaimer page.

Finally, Content disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE.
 * Therefore, disclaimers stating "Warning: the following image may be offensive to younger viewers", "the follwing images may offend religious viewers" or "the following article gives away a movie's plot" do not belong in the articles because it's already covered by the official disclaimer page.

Some people are focussed on the idea of a spoiler. Please remember that for wikipedia purposes, a spoiler is defined as "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists." Remember: For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages.

The question is whether or not one should allow a statement referring to the image of an inkblot, when seeing that inkblot spoils the test for the viewer seeking to take the test at some later time. The specific warning in this case is: "[show]First card in the test (viewing may invalidate the test.)"

Which of the five official disclaimer pages does this particular warning duplicate? If it does not duplicate any of them, then "for the purposes of this guideline" it is not a disclaimer.

Is anyone interested in actually discussing the actual rules here, rather than just saying "I know what they are?" or "I don't want to debate you."Faustian (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ludicous. There is no need to post huge sections of policy here and your last post should be reverted.  If you want to quote do it with a link.  We have already stated MULTIPLE times your ignorance is not a factor.  There is already a straw poll for consensus.  Let the community decide and let it be.  My personal opinion is that you seem too directly involved in this issue and perhaps its clouding your judgment.  I mean no offense and admire your tenacity but for the most part it is you against many and asked kindly that you revert this last post.--Garycompugeek (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, "my ignorance?" Could you please point out specifically what is wrong with the above?  When I used links, noone adddressed the actual rules.  I guess it's inconvenioent to actually have the guidelines described on this talkpage so that everyone can see for themselves.  So I put the rules here, with the official description.  So you or anyone else, please tell me how the warning about the inkblot is a disclaimer, keeping in mind that officially for the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages.


 * I take no offense whatsoever but am asking again to please point out which rule is duplicated. If you claim or others claim that this is a disclaimer as defined by wikipedia, the burden of proof is on you to show which of the information at one of the official disclaimer pages is duplicated and how it is duplicated.  Saying, "because I said so" or "because a lot of people say so" isn't an argument.  Wikipedia has clear guidelines on what is or is not a disclaimer, and that's what I posted.  So far, everyone has refused to do actually llok at the descriptions and address them.  The actual relevent info is right above.  It's dissapointing that rather than actually addressing the actually guideline, the response seems to be a variation of, "because I said so" or "I won't debate this" or merely put in the name of the category without reading about what that category actually means.


 * As for direct involvment in an issue - yes, I've put considerable time into reading all of the guideline and everything about it. I even made everyone else's job easier by posting the info right here so we can discuss it.  It's a shame others don't make that effort, take the time to be that careful, before drawing conclusions.Faustian (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah but this debate is an old debate. See Talk:Muhammad/images.  It makes no difference if the image is Muhammad, an  inkblot, or a penis.  Wikipedia simply does not hide images. WP:NOIMAGE --Garycompugeek (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Muhammad and penis images are covered by the guideline above so those images clearly belong in their respective articles. Options to not see an image doesn't directly address this topic.  A person may know in advance that they don't want to see Muhammad or a penis and can block such things, however without being informed about the consequences of seeing the inkblot they wouldn't know to have their browser block that image.Faustian (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You would disregard any policy unless it specificly says inkblot. I'm through debating this however I have made an effort to explain things to you.--Garycompugeek (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't disregard any policy for saying inkblot. Rather I try to find if the inkblot is covered by any policy.  It is not, at least not on any of the discliamers.  Muhammad and a penis are covered by these specific guidelines on the page:


 * Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to.
 * Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.
 * The inkblot's warning that viewing it may invalidate the test, isn't covered by either of these two points. I'm asking if there is one that would cover the inkblot.  There doesn't seem to be.  If you or anyone insist that the warning can't be placed here because it violates the disclaimer guideline, the burdon of proof is on you to show which point covers the inkblot.  You can't do it.Faustian (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And you are disregarding any policy interpetation that does not fit the Mohamed case. This is a Faulty generalization that uses a particularly controversial and religous subject. And just like I wrote only 30 minutes ago, another person leaves a thread without conclusion. And someone else will say the same thing again in some other part of the page. And so on. I think the britannica guys would be laughing at us if they saw this chaos. Is there is anybody that thinks that images should be shown and sees that this chaos only favors conformism and is contrary to consensus?--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The straw poll is far from resolving the controversy. At this point we have 5 to 10. And 5 who feel they are not being heard. There have been countless one to one exchanges, but none of them conclusive. I do feel we have a real argument that enougth harm is being made to take action. And we have about 3 alleged counterarguments, and as soon as I see headway is being made I get no response or someone else jumps in at a completely different place on this page. This is just complete chaos! And this chaos only favors conformist views, not reason. Is this how we want to resolve controversies in the wikipedia? What has been written above is a perfect example, section contains a long explanation of how the Mohamed case is used to make a false generalization but nobody answered it. And as soon as we would start to make headway in this part of the page others wil come and say the same thing someplace else. That is not consensus, it's chaotic and democratic conformism.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, where's the evidence seeing the image potentially causes significant harm? It keeps getting mentioned, yes, but I notice the answers become evasive or repetitive when I ask for evidence. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "viewing may invalidate test" -- how is this not providing a medical opinion? – [[User:Luna Santin|'''Luna

Santin''' ]] (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review the relevent section. The phrase "Viewing may invalidate the test" can indeed be considered to be medical advice and thus this phrase cannot have a disclaimer in front of it. In front of the advice. It would thus be against guideline for there to be the following disclaimer on this page: "Warning - the following advice about inkblots may not be valid."  Please recall what the medical discliamer page says:


 *  Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.


 * ''The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor.


 * Recall that, on the disclaimer page: "For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages"


 * However the disclaimer that some want to remove, "viewing this inkblot may invalidate the test" is not duplicated by the above. That phrase is not directed at medical advice but is a warning of what might happen if someone sees the inkblot.  Such a warning clearly and obviously isn't included in the aforementioned guideline because it's not directed at medical advice.Faustian (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevant part of your reply was "can indeed be considered to be medical advice." Is Wikipedia in the business of giving medical advice? – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All the time. Just a few examples: treating a fever, chicken pox prognosis and treatment , AIDS transmission and prevention , AIDS treatment, should I go on and on.  None of those articles has a disclaimer, following wikipedia policy. Faustian (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just like "Exposure to radioactive compounds may produce cancer" is not medical opinion. There is some criteria to be applied. But in general statements about particular cases, or that are not shared by a clear majority of medical practitioners, is what I consider to be medical opinion. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided any evidence that a "clear majority" of medical practitioners consider this image potentially harmful. I've asked you or Faustian on numerous occassions to do so, and you haven't. It's becoming telling. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Rorschach is considered a useful test by a majority of practitioners. Prior exposure invalidates the test (I've only been asked for the reference a few days ago, and hopefully someone will get it).  Therefore, a majority of practitioners consider spreading exposure to the test around to be potentially harmful. This is one reason why professional ethics codes require tests to be safeguarded.Faustian (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Who is willing to go to mediation?
It is clear to me that there is a communication failure in the original inkblot controversy. And I think we all know that the Wikipedia is not a democracy. I also think this talk page does needs order and a mediator could help us. I should warn that mediation would not start soon, and it does require that the parties involved agree to participate.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Negative. Unless you have arithmatic problems consensus is clearly to remove hidden image which coincidently also goes along with policy. Images will be unhidden shortly and I Caution you against reversion.--Garycompugeek (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting per Wikipedia policy. You can "caution" all you want. That doesn't make your actions right. Ward3001 (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I could say the exact thing to you. What is your point?  Are upset by my use of the word Caution?  I understand that no poll is binding but mearly to show where editors stand on an issue.  You should try to help solve the issue at hand stop recusing me with useless ridicule. --Garycompugeek (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not ridicule. I assume "caution" as you used it means to "warn". What exactly are you cautioning or warning us about? If you're not cautioning us about something of substance, then why say it? If you caution us that you don't agree, that's fine. That's what this discussion is all about. If you're cautioning us that you'll take some action against us if we revert, then it's just hot air; your opinion is no more important than anyone else's in this discussion. And of course you could say the same thing about me if I made a statement about counting the votes or I made a caution. But I didn't. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If current consensus is to unhide - and it seems that that won't change - we have to unhide, and perhaps take another vote in a few months. As for a disclaimer, it's obviously not prohibited by the guideline.  If the image is unhidden, I recommend it be moved farther down the page, following a description of the test including the importance of not viewing the image for potential test-takers and a statement that the image is at the bottom of the page (so people unwilling to see it, don't have to scroll down).  It's still IMHO imperfect, because people wanting to read the entire article yet unwilling to spoil the test for themselves won't read the entire article, but at least it gives them some choice.  Do you consider this to be a reasonable compromise?Faustian (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is commendable to express your willingness to compromise. I don't believe a vote of 6 to 11 along with the chaotic discussions that have taken place qualifies as consensus. I think that unfortunately not everybody sees how we all win when we are able to communicate and reach consensus. At this point I also think that until we reestablish order and communication any compromises would drive to conformism, and I doubt that anybody would want that.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I used the straw poll per WP:STRAW: "A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus... What a poll can do is give you insight into where people stand on an issue. Polls are typically used in somewhat more complex situations, where it might be hard to otherwise get an overview:

So this should also be considered. This wasn't to create consensus, but it was merely used to measure what type of consensus was forming. Cheers,  нмŵוτн τ  17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Early or in the middle of a discussion, to determine where people stand, and who needs to negotiate with who[m].
 * When we think consensus has already been reached, but we want to make sure we haven't accidentally missed any important opinions."


 * what's meditation needed for? this page is in breach, this page will be fixed. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Breach" is a point of disagreement. If there is mediation, that issue will be included. If you read all of the previous comments, you will find disagreement about the "breach" issue. I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't in breach; I'm simply pointing out the disagreement. Ward3001 (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop the Edit War
While the article is temporarily protected I ask everyone step back and think about this logically. I have no personal vendetta in this just a desire to protect the encyclopedia. If we allow hidden images on this page how can we jusify not hiding them on the Muhammad page. We are condoning medical opinion POV on one hand while ostracizing religious POV on the other. My desire is to not only be fair but abide by policy. --Garycompugeek (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument that "All controversial images should not be hidden or all of them will" presents a false dichotomy. Because each one can be discussed independently. What you propose is a wide inderpretation of the censoring policy that leads to contradictions. As we can see in the text of the policy itself that reads "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content ... and do not violate any of our existing policies". A wide interpretation would mean that relevant information will be CENSORED if it violates existing policies. We also have the policy of "Wikipedia is not censored" and honoring the title of its' article page "What the wikipedia is not", there are several policies that say what should NOT be in the wikipedia. Or using the same wide interpretation what should be CENSORED. So this latter policies would be in direct contradiccion with the censoring policy.
 * A second interpretation that is not contradictory, is that there should not be an expectation of censoring by the wikipedia or any other entity. So if someone was to look for some authority that would censor a particular article they could come to this page and find this policy that reads "The wikipedia is not censored". Furthermore the policy also explains that such censoring cannot be done because of nature of the wikipedia, and mentions how consensus is done by discussion open to anyone interested in a given subject.
 * Also on the same page there is a policy that reads Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy saying that we should "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines" and that "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Ward3001 (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Garycompugeek's interpretation of what constitutes "medical opinion" is too wide. The article on Immunization explains how by exposing an individual to an immunogen in a controlled way, their body will then be able to protect itself from infection later on in life. We consider this to be true, as opposed to mere "medical opinion", because the Medical Establishment has communicated it throught the years. That is the same standard that should be applied for this case.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: As an admin, I will not edit this page, and I will not participate in an edit war. Something so little escalated into something so massive. My one statement is that all editors here should let go of their their personal opinions and feelings, and work neutral, unbiased encyclopedia editors. Thanks every for your cooperation, and let me know if any changes need to be made (that don't involve that image).  нмŵוτн τ  00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You should also understand that unless you change policy editors will continue to come to this page to correct what seems a breach of policy. Consider this. Find another page in Wikipedia with a hidden image to support your cause.--Garycompugeek (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comment. Actually there are 3 positions being discussed. One is to replace the original inkblots with different ones that would look very similar but when placed side by side are clearly different. Under the image could be a note that would describe it accurately, "Non rorschach inkblot". The other one is to hide it, although this is more of a compromise than fruit of ordered discussion and consensus. And the last is to show it. The page of list of sexual positions had a similar problem and was resolved by replacing realistic photographs with drawings. They contain less information but enough to convey the positions. So there is one precedent for at least the first position I mentioned. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Was there really a problem in the list of sexual positions ? Going through the archive of the talk page, I see that the illustration have been there since 2004, but can not see any discussion about this. My understanding is that the illustrations are there because there are no free images of similar quality available; this is pure speculation, but I see no hint that any "problem" was "resolved" by using the illustrations instead of images, or that anyone actually refused to use images. Schutz (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your doubt on whether a discussion actually took place, brings up a very interesting point on censorship. It is possible that the author chose to make drawings instead of finding subjects and photographing them because he considered the drawings just as explanatory and more appropriate. With the wide interpretation of censorship that has been advocated here, he would be censoring himself. I say he exercised his judgment and made a choice. In our rorschach case this discussion is not happening inside a person's head but it is happening inside of the wikipedia community. There is no external entity telling us what to do, nobody is censoring us. We have to use our better judgment to come up with a choice. Here are expressions of gratitude towards User:Rama for creating those drawings.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you are better than me at speculating... I personally have no idea if a conscious choice was made (although I would tend to apply Occam's razor and believe that the illustrations were chosen simply because they are easier to make — they require only a pen and paper (+ some talent, of course), while real pictures would requires real people ready to be photographed, while is much harder to find). Anyway, back to the topic at hand, the analogy does not really work here; there is only one "real" representation of each of the Rorschach cards, and any approximation is just that, an approximation. On the other hand, there is no canonical image of a sex position, and any such image (or drawing) would do the job. Schutz (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you... Most people can't draw well at all, and have taken hundreds of o.k. photos. But the majority of people don't want to participate taking sex position photos, although there are a few that love to. Occam's razor then favors the idea that the images were not included for the same reason that they would be widely considered inappropriate, which is most people feel unconformable with public nudity. I think the canon requirement you mention it's a Red Herring. Real life photos would be considered inappropriate, just like the original inkblots would be if people had the facts and understood them. And clearly we are not getting the real deal on the list of sexual positions and neither would we if we replaced the orginal inkblots. That is the extent of the analogy.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)