Talk:Rorschach test/images/2009-06 Arguments Pro

#01 - The cat's out of the bag
This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro I disagree with the argument that it's okay to publish all 10 photos on Wikipedia simply because all 10 photos are readily available via a simple google search. As my parents used to say, "just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean you should do it, too." Come up with some different arguments, please. I'd prefer it if you parsed your arguments using sub-sections so that we may respond on a point by point basis rather than in chronological order. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument is not "Everyone else is doing it so it is okay for us to do it", the argument is "Since everyone else is doing it then us not showing the image will not prevent the problem it is supposed to prevent". Chillum  04:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You put too fine an edge on it. Both arguments are functionally similar.  I'll offer two points:  First, ethically speaking, just because I can't singlehandedly right a wrong doesn't mean I should participate in perpetuating it.  This ethic applies to many situations:  picking up litter, using less water by installing low-flow showerheads and toilets, reducing our dependence on foreign oil by using public transportation.  (This Thursday is national "Dump the Pump" day in the US, so please participate by biking to your nearest bus route - if only as a one-time experiment.)  Second, I don't see this as "the cat's out of the bag" or "the levy has failed" or "the cause is hopeless."  "Let's give up."  I think it will help prevent a problem if the wikipedia article doesn't include all 10 images.  Many will come to Wikipedia first for their information and upon reading a high-quality article, thus be satisfied with one image.  They will then be able to take the Rorschach test later and offer their first impressions of the images, as they should.  Only moderate to highly determined individuals will continue their inquiry and go looking elsewhere for all 10 Rorschach images.  If only one person is helped by this, receiving the full benefit of a properly administered test, giving only their first impressions (not their second or third), then that will be enough for me.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question What is the opposing parties' view on why not to add the images? I can't find it, and I don't really want to read through all of this text, to be honest :P. Renaissancee (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick overview - it's a very commonly used psychological test typically used to clarify diagnoses (is the person psychotic or not? depressed or not?) and assess risk (is the person a psychopath or not? suicidal or not?).  Prior exposure to this, as in any test, negatively affects the test validity (if someone posted the entire SAT don't you think that readers' scores would be affected?). Experts in the field who have commented here have pretty much universally condemned posting these images here.  Some of us editors would like to balance wikiepdia's goals of being encyclopedic with ethical concerns regarding the images and have presented numerous compromises with respect to doing so (for example, showing just one image in a section devoted to test materials).  This sort of compromise has precedent in other articles, such as in the treatment of Muhammad (he is not depcited on the Islam article at all and on the Muhammad page he is shown not at the top but elsewhere).  A group of about 5 (?) or so editors, who clearly know little about the test, are insisting on showing the entire gallary of images with no deference to compromise.Faustian (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Experts in the field who have commented here have pretty much universally condemned posting these images here.", all Faustian is doing here is labeling anyone who disagrees with him to not be an expert and therefore someone who should be ignored. As he was already told, I was specifically trained on administering the Rorschach and have a strong educational background in counseling, and I agree that the images should be included here. All he's doing is POV pushing and also misrepresenting the nature of the comments here to try to ignore Wikipedia's core principles and the established, informed consensus that has developed. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, wrong, if you go here: you will see that 9 psychologists have been involved on the side of limiting the image.  You are the only self-proclaimed expert who contradicts the others.  However your self-claimed "expertise" is doubtful.  Not because of your opinion on this issue but because of numerous claims that show you know little about it (your expressed surprise that anyone is using it, your claim that the test is not popular within the field, your claim that a background in "counseling" is highly relevant, etc.).  Even if you were an expert, which you are not, that would make 9 against and 1 for - thus my statement that "Experts in the field who have commented here have pretty much universally condemned posting these images here" is accurate if a little hyperbolic.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @Renaissancee - it's an "argument-from-harm-prevention" (i.e. seeing the inkblots could cause harm by impacting future Rorschach test results), you can get a bit of a primer on this at the /2009 consensus review. –xenotalk 13:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely you ask patients if they have had prior exposure to the test(perhaps from another doctor)? If they have already been exposed you can use something else like the Holtzman Inkblot Test which was invented to correct many, if not all, of the controversial issues aroused by the Rorschach Inkblot Test. My understanding is that it has two alternate forms of forty-five inkblots. Chillum  14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Holtzmann isn't nearly as effective and as useful, which is why it's hardly ever used or taught or used in research. It's a poor substitute.  As I mentioned previously, people are aksed about prior exposure and the results are considered accordingly.Faustian (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think opinions differ on that matter. Chillum  19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that's because it's convenient for you to think that. I'd rather base what I have to say on objective evidence.  The consesnus within the field is that the Holtzman is less useful.  This is evidenced by the facts that it is used less often, is taught less often, and is much less a topic for research in the field.  It's largely been rejected as an inferior substitute.Faustian (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good Lord I can't believe how bizarre some of the comments are getting here!! The lunatics are running the asylum (that's a figure of speech, by the way). Chillum, give us just a tiny shred of empirical evidence from a peer reviewed publication that reputable psychologists (excluding those with a vested interest, such as the creator or publishers) think that the Holtzman is as useful as the Rorschach. Otherwise, that appears to be something that you just pulled out of thin air. Ward3001 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd find this sort of like all the graphical adult images here on Wikipedia. They're not hear to harm anybody, but to provide scholastic and meritable education that has been hard to find. As well as for hurting the future tests of people, The article has only had an average of 300 views in the past year, so I don't think it is going to cause disastrous damage. As well in accordance with Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, images here are subject to questionability but still may be posted, and the risk disclaimer states that users must use this at their own risk. If we had some spoiler type gallery or something, that would I think be the best option yet. As well as your experts on this topic, are these editors Wikipedia, or are they certified Psychologists and Psychiatrists? And users who are feeling suicidal or depressed aren't going to go to Wikipedia and randomly look up this test and take it beforehand and then go to a Psychiatrist. If they where smart, they wouldn't be wandering around Wikipedia while depressed or suicidal and looking at Psychology articles. Plus, there was a RfC for this May, right? Seeing as we're still screaming at each other about this, I think we might need to make a MedCab case or a Mediation case. Cheerio, Renaissancee (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to quote Luna Satin from Feb. 2008, "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."


 * Here we are well over a year later and we are still going in circles. In all of that time the issue really is the same as it was back then. In all of that time this fundamental flaw in the argument against the images has not been properly addressed. Chillum  16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillum, it would be a good idea if you read the discussion subsequent to Luna Santin's comments 17 months ago. And I know, you say you've read them, but you conveniently forget to mention the evidence that was provided against Luna's argument (and please don't ask me to find it for you). You also forgot to mention that Luna recently made a similar statement, after which I responded with links to several compelling arguments on this talk page that refuted his claim. Luna's response was to thank me, and state that he would have to think about it. Subsequently Luna never countered what I wrote with contradictory evidence. Chillum, any of us can go back in the archives and pull out tidbits to support virtually any position. That method was attempted very ineffectively by an editor (not you) with a single journal article out of hundreds that have been published. If you're going to pull up ancient history, please be open enough to give readers all of the history and not just a sentence or two (out of volumes) that you alone deem more noteworthy than anything else. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are three flaws in this argument. The first is that it assumes that readers have made their choice to see medical information prior to coming to this article. But what about idly curious readers? By clicking on "What links here," we can see that there are over 350 pages that link to the Rorschach test article, including one from a #1 song called Crazy and another about a fictional character in a major motion picture called The Watchmen and the corresponding graphic novel that Time Magazine has called "one of the 100 best novels ever written." We can't assume that readers know anything about the Rorschach test. Some are simply idly curious.

Second, no one searches the web with unlimited time and energy. To say that the levy has broke and there's no stopping the flow of water assumes that the reader won't stop searching until he/she finds the images. But what about a reader who wishes simply to learn about the test from a general perspective as the medical disclaimer describes, without breaking test security or betraying individual test responses? Shouldn't there be a place for such a reader to go and learn about the test without the need to get into such specifics? We are, after all, an encyclopedia. We're not a how-to-manual or a textbook.

Third, there are new children born every day. There will always be a population of people who has not been exposed to the test materials and who may need the test to function at its full potency, so that they may receive an early diagnosis and treatment of their diseases. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a non-argument, it does not talk about policy or purpose it is simply a cop out to presenting a real argument of why to include or not to include something on the Wikipedia.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

#02 - No evidence of harm
This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro There is no evidence of significant harm from the exposure to these images. One can make up theoretical arguments either way but this can be done for anything ( like for example informing a patient that they have cancer ). It is considered unethically by the way to patronize people and not inform them of their condition even if you have concerns that it may effect their mental well being ( and there is evidence to support the fact that informing people they have cancer does negatively effect their mental well being ).

What if for example a health care practitioner who does not use the Rorschach ( as most do not ) came across this test. Was convinced of it usefulness by reading the article and seeing the images and thus used it to diagnosis people that would have otherwise been missed and subsequently saved their life by providing them with the treatment / counseling they needed. This is at least as likely if not more likely then the scenario of harm. And thus the potential benefit of presenting these pictures is greater than the potential harm. And not showing these images may lead to the death of some depressed youth.

By the way almost 50% of physicians use Wikipedia to look up clinical information. Our default should always be providing information unless there is evidence of significant harm. Not concealling information until it has been proven safe to provide it.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Prior exposure affects the test results, compromising the test's validity. Invalidating a test is harmful, as it robs the test of the ability to do what it is meant to do.  Your second paragraph is grossly innacurate.  Proper administration and interpretation of the Rorschach takes months of training and supervision (usually at least a year), so no "health care pratitioner" would ever pick up the test and use it based on a quick idea or reading about it on wikipedia.  Trying to adminsiter it based on some personal reading is about as dangerous as trying to practice medicine after getting some book on pharmacology and anatomy from the local library.  No offense meant, but making a statement like that shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about the test. 50% of physicians use wikipedia to look up clinical information?  I doubt that's true, but if so that's scary - there's a reason for medical disclaimers on wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just personal curiosity here - based on the proliferation of these images wouldn't it make sense to ask the patient if they've seen the images before? Seems like it would be a good idea to CYA, as it were. And (a more ambitious suggestion), develop some method for interpreting results where prior exposure has occured? –xenotalk 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone asks about prior exposure. If a person has been exposed previously that means that their responses are less valid and we are forced to use "worse" information.  It is still better than no information, but it is compromised.  I suppose if a vaccine was rendered 10% or 20% less effective for some reason it would still be used (what choice would there be?) but that doesn't mean that making it less effective is acceptable just because it will be used anyways.Faustian (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anecdotal evidence: I've taken the test twice.  In  both instances I was asked if I had  previously taken it.  In neither instance was I asked if I had seen the  cards outside of a testing situation. It was only when   said something like "I used to think it was a dove, but then I decided that it was a robin", that the testers thought to ask what other exposure I had had to the  images. (For the record, I used them as posters in my dorm room.)  One of the  major issues  with projective tests (which I notice has an image of an ink blot on it ) is that people can contemplate the  tests content, if they  have been explosed  to them.  That contemplation can either enhance the acuracy,  or enhance the inaccuracy of t he test, depnding upon how co-operative, self-aware, and honest with one's self, the  testee is.jonathon (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And the latter part, has there been any effort to generate better (more valid) interpretation of results based on those who have had prior exposure? I realize this is kindof beyond the scope of what we're doing here, again, just personal curiosity. –xenotalk 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't come across anything addressing the latter concern.Faustian (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref verifying the nearly 50% figure for physicians. [] Also if you could provide a ref again showing that prior exposure invalidates the test.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean that consenus within the field of people who know about the test isn't enough for you? It seems self-evident that being exposed to a test beforehand affects the results.  That's why teachers generally don't want students to have access to tests before taking them, right?Faustian (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't base our information off of our editors personal knowledge, we use independent reliable sources to verify our information. See WP:V and WP:OR for more information. Chillum  15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, I was talking about the APA's call not spread tests around for ethical reasons (the consenus within the field) rather than editors' personal opinions. However the latter do matter also, in the sense that they ought to be taken into account when creating an article (thouigh not with respect to information within that article). Faustian (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, I was misunderstanding your statement. I would like to read the actual wording of this call, do you have a link? Chillum  15:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the link to the ethics code: .Faustian (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much any test can be invalidated if you look up the test ahead of time. If people are going to look up the test before they do it then the outcome should be obvious. Almost all tests require a lack of prior knowledge. Should we hold back our coverage of mathematics and history as well as psychology in order to protect these tests? No we should not, we should let people learn what they came to learn and not deprive them of information for their own good. Chillum  14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I am sure looking at horrible images of murdered and mutilated bodies can also cause harm to a person, yet if we look at the article Holocaust we see many gruesome potentially harmful images. Why? Because we are not censored, if people want a sanitized encyclopedia they can go elsewhere. If they want unadulterated(read not censored) coverage of a subject then they can come here. Chillum  14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to tests being invalidated by learning about them, that's generally not the case. Seeing them is another matter.  YOur comparison to history or mathematics is incorrect - one would hope that a math test or history test did not require a lack of prior knowledge of math or history!  Posting an actual math or history test online however is a different story.  Does wikipedia policy condone leaking tests and placing them online in their entirety?   Holocaust images and Rorschach images are quite different.  Rorschach images impact a psychological test's effectiveness.  Holocaust images simply look disturbing.  There is a difference between being disturbed and having one's treatment for a condition negatively affected.  Moreover not everyone interesting in looking up the test necessarily wants to have their own test invalidated.  As I suggested earlier, an article devoted specifically to the images might have them on it (someone looking up "Rorschach inkblots" should expect to see them); the test itself is another matter.Faustian (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not say anywhere that exposure to the images before hand leads to measurable harm. We live in an evidence based world therefore show me the evidence. We are not here to follow the APA.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As you say, we live in an evidence based world. The APA, the representative body of psychologists (scientists) makes decisions based on evidence.  Ethical matters deal with preventing harm to the public, which is why it is considered unethical to compromise tests.Faustian (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So what is this based on? BTW expert opinion is ranked as the lowest form of evidence.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that prior exposure to tests impacts the result of those tests. Do you propose that it doesn't?   Since what you propose goes against common sense and against expert opinion, it would seem that the burdon of proof is on you to prove otherwise.  As for your opinion about expert opinion, expert opinion is still evidence, whether you feel it is "lowest form" or not.  Nonexpert opinion, such as yours, doesn't trump expert opinion when the two contradict each other.Faustian (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I am an expert. And no the burden of proof lies with those who claim harm.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you are not. You are a physician.  This is a psychology-related article.  A psychiatrist is the only M.D. who might be an expert, but that's not your specialty nor discipline.  An a 3 month rotation through psychiatry while in med school, if you did this, wouldn't qualify you as it would give you practically no exposure to this.  That fact that you claim to be an expert on this topic based on your background is further proof of how little you know about this topic.Faustian (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * James, you've said some time ago that you read one journal article pertaining to the Rorschach (the link to which I posted). Where does the remainder of your expertise on the Rorschach come from? If it's mor than one article, how many? If it's entire books on the Rorschach, name them. You have repeatedly implied expertise in this area, and now you boldly say so that there is no doubt about what you claim. Please tell us the source of your expertise on the Rorschach. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are such an expert Faustian that should not simply take what you say as gospel, but we should also let you tell us who else is an expert or not? This sort of attitude is exactly why we make experts show their work. Where is the evidence? Chillum  23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ido not think you should take my word as gospel. Actually reliable sources will do.  I've already posted the judgment of the field of psychology - the experts when it comes to a psychological tests - about the harmfulness of distributing the test.  This evidence is sufficient.Faustian (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillum, please wait for James' reply to my question about his expertise before passing judgment on Faustian. Ward3001 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is those who claim harm that are to provide the evidence. We are all waiting for this to be provided.  Ward3001 we do not need to get off track.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * James, asking you to back up your repeated claims of expertise on the Rorschach is very much on track. You said, "Actually I am an expert". So please, what is the source for your expertise? Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)No, all of this talk about who is and who is not an expert is way OFF track. It is not relevant because we use evidence not opinion here. It does not matter. You don't get to vet the education of those you are in a dispute with, your arguments should stand on their own. A simple request for evidence is on the table. Chillum  00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again see comments above... The APA ethics guidelines do NOT in any way say that displaying these images are harmful.  So we do not even have expert consensus here.  Is there any evidence of any sort that shows harm?-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Chillum and James, you both are simply evading an important issue. If James claims to be an expert, he needs to explain. If he can't, then we can safely discount any of his comments about the Rorschach as anything more than average person who does no more than read Rorschach test. I contend that he is no more expert on the Rorschach (or any psychological test, or APA ethics) than the least expert person in this discussion. If that's not the case, he needs to tell us why. Ward3001 (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not matter one whit(a whit is a very small amount) who is and who is not an expert here. It makes no difference. What is needed is a reliable independent source. An expert should have no problem supporting their positions with such sources. Chillum  02:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that the editors who get upset when it is implied that they represent / are members of the APA are only able to provide an ethics statement from the APA and their interpretation of it as support for the removal of these images.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been a lot of strange things in this discussion. I find it strange that an editor who makes a false claim that "only ... an ethics statement from APA ... as support for the removal of these images" hasn't understood (or hasn't read, or has ignored, I don't know which) the other arguments that have been put forth about image placement beyond an ethics code. I also find it strange that an editor who makes claims that some editors represent the APA has never provided the basis for making this statement. I also find it strange that an editor who claims to be an expert on the Rorschach and has been asked repeatedly to provide the basis for his expertise responds with silence. I would find it quite strange if an editor who has read all these discussions denies any of the above, or asks someone else to find those discussions for him. Ward3001 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how repeatedly hammering on Ward and Faustian with the unsubstantiated claim that they're representing the APA is supposed to help this discussion. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

#02 - No evidence of harm - arb break
Has anyone done any research on practice effects or test-retest on the Rorschach? Or perhaps for individuals asked to malinger or fake bad. Maybe there are some case studies of people who were "prepped" or admit to "studying" for the test. I would think it would much harder to fake good without being told specific answers to give.

I definitely don't believe it is ethical to reproduce the plates, but that's just mine and many other people's opinion. I do see some merit in the argument it will not do additional harm to release the plates here. The responsibility ultimately falls upon the professional to probe for prior exposure and clear up any misconceptions about the test. It's my understanding that it's expected for many people to at least have heard of the "inkblot" test or have seen reproductions. Brehm77 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It was made to sound previously like there was evidence of harm. No evidence of this harm has been provided.  When we come right down to it all we have is a vague statement from the APA that could be interpreted in many different ways.  We have editors who get upset if they are associated with the APA.  Should they not have evidence other than that from the APA to present?  Not only do we need evidence for this to be science but it does not meet the criteria of WP:V.  Will no longer imply this association, even though I take it as a compliment when people imply I am associated with the CMA / AMA.  In the end what your credentials are in the real world is meaningless on Wikipedia.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be redundant, but it seems that James has not read another of my posts. So here it is again: James, I would appreciate it if you would stop making claims that are contrary to what has previously been presented in these discussion. It is not true that claims of harm are no "more than just some editors interpretation of the APA' ethics guidelines". It is not true that other evidence of harm are "conjectures of harm ... unsupported and just as likely as conjectures of benefit". Evidence of harm beyond APA ethics has been presented at various points in this discussion over the past few weeks. It was even summarized in a response to Luna Santin's claims (similar to yours). If you need to, I ask that you re-read the entirety of the discussions, including the archives. You have selectively picked information from a vast amount of information in these discussions to present a narrow interpretation of the facts, just as you selectively "cherry picked" information from a journal article several weeks ago to try to support your point of view. That is not good editing, and it is even worse science. Again, if you don't remember the details to which I'm referring, please read this page and the archives again. Thank you.
 * And I'll repeat my request now for about the fifth or sixth time: James, please provide the evidence that anyone here either represents APA or is "upset if they are associated with the APA", which you have now repeatedly claimed. Ward3001 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole point is that it does not matter who represents the APA and who does not. It is not an issue here. Chillum  22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Chillum, but that's not the whole point. Unfortunately, James decided to make it a point, several times. James has repeatedly claimed that editors here represent APA and that editors are "upset if they are associated with the APA". He has repeatedly been asked to provide the evidence. And he has had absolutely no response. I'm not the only editor (on either side of this issue) who has made that observation. So yes, it is a point unless James can either retract his claims or provide the evidence. Ward3001 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have provided the evidence prior. The fact that you keep bringing it up is what I based you being upset on.  That is it.  This is off topic.  I agree with Chillum please bring the discussion to mine or your talk pages.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering it has nothing to do with the issue at hand perhaps you can take it to Doc's talk page. There is enough tangential discussion going on here. The point of this thread is to discuss the evidence, or lack there of, behind your claims of harm. Chillum  22:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, James you have not provided any evidence that anyone here represents APA, and I challenge you to provide a link in which you have given such evidence. You could easily end this issue right here and now by simply providing a diff in which you gave evidence that someone represents APA. And this is not more "off topic" than your many edits at various places in this discussion in which you have made the claims that editors here represent APA. And I'll bring it to this talk page because you made the claims on this page. Saying it is off topic and telling me to bring it to another talk page is simply an attempt to evade your inability to back up your claims. Provide the diffs. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to summarize. I can state the following with confidence: With these facts in hand, we can say with confidence that harm can, indeed, occur. The degree of harm is immaterial to our purpose, here, but we have heard testimony that it can include substitution of one procedure or for another. This substitution is against Wikipedia's policy of not "substituting for the advice of a medical professional." See WP:MEDICAL Therefore, we should apply our own ethical policy and remove the images from the article. Or failing that, I can consent to a compromise of providing the opportunity for readers to make an informed medical choice prior to revealing the images. I could argue that it's not possible to make an informed health decision without the benefit of the advice of a health professional, but I don't wish to be so strict. Instead, I wish to be respectful of the opinions of my fellow wikipedians, understanding that my powers of reason do not encompass the totality of truth. I don't have 100 percent confidence in my ability to do what is right. See consensus That's why I'm willing to consent to the wisdom of my peers, with the caveat that an elected administrator may over-ride and modify our work. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There are medical professionals who are, today, using these images in their practice.
 * 2) There is a published code of ethics by the American Psychology Association, (the APA) which clearly provides that experts in the field of psychology believe that test questions and stimuli should be kept secure.  Their reasons, presumably, are for the benefit of patients.  See link  I recognize this as an authoritative source.
 * 3) The Rorschach images are test stimuli used by members of the APA.


 * I think you are misinterpreting WP:MEDICAL, it is telling our readers not to use Wikipedia as a substitute for a medical professional. It is making clear that our content is not such a substitute. It is not an internal policy, it is a disclaimer. Chillum  13:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see nothing in the disclaimer directing it at our readers. I don't think it's too great a stretch to say that it could be directed at both readers and editors, alike.  Either way, the message is the same:  Wikipedia should not substitute for the advice of a medical professional.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for completeness, the British Psychological Society has this in its “Statement on the Conduct of Psychologists providing Expert Psychometric Evidence to Courts and Lawyers” (see ) with regard to “Confidentiality and security of tests”:
 * "Psychologists should be mindful at all times of the confidential nature of test materials. Many tests are invalidated by prior knowledge of the specific content of tests and their objectives. Psychologists who use tests are required to respect the confidentiality of test materials and to avoid release of test materials into the public domain (unless this is explicitly allowed in the nature of the test and by the test publisher). A court, though, can legally request test materials and such disclosure is allowed within the Data Protection Act. Psychologists, however, should take reasonable steps to prevent misuse of test data and materials by others. Misuse includes release of such data and materials to unqualified individuals (although see later with regard to legal release), which may result in harm to the client and/or release of data and materials without an adequate explanation with regard to how they are to be interpreted or used."


 * Or maybe editors feel that statements from British (or any other non-US) professional organisations are not relevant here because the wikipedia website servers are physically located in Florida and thus are subject only to the laws and ethical rules of American bodies? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin, your initial bit was extremely helpful (especially the actual quote with the word harm), but was the final paragraph really necessary? –xenotalk 14:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC) (I just noticed the glaring grammatical omission in the above, no wonder you were confused Martin. It was supposed to say "your initial bit was extremely helpful...". sorry 'bout that =) –xenotalk  03:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, xeno, not sure of your question. Which para? My final para was merely picking up on concerns of an earlier editor. But how would you answer? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mostly the part that seems to accuse editors here of having a US-bias. I'm Canadian, eh? ;> Thank you again for source, and I think we're making real progress in informing readers that they are potentially causing harm to themself or corrupting possible Rorschach tests they may take by looking at this article. As for "how would [I] answer": yes, Wikipedia typically takes legal direction from our legal counsel who in turn looks at the laws of Florida and the United States. As for ethical direction... ethics are subjective, and I don't think it's really going to be productive to discuss them here. –xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sincere apologies if my comment suggested to anyone that I was accusing anyone of anything. I was simply trying to preempt the repetition of an objection I had seen before from another editor earlier in this discussion (whatever nationality they may have been). My fears are now allayed. But, while we are here, what is WP policy on individual editors approaching the most relevant external bodies (such as the Rorschach Institute in this case perhaps?) to gather their view directly? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, and sorry that I misinterpreted. As for contacting the Rorschach Institute directly - we can't reference personal communique's in articles, but if they were to go on record in a reliable source then it would certainly help us build the article and include these claims, yes. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey buddy, you too? I'm Canadian too eh. You won't find any pro US bias from me, I keep my feelings about the US off of Wikipedia. Yes we follow US laws out of requirement. However we have the stated goal of not being biased towards any given nation. Chillum  15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin, while we are an English Wikipedia, that is just our language. We have the goal of using a global point of view and sources from other nations are fine. That source could be added to the lead where it says that doctors should take efforts to protect test material to further support the statement. Chillum  14:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification Chillum. Yes, that's what I had hoped. Thanks to xeno, that ref now added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read here over the last hour or so I see three "parties" that are being argued about potentially being "harmed".
 * 1) General public (readers)
 * 2) Inkblot copyright holder
 * 3) Psychological professionals who use the test.

To address each point:
 * 1. Is a member of the general public directly harmed by viewing the images? No.  Even a user with a mental health issue for which the test may prove beneficial will not be directly harmed by viewing the images.
 * 1.A. Is a member of the general public indirectly harmed by viewing the images? Possibly, because their exposure to the images may remove a potentially useful tool from the hands of a psychologist or psychiatrist attempting to assist them with a later mental health issue.
 * 2. Is the copyright holder of the images harmed by their display? No, because the images are in the public domain and no longer subject to any copyright restrictions.
 * 3. Are psychological professionals harmed by the display of the images? Possibly, because a potentially useful tool may be rendered useless if a subject has already been exposed to the images.

All of that said, the question remains as to whether the possible harm of presenting the images outweighs the value of having the images appear in the encyclopedic and information sharing venue of Wikipedia.

At this point the only "evidence" presented of harm have been statements issued by psychological professional organizations. While these statements can be viewed as having significant weight due to their pedigree and preparation by those professional bodies, one must also recognize that those bodies have a vested monetary and temporal interest in keeping the images from the public. (Nothing sinister is implied in this statement, simply that the investment of time and money to develop new images for the test would be extensive.)

Without further documented empirical evidence I don't see a viable argument to declare that the presentation of the images constitutes harm.

Note that the above conclusion ignores the fact that the images are also available and presented elsewhere in the public sphere, which also lead me to the argument that placing the images in context with documented and vetted information about the test is, in fact, a more responsible way to present the images than the way the may be found elsewhere. --Raukodraug (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Raukodraug, point 1A pretty much trumps your later points. Does Wikipedia's moral responsiblity end at direct harm? Morally, I would imagine the answer is no. In practice, see the David S Rohde argument below, in which the answer is also no. Indirect harm is still harm and should still tend to be avoided. Dark Nexus (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree that indirect harm is still harm and should be avoided, point 1A also notes that the images only present a potential for indirect harm. Doing a little research last night I was unable to find any documented evidence that harm occurs from the presentation of the pictures. And if research has been done on the subject on the loss of efficacy of the Rorschach test due to previous exposure to the images, I also haven't been able to find it, nor have I seen it presented anywhere in the discussions here.  (That said, I no longer have access to all of the research websites from my university days so it's very possible that something buried in a psych journal, if so I would love to peruse the articles, so citations would be appreciated.)
 * In the end, if Wikipedia works on principals of verifiability of research and information, then while harm can be inferred and even anecdotally reported, unless there is documented evidence that the presentation of images causes harm, I don't see any direction the removal argument can be taken. --Raukodraug (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Rorschach has been a controversial tool in psychology since it was introduced. I do not have my sources at this time and will post them later. This type of testing involves the bias of the one grading the test. For example, if a psychologist is told that a patient has a personality disorder, prior to them testing the patient, the psychologist will, because of the "human" factor, use that information while evaluating the responses to the pictures that the patient gives.  Hooray that the Rorschach has been published where millions can see it for what it is. . .the unreliable, unscientific, unproven method of trying to see into personality that reflects the psychologists view and not the patient's. July 29, 2009 @2314 hr.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by P3rSist (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just like the Wikipedia is not the place to discuss whether global warming is true or not. It's not the place to question the validity of the test in any case the question should be if the mental health community thinks the test is valid. We are not supposed to make science breakthroughs here. And that is the direction of this argument--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

#03 - Adds to the page
This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro The image gallery IMO looks good, it provides additional information that is not provided by a single image (the images are not homogeneous) and it is encyclopedic. One should not have to go elsewhere to find information. It should all be here on Wikipedia. I say this images during University but have subsequently forgotten what they looked like. One should be able to refresh their memory here.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have certainly found it informative. Reading the article in no way prepared me for the fact that the images do not look like they have been presented to me in culture. I always pictured them as one shade of black and one shade of white. The images have given me a greater understanding of the subject. While culture in general has held back these images for one reason or another I am glad that Wikipedia is properly informing me on the subject. Chillum  14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I had doubts at first, but the gallery merges really well into the article, illustrating the various inkblots without being intrusive. It's good and it should stay. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(no comments since 17 June 2009 - remove this line when restarting conversation)

#04 - removing the images amounts to censorship
This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro The APA it seems want to keep what they do a secret. Allowing them to carry this out on Wikipedia amounts to allowing them to censor Wikipedia content.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * APA isn't the one seeking to limit the images, wikipedia editors are. And they do so in part not because of APA but because of ethical concerns.  Censorship doesn't apply every time an image isn't placed into an article.Faustian (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The APA has been the only evidence so far presented. We think are looking for proof not the musing of experts. -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to denigrate expert consensus as "musing of experts." Faustian (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Without evidence to back it up that is what it is. This applies no matter what area of science you practice in.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that what experts claim by consensus is mere "musing" or of little value.Faustian (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes what experts claim by consensus without evidence is often of little value. So is there any evidence other than your interpretation of expert opinion? The APA guidelines do not comment about harm.

The APA guidelines say "Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment  techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that  permits adherence to this Ethics Code." As per the ref above.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of declaring that each others opinions are of little value, we could just forgo opinion and stick to evidence. Imagine that. Chillum  23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I get a link to the wording of this APA guideline that is being used to justify the removal of these images? I found nothing directly relevant doing a google search. If what Doc quoted above is the meat of the material being used to justify this image removal then I must say it falls significantly short. We are not psychologists for one thing, we are an encyclopedia. It also does not mention the issue at hand, just test material in general. We are being consistent with law and contractual obligations. This passage does not seem relevant to the issues at hand or to Wikipedia in general. Chillum  23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It does mention the techniques that should NOT be used to maintain the "security of the test". And it does not say that it is harmful to show these images.  -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * :::The Rorschach is test material - it is one of the most common types of tests. The ethics code's purpose is to shield the public from harm by proscribing harmful activity. Compromising test security constitutes harmful activity. It's pretty clear. The consensus within the field of experts is that compromising test security is harmful for the general public. The fact that the Rorschach isn't mentioned specifically doesn't make a difference here. Statutes against theft or murder don't list the specific victims not to be robbed or killed by name either, so what? Faustian (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Were does it say that the purpose of the code is "to shield the public from harm by proscribing harmful activity" and that "compromising test security is harmful for the general public"?-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what ethics codes are for. Don't they require ethics courses in med school?  Here's the code: . "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline."  If something is proscribed in the code, it is to avoid harming someone.Faustian (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the key words in that passage are "encountered by psychologists". This is not a psychological work, this is an encyclopedia. These rules were never meant for anyone but psychologists. Perhaps it is true that you personally should not post these images due to professional ethics however that does not apply to Wikipedia which uses a neutral point of view. Chillum  02:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We are discussing the consensus within the field that display of test material is harmful. The display doesn't cease beng harmful just because a psychologist isn't the one posting the test material.  With all due respect you seem to be graspng fro straws here rather than looking at things objectively.Faustian (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I've agreed with Chillum a couple of times today. You're absolutely right Chillum. This is certainly not a psychological work. It's not an encylcopedia article either, however. And sorry, Chillum, but you made a glaring error when you said that ethics rules "were never meant for anyone but psychologists". They were meant to protect everyone. That's similar to saying that laws are only meant for judges and the police. Ward3001 (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a law you are talking about. I am sure firefighters have a book of ethics too, but they don't apply to everyone either. There are just too many rules books out there, we follow our own policies and the law in Florida(where our physical servers are located). The source you are talking about is a guideline of ethics for psychologists, and it does say the image is harmful. Do you have another source? Chillum  03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be so focusssed on contradicting whatever I say that you are missing the point. To repeat it: we are discussing the consensus within the field of experts which is that display of test materials is harmful to the general public. That's why it's proscribed in the ethics code.  Just because it's in the psychologists' ethics code doesn't mean that a harmful action becomes harmless once someone other than a psychologist does it.  We are not taking into account ethics because it's a rule but bcause it's the right thing to do, right being defined as not harming other people.  The purpose of taking ethics into account is not because wikipedia is under psychologists' ethical restriction (it is not) but because taking into account ethical standards in general is wikipedia policy: " "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."  Why do you have an issue with this?Faustian (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillum, please read the meaning of the word analogy. I made an analogy. I didn't say an ethics code is a law. Your reasoning that an ethics code is only meant for psychologists is similar reasoning to saying that laws are only for judges and the police. APA ethics are meant to protect everyone; they're not just meant for psychologists. Laws are meant for the benefit of everyone; they're not just meant for those who enforce them. Do you understand the analogy? Ward3001 (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that removing the pictures is censorship. I think it's justified because the pictures create a problem for health professionals and wikipedia has a important policy of not "substituting for the advice of a doctor." See WP:MEDICAL However, out of respect for the opinions of others, here, I'm willing to consent to a lesser degree of censorship. (See WP:WHATISCONSENSUS The use of a hide/show button with a spoiler alert will put this health decision in the hands of readers. I can live with that.  Of course, I think an administrator might justly over-rule the whole lot of us for violating an important Wikipolicy and remove the images.  But my role, I think, is to work with the lot of you to arrive at consensus, and trust that the process (which includes the election of administrators) will lead to a right end.   Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What Ward and Faustian have not grasped is that the censorship argument is not fundamentally about whether or not the material is harmful in any way; it is fundamentally about whether or not WP is beholden to any outside entity, including any or all motions to remove content that has the potential to harm. WP, as I understand it, is beholden to the truth, regardless of anyone's (including editors, experts, etc) ideas about whether or not that truth is harmful to the person reading it.  Anyone who seeks out knowledge anywhere like WP has already accepted the risk of that.  Censorship does not have to be on behalf of a concrete entity, like the APA.  Even a values system requiring that 'risky' material be suppressed for the good of the people reading it or even for the good of the article itself (Ward's belief that experts will 'abandon' the page) can still recommend what amounts to 'censorship'.  The truth, no matter how ugly it is or how little people want it known, or even how harmful it could be in the long run, is the goal.  ---Malleovic---(apologies for the unorthodox way of replying, I am afraid I am not well-versed in the WP:TALK system) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.73.209 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I agree that Wikipedia is not beholden to the ethical code of the APA. The APA's code of conduct is not enforceable on us.  However, it does inform us.  The APA also wrote a Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data.  These are all "position statements... by a major health organization" and as such are considered important sources of information according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles).  And second, censorship is a word that is used to mean many things.  Ultimately, it means the removal of information for the purpose of promoting an ideology, much like Stalin did.  But this is not the definition used at Wikipedia.  Here we apply it to mean any restraint on information except for the following exceptions: and then we list those exceptions.  This is a peeling of the onion approach at arriving at a definition.  It starts broadly and then works toward the center.  So with that approach, it stands to reason that we may not have finished peeling the onion.  This is why I proposed a new policy that addresses the unique situation of Rorschach and other articles that have Involuntary health consequences    Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the way I see it though the "no censorship" value is in principle quite absolute, with exceptions being made because unfortunately one must deal with lawsuits and the like (whether or not they're justified). It is not my opinion that harm should be taken into consideration when adding encyclopedic reliably sourced content (when adding content other than that, one really should question why it's being added, and if it's being added to cause harm, that's definitely bad; but that's ultimately another story). --LjL (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A good example is the images that cause epilepsy, following the example of the Rorschach test we should include a video of it so people could see an example. And we should not let the Psychiatrists tell us what to do. These cases show the policy is flawed.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you check the archives, you'll find that has been discussed and that there are indeed articles containing videos that may possibily cause seizures (hardly epylepsy). There used to be a disclaimer in the caption; it has been removed, since a caption of "Video that has caused seizures" is a clear enough hint and we use no disclaimers. --LjL (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is offended by the Rorschach images. Neither can they be described as "profane, or obscene."  The policy of WP:NOTCENSORED speaks only to things that are "offensive, profane, or obscene."  It does not apply to this situation.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

#05 - Reputable organizations have been showing the images, too
This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro The harm argument is remarkably at odds with the fact that even the International Rorschach Society has been showing all ten inkblots (in shaded, not just outlined versions, one even in color) on their web site for more than nine years (January 1998-October 2007) - in smaller form lacking some detail, but it was still perfectly possible to look at them and prepare answers to questions that are asked in the actual testing situation. For example, I could look at them and say that no. 4 looks like a motorbike rider from behind, and no.5 resembles a bat upside down. (This is "the" Rorschach organization, an association of professional psychologists founded in 1952, connected with Verlag Hans Huber. It publishes two journals, "Rorschachiana" and "Bulletin of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods". The images were only removed on October 16, 2007,, shortly after I had mentioned that situation on this talk page on October 2, 2007.)

At least the first blot is also shown in full at Amazon.com.

The Austrian Rorschach Society displays a photo with all ten cards partially visible, in a resolution comparable to the thumbnails in the Wikipedia article, some of them enough to form ample associations.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The first website removed them, which actually suggests that they do consider displaying them online harmful (otherwise, why bother going to the trouble of removing them?). In the second case the cards are not wholly visible.Faustian (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know for certain why they removed them, but the timing strongly suggests that someone involved in this Wikipedia debate notified them, or that they were watching it themselves. So the question is actually the other way around: How did it come that the International Rorschach Society did not realize, for more than nine years, that showing these images on the web is harmful, and had to be educated about it by Wikipedia editors?
 * In the second case, the first card is wholly visible on the right, in a resolution (about 110x170 pixels for the whole blot) which is actually higher than that of the thumbnail in the "The ten inkblots..." section of the current version of our article (where the whole blot takes about 100x65 pixels on my screen).
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be in both cases that they assumed/assume that the general public would not be going onto their obscure website. If your speculation about the first website is correct, that would of course mean that that society does indeed consider the images to be harmful to the general public. regards,Faustian (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But only since 2007?
 * I think it would have been a very naive to assume that members of the general public interested in the Rorschach test would not be able to find http://www.rorschach.com/test.html, so your conjecture about the "obscure website" does not sound very plausible to me.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Rorschach in general is a rather obscure topic, meaning that not a lot of the genral public have been looking for it.Faustian (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But wouldn't that mean that not a lot of the general public are looking for this Wikipedia article, either? Or does this reasoning only apply to rorschach.com, not to wikipedia.org? Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly obscure, it was one of the first sites I saw when I looked into the subject. I have also seen books on the subject with the inkblots on their cover, available in common book stores both new and used. Chillum  04:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Name a book with a Rorschach inkblot on the cover. And not this one; that's not a Rorschach inkblot. Ward3001 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is one Symbolic Analysis Cross Culturally : The Rorschach Test which has the the second inkblot on its cover. I may just get that book, it looks very interesting. Chillum  05:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. The image is significantly altered and 2) the book is a textbook pubished in 1989, a timewhen textbooks were not widely available to the general public (before Amazon.com, textbooks generally were bought in university bookstores or were special ordered).Faustian (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It still looks like two monks praying to me, I got the same impression from the book cover as the real image. Regardless of when it was published, the publishers obviously must have realized that those who read it must have family and friends who would see the book sitting about. Regardless of what motives we assume from them, the fact is they did put the inkblot on the cover, and while the colors are simplified the blot is a smudge per smudge match down to the trailing wisps by the feet. It even looks like they drew hair on the inkblots to suggest a possible interpretation(something I don't recommend we do). Chillum  14:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is so altered that it is not really a Rorschach image, just as an image that is completely blackened is not the same image. What it looks like to one person is completely irrelevant to this discussion; it could look like a thousand different things to a thousand different people. You said "I have seen books" with inkblots on the cover. Name one of the books that has actual Rorschach inkblots on the cover. Ward3001 (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The only thing altered is the color. It matches smudge per smudge, every little protruding line or light or dark spot is preserved. It is not completely blackened out at all, there are plenty of tones in the image. Did you look at the larger version(there is a link by the image to see a larger version)? Chillum  15:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Color is a major aspect of what makes an inkblot a Rorschach inkblot. In fact, the publisher goes to extreme lengths to ensure that the colors (including gray and white) match the original inkblot precisely. You can't simply make a copy on a color copier and get the same results. And if you've seen the full size inkblot on the cards as it is given to a test taker, you can see differences beyond color. And I didn't say it was blackened. Again, you said you had seen books (plural) with inkblots on the cover. Name one. Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, La prueba del Rorschach By Anne Bar Din is one that shows the eighth inkblot on its cover both prominently and unaltered. Chillum  17:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There certainly doesn't appear to be any attempt at alteration on this one, although the quality of the image is quite poor. And unfortunately, a book from 23 years ago is more likely to have a Rorschach image. Ward3001 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Handbook of Rorschach scales By Paul M. Lerner shows the sixth inkblot. Chillum  17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually on this one there is significant alteration. Ward3001 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it has been altered. It is still the sixth inkblot, the shape is not altered. I suspect it may have had more to do with the cost of printing(2 color is much cheaper than color or even shades of grey) than any ethical concerns(they could have simply used a fake one), though this is just speculation on my part. Chillum  18:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the confusion here about whether an inkblot on a book cover is an actual Rorschach inkblot illustrates a good point. To the thinking of some, there is very little distinction between the impact on test validity of viewing a random or altered inkblot compared to viewing an actual Rorschach inkblot. Some people tend to think an inkblot is just an inkblot, without realizing the extraordinary effort that has gone into standardizing and researching 10 specific inkblots, or the loss (not for psychologists, but for anyone who might benefit from the test) when that effort is destroyed by websites that expose a Rorschach image. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A little help please. I've been looking at the links to the International Rorschach Society and I couldn't find where the inkblots were shown. Could someone give a direct link to the archived page where they were shown there? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't anymore - see http://web.archive.org/web/20070929085405/http://www.rorschach.com/test.html for an archived copy. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Were they the ones in the advertisement on that page, "Rorschach® Recording blanks"? If so, I apparently misunderstood what all the commotion was about. I was expecting to see something like what is in the wiki at present.  Also, if someone didn't know what the actual inkblots looked like, they probably wouldn't know that the "blanks" were them. They're pretty obscure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't think that the examples mentioned in this section would have much effect on a potential test taker. They're not close enough to the actual inkblots and would probably be forgotten anyway or not connected with the actual inkblot when the actual test was taken later. But that doesn't mean there aren't sources on the web for pictures that would have an effect, like the source for the pictures that are presently in the wiki.


 * We should realize that the perceptions of the editors who have been scrutinizing this subject will be different from the perceptions of someone who is unfamiliar with the topic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we can see that the Science and Society Public Library will gladly sell you decorative prints of the inkblots. Chillum  15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting that the image in that ad is upside down with respect to the image of the corresponding inkblot in the wiki, and makes the inkblot appear quite differently, possibly to minimize the effect of viewing it by someone who might take the test. One thing I just realized, since the history of this wiki will always have the inkblots, the Wikipedia will always be another source, albeit somewhat obscure, for the inkblots even if they were excluded from the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that the "Science and Society Public Library" thinks the images are harmful, but believe that turning them upside down prevents this harm? An interesting theory but not one I personally accept. If there was some sort of independent reliable source that indicated this then I would give it credence, but otherwise it is just speculation. What we do know is that they present the images on their site and offer prints for "decorative"(not medical) purposes. I am sure once you have the prints you can hang them any which way you like. Like an encyclopedia a museum has for its goal the intention of revealing information to those interested in the subject, this organization has made the decision that providing this information is worth while. Chillum  16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The remark of mine was mainly just an aside. I did think that they put them upside down purposefully, although I can't say what their motiviation was. It could have been re harm, or because they anticipated trouble from someone, or they thought that some people might not buy them because if they hung them right side up in their living room, or their doctor's office, it would interfere with a test, etc.


 * Like I said, I thought it was interesting. Interpretation of my use of the word "interesting" reminds me of a quote attributed to Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Have a good one. Whoops, "day" that is. Cigars are unhealthy. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I thought it interesting too. I wonder if the test mentions a specific orientation, perhaps one of our more knowledgeable editors on the subject could clarify this. Chillum  18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When I've taken the test, I turned the images around  everywhich way.   I'll grant that  the  tester had difficulty in scoring  my responses,  but how much of that was due to their inexperience, how much was due to my  changing image  orientation, and how much was due to my prior exposure, I don't know.jonathon (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the examiner may have not had any ususual difficulties coding (a more precise word than "scoring") the responses. Sometimes the standard method of administration can lead test taker's to inaccurate impressions about what the examiner might be thinking or doing. And the coding process isn't formally done until after administration is completed and the test taker leaves, although a good examiner is likely thinking about coding as he/she administers. Did the examiner say anything directly about difficulties in coding? And as a general rule, card orientation should not impact coding difficulty. Prior exposure, on the other hand, could have had some influence on your responses. We'll never know. Ward3001 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The first time the coding was done whislt being administered. The second it was done after administration. In both instances the tester said that they had difficulty in coding the responses.  (About a week after I did it the second time, I talked with the person who administered it. He had gone scouring something, looking specifically for literature about effects —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Pseudo daoist (talk • contribs) 00:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one sounds like it might not have been done in the standard way, although there are some circumstances in which it can appear that testing and coding are done in the same session. Were both administrations done by the same examiner and within a few weeks of each other? Ward3001 (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Different examiners. The first time I took it, it  was the fourth quarter  that the person who administered it, had studied the test.  It was part of  the "now let's see how  you do with volunteer  subjects that are  healthy" practicum.  It was more informal than is normally the case.  I'm   not sure why I took it the second time --- probably  because a  PHB  at the clinic I went to didn't see one in my  file, and insisted that everybody have  one in their file.  jonathon (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one likely was not properly administered. I have no idea about the second one. Thanks for the observations. Ward3001 (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chillum, these are very interesting finds. The objection that in two of these examples the images are somewhat altered is not very convincing, for the following reason: The base of the arguments to remove or hide the images is the claim that having seen them in the Wikipedia article might alter the response one gives when taking the actual test later. However, a version of the blot which is altered by changing color or adding some lines, but is still clearly recognizable (and memorable) as derived from that blot, might actually be even more likely to alter the test response later - instead of merely having recollections of the previous exposure to the same shape, the test subject might recall the altered elements too, which, one would assume, should cause a larger difference in the test results. Let's take Chillum's first example (Symbolic Analysis Cross Culturally, which is the one which has been altered most): Before clicking on this link, I had a certain interpretation of inkblot no.2 in mind. But now after seeing that book cover which, by the thin added lines, suggests that the blot "shows" two persons looking at each other, I can't seem to get that association out of my head, even when I am only looking at the original inkblot.
 * It might be worthwhile to test the theories about "harm" advocated on this talk page against these examples, by searching press archives and scholarly journals for any controversy that these book covers might have created. E.g. for the example discussed in the previous paragraph, the University of California Press book: Have its authors L. Bryce Boyer and George De Vos been criticized by their peers for violating the APA code of ethics, or even, to apply a contention made frequently in this debate, of being responsible for teenager suicides?
 * Ward3001 does have a point in noting that Exner used a non-Rorschach inkblot on the cover of his book. But several of Exner's colleagues apparently didn't share the same concerns.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But reputable organizations have also chosen to NOT show the images. See 2001 Scientific American Article Clearly, Poundstone, in his book Big Secrets thought he was doing something very scandalous. So if the title of this argument is trying to say that it has become acceptable to show the images, I think it's a flawed argument. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This point is related to argument #1, that the cat is out of the bag. Whether the cat is out of the bag and whether others have been displaying the image is not at issue. It also isn't very relevant. Wikipedia has a unique place in the English speaking / Internet accessing zeitgeist; it is a very visible public source of information. Due to its high page rank, this is where many people end up from search engines. Placing the images here (or not placing them) has a large impact on whether a casual non-savvy person will see them. Wikipedians need to accept their role in the zeitgeist and realize that the decision here should be independent of the decisions of other sources of information. Dark Nexus (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(no comments since 15 July 2009 - remove this line when restarting conversation)

#06 - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.
This conversation can be viewed and restarted at the transcluded subpage /2009-06 Arguments Pro I was talking to my friend, Paul, about this and was able to illicit a telling response from him. I recognized his point of view and successfully got him to expound upon it. I think some here share his viewpoint. So I thought it might be valuable to the discussion to clearly put the point forward for all to see and consider.

Paul believes with some amount of pride that the human mind or psyche is an amazingly powerful thing. It's way too complicated to conform to or "fall" into describable patterns. He thinks it's beyond our power to measure or predict responses, and that our responses vary according to innumerable variables, that change according to both the power of the mind, and also varying with daily events, such as the quality of your morning car commute. I understand this criticism, and I think there are those who agree with it, both on this talk page and in the references section of the main article. However, that is only one viewpoint. I think if Paul were a Wikipedian, he would need to be careful not to violate WP:NEUTRAL policy. I think this argument is a strongly biased one. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Dawes review, as referenced in your email to Mr Goodwin, seems particulalury telling, comimg as it does from a lapsed member of the APA Ethics Committee. But I think "nearly worthless" may be a little too strong. And potential harm may still also be done where the test is used properly, of course. In fact pre-exposure may make a poorly used test even more harmful. Still wholly untractable in terms of research strategy though, i.e. no one may ever `prove' this? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure you can prove it, through studies. If you look at The Controversy Over Exner’s Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak, specifically the section "The CS Norms Are Seriously in Error" you will see that studies are done on healthy people to determine the accuracy of the test. This study of course exposes them to the test. I don't see how pre-exposing healthy people prior to giving them the test would be any more unethical than simple exposing healthy people to the test. Of course there would need to be an interest in the subject of pre-exposure for someone to do such a study and I can't find anything on the subject. Chillum  23:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it was specifically the bit about "pre-exposure may make a poorly used test even more harmful", I had in mind. Surely the only way to prove actual harm would be to use real, unhealthy subjects, which would be unethical. It would be doubly unethical if one knew that the test results would then be improperly used in terms of interpretation/diagnosis of those same subjects. The argument about the current norms having been poorly constructed (Exner etc) is a separate, if not any less interesting, one. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There has often been expressed on this talk page a valid opinion about the poor reliability of the test. But this opinion has no place when deciding whether to show the images or not. This thinking is similar to that of someone who vandalizes another's car saying, "Oh well, they won't care. It's a worthless pile of scrap metal, anyway." It's one thing to point at someone else's car and say it's worthless. It's quite another to then go and sabotage it. (See owner's 2009 letter of complaint and owner's 2006 letter of complaint) I don't think that ethical and we can all agree on that then maybe we can come to some kind of consensus. If we need a policy to help us, I'm all for finding or creating one. But please, may we first bring our ethics to the table? I think it's important that we all show up for the meeting bringing our whole selves. Even soldiers may be permitted to speak freely. In another context, this is sometimes called, "speaking truth to power." for example, standing in the oval office and telling the President of the US what you really think. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is a valid arguement.  If the test is not very useful or it´s use possibly harmful than that would refute the arguements of possible harm in showing these images.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If being the operative word. Consensus in the field, reflected in the fact that 80% of graduate programs teach it and 80% of clinical psychoilogists who are in a position to use it, do so, is that it is a useful test.  Actually even its harshest critics (Lillenfeld, Wood, et al) - a minority within the field -  don't go so far as to claim it is useless. See this article:  "Controversy has surrounded the Rorschach throughout most of its history, not because it is worthless, but because it has so often been used for the wrong purposes." The claim that it is "worthless" is basically nothng more than a fringe belief.Faustian (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me add this to what Faustian wrote: Even articles that are highly critical of the test [See http://www.psychologicalscience.org/newsresearch/publications/journals/sa1_2.pdf 2001 Scientific American] admit that it has some utility, especially in diagnosing Schizophrenia and bi-polarizm.  You wouldn't want that functionality to be harmed, would you?  So to use my analogy, if we're walking along the street and we see a car, as long as the car is owned and being used by somebody to some effect, (whatever the degree), I don't think it's right to go vandalizing it.   Can we agree on that?  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussing a test does not invalidate it. Wikipedia discusses mathematics.  This does not invalidate math tests.  Discussing and showing what the Rorschach test is is not in any way like vandalising a car.  As another example we have tests ( exams ) we use to determine if someone is having a pseudoseizure or a real seizure.  If people know about them then they could better fake a seizure and thus might be put on dangerous drugs as a result.  They may than die from side effects from this drugs.  I do not in any way see this as justification for hiding this information in medical books or keeping it off wikipedia.


 * The Rorscharch is not the only potential health care peice of information that may cause harm if used inappropriately. If you research depression to determine how to avoid being detected all the power to you.  I have not found this to be a real concern with depression.  With anorexia however that is a different matter.  Here you have a predominantly young female population who work very hard to foil their caregivers and escape treatment.  Techniques for tricking you physician are distributed widely on the internet.  Health care profesionals need to know about these techniques.


 * Those who use this test need to know that the people they give it to may have seen it before. That they may lie and say they havn´t.  And what better way to emphasis this is keep the images on wikipedia.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Better way to emphasise what? You think the choice we must give the testeee is to be truthful or to lie? And you see the use of this article primarily as the means by which a person can "trick his physician"? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference here is that the harm is not voluntary, requiring a person to make a choice, but automatic. It happens when someone merely sees the image. This places the responsibility for the harm not on the reader but on the editor, or on wikipedia (indeed, it robs the viewer of the choice to see the image or not to see it). With respect to your examples, would you feel the same way if, theoretically, the act of coming across a particular image of a seizure increased the chances of involuntarily getting one by the viewer?  Would you still insist on putting that image into the lead?Faustian (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anoxia?? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So Doc, if you and I can agree that the test has some value, (say in cases of diagnosing schizophrenia and bi-polarism) then can you agree with me that harming that value would be unethical. Should Wikipedia do anything that might forcibly "substitute for the advice of a medical professional?"    Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussing this test does not do it harm. Most people who come here I would guess are actually health care providers and others in related feilds not those the test will be used up. Discussing it may actually do the test some good. We discuss the rest of health care honestly and I see no reason why this test is anything special. So no I do not see anything unethical with this page.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussing the test is not the same thing as showing the test materials. One can discuss any test, such as the SAT or GMAT, and not compromise or spoil it by posting actual items from those tests.  It's interesting that your claim that there is nothing, in your opinion, unethical about this page contradicts what the field itself states about doing this sort of thing.  Any reason why you are right and the field, collectively, is wrong?Faustian (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I am a medical preactitioner I am not a Clinical Psychologist, and claim no expertise in the use of the Rorschach test images. But it does seem to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that in this whole discussion one factor is being overlooked. If we stipulate that the interpreatation of the images is subjective (and the entire value of the test depends on this aspect) and the assessment of the subject by the psychologist depends on this interpretation, then surely this assessment can still be made whether the subject has seen the images before or not. All that is required is the the psychologist be aware of the presence or absence of previous exposure. Given that the assessment of a subject depends not simply on his/her bald indentification of an image, but more particularly how, and in what words and in what manner this identification is made, I would expect a trained psychologist to be able to make this assessment irrespective of past exposure by the subject to the images, given only that the fact of exposure is known. If this were not the case then a subject could be Rorschach tested only once in their whole life; is this in fact the situation? --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 08:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A good question. But I think that your single factor may be (at least) two separate but related factors - a) that the test is subjective i.e. no right or wrong answers, and b) that it is the pattern of interpretation that is analysed not the pictorial subjects identified. It seems from earlier contributions that the test may certainly be used more than once with the same subject, although I think it was suggested that self-reported pre-test or pre-exposure might lead the practionner to choose an alternative test. But it has not been made clear what are the critera for such a choice. I'm unclear how you "would expect a trained psychologist to be able to make this assessment irrespective of past exposure" since some of those very clinicians have argued here that they can't, for whatever reason(s) - that's the problem, that's the basis for most of this discussion.


 * I also thought it ironic that this comment was added in this section. I think we may have missed a certain circularity. If, as the practioners advise us, pre-exposure weakens the utility of the test, continued exposure will provide further argument, in the longer term, that the test "doesn't work", i.e. no longer works. There will then be even less reason for protecting the images. I realise that this is not really the fault of wikipedia. The Rorschach's own popularity or notariety in the internet age may be the very cause of its demise? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To Anthony: previous exposure is adjusted for. Nevertheless, it weakens the utility of the test.  The norms for the test responses were developed using thousands of people with no previous exposure, across hundreds of studies.  The more different that the person being tested is from the normative sample, the less applicable the results based on the normative sample are to the person being tested.  Preexposure to any test alters one's responses.  Now, someone may argue that norms ought to be developed using preexposed people.  Perhaps - but creating norms involves thousands of people in hundreds of studies.  It is simply not feasible to recreate this massive body of research involving multiple times to account to every possible type of preexposure - someone exposed once, then again someone exposed twice, or three years ago, or one year ago, etc. Instead, we base norms on a "pure" sample and the psychologist adjusts according to the level of exposure (as well as other fatctors that are different than in the normative sample, such testing setting, etc.). As I mentioned earlier, a good psychologist can adjust to such contamination, just as an experienced driver can adjust to a snow storm.  But despite the adjustment the results won't be as good, just as the experienced driver still probably won't get to his destination as quickly or smoothly in a blizzard as he would if the roads were clear. Those placing the image heres are essentially creating blizzards - negatively impacting others' work in a way that negatively impacts others' care.12:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs)


 * Also to Anthony: I'm trained in the administration and interpretation of the Rorschach according to the Exner Comprehensive System, so please let me explain briefly. The responses that an individual gives to the blots are subjective - whatever you see is whatever you see, and the professional just wants you to honestly engage with the task.  The way those responses are analyzed under the CS is much, much more objective than most people realize, and interrater reliability is actually quite good.  Both the content and the presentation of the responses are analyzed, for a dizzying array of features.  There is also an element of subjectivity in the interpretation, and all interpretations have to be considered in light of everything else we know about a person from their history, presentation, etc, but the subjective stuff is considered to be secondary to the stuff with the validity and reliability data.


 * Also, there's quite a large difference between an exposure to the test blots multiple times, a week or a few months or years apart, under test conditions, versus a chance to sit down and study the blots for hours or weeks, to try to figure out "right answers" or to determine what one should say in order to fool the evaluator, say, during a custody evaluation or other forensic procedure. Now, I agree that with the current level of published information (on WP and on other sites that explicitly claim to provide information) about how the test is scored and interpreted, someone trying to do this would probably just make a fool of himself, and it may be that this concern is not of sufficient weight to warrant removing or hiding the blots on WP, but I just want to make clear that this is a nontrivial part of what the professionals are concerned about. Mirafra (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I supposed it's okay to talk amongst ourselves, but the following outside sources support the above articulated claims of loss of utility (to some degree or another) and the need for security:
 * The British Psychological Society
 * the designers of Rorschach test materials in 2009
 * the designers of Rorschach test materials in 2006
 * The American Psychological Association Code of Conduct (see also preamble)
 * American Psychological Association, Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data, 1996.
 * So it's certain that recognized authorities ask for help in maintaining the security of the images. Are there any sources that claim that releasing the images to the general public could actually help?  Not that I'm aware of.  I don't like to engage in speculation, but let's assume that there are sources that we can cite saying that publishing the images can help.  Now, let's ask ourselves the following question:  If there was even a remote chance that familiarity with the Rorschach images were beneficial, wouldn't it be more likely that the APA and the British Psychological Society would advocate that the images be advertised on television.  This would undoubtedly increase interest in the test, and bring in more business.  More people would receive early diagnoses of bi-polarism and schizophrenia.  I don't know about schizophrenia, but I have a friend who tells me that if doctors had known earlier that she was bi-polar, the chemical damage in her brain would be less severe than it is today.  Even if the test images served only to attract more people into the door and some other method of assessment were utilized, don't you think the APA and the BPS would leap at the chance to do this?  Of course they would.  But this is only speculation.  Clearly no one is advocating this.  So I don't think we should either.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussing how the test works does not require showing the standard images; a new image can be used when discussing how it works or is used. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Came across this debate once it made headlines on slashdot. Here is my point of view:

The images themselves are not readily available to patients unless:


 * a. They specifically research them beforehand, or
 * b. They bring their laptop into the shrink's office and study before the test

Anyone willing to dig the images up from a wikipedia article is likely willing to do a google search for them anyway.

Ethical concerns aside, I question whether such "security through obscurity" is even effective. The fact that wikipedia is but one of many sources for the images in question, combined with the implied tenacity of anyone looking up said images on wikipedia, in my mind works against any argument for their removal.

Shentino (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's best to publish the images and let them be abandoned for clinical diagnosis. Example ink blotches similar to the originals have been published for decades, and that doesn't seem to affect the clinical interpretation for people who are exposed to the Official Blotches for the first time. This implies that any set of new, unseen ink blotches would be just as effective as the old ones, once there are enough published studies to compare the results against. It will take time for the same quality of research to build up around new blotches, but in the end I think it's the only way to recreate the same effectiveness that the original botches had. I wouldn't be surprised if there was already research into other suitably secret ink blotches that could be used as a starting point. In short, the clinical community probably should have foreseen the consequences of the blotches entering the public domain and started testing replacement blotches quite a while ago. 216.67.57.174 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly clear on why it is that WP editors, who are mostly not apparently operating from a position of knowledge about the test, its administration, or its interpretation, should be making that decision on behalf of the professional community. Other posters have mentioned the immense cost and effort of "just making a new test" or designing some hypothetical self-evolving mechanism that would magically replace ninety years of existing research.  It's also unclear to me why this standard of "We can find the information, therefore we should publish it," is being applied to the Rorschach, when there does not seem to be a similar effort applied to other psychological and cognitive tests. Mirafra (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not telling clinical psychologists what they should do, we're telling them what they must inevitably do given that these images are in the public domain. — PhilHibbs | talk 07:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize if this is an inappropriate place to post these points but, as has been mentioned by others, this page is a labyrinth.
 * 1. The term “test” is broad – much more broad than “experiment” or “measure.” Comparison to other “tests” such as the SAT can be grossly inappropriate. Much of the insight gleaned from the Rorschach test is contextual: the test giver is collecting data from previous sessions, the test taker’s behavior and responses before and after as well as during the test, and so on. These “subjective response” tests are not at all like “quick fire response” or “objective” tests in that the test taker’s responses to the individual items are secondary to their responses over time, their affect and body language during testing, etc. It’s impossible to “study” for a subjective response test because the test taker can read into your responses – if you answer too quickly, or with too much detail, too much conviction, too much recognition, too much “remembrance” and so on, that tells just as much as the actual words that come out of your mouth.
 * 2. What about retesting? I may have missed a comment or two in this thread, but no one seems to have mentioned the fact that many test takes (myself included) have been exposed to and tested with the Rorschach multiple times – the test giver may or may not remain constant, the location may or may not become constant, and, of course, the test taker’s personal circumstances, state of mind, concern, and other traits may or may not be similar to the previous testing date. The Rorschach is in this way similar to the Tarot. You may memorize the entire deck and several books on interpreting the cards, etc, but the interaction between the person read and the person doing the reading, the randomizing mechanism (either by shuffling the cards or simply living a complex life), the order and context in which the cards are presented – all of these factors make every reading “unique.” (I am not claiming that the Tarot is as scientific or standardized as the Rorschach but then again, I’m sure that with appropriate development it could be adapted for much the same purposes by having the subject ‘interpret’ their own cards.)
 * 3. Multiple Exposure In any case, this is not to say that previous exposure isn’t going to affect future exposures. But considering that many people who are being tested will be tested again or have been tested in the past, this is a confounding variable that should not only be accounted for by the tester but which can be as useful and revealing as a lack of exposure.
 * 4. Whose Ethics? As far as Wikipedia and the so-called ethical quandary presented by this issue, the encyclopedia cannot concern itself with the professional concerns of any group, including psychologists. While I am hesitant to propose a slippery slope argument here or anywhere, the fact remains that we cannot cherry-pick our facts. Many of the photos, quotes, and facts published on Wikipedia are inconvenient for some group or another, and quite frankly, just because many psychologist have a professional investment in this particular set of images does not grant them a monopoly on those images (now that the images are public domain, at least).
 * 5. Not The Biggest Fish To Fry Wikipedia is far from the least of your concerns as regards the publication of these photos, but let’s face it – even if this debate does not become generally known, magazines, newspapers, and websites across the globe will pick this up (and the more public this debate becomes, the more this will be an issue). WebMD causes similar problems with self-diagnosis and, worse, self-treatment. And while I find many people’s use and abuse of WebMD annoying, I do not see it as an ethical issue – more information is always better, despite as much as because of the consequences.
 * 6. Wikipedia affecting the "real world" As far as “I'm not exactly clear on why it is that WP editors, who are mostly not apparently operating from a position of knowledge about the test, its administration, or its interpretation, should be making that decision on behalf of the professional community.” We’re not. We’re making a decision on behalf of Wikipedia. Your concerns are not our concerns. I couldn’t even begin to list the thousands of contentious and controversial pages on Wikipedia. I’m sure none of the corporations, politicians, celebrities, or political organizations whose scandals, mistakes, arrest records, and other matters of fact are published here want to see them here. But the fact remains that it is not only our job but our responsibility to publish relevant facts about anything notable. While I understand that it is the responsibility of psychologists to diagnose and treat their clients, you must understand that it is our responsibility to write an encyclopedia. You would never dream of modifying, let alone abandon, your responsibilities for the sake of an online encyclopedia. What makes you think for a second that we’re going to modify, let alone abandon, our responsibilities for you? Again, this is not an ethical issue – we aren’t hiding the truth, we aren’t telling lies, we aren’t misleading anyone, we aren’t publishing anything that isn’t in the public domain, and we aren’t presenting facts that haven’t been verified. Those are our ethical responsibilities. In fact, doing this is our ethical duty.
 * 7. Whose Ethics? Part II Whether or not psychologists, individually or as a profession, will need to design a new test or not based on the public’s newfound access to the Rorschach is irrelevant to this discussion. Even if that is true, that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia’s concern. Indeed, the immediate response to such a concern is simple: if this is such a problem, and psychologists as a whole knew that the test was going to become public domain sooner or later, why wait until AFTER the test became public domain to start doing anything about it? 173.170.88.238 (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Richard Paez [redacted email]

N.B. split comments from "" to Talk:Rorschach test


 * I have just reviewed this discussion and would like to take a moment to review the gist of it for the sake of clarity.
 * There are essentially three positions here:
 * 1. The test is worthless, so it does no harm to show the inkblots.
 * 2. The test is worthwhile, and showing the inkblots causes harm. Wikipedia should not cause harm. Therefore it should not show the inkblots.
 * 3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose mission is to present knowledge as completely as possible, therefore it should show the inkblots.
 * I find the first position irrelevant, the second position interesting, but not Wikipedia's concern, and the third position to be correct.
 * The first position is irrelevant because it brings an irrelevant criterion (validity) to what is essentially an argument about the proper role of an encyclopedia. (It may--I am undecided on this--also bring a non-neutral point of view to the content of the article.)
 * The second position is certainly interesting, with all the ethical and scientific questions it raises. The discussion it has sparked in itself brings great value to the community, but it is not the role of Wikipedia to protect the interests of any professional group, nor to respect their judgments as to the content and role of Wikipedia.
 * The third position, as I think Richard Paez has made clear, holds that Wikipedia's primary obligation in this matter are to its own mission. I think that this is the only ethically tenable position. Should Wikipedia give bomb-making instructions? Of course not. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. By the same token, Wikipedia should not give instructions on interpreting Rorschach tests. That should be enough.Mrrhum (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC.

this test isn't actually a test to see if people can get the right or wrong answer but to see how the people see things inside their head. now that people now these answers, they are going to start giving them to psychologist and the determination of whether the person is psychological healty is going to be harder and taking more time

An offer to provide rorschach test results
I have the results from my Rorschach test from 1964. these are from my personal medical records. they are in my possession and my property to do with as I wish.

will make available to any! who write and request it. the test are interpreted and therefore mean nothing. the disability is in the observer!

BlueGrass Regional Mental Health and Retardation Board Lexington, Ky.

A Menace to Children and Adults.

I make these available to put an end to their quackery.

--74.142.217.33 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)downhillflyer@yahoo.com


 * The following is a quote from the home page of the Bluegrass Regional Mental Health and Retardation Board:
 * "The impact of The Bluegrass Regional Mental Health-Mental Retardation Board upon its valued communities is perhaps best measured at the most basic human level – how we have improved the quality of life for an individual by the direct services we provide, or by the agenda we support, the struggles we assume, or the alliances we establish on behalf of those we serve.


 * Mental illness, substance abuse, developmental disabilities, and mental retardation present personal obstacles and challenges of an extent that most cannot imagine. The triumph and achievement associated with recovery, growth, independence and progress form the seed for a life journey toward stability in home, community, family and life.  These are the journeys in which we are blessed to play a part and which reward us most."
 * I couldn't agree more with the idea that the impact of any organization is "best measured at the most basic human level." And yet, when we divorce ourselves from the impact of our actions and do not consider the consequences on other people, then we are not fully present here on this earth.   The purpose of an encyclopedia is to preserve knowledge for the benefit of people, including that of 74.142.XXX.XX      Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)