Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19 Rorschach inkblot test

Who are the involved parties?
Editors for showing original inkblots, Editors for not showing the original inkblots

What's going on?
The first of the inkblot images from the Rorschach test is on the article.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like to replace it or remove it.

Mediator notes
In my opinion, this case should be closed - the images can't be excluded based on the reasons given. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * close per WP:CENSOR, methinks. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The images should be there.  I've taken the liberty of closing the case.  George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 12:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've spoken to the user and agreed to let him re-open the case. However, I would like to quote WP:CENSOR:
 * some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content,
 * The images are relevant and should be kept. The user has mentioned replacing the image with a similar one, if this were to happen I would not object to it.  That is probably the best thing to do.  George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Argument
A fundamental premise of the Rorschach test since it's inception is that the inkblots should not have been previously seen by the subject. As is, this premise poses research problems for retesting. But general availability of original inkblots with no time limit presents a much bigger problem. The mental health community relies on this test to provide mental health services. In the occasions where people had seen the images for a possibly extended period of time the test is likely to be invalid. Because the test is routinely used for diagnosis there is a likelihood that an incorrect diagnosis will be given, the wrong medication provided and harm will be produced. The degree of likelihood is difficult to calculate, we may not find a reference to give us an idea of what it could be. I personally know of cases where this has happened. Particularly the wikipedia is accessed by millions of individuals. As of today www.alexa.com does rank the wikipedia as 9th place in traffic ranking. Although we have no direct evidence that test invalidation is happening we are confident that it does. Because of this likely harm we would like to replace or remove the original inkblot image shown in the Rorschach inkblot test article.

We have seen several objections posed for this case, the ones based on policy we think are based on incorrect interpretations of those policies. We understand there is no policy that says content should be included or removed if the scientific community judges it harmful. The pillars of the wikipedia do say that there are norms of conduct to be followed, but aside from that the pillars mention nothing else that might be related. We also think that a worldwide community effort like the wikipedia has to be in favor of science. And that participating in likely harm it's against the grain of the community.

Lack of communication
There are a few people who don't want to show the image who have been involved in constructing the Rorschach article page for a long time. When I found out that original inkblots were part of the wikipedia I got involved, I tried to create sections with individual objections to frame the discussion and after I got little response I decided to post a request for comment. We got a many editors giving their opinion, most of them wanted to show the image which was at the time hidden but available. After some time it became apparent than an extremely chaotic exchange was taking place with little to no communication between parties. After some edit wars the image was unhidden. I suggested mediation and sided with the need of what I called "true consensus". But the mayority of new editors who also voted in favor of showing the image, flat out rejected mediation. While in the general discussion people came in and out starting and abandoning threads of argumentation. If we look at the party in favor of showing the inkblot as a whole, they are doing circular argumentation. And is pratically impossible to build an argument on those circumstances. I told them so and still they reject mediation.


 * By 'new editors' you appear to be referring to experienced editors who are new to the dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, new to the dispute, and unless I missed edits, they are also new to the Rorschach page. From looking at their personal talk page, I think some are experienced.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem I am unclear on how mediation works here so I am not sure If I should discuss at this time why I think WP:CENSOR does not apply in this case. I hope I have an opportunity to discuss it at some point in the mediation process. Which is what was denied to me several times by several editors on the Rorschach talk page.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to give another opportunity to this case. So I set the status to new since George D. Watson said I could do it. The reason why I do not think this is censoring is that I want science to serve as a guide. If I can give scientific proof that an image can cause harm for example on the Photosensitive epilepsy article. Then I think there is a pretty good case for not including the image. Thankfully none has put sample videos on the Photosensitive epilepsy article that would cause seizures. When the word censorship is brought to a discussion, many people think of nasty situations that involve repression. censorship has been historically done by groups in a position of power to prevent dissent that may compromise such position. That is not at all what is happening here. I am talking of science which by definition seeks universal truths not tied to an individual group.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate that this views challenge our views, but the existence of wikipedia itself challenges many stereotypes. I really hope mediators think of this with an open mind and in discussing issues like this close to the fringe it might actually help figure out other issues where editors bring up censorship.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CENSOR is not really related to censorship in a negative way; it's just a WP policy that I think covered this aspect well (compared to any other policy). But since you folks are apparently close to consensus, I take it back. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We were close to consensus, but some time has passed since and we are not close anymore. I really want to understand how to apply the WP:CENSOR policy properly. Let me make several points.
 * A) At first impresion it makes sense to have WP:CENSOR. Why? there is something bad and negative that we attach to censorship otherwise WP:CENSOR would not make sense. Historically and even in some parts of the world we see opressive attitudes that use censorship as a tool to prevent the dissemination of knowledge. And the wikipedia is all about dissemination of knowledge.
 * B) Examples of widely acceptable self-censorship that happen regularly. Phone numbers, addresses, credit card numbers ect.. are removed from articles, videos and photographs to prevent crime, harassment and to protect privacy. Competition organizers omit crucial details that would render their competition results meaningless. Scientists and other experts do not publish data that they judge inconclusive and misleading.
 * C) I wrote the text of B) about a month ago. Since then I have come to realize that there are two meanings for the word censor. One is removal of relevant information period. And the second meaning involves a censoring entity. In the examples from B) there is no censoring authority. So the publisher is not editing the content on the expectation that a censor might remove it. Words with two meanings are a common problem of language, the question is which meaning was intended for the policy.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Most likely solution
At the talk page we almost reached a consensus to replace the original inkblot with another inkblot that looked very similar, what broke it was disagreement to have access to the original inkblot.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)