Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010)

Comments solicited in a neutral manner from the following locations:
 * 1) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology
 * 2) Talk:Rorschach test
 * 3) Talk:Rorschach test/disclosure
 * 4) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology
 * 5) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine
 * 6) Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

Comment on Question 1

 * I don't think that this something the RFC can adequately address, or even should. Perhaps you meant something suchlike "If the publication ... compromises the usefulness of the test, does this present cause for concern for Wikipedia?" – xeno talk  14:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no published data that I am aware of that addresses this question. Since these images can easily be found with a google image search ( ie they are already published ) and even the International Rorschach Society had them on their home page for a will.  Wikipedia is just a drop in the bucket. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're understating the significance that Wikipedia has obtained. Like it or not, WP has become a cultural institution, often seen as an authority, and the first place people check when they look for this kind of information. Wikipedia is hardly a drop in the bucket. The frequent argument that this stuff is available elsewhere and so causes no additional harm by being on WP is completely bunk. Crcarlin (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I take your point, Xeno. We're not experts.  And I posed the question in a way that requires expert testimony.  How about this question, instead:  Does the publication of the Rorschach test images and common responses compromise the usefulness of the test?  What do sources tell us? I think it's important to hear how editors respond to this question.  How they answer this question helps us judge their answers to the other questions.    Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The first question is still an exercise in opinion, or original research, or both. "Are there sources that support the belief that the publication of the Rorschach test images and common responses compromises the usefulness of the test?" would be acceptable, but that still doesn't address the actual question that needs to be answered here: "Should we, as an encyclopedia, care if it does? And if we do care, what actions might we take?" – xeno talk 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't original research as long as one uses a reliable source. I take no exception to your question.  But mine seems okay, too.  I will confess with some shame that question no. 4 prescribes only one course of action.  Your second question is much more open-ended than mine.  Good work.  Is it too late to change, now that Cybercobra has placed the tag and people are already coming to comment?   Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we would be taking what one or more reliable source(s) said as truth?
 * If you are going to make changes, just make some kind of note below suchlike
 * Some [difflink_goes_here tweaks] were made to the opening statement per talk page comments
 * ^that. – xeno talk 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If we won't rely on a reliable source, then it's not a reliable source, now, is it? How do these questions look to you?  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the publication of the Rorschach images and common responses compromise the usefulness of the test? What do sources tell us?
 * Is the article more useful, or less useful because of the images and common responses?
 * Is the vision, values, purpose and mission of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation maintained or diminished because of the images and common responses?
 * If the current article detracts from our vision, values, purpose, and mission, is there something we can do to make it better?    Changes were made to these questions per talk page discussion.

Response to Gavia immer
Gavia immer makes a point that the CPA does not believe disclosure of the test is harmful and says, perhaps exasperatedly, that this has been repeatedly pointed out to the initiator. However, the link she cites to prove her statement does not say the CPA does not believe the test is harmful, and in fact seems to say the opposite: her reference points out that disclosure harms the usefulness of tests that have profound impacts on peoples' lives. In my eyes that statement is on the harmful side. Crcarlin (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Roger
Pardon my language, but ho-ly-crap Roger's statement is completely, profoundly, and unquestionably flawed. I mean, the supreme and utter ignorance of his statement makes me want to delete it just for being so absurdly wrong, but I guess that's against the rules. Anyone who would endorse his statement is equally ignorant of how the Rorschach works.

First, publishing the images allows a person to take the exam for himself? NO! The administration of the Rorschach by a trained examiner in a specific environment is a huge element of the exam, maybe even the majority of it! It would be nice if the Rorschach could be administered through a computer instead of taking up the time of a trained examiner, but that's not how the exam works. So no, people can't take it for themselves based on published images.

And then Roger says the reader can grade the exam himself, another absolute and total falsehood. Unlike internet IQ tests or even legitimate "check this box and count the C's" type psychological exams, grading of a Rorschach exam requires a significant amount of training and practice and about two textbook-sized manuals at hand for reference.

Roger wraps it up by saying publishing the images lets the reader assess the validity of the outcome for himself. This is not as utterly wrong as the above, but it's still laughably wrong. The Rorschach's validity is supported by reams and reams of data, decades of study, and countless real-world administrations, but Roger wants the reader to assess the validity based on looking at a small part of the exam? Would he also like the reader to assess whether a nuclear reactor would work by looking only at a photo of check valve #3729?

So Roger is left with wanting to inform the public about a historically important psychological test. Fine. Too bad he's so misinformed about the test himself... Crcarlin (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Roger plays fast and loose with the facts to support his bias. Roger's statement is, at its heart, about achieving scientific, objective results.  His desire is to make the secrets of the Rorschach completely transparent so that all of society may observe and judge:  A worthy ideal, but completely non-practical.  The article will never provide the satisfaction he desires. The conflict, here, is fueled by the human desire to manufacture certainty out of uncertainty.  I, too, share this ideal.  But we live in a world with both black and white in it, as well as a good deal of grey.  I'm not willing to sabotage the tools ("subtracting knowledge") of a profession that deals with grey matter.   Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing is, Roger's statement isn't just an opinion, but a flat out factually incorrect claim. How can it be included in this RfC?
 * No, users can't take the Rorschach based on images posted to Wikipedia, and they couldn't score the results that way even if they could. How could a statement based on that falsehood be included in the discussion? Crcarlin (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does this page criticism of me, when my statement has been deleted? The criticism is a bunch of implausible and unsupported statements, with no source or authority. Roger (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As a source see the Wikipedia page on the Rorschach Test. The page itself states (with citations) exactly what I said. Crcarlin (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the page does not support anything you say. And if it did, it ought to be changed. There is, in fact, a computer program for administering the Rorschach test. And it is rather trivial for non-psychologists to assess a test outcome. Roger (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger, please educate yourself more on this topic before participating in this discussion, as you've consistently made statements that run contrary to both the extensively sourced Wikipedia article. From the article:
 * "'The interpretation of a Rorschach record is a complex process. It requires a wealth of knowledge concerning personality dynamics generally as well as considerable experience with the Rorschach method specifically. Proficiency as a Rorschach administrator can be gained within a few months. However, even those who are able and qualified to become Rorschach interpreters usually remain in a 'learning stage' for a number of years.'"
 * So no, a user glancing at a page on Wikipedia would not be able to score his own protocol even if he was able to take it on the website... which he can't. Crcarlin (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Cybercobra
Please address your remarks to the topic at hand. See wp:rfc Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider your history relevant, but do respond to the topic at hand with my oversimplified-summary-of/pointer-to WP:AMORAL, which directly addresses (at length) the questions raised. --Cyber cobra (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The essay you wrote addresses how we respond to the ethics of outside organizations. It is a very good summary of the results of the last RfC, but it does not address this RfC.  It does not recognize the purpose, and values of Wikipedia.  I think we do have a moral purpose.  It is "encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community."  And "a world in which every single human being can freely share in [use] the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."   Free content is defined in our policies in this location (see wp:nonfree) with a preamble that describes the motive for providing free-content as a "genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become."  (emph. added)  It seems to me that Wikipedia does, indeed, have a moral center.  The question then becomes this:  Are our cultures more richer or more impoverished by our actions.  Reliable sources tell us that we are compromising the usefulness of a medical test.  I don't think this is in keeping with our purpose.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "The essay you wrote addresses how we respond to the ethics of outside organizations [...] It does not recognize the purpose, and values of Wikipedia." Actually, no, it very much concerns Wikipedia's ethics, which are a topic of this RfC; namely, our ethic is (as an encyclopedia) to first be informative, regardless of the potential harmfulness of such information. We enrich culture by making knowledge more widely known and more readily available; beyond that, the implications aren't our concern, not the least because they are extremely difficult to predict. --Cyber cobra (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both the "Free Cultural Works" people and Wikipedia seem to be under no restriction about predicting future implications. They don't hesitate when the implications are positive.  (sum of all knowledge... available for use by all humanity in perpetuity... ensuring "the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it."  )  Therefore, it seems appropriate for them (us) to give all due respect and attention to the potential for negative implications, as well, especially when those implications are contrary to their (our) purpose.   Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All of which implications were dealt with quite some time ago at your involuntary consequences page. Well.. when I say dealt with, I mean that you ignored any other possible consequences except for your personal bugaboo. You failed to address the clear problems of people with both Munchausens and hypochondria; Wikipedia provides a veritable orgy of enablement tools for people suffering from those conditions, which are significantly more severe than possibly knowing the outcome of a Rorschach test. (Example: my stepmother once had a patient with Munchausens. The woman would actually rub feces in wounds so that she could stay in the hospital longer. You telling me that possibly compromising a psychological test that not many people take is more dangerous or important?) This is to say nothing of those who believe it is harmful to see breasts, or images of Mohammed, or articles showing that evolution is not, in fact, a pile of bunk. I could go on and on, but I'll just repeat what I said last time you tried this: Wikipedia is not censored. It will not be censored. There is no way to draw a line that has reasonably broad application. You need to give this up, or I (or possibly one of several other people here) will be seeking to have you topicbanned permanently from ever discussing this subject anywhere on Wikipedia again. I trust that is clear. → ROUX  ₪  20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing up health consequences. However, the questions in this RfC do not include the immediate health consequences to individuals.  That's another issue altogether.  I will, however, respond to your comparison to articles that show breasts or images of Mohammed.  I don't believe anyone can say reliably, using a reliable source, that we are compromising the usefulness of breasts or knowledge about the prophet, Mohammed.  Those are different controversies, based on different concerns, concerns that probably have no bearing on the purpose of an encyclopedia.  However, the CPA did make a statement that we are compromising the usefulness of a psychological test.  That's a problem for an encyclopedia and it's the reason I requested comments.  Should an encyclopedia play an active role in compromising the usefulness of a certain piece of knowledge?  I don't believe it should.  Instead, we should encourage "the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community."  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Beaver biscuits it's another issue. You're trying another kick at the can with very slightly changed language. You're aiming for exactly the same outcome via a barely different avenue. Seriously, dude, give it up. You have been rejected for years. Nothing is going to change now. I will be seeking a topicban for you once this RFC concludes. → ROUX  ₪  07:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes this argument is more similar to showing images or historical drawings of people who committed suicide, are anorexia, and people who are obese which also supposedly leads to negative outcomes. There is a debate ongoing that we should remove information about suicide as people might be inclined to commit suicide because of it ( yet Romeo and Juliet does not seem to be quoted as a must better case of romanticizing suicide than Wikipedia ).  Some seem to be arguing that no information is best.  A similar debate has been raging on the abortion page were the risk of normal pregnancy it is said should not be used to put into context the risk of abortion even though this is in many reliable sources.  I think we all need to remember that we are here to write and encyclopedia not censor information from our readers whom we fear may not be sufficiently competent to handle what they read ( here I am being sarcastic as I think our readers are in fact competent ). Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The debate at the abortion page is different because no one is suggesting that the usefulness of our article will be compromised. Similarly, the usefulness of suicide methods are not in question by anyone.  An exit bag and a few sleeping pills works very well, regardless of what a Wikipedia article may or may not say about it.  This RfC is different.  I can see no policy consistency problems with the debates going on at the article locations you mention.  Indeed, with the exception of the Rorschach article they all seem to provide "free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community."  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I rather had been thinking that your complaint was that the RT article currently provides too much "free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, my concern is that the information will not be "used and reused." You're thinking that our job is to simply provide information.  I'm thinking that that is only one-half of our mission.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that your concern is more like 'if we provide this much detail, then the information will be "used and reused" -- but by people and for purposes that I personally disapprove of, e.g., by mentally ill people who want to deliberately thwart a psychological exam'.
 * Simultaneously claiming that our information (the article) will not be used, and that by using our information, someone else's information (the test) will become useless, is not either logical or credible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is that our article will be of no use to anyone. We will have done all this work for nothing.  This is contrary to our vision, values, mission, and purpose.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it'll be of use to people. Even under your (IMO extremely unlikely) worst-case scenario where we somehow single-handedly manage to render the Rorschach unusable, the article would still be of great historical use in documenting for posterity what that "Rorschach test" thing was. --Cyber cobra (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Our mission is to provide "free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community." and to "make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity."  It is not to take anything away.  To play an active role in taking useful knowledge or intelligence away from the human community and relegating it to a footnote in history conflicts with our mission.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DD, what's to keep me from re-using the information? I used it once to educate myself about the test. In it's current state, I could re-use it to convince the neighbor that the images aren't inherently sexual (apparently, a common misconception). I could also re-use it next week to show art students what ink-blot artwork looks like. That's three separate uses. Just how exactly does providing this encyclopedic description of the test today prevent me from using and re-using the encyclopedic description of the test tomorrow?

Your concern does not seem to be with using and re-using the encyclopedic description of the test. Your concern seems to be that our encyclopedic description of the test will make the test itself "unusable" by psychologists and psychiatrists. Unless we delete it,, I — and the rest of humanity — will be able to use and re-use our information, so we have met Wikipedia's goals. It is possible that our information might make their information (the test) less useful (to them), but that's not our problem, and it is not addressed by Wikipedia's "used and re-used" statement.

To put it another way: We could write a detailed and encyclopedic description of how law enforcement investigates cyber crimes. Such information might prompt thieves to take more effective measures. This would have the unintentional double effect of making it harder to detect criminals -- making law enforcement's job harder and their current techniques less useful. But (however undesirable that outcome might be), this fact doesn't make our information less usable. In fact, it would prove that our information was very much being used and re-used.

BTW, we have several such articles. See Red mercury (a hoax law enforcement spread to detect people who were interested in building nuclear bombs) for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me try a simpler version: How exactly can this article "be of no use to anyone" if people are actually using it?  (NB that the interrogative is "How":  I want a concrete example of how, exactly, using the article will prevent you from using the article.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the context where I wrote those words 7 paragraphs earlier, the "anyone" I was referring to were the people mentioned in the preceding paragraph: the people who wish to study the test and apply knowledge acquired from it, and those who wish to "game" the test. For people on both sides of this table, the article will be less useful.  Since you press me, I will concede that the article will be of some use to students of psychological history.  Touche!  However, the question that I posed at the beginning of this RfC is still a valid one.  Is the article more useful, or less useful because of the images and common responses?  What's your answer?  Everyone else seems to be dancing around the question.  Can you answer it?  Since you pressed me, it's only fair that I press you, back.  If you do, I will respect you all the more for your integrity and honesty. And it is, after all, one of the four central questions of this RfC.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are these people who wish to game the test? Could you please provide reliably sourced evidence that they actually exist? (I know you won't, because it doesn't exist, and I know you'll just ignore this question, which is specifically why I am asking it). → ROUX   ₪  23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You seriously doubt their existence? Hmmm...  I'm surprised.  I assume you're asking me. I think others could answer your question, and I've taken up a lot of the response time on this thread.  However, that's a lot of disdain you attach to the question.  I can't help myself from responding.  I'll just assume good faith and respond accordingly.  Here you go:  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Argentinian woman from whom we derive our images says in her blog, my intent is to "provide some tips that are actually useful to give the test as a normal person with a normal intelligence or slightly higher, revealing as little as possible about ourselves, and in a way that is not inconsistent with the visible personality."
 * The good people at SPARC (the Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center) whose goal "is to ensure that children of divorce continue to have meaningful relationships with both parents, regardless of marital status. We advocate on behalf all non-custodial parents to ensure they get equitable treatment in court and continued access to their children." They provide advice about "good answers and bad answers" in order to achieve a desired outcome.
 * The new York Times wrote an article and quoted a psychologist who spoke of those who would "game" the test.  There are also couple articles in the psychological literature about potential "coaching" by lawyers in order to achieve a desired effect.
 * Victor, T. L., & Abeles, N. (2004). Coaching clients to take psychological and neuropsychological tests: A clash of ethical obligations. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 35, 373-379.
 * Youngjohn, J. R. (1995). Confirmed attorney coaching prior to neuropsychological evaluation. Assessment, 2, 279-283.
 * People can advocate that others do things as much as they like. The poor man who took the Discovery Channel building hostage yesterday was advocating an end to human procreation (more or less). What I asked for is proof that people are actually gaming the test... you provided one... well, sort of. It's telling that you provided links to people you say are advocating that the test be gamed. And no links to people who, you allege, have actually done it. This is all immaterial anyway... you will be defeated here again, as you were last time, as every RFC on this subject has been. And subsequent to that you will be topicbanned from ever wasting our time again. → ROUX   ₪  01:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Usefulness is surprisingly not all that significant a criterion. Wikipedia is regularly criticized for having articles on esoteric/obscure topics (cf. Unusual articles), yet many such articles are routinely Kept at AfD, and a few are even featured content. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But there's a difference between supplying trivial content and trivializing your content. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And that has what, exactly, to do with this whole issue? Nothing at all. → ROUX   ₪  01:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you (Dd) there. Whether the latter should matter is indeed one of the relevant questions you've posed (with specific reference to Rorschach) in this RfC. Would you have Wikipedia likewise omit the ending of the play The Mousetrap, lest it be made less mysterious, interesting, and significant, and thus the article more trivial? Would you have Wikipedia omit political scandals from politicians' articles, lest their careers end prematurely, making them and their articles less significant? --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. Of course, I'm interested in how other editors deal with their conflicts on a case by case basis.  Is there evidence that the Mousetrap is less available culturally because of our work?  But Wikipedia is governed, primarily by consensus, and I'm really not trying to enact a policy or set a precedent that will affect other articles.  In the case of this article, I hope to convince you, in a respectful and civil manner, that what we are doing runs contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia.  To do so, I've provided reliable sources that show that there is a danger, here, of the "work of preceding centuries" becoming "useless to the centuries to come" and that implicate our role in that.  As an encyclopedist concerned about censorship, I'd think this would be of concern to you.  Are you comfortable being an agent for the subtraction of intelligence from the human community?  I know I'm not.  You should join me in helping to reverse this terrible thing we are doing.  I know we can't change every site on the internet; but we can change ours.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "As an encyclopedist concerned about censorship, I'd think this would be of concern to you." Not really; there's a world of difference between "useless" (which is hyperbole anyway) and "censored". Further, as laid out in my essay, I (and based on feedback, some others) consider Wikipedia acting as a father-knows-best moral guardian to be outside the project's scope/goals. Your arguments thus far have involved novel/strained interpretations of Wikipedia rules, and have lacked much general applicability outside of the specific Rorschach issue, which has made them seem weak from my perspective; in contrast, my essay gives several examples which speak to its general applicability. More pragmatically, we can't put the genie back in the bottle; the Rorschach images are out there in the public domain anyway no matter what we do here. --Cyber cobra (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You said there is a world of difference. What is the difference between "compromising the usefulness" of a work of intelligence and "censoring" it?  Is it intent?  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This question has already been answered at length in previous discussion. I don't see the point of asking it. Your attempt to draw an equivalence between freedom of information (in this case) and censorship is totally unconvincing. By the same argument, every scientific advance is an act of censorship because it makes previous scientific work redundant, therefore publishing the research is an act of censorship. That's how absurd your argument seems. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be more helpful if you answered the question, directly. However, thank you for introducing another tangent.  It's interesting to see how everything fits together.  I think we're going far in addressing Cybercobra's concern about general application.  (See above discussion of breasts and suicide methods.) In this case, I don't see the comparison to scientific advances.  Our article is imposing "significant implications"  on the use of the Rorschach test.  If a doctor or scientist decides to drop an old scientific modality in favor of a newer one, that's his/her choice.  He/she has chosen to do so voluntarily.  He/she is also free to retain the old one and disregard the new.  Which brings me back to the question at hand.  What is the difference between "compromising the usefulness" of a work of intelligence and "censoring" it?  Is it intent?  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the same way you answer question directly, yes? Perhaps you should lead by example. You are the poster child for WP:IDHT. → ROUX   ₪  18:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I did respond to him. But my question is still unanswered.  And I've been asking it oh so politely because I'm genuinely struggling with the question.  Perhaps you could be so good to assume WP:GOODFAITH and answer it for me.  Does censorship imply intent? Is there such a thing as 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree censorship?  We're all on the same side, here.  We share the same mission.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be more constructive to consult a dictionary if you are struggling with the meaning of the word "censorship"? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we all share a concern over censorship. Perhaps it would go a long way to finding WP:CONSENSUS if we explored this common ground, together.  Please consider how the result of our actions could be similar (or dissimilar) to the result of censorship.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt this article will trivialize Rorschach, but in any case: better supplying trivialized content than no content at all. Dangling, it's obvious that your position is not going to get any significant support. Get real. It's late 2010, the images are public domain, and this is the Internet. It is ridicolous to continue pushing for these images to be removed, while I can google them everywhere. It is ridicolous to ask for public domain knowledge to be removed. In the unlikely and unproven case that the psychological community has been deprived of this tool by the spreading of the images, well, too bad for them -they will need to devise new tests. Things change, they will need to adapt. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * DD, I'm happy to answer your question ("Is the article more useful, or less useful because of the images and common responses?"). I think that the article is more useful to the average reader with the images (or at least some of them).  Without the images, I would be unable to use the article to show my hypothetical neighbor that the images don't feature an endless series of penises.  Without the common responses, I would be unable to show the neighbor that most people give rather boring answers, like "bat", "moth", and "two people".  Without the images, I would be unable to show art students that ink blots can have texture and transparency.  The images add useful and re-usable information to the article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I see you wrote something similar when you endorsed OhNoItsJamies statement.  Very good.  Would you be willing to make that a separate statement with your name on it and let others endorse it.  I'd love it if you could answer the other 3 questions, as well.  The front page could use some answers that address the substance of the dispute and less about the people.  I think it's good to put your statement on the same page as the CPA statement that we are "compromising the usefulness of the test."  We should hold these things up side by side and compare them.  This is how civil people handle disputes and it's one of the WP:FIVE pillars of Wikipedia.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need for yet another statement on the main page. It would be an exercise in people re-telling you what they've already told you.  The community's view is already apparent to me; if it is not equally apparent to you at this point, then I doubt that yet another statement with a dozen timestamps after it would help you understand the situation.
 * As for your questions:
 * Does the publication of the Rorschach images and common responses compromise the usefulness of the test? What do sources tell us?
 * This question is irrelevant, because Wikipedia doesn't care if the test itself ever was, is, or will be useful in the real world. That concern is strictly someone else's problem.
 * Is the article more useful, or less useful because of the images and common responses?
 * Asked and answered.
 * Is the vision, values, purpose and mission of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation maintained or diminished because of the images and common responses?
 * The vision, values, purpose and mission are all maintained by providing verifiable, educational information.
 * If the current article detracts from our vision, values, purpose, and mission, is there something we can do to make it better?
 * This question is irrelevant, because the current article does not detract from our vision, values, purpose, or mission. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your use of the phrase "somebody else's problem." Are you denying responsibility for the consequences of Wikipedia's actions?  If so, that's not how the phrase is normally used, according to the article you referenced.  And it's certainly not policy.  I, however, have quoted Wikipedia's mission statement which expresses its desire for "free content" and "useful information."  Both of which would seem to show concern for the "real world."  (See definition of free content.) Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia really, truly does not care what the real-world consequences of distributing verifiable, educational information are (or might be). Someone else may have a problem with Wikipedia providing 'potentially harmful' educational information -- but we don't, full stop.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is concerned about it's mission of "encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community."    It is this mission, this consequence, that I am concerned about.  If you're not concerned about this, then you don't share the mission of Wikipedia.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what has this to do with the issue. What WhatamIdoing above said can be translated, in the language of the mission, like: "Wikipedia really, truly does not care what the real-world consequences of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community are". It doesn't change its meaning, however. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The mission is "the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community."  The mission is not to "compromise the usefulness" of such resources.   Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the foundation's mission.
 * However, it's irrelevant — because the Rorschach test itself is not an "educational resource". So the fact that our useful and re-usable education resource (the article) might compromise the usefulness of someone else's "non-educational non-resource" is entirely irrelevant to the mission.  The mission simply does not tell us to tailor our useful and re-usable educational resource to protect someone else's non-educational system.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you have an insular interpretation of our (Wikipedia's) mission. To say that Wikipedia doesn't care about the real world consequences is to discount the meaning of the words "educate" and "resource".  It's not much of an education if the knowledge is less or unapplicable.  (Educate:  to train or bring up.)  Likewise, it's not much of a resource if its utility is compromised. (Resource:  something that can be turned to for help or used to advantage.)  It also discounts the words "use and re-use," which imply a use outside of Wikipedia.  And finally, it also falls short of the freedoms described in the definition of free content.  I believe my interpretation of the mission of Wikipedia is the better one.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk)
 * 1)Given the overwhelming consensus against you, perhaps you should ponder if it is your interpretation of WP mission to be misguided 2)Knowledge of the RT plates is indeed applicable and useful, in billion ways. From teaching people the history and methods of XX-century psychology to create nice posters, it is incredibly useful and applicable knowledge. Not in the ways devised by the original creators of such knowledge, perhaps, but that's entirely another question (and an even more irrelevant one). -- Cycl o pia talk  23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy and Polling is not a substitute for discussion But I take your point.  I will consider your viewpoint and will be appreciative when and if you begin to consider mine. (See  Writing for the opponent).  I agree with the two examples of potential uses you cited:  Wall posters and a study resource for students of psychological history.  However, they don't seem very educational (uplifting) when you consider all the other uses that could be realized, but can't because we have "compromised the usefulness of the test."  When I weigh the gains that you mention against the primary loss of utility, I come to the same conclusion that the Canadian Psychological association did.  "What is lost by publishing the content of psychological tests far outweighs what is gained."  I find this loss to be contrary to the purpose, mission, vision and values of Wikipedia.   Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be much more inclined to consider your viewpoint more seriously if you weren't trying to arm-twist the "purpose, mission, vision and values of Wikipedia" into this. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion about the images; I understand it is controversial and I even understand it can create real world problems. Still, this has nothing to do with the mission of WP, and (sorry if I don't assume good faith here) I don't think you are dumb enough to really think that, too: I simply think you are trying rhetorical tacticts to get more respectability to your point. But let's assume good faith back and re-explain: The mission of Wikipedia is to collect, structure and present notable,public information to the public. It stops there. It has nothing to do with the real-world practical, day-to-day usefulness of the material we publish. For example: a lot of stuff here would be much more useful if accompanied, say, by practical how-to instructions. Yet that's not what WP is for, and therefore we remove such stuff actively when it pops out. Our mission has to do with the intrinsic value of structuring and releasing knowledge: that's it. We don't go further and we do not want to go further, because, among a bazillion other things, that's a territory not of our competence and where there would be too many conflicting opposite viewpoints to take care of. When I told that you should think again about your interpretation of WP mission based on the consensus here, it is not because I want you to shut up with the majority -it is because the fact that a lot of long standing editors here rebuke your interpretation, and that they presumably are acquainted with WP, should lead you to rethink what the consensus of WP editors is on what is the mission of WP and what not. In short: The mission of WP is about structuring and releasing public, notable knowledge to the public. The images are public, notable knowledge. We structure and release them. What happens then, is no more our concern. Finally: I could understand concerns if the images were not public. But they are. They are all over the place on the Internet. So, them being here or not is irrelevant. The additional exposure given by WP doesnt' change the fact that, even without it, it's enough to Google for them to find them by the dozens. And that is also why, ethically, we can allow ourselves not to care: because we add nothing to what's already publicly available information. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You created a mission statement that I've not seen before: The mission of WP is about structuring and releasing public, notable knowledge to the public.  I would dare say that this describes your mindset very well and it goes to my good faith in you that I acknowledge that you are trying to help this project and not hurt it.  However, this is not the official mission statement, and I would respectfully challenge you to raise your sights from merely "structuring and releasing" information.  The true mission of Wikipedia is "the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community."   The mission is not to "compromise the usefulness" of such resources.  And the vision behind that mission calls us to "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in [use] the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."  We have heard from reliable sources that, because of our actions, there are people who are not able to "share in" the knowledge of the Rorschach test.  This is a shame, no?
 * You referenced our policy entitled "Wikipedia is not a how to manual." Let me address that.  This is a policy advising brevity and prose, as is traditional for an encyclopedic reference.  Textbooks take up where we leave off, providing "leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples"  You are right to distinguish us from a textbook or a how-to-manual, but that doesn't mean that we don't play an educational role of some kind.  The word encyclopedia means to educate, or "to bring up."  Wouldn't it be a shame if an instrument of education, like an encyclopedia, instead of preserving "the work of the preceding centuries," actually played a role in suppressing it or "compromising its usefulness?" Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You could give Orwell lessons. Publishing information that is freely available in any library, bookstore, or simple Google search is somehow censorship. Not publishing that information is somehow... not censorship? Double plus ungood. → ROUX   ₪  02:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The practices of other organizations are none of our concern. We must act according to our own purpose, as guided by our mission and vision statements.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Finally you admit that the practices of other organizations--namely the psych associations you have been citing for your support--are irrelevant. And since providing this information is quite clearly part of Wikipedia's mission, and the removal of same is explicitly deprecated in policy, we seem to be done here. → ROUX   ₪  07:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you and I are in agreement that the APA statement of ethics is binding only to members of the APA and not binding to us, Wikipedians.  I think we share much in common, including a mission to provide "useful information" to "the entire human community."  This sometimes causes conflict, and I agree with Cybercobra that the mission of Wikipedia takes precedence over the moral objections of a subset of that community. (see the essay at WP:AMORAL) However, in the case of the Rorschach test, we have a situation which calls to question our own purpose and values.  So it is with a spirit of common purpose that I propose that we agree that Wikipedia should do nothing to "compromise the usefulness" of a work of intelligence, like the Rorschach test.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no no no no no. The APA statement is not 'not binding.' It is, to use your exact words, 'none of our concern.' That means we don't even care that it exists. There is nothing calling into question our own purpose and values, because again to use your own words, how we publish information and what other organizations (apart, obviously, from the law) is 'none of our concern.' You havee tied yourself into a knot with your rhetorical tricks; hoist by your own petard, as it were. There is no common purpose here; you wish to suppress information from being published, which somehow you think isn't censorship (in the colloquial sense), while I wish to publish information, which somehow you think is censorship. Sorry, but your tricks have painted you into a corner of your own devising. Either you meant what you said, or you didn't. → ROUX   ₪  16:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because I don't feel bound to follow the code of conduct of the APA, doesn't mean that I don't accept them as a reliable source of information. (see WP:MEDRS) If they or another national health organization say that "Publishing the questions and answers to any psychological test compromises its usefulness"  then I accept the information as reliable.  To do otherwise would be original research.  (see WP:NOR)  I, then, apply that information to my own code of conduct or mission statement.  I then weigh my choices.  In this case, I find the better course of action is the exercise restraint.  I believe we should refrain from publishing the images and common responses.  To do otherwise would be to compromise the usefulness of the test and by extension, our article.  Who wants to read an article about a useless test?  The less useful the test, the less useful the article.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Wrong. You said, in your own words, "The practices of other organizations are none of our concern. We must act according to our own purpose, as guided by our mission and vision statements." That is a direct and unedited quote. That you belatedly realized that it singlehandedly put paid to your own position is not my problem. Nor is your backpedaling. And again--I know this has been said to you many, many times, but I have a vain hope that for once you will actually listen--the blots used in the Rorschach test are not only public domain, they have been published repeatedly both online and off for at least a couple of decades. Explain again how, suddenly, Wikipedia is the only possible repository of such information? If you could, please also explain how suppressing release of information is not censorship while releasing information is? Give it a rest, DD. It's over. And you will never, God willing, have a chance to waste our time like this again. → ROUX   ₪  06:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the practices of other organizations are none of our concern. We must act according to our own purpose, as guided by our mission and vision statements.  However, the expert opinions of other organizations are most definitely our concern.  Otherwise, we'd be performing our own original research. We, then, should apply that information to our own code of conduct or mission statement, and consider our choices about how to act.  In this case, I find the better course of action is the exercise restraint.  I believe we should refrain from publishing the images and common responses.  To do otherwise would be to compromise the usefulness of the test and by extension, our article.  Other web-sites and organizations may choose to act differently.  They don't share our vision of "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."  Thus, they are less concerned than we are if some of that knowledge were to become lost or "compromised" in its "usefulness."   Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Censorship: Similarities and Dissimilarities
I think we all share a concern over censorship. Perhaps it would go a long way to finding WP:CONSENSUS if we explored this common ground, together. Let's consider how publishing the Rorschach test data is similar or dissimilar to censorship. While both impose (force) on others the discontinued used of a work of intellence, a censor makes a judgement and applies wilfull intent to his/her expurgation. Wikipedia has no such apparent intention. The question becomes, therefore, does that excuse our actions? I think not. A book burning is still a book burning regardless of whether the fire was accidentally set or not. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is going to win the Bad Analogy Prize of the century. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Censorship, in the colloquial sense, is suppression of information. You wish to suppress information. The rest of us do not. Which of these is similar to censorship? → ROUX   ₪  06:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not unsympathetic to your concern; we're faced with a difficult choice. However, I'm sure you'll agree there's a difference between withholding information and suppressing it.  According to reliable sources, the current article suppresses (i.e. to forcibly subdue, curtail, or put an end to) a work of intelligence.  I find this reprehensible.  How dare we?  The impudence... The unmitigated gall...  In this choice, I would favor withholding information over suppressing it.  The former is an act of restraint; the later an act of suppression and oppression.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no functional difference between the two when it comes to Wikipedia, except where clear and immediate danger or harm to people is demonstrated. Which you haven't done. Which you didn't do the last time you tried this, under the guise of 'involuntary consequences'. Which you won't do the next time you try this.→ ROUX   ₪  08:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is a difference between withholding information and suppressing it. The former is non-invasive, the latter, invasive or intrusive.  Every editor who says "psychologists will have to adjust," recognizes the intrusive nature of what we are doing.  I'm simply recognizing this intrusive nature and pointing out that there is no functional difference between censorship and what we're doing.   (notwithstanding intent, of course)  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... no. Withholding and suppressing are the same thing. As Cyclopia said, we're not stupid, and really really really poor rhetorical tricks aren't going to work here. You're not going to get your way, ok? Consensus is against you, and your increasingly desperate attempts to confuse the issue are frankly sad. → ROUX   ₪  19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to reliable sources, the current article suppresses (i.e. to forcibly subdue, curtail, or put an end to) a work of intelligence. : It doesn't. It simply could, perhaps, make it a bit less useful for people who read with particular care this Wikipedia article. It doesn't suppress anything. Stop making a fool of yourself with such rhetorical contorsionism, please. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone who abhors even a little bit of censorship, you should be concerned. If you agree that it could, perhaps make it a bit less useful, then would you agree that that it could subdue "a bit" or curtail "a bit?"  Would you agree that we are performing "a little bit" of suppression?  Suppressing the work of intelligence seems quite antithetical to the purpose of an encyclopedia.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that we are performing "a little bit" of suppression? : Absolutely not. Making a piece of information slightly less practically useful does not mean to "suppress" it. A lot of secret documents cease to be useful when they cease to be secret; yet releasing them is the opposite of "suppression". It is complete nonsense to equiparate the two things. Danglingdiagnosis, please don't assume that we are a bunch of dumbs ready to be hit by a bad rhetorical whack-a-mole. You can see that -again- this RfC and discussion is going nowhere near where you want. I understand it's hard for you, but this battle you have lost. Please accept that. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also: Even if they may become less useful for their original purpose, it doesn't mean they are less useful in general. They are even more, probably, since everyone can have information on a very famous test and see what is really about. It is useful information, when open, in informing the reader completely about a subject, understand better the literature on it, etc. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Houghton Mifflin Heritage Dictionary: Suppress: 1.  To put an end to forcibly; subdue; crush.  2. To curtail or prohibit the activities of (a political party, for example).   See synonyms at stifle.  These verbs refer to the exercise of power or control that either brings about extinction or severely limits force or function.  End Quote.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the definition. Now explains how and why it applies to this article -namely, how and what we are "putting an end forcibly". I'm all ears. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Statements by National Health Organizations Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to AlecmConroy
I'm not hypothesizing. That would be original research. Instead, I'm quoting a national health organization which says that we are compromising the usefulness of the test. You don't have to decide on the truthfulness of this statement; instead, you can simply judge the reliability of the source. We have a guideline to help you do this. (see WP:MEDRS) Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to closing admin
This page was not properly tagged as an RFC until ~10 minutes ago. --Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was waiting to tag the RFC until everyone at the article talk page had an opportunity to help draft it. In no way am I avoiding my opponents or forum shopping.  I announced the rough draft of this RfC to them before it was completed, as suggested at WP:RFC.  If anything, I've gone out of my way to include the original forum.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. My point was just to ensure it was listed and the time of its listing taken into account with regards to when it should be closed. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what people sometimes infer from the 30-day timer that the bot runs on, there is no magic time limit. Disputes are resolved when they are resolved.  RfCs can and should be closed before 30 days if the dispute is resolved (or moved to a different forum) in less than 30 days, or extended past 30 days if the dispute is not resolved.  The purpose of the bot's "timer" is to clean up forgotten RFCs (very few editors think to pull the RFC tag manually, even if the dispute is resolved to everyone's complete satisfaction).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, wrong. Please note that the user starting all this brouhaha tried this a year ago under another guise (the rfc under another guise, not the user), and was soundly rebuffed. This was after three years of additional attempts. Saying there is no time limit is blanket permission for this user to continue this silly crusade interminably. Thirty days is the standard max for an rfc. → ROUX  ₪  07:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Check your facts.  I did not start last year's RfC.  At the time, I was new to the discussion, just getting familiar with it and with Wikipedia's policies.  And I was not alone.  I'm flattered you elevate me in the upper echelons of the debate, but I think you're wrong to do so for two reasons.  First, you're right to say that the debate has been going on for years, but I did not begin it, nor am I largely responsible for continuing it.  Through the years, including this last year in which I was largely absent, there has been a steady stream of new editors re-igniting the debated by initiating comments.  The second reason you're wrong to elevate me, personally, is that it is best to focus on content and not make ad hominem arguments.  (see the pyramid at WP:FOC)  I'd like to think that we can make progress if we all address our concerns to the issue at hand and maintain a degree of neutrality, detachment and civility.  So let me ask you this:  Did you know that Wikipedia had a formal mission statement?  How do you think the Rorschach article fits with respect to that mission?  Your statements, so far, do not tell me what you think about this.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You begin to bore me. First of all, stop pretending this is any different than your unintended consequences nonsense--you're trying for another bite at the exact same apple, you're just coming from a different direction. Here's a clue: the end result will be exactly the same as last time. Yes I know that WP has a mission statement, and the Rorschach article fits in quite perfectly with that statement, providing free information without fear or favour. Wikipedia is not censored as you have been told time and time and time and time and time and time again. Please try, again to get that through your head. → ROUX  ₪  17:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED means only that no outside considerations or issues can compel us to withhold information. The policy does not prevent us from doing so if doing so better advances our vision, values, purpose and mission.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're not denying that you're trying, again, to get the same result you were so soundly defeated in last time? Well, that's good. At least it won't be a surprise when it is defeated again. And as soon as it is, I will be going to AN to have you topicbanned from the entire subject so we don't have our time wasted again. → ROUX  ₪  08:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Roux, there really is no magic time limit. See WP:RFC.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a hard and fast rule. I said 'standard' as in 'standard community practice.' → ROUX  ₪  08:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Statement by James Schmidt
Gee. Who are you a sock of, I wonder? → ROUX   ₪  23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And, actually, who feels like getting a CU to look into the obvious puppeting going on here? → ROUX   ₪  23:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, 4 psychologists who follow Wikipedia is well within the realm of possibility. WP:ABF-ing increases the appearance of WP:DICKitude. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the similarity in language use, and the astonishingly tiny window between Schmidt's posting and Dolphin's support of same. The language Dolphin used is pretty much a giant flashing neon sign saying I AM SOCK anyway. → ROUX   ₪  00:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It really does not matter either way. Consensus is exceedingly clear. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Propriety of this RfC
Discussions about the RfC, as opposed to discussions in the RfC, should be in the talk page. Therefore, I'm moving some things--including my own comment--from the front page to this section so as not to distract from the questions the RfC itself raises. Crcarlin (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you don't get to unilaterally remove everything that you disagree with. That is not how RfCs work. The fact that you don't like that we see right through this blatant nonsense isn't really our problem, it's yours. I have restored everything and shall be having an admin block you for disruption if you do it again. → ROUX   ₪  15:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Duplication of Statement by Cybercobra, Statement 2 by CRCarlin, Statement 1 by roux, Statement 2 by roux, and all endorsements thereto, redacted. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, please pay more attention to what's going on. As my above note states perfectly clearly, I did not remove anything; I moved things to places where I thought they fit better and where they could be better hashed out. I did so without any regard to point of view--I even moved one of my own statements.
 * I'm disappointed that you would accuse me of such bias and disruption. If you think these statements were better left in the main RfC page, then fine, but don't accuse me of having bad motives when I went out of my way to lay out my my good ones.
 * I still maintain that the RfC should be answered on its page and discussed on the talk page. Complaints about forum shopping and such do not answer the questions proposed in the RfC, so I would move them to talk.Crcarlin (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree I find CRCarlin's actions to be well-motivated.  The civilized way to air a dispute is to place opposing arguments side by side and compare them.  It's important to focus on content.  (see WP:FOC)  That's what CRCarlin was doing.  I wouldn't have been so bold, myself, but I believe he/she was acting in the best traditions and interest of Wikipedia.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, we are in fact commenting on the RfC. The fact that we are pointing out that you are trying again to get the same result you were soundly defeated in last time is, I understand, of great consternation to you. The fact remains, however, that this is how RFCs work on Wikipedia, and you don't get to hide dissent on the talkpage. Here's a better idea: how about you recognize that no matter how much you like tilting at this particular windmill, consensus has not changed in four years and isn't going to? → ROUX   ₪  19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Alecmconroy
Alecmconroy's statement describes the Rorschach content as "highly educational," but based on what does he say this? What educational information is provided by including this extremely rough data on all ten cards that couldn't be provided by just one example card?

James Schmidt summed it up really well when he pointed out that the Rorschach exam is extremely complex and that the information here "provides no more than a stereotyped caricature of what is actually a very complex methodology." How educational, then, is this content really? Crcarlin (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are aware that all your arguments are very good arguments to expand the article with more information about each card, aren't you? -- Cycl o pia talk  15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My arguments are arguments to improve the article with respect to this content. Honestly, I'm not one of those demanding the immediate takedown of all of this information, but I consider the information currently presented to be doing a bad job educating about the Rorschach. If the best way to improve involves adding more information, then let's do it, but I don't think that's the right direction to go.
 * The Rorschach exam is extremely complex--that's one of its faults. We can't possibly post enough information to full describe the interpretation process here, so what type of summary should we post? The current content posted is misleading and mis-educational, and adding a bit more raw data is probably not going to help that.
 * Instead, let's replace the misleading information that's hard for a lay person to interpret with a more useful summary of what a person might see in one image and how the interpreter might compare that against normative sets. That would be more educational for the reader, better for the encyclopedia, and even agreeable to the psychologists. Everyone wins!
 * But yes, if someone can propose a version of the section with better content that happens to include more "secret" information, I'll be right there championing it. I just don't think it's possible. Crcarlin (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As Roux deleted this earlier comment, I will restate it: Regarding the entry being "highly educational", if the article purports to present "common responses", it is either presenting information that is old/public domain and thus obsolete, or if the article seeks to present contemporary data, it is presenting information that is almost certainly under copyright, as court cases have demonstrated that normative data are protected by copyright unless explicitly released to the public domain. Thus, such information is either useless and misleading, or a violation of copyright.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.182.119 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you refactor that, CrC-- I mean Dang-- I mean... whoever you are, I deleted nothing. So how about you just go ahead and not lie? There's a great idea. Oh yeah, and you should log in, too. It somewhat beggars belief that you're actually new around here. → ROUX   ₪  17:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the material properly cited? If so, how is it a violation of copyright? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To Xeno: Proper citation doesn't provide protection against use of psychological test normative data without permission; see
 * http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1863
 * http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/876/626/67594/
 * To Roux, all I can say is go back and look at the page history. When you removed whatever text I had responded to and placed it on the main page, you deleted my comment--perhaps inadvertently, I suppose.  I accept in advance your apology for claiming I am "lying".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.182.119 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest, whoever you're a sock of, that you pay more careful attention. I removed nothing from this page, I merely archived it. Stop smearing me. → ROUX  ₪  18:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment was preserved. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of those two links seem to support your argument. The first is simply a takedown notice (so the statements made therein are not necessarily legitimate legal arguments) that concerns "substantial portions of the English language MMPI-2 test". The second one admits that "Copyright protection does not extend to ideas or facts in published works". In any case, if the authors of the cited works have any concerns, they are free to contact our legal counsel. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The key passage in the court decision was that " In other words, the MMPI testing data, at least for purposes of analysis under the copyright law, do not represent pure statements of fact or psychological theory; they are instead original expressions of those facts or processes as applied and as such are copyrightable". The takedown notice reinforces this by indicating "Our belief based on good faith, and supported by successful litigation of the copyrightability of components of the MMPI test is that any of the following, unless done under license, constitutes infringement: .....3. reproduction of the University of Minnesota normative statements" As you note, it would be up to authors of the cited works to contest this presentation, but absence of such action does not necessarily mean that this is not a copyright violation, and the standard Wikipedia statement indicates that "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted."...it does not make reference to the necessity of legal action to substantiate such a claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.182.119 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how that applies here, to facts cited from published works, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. You are, of course, free to email Godwin yourself. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  20:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote "They (test data) are original expressions of those facts" and you said you were quoting a court decision. That's interesting.  If an "original expression of facts" is copyrightable, then the fair use doctrine would apply.  And one aspect of fair use doctrine is that reproduction should not adversely affect the use or marketability of the original publication.  This is important because the fair use doctrine seeks to protect the authors of creative works and promote the sharing thereof, no matter how many or how few words of text are required to express that information.  But then, I'm not a lawyer well-versed with these issues.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick answer, in case anyone's actually curious about the copyright issues:
 * The ten images themselves now have zero protection under copyright laws. They're too old.  Anyone can fold, spindle or mutilate them at will.  Anyone can wallpaper your bedroom with them.  Anyone can make and sell postcards out of them.
 * Facts about the images (e.g., that the most common response to the first image is bat (animal), or that some images use black and red ink) are not copyrightable.
 * The exact words used by a relatively recent author to communicate these facts are protected by copyright (with some exceptions). Do not copy sentences, paragraphs, or pages out of some other author's work.
 * Failing to provide a citation is the academic sin of plagiarism, not the legal sin of copyright violation.
 * Bottom line: If we've written the facts in our own words (and it certainly looks like we have), then there is, and can be, no copyright problem here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you think so, but the court ruled in Applied Innovations. Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota and National Computer Systems. Inc that "testing data, at least for purposes of analysis under the copyright law, do not represent pure statements of fact or psychological theory; they are instead original expressions of those facts or processes as applied and as such are copyrightable". Thus, the reproduction of similar normative data in this Wikipedia article could clearly be litigated as a copyright violation by the authors or publisher of the works cited that present those norms.  However, various other facts about the blots themselves (that they have black and red ink, to use your example) would not fall under that protection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.182.119 (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved the above comment as it was placed in the middle of WhatamIdoing's. If you have legal concerns, please take them up with User:MGodwin, the legal counsel for the WMF. We are not qualified to deal with legal concerns. → ROUX   ₪  19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CrCarlin's statement beginning this section and question whether the images are "highly educational." I don't see that we are "bringing up" anyone (the definition of education) to be better, more useful members of society. Education is meant to be useful; to "bring" people up. But in actuality, we are "compromising the usefulness" of the test and anyone who wishes to make use of it, both providers and takers of the test. We are bringing people down, not up. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Educational' is dictated by the recipient of the information, and not by outside groups with vested interests. As someone with no interest in ever taking the Rorschach, reading the article and seeing the inkblots is highly educational to me. And that is who we are writing for... the reader of Wikipedia, someone who wants to learn more about X. Sorry, DD, but your latest attempts will be the same as all the others.. the images will stay, no matter what route you try and take to get them removed. This particular RfC is mutton dressed as lamb--you've said the same things before, been rejected in exactly the same ways as before... ah well. It's your choice to waste your time. With luck, you won't be wasting our time this way again. → ROUX   ₪  01:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider information you can use to advantage to be educational. I'm concerned about trivial information, but I'm even more concerned about trivializing information, either by intent or by accident.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Closure
This has gone on long enough. Would someone be so kind as to close it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You say it has gone on long enough, but I'd say it has barely started. The Wikipedia policy that Consensus Can Change states, reasonably enough, that past consensus is "not valid rationale for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions" and that "editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits." And yet we see the opposite of that in the discussion of this RfC: there has been very little discussion of DD's proposal but a lot of claims that immutable consensus was already reached.


 * Out of the 11 statements so far, one (Roger's) is utterly factually incorrect and five concern themselves not with the RfC's questions but with promoting the previous consensus. Oh, and with banning DD for even thinking of asking whether the article might be improved... talk about classy.


 * Sadly, most of the consensus demonstrated in this RfC so far has been endorsing the immutability of consensus and deriding the idea of revisiting or discussing improvements to the article.


 * Therefore I'd see it as appropriate to keep the thing open until the signal better overcomes the noise. Crcarlin (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Out of the 11 statements so far [...] five concern themselves not with the RfC's questions but with promoting the previous consensus." - the previously existing consensus has been overwhelmingly reaffirmed. That's an argument for closing, not against.
 * "Oh, and with banning DD for even thinking of asking whether the article might be improved." That's not why we're talking about action against DD. Against policy, you're accusing the other editors of bad faith.
 * "most of the consensus demonstrated in this RfC so far has been endorsing the immutability of consensus and deriding the idea of revisiting or discussing improvements to the article." -You're deriding an emerging consensus you don't like, it seems. No one is against discussing improvements to the article. Do you realise how you're coming across?
 * If people involved in editing the article are willing to ignore a very clear consensus because there's one other person (and some socks/dubious accounts) agreeing with them, then that's an obstacle to the article being improved in accordance with WP policy, and the community need to take measures to limit the harm done by those editors. It doesn't help their case if they blatantly dismiss the will of the community with straw-man argument. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Crcarlin, the signal is dramatically above the noise. The signal is: Pictures remain in the article by overwhelming consensus. Topic bans are on the radar. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyclopia, your statement illustrates exactly what I'm talking about: this RfC is not about censorship of the images, but that's all half of the people want to address.
 * This is probably a once bitten twice shy situation. In the past there were efforts to have the images taken down for inappropriate reasons, but that was settled. Now DD and others want to talk about the right way to treat the images and other content (that was not previously hashed out, mind you) so as to make the article as useful and appropriate as possible. It sounds like the anti-censorship people, once bitten, can't look past the previous dispute to discuss the actual topic of this RfC.
 * Finally, it's worth noting that the trigger was pulled on this RfC before it was ready to go. DD was still editing it, and still asking for comment on the content. It speaks to his good will that he did not complain and instead let the process move forward. And for all of the effort he has put into this RfC, and his good faith on a topic he clearly cares about, his motives are questioned and he's threatened with a ban. Crcarlin (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, now. Let's stick to the truth, shall we? DD is, again, trying to get the images removed. He's tried it before. He failed then and he will fail now. Don't try and paint this as anything other than DD trying to get the same result by a different avenue. The blatantly obvious meat- and/or sockpuppetry going on here don't help much neither. → ROUX   ₪  20:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of "consider the issue on its merits" policy is so abhorrent to you? Let's say we do reject the other policy of assuming good faith and assume that DD put in all of this work out of a maniacal desire to have the images removed. Fine. And yet, even through those evil intentions, he proposes reasonable questions that are being ignored.
 * Do you want to make the article better, or do you want to pursue a personal vendetta against the evil DanglingDiagnosis, scourge of the Rorschach article? Crcarlin (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the first steps to making an article better is to prevent those who wish to make the article worse from doing what they want to do. DD does have a desire to have the images removed, and given how many times he has been told no, he doesn't get it and merely tries another way. You may characterize that as 'maniacal' if you wish. Whether he is asking reasonable questions or not is immaterial; the very proposal is unreasonable (and contra policy and mission statement and What Wikipedia Is, generally) and therefore any seeming reasonableness of any questions is really kind of moot. → ROUX   ₪  22:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I put the odds of DD's proposal being successful at somewhere between very slim and fat, but I see no particular need to worry about when it will close. Whether this closes this week, or next week, or the week after, the community's views will still be the community's views.
 * Now if DD understood and accepted the fact that s/he's beating a dead horse — that while consensus can change, it didn't change in this instance — it would be reasonable for DD to withdraw the RFC. But those on the 'winning' side have nothing to lose by employing a little patience.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that the RFC should not be closed early; WP:Process is important --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, actually. As far as I can tell, this RfC might as well be closed now because the process has entirely failed. There was no good faith attempt at discussing the topics brought up in the RfC, and none seems to be forthcoming. The RfC has been poisoned with offtopic noise, so what's the point in keeping it open? That's not to say the RfC has not shown a consensus. I think it actually has shown fine consensus that many reasonable pillars of Wikipedia policy--ranging from CCC and consideration on merits through various policies meant to welcome new editors--are to be dispensed with when particular mindsets are called to question. Just look at all of the people supporting statements that consensus can't change! So yeah, consensus seems to have been reached: Note that none of this has anything at all to do with my agreement or disagreement with any particular point of view... because the process couldn't even get that far! So I guess that's that. Like many social experiments, Wikipedia is brought down by the hassle of people being involved. Crcarlin (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The topic of Rorschach images is not to be discussed in any way.
 * 2) Wikipedia policy is wrong and is to be ignored when ideologically inconvenient.
 * 3) The informed opinions brought by topical experts--and quality of articles--are to take a back seat to ideological crusades and personal vendettas.
 * You are so far off base here that you're not even wrong. The problem with this RFC is that the subjects you are bringing up are solely designed to do an end run around Wikipedia policies. Don't pretend for a moment that the end goal is not removing the images. And so that is what has been discussed here; the real issues of forumshopping and trying to go against policy and What Wikipedia Is. Your snark is unhelpful and unconstructive. → ROUX   ₪  19:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Crcarlin 3
I agree that too much time is being taken up arguing about the article and not enough time is being spent editing the article. Perhaps if those who feel the article does not present an accurate view of the Rorschach test begin editing it directly (adding information), then our readers will benefit? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've talked to psychologists who are researchers and experts on the Rorschach. These are the people who know everything about it, have all the data about it, know all of the research and can produce enough citations to choke a horse--they're the real deal, the guys we would absolutely want involved in editing this thing.
 * When I talk to them about it, though, they look at the discussion going on behind the scenes and decide it's just not worth their time to get involved in such a mess. Can you really blame them? They'd love to share the facts about the Rorschach to clear up misconceptions and provide mountains of data to back up their statements, all on the level that would be helpful to Wikipedia readers, but what they see going on here is a mudslinging, ideological fight, not a real effort to make a good article. In fact, I bet it's downright insulting to them to see their life studies so sullied. They'd prefer to just stay away.
 * Someone who participated in Wikipedia in the past but gave up linked to this during our discussion: User:Jnc/Astronomer_vs_Amateur
 * So what's the solution? Maybe the democracy sought by Wikipedia simply makes it impossible to create high-quality articles past a certain point. Crcarlin (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If these psychologist wish to draft an alternative under a creative commons 3.0 license we would be happy to compare what they wish to see to what we have now. Then we can decide which is better.  The version could be created on Citezendium if you want. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like a better idea for them to actually participate in the community, working with people here to come to consensus on how to lay out the page in the way that best benefits both Wikipedia users and the public at large. The suggestion to draft an alternative seems like an all or nothing proposal that's especially unlikely to succeed considering some of the decidedly un-neutral voices that have participated in this discussion.
 * That's not to mention the idea of "inviting" experts to lay out their work and have it judged by what appears to be a group of uninformed ideologues.
 * Am I suggesting that the experts be given free reign on the page? Absolutely not. But I am suggesting two way communication so that everyone learns in the process with doubts assuaged and criticisms met. Crcarlin (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also a specific psychology wiki at Wikia that they could work on. It does not have the images.  Some psychologists have said they are not willing to participate as long as the images are present.  They thus do not need to participate.  We are here to write an encyclopedia.  The ethics guidelines of psychologists does not allow discussion of the tests in a public formum thus they are unable to contribute to an encyclopedia which discusses the tests.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know for a fact that there are a bunch of experts who would love to participate in this discussion if they hadn't been so turned off by the negativity, name calling, closedmindedness, etc.
 * So what do we do now? Can we have some kind of summit to get these guys involved? The situation demonstrated in this RfC is unworkable and will not lead to any betterment of the article since it alienates people who actually know things while avoiding discussing the actual questions at hand.
 * Again, to emphasize the point, it's not the presence of the images that's keeping many psychologists out; it's the negativity--often against policy--displayed by this forum. Crcarlin (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: There are some new users and non-account users signing the page during the past day or so. I suspect that these are some of the psychologists that do want to contribute to this effort but don't necessarily know how... their mailing lists and groups run at different speeds than discussions at Wikipedia, so they got here late. Point is, yes, they do want to be involved, but how are we going to use their knowledge? Are we going to ignore them, calling them sockpuppets and treating them as enemies, or can we figure out some way to tap their knowledge? Crcarlin (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no "negativity", "name calling" nor "closedmindedness", unless with this you want to indicate "people who soundly rebuke my opinions". Experts are more than welcome to contribute here, and they shouldn't be afraid of doing so -if they are, well, there's little we can do. I mean, I work in academia myself, and I know lots of people who work there contributing here, I don't see why, if we do so, psychologists interested in Rorschach can't do the same. All they have to remember is that there is a strong consensus here to keep the images where they are, and that removing them would be contrary to our policies and guidelines. -- Cycl o pia talk  20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, surely the strong opinions and long-lasting debates on this issue have greatly detracted from Wikipedia's often fairly collegial atmosphere, as I would assume also happens with other divisive articles (e.g. those related to abortion); the fact that (vs. abortion) Rorschach is a comparatively technical topic (thus benefitting more from expert [i.e. psychologist] input) and that bad atmospheres tend to repel experts, doesn't help. In any case, this is tangential (though certainly not irrelevant) to the topic of the RfC, which is the more narrow issue of whether the inkblot images should be included. I think / would-hope most everyone agrees that the article is a work-in-progress that's not perfect and would of course benefit from expert input. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is, I don't feel that this RfC is or was supposed to be about the narrow issue of whether the inkblot images should be included. Looking at the questions and DD's recent discussions elsewhere (e.g., those where he was requesting help in formulating this RfC), this RfC is and was to be broader than the single question, considering a lot of compromises that don't involve taking down the images at all.
 * After all, only question four directly addressed the presence of the images. There are three other questions that are reasonable and wouldn't necessarily point to a takedown no matter how they turned out.
 * I don't believe this RfC was perfectly drafted, and I don't believe it completely reflected DD's intentions. As I pointed out elsewhere, it was "activated" while DD was still asking others for advice as to what should go in. Hence my use of the term "supposed to be." Crcarlin (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Crcarlin, whenever you find a psychologist who is willing to help out, please beg him/her to bookmark WT:PSY, WT:SEX, or WT:MED. The project's talk pages are good places for psychologists to both find help (with Wikipedia's arcane complications) and to be helpful (by providing information about their areas of expertise).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, psychology--like physics and other fields--is an extremely broad topic. No psychologist is an expert in all parts of psychology, and in fact the study of the Rorschach is a particularly specialized area. It's understandable to me that the Rorschach experts I interact with are particularly interested in contributing to pages about the Rorschach exam and not so interested in contributing to pages about general psychology or medicine... and that's especially after considering the treatment they receive here. Crcarlin (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikipedia's psych-related articles often constitute a hostile environment for professionals. Several articles are notorious for the number of axe-grinding patients/clients/survivors.  But that's why we desperately need knowledgeable people to do whatever they can to help out, even if improvements have to be taken by baby steps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Closure II
It seems more than 30 days have passed. I wonder if this has to stay open again or if instead we can ask for the RfC to be safely closed. Thanks. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, particularly in light of Danglingdiagnosis' statement that what other organizations do is not our concern. → ROUX   ₪  19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the closer should point if the topic ban indeed has consensus and can be started, or not. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Topic bans can't be created via RFC. Any proposed topic ban would need to be posted at WP:AN. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! -- Cycl o pia talk  14:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin paged. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In process. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And now apparently done. :) --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)