![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The Rorschach card images are held in copyright by Hogrefe & Huber, based in Germany (hhpub.com). The Hogrefe family was has held the copyright for three generations and carefully renewed it in all international settings. I am a test development professional and, quite frankly, not a real fan of the instrument, at least as it has be overextended in use over the years. All of that academic and scientific controversy is quite beside the point however: the images are protected by international law. Public display destroys their commercial value and is both unethical and illegal. There is zero controversy that the images should not, ever, be displayed on Wikipedia or any public site. Plskmn 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have archived all material from 2005 through 31 July 2007. This talk page could use two or three more archives, but I opted to leave the remaining comments, given their possible relevance to the current discussion over the content of the article. I also moved several comments from the header, as indicated - please revert my moves if you do not believe they were proper. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Genie, in reading through recent comments it seems clear that people want to reach resolution on several issues, but that it is proving difficult to do so. Could you help me by clarifying what you believe to be an authoritative source of information on 1) copyright limits and 2) rectricted access.
Regarding 1) Do you need to hear from Hogrefe & Huber? Or do you need to hear from their legal representatives? I will be glad to provide you with specific contact information direct to the Managing Director's office, if that will be of assistance.
Regarding 2) The Rorschach pictures are sold in the US through no more than about four of five sources (Pearson, Harcourt, WPS, PAR and MHS). All are psychological test publishers. All have specific procedures requiring every customer to document their educational level, licensure, and coursework specific to the use of one or more tests (e.g., Rorschach, MMPI, Weschler tests). I work for one of the named companies, am a licensed professional, and--for several decades--have had specific responsibility for reviewing customer documentation when restricted tests of these kinds are ordered. Yes, if someone presents false credentials and lies about their background, it is possible that they may obtain materials improperly. The existence of improper access does not validate claims that access is free, nor justify Wikipedia's providing improper access.
Test materials of these kinds are also provided in university and other research libraries. For all cases I am aware of (e.g., several Ivy League, Big Ten, Pac 10 schools), test materials are maintained in separate, locked rooms. Students in training and other qualified people have access. The materials are not in open circulation. Yes, it is possible that some libraries are unaware of author/publisher/professional association policies on the release of these materials. That does not make faulty practice correct. Nor does it provide a good and ethical model for Wikipedia.
Regarding sales on ebay or other on-line sources. These are also improper. Ebay has a specific procedure, set up in agreement with the American Psychological Association and the Association for Test Publishers. Any listing of a restricted test is taken down immediately and without question. Yes, ebay is huge and No the ebay staff cannot be personally responsible for vetting every single new entry of this kind before it goes up. But in every case, when notice comes in from a proper source (e.g., publisher, licensed professional) the protest is accepted at face and the materials are immediately removed.
It seems to me that either of my points here is sufficient to require that the Rorschach pictures be taken down. At this point Wikipedia should be in "active proof" mode: you should have a specific written statement from Hogrefe & Huber, granting permission to display their materials, not flounder about trying to sort out conflicting claims from people who appear much stronger on opinion than in authoritative facts.
Plskmn
15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my second point was not a copyright point, it was regarding restricted access. And I note that you do not address questions of professional convention, established policy in major research instituions, ethical responsibilities independent of legal requirements, etc. On the other hand, I suppose your legal arguement regarding copyright--and I do accept it and appreciate the detail--may obviate the this second aspect. It simply puts Wikipedia in a fairly radical stance regarding materials used by mental health professionals. It is a problem regarding tests in general--for example, IQ tests, achievement tests, aptitude tests, etc. These all rely on evaluating tested individual's responses to materials under similar conditions--that is, in the absence of prior knowledge and exposure. Seems pretty clear then that the Rorschach's value more or less evaporated in 1992, since the absence of prior exposure, and so comparability of current responses to the historical research data base, can no longer be assumed. Guess to only solution is to develop, standardize and validate new (and newly copyrightable) test materials to get at that same information. Long time job security for test publishers. (Oh, that would be me?! Thanks!!). Plskmn 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
For those of you who claim that the copyright is still in force, can you point to a court decision which agrees? It would seem that if the inkblot in question was published before Rorschach's death, then the copyright has expired. Publicola 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I do think that the copyright issue is resolved. Genie was explicit: the Hogrefe and Huber concern, the sole original copyright holders, presented their evidence. It was found wanting and so the images are not, in that sense protected. Or at least until Hogrefe & Huber are willing to mount a more effective defensive of their claims. [And that is not to be cute: copyright claims are rather like "easements," if they are not vigorously defended, they become lost. So the burden now is, indeed, on Hogrefe & Huber.]
What I do feel is still open is whether the claims of licensed mental health practitioners, the conventions of major research libraries, the statements of major professional and trade associations, the views of serious academic researchers deserve consideration. Significant members from each of these groups claim that, for some specific and documented purposes, the Rorschach materials do have a legitimate, validation. Every such purpose is undermined when the images are provided for public view. Is there consensus that, absent specific legal requirements of copyright, there is an adequate rationale to deny these other individuals and institutions the value of the historical database that is the Rorschach legacy? Dothe contributors to Wikipedia feel sufficiently well-informed and justified that they wish to become a signficant tool in removing this venerable (even of ocassionally misused or abused) instrument from any role the field of mental health? Plskmn 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Copyright claims generally do not depend on whether they are enforced; that quirk belongs to trademark law. There is the doctrine of laches (equity), but Wikipedia policy never takes advantage of laches (for one thing, it's a crapshoot.) If all ten of the 1921 blots were not so easily available in full colour and high resolution from a few minutes of web searching, I might feel differently, but given the current state of affairs I see no reason to censor any of these images. If the members American Psychological Association wish to follow the spirit rather than the mere letter of their ethical guidelines, then they might advocate that a new copyrighted set of blots be normed for the test rather than clamoring to censor public domain information that any schoolboy could find in minutes. Publicola 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding publicola's comment on whether or not the images may be displayed, regardless of professional objection: I find them direct, ruthless, definitive. I like that and can live with it. I consider that there is consensus on the point that imaage may be shown. Next topic.
Now that we agree that the images may be displayed, perhaps we can address several topics that are now open for discussion: 1) What will be the purpose of displaying the images? The existing article, above the "Controversy" bar seems pretty succinct. Is that, as it stands, an adequate "general purpose encyclopedia" level discussion? Where does the display of one or more images fit in? Perhaps people may have some curiosity about what the images look like. Are there a more specific and salient reasons? While we are no longer discussing principle, we are discussing relative values: professionals have reason to ask that these images not be widely promolgated. There is some onus on those displaying them to develop a concrete and specific counter-rationale.
2) What should be the format of the display: how many of the 10 images, what size, what degree of image precision, outline or complete, with or without color? Again, with reference to countervailing concerns how extensive a display is _required_ to meet the objectives of the article.
3) What amount of additional text is justified to support the images used? Certainly this is not a test manual. Certainly this is not a document to describe the psycholgical meaning of any given response to any given image or portion of an image (in fact all such "meanings" reflect the impact of all other scores on all other responses to all other images and so, individually are quite improper). Any specific comment is likely to open a considerable controversy regarding the scientfic basis of the instrument.
So, where exactly are we going with this new found consensus?
I strongly urge that there be discussion and additional consensus on these issues before images are re-instated. Plskmn 01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, for example, there is an external link at the close of the article that explicitly (and accurately) states that is discloses all 10 cards in full color and detail. Why does that remain, given this current conversation?" And does it not seem strange that the link at the top of the article, where the lind to the single card occurs, the text explicitly states that going to the link has potential to invalidate the instrument? Recall, copyright aside, we are talking about a tool that many conscientious, serious professionals find useful. Such a tool should not be destroyed (that is what invalidated means to test) lightly. So, given that a great deal can be (is) verbally provided and discussed in relation to the test in the article, what specific and pressing rationale is there to show even one card. Earlier you suggested that the APA underwrite the development of new cards. As a subsequent writer stated (accurately although perhaps somewhat shrilly) that is a very expensive, very time consuming task and one that would be undertaken by an a large host of academic researchers or a commercial test publisher, not a professional trade association. Wouldn't it be better to show a similar card, created just of demonstration purposes, that could demonstrate what "ink blot" means without undermining the actual instrument? And wouldn't it be better for all if Wikipedia did not unnecessarily contribute to undermining a tool in which several thousand researchers and other professional have invested tens of thousands of hours over the course of now close to 100 years. That historical data base, one that cannot be reassembled in anything much less than a complete and equally daunting a recreation is what is being destroyed. Not something as nominal as a single image, inside or outside of copyright. Note, this is not an argument about legality, it is a discussion of a proper balancing of countervailing interests. It seems to me that the public's right to understand what the Rorschach is about can be easily satisfied without our venturing into explicit exposure of material that publishers, researchers, and professional groups all agree has a legitimate reason to be provided in a professionally restricted manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plskmn ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that the instrument has been seriously undermined since the advent of internet search engines or before; long before Wikipedia. And there is not even an attempt to quantify the extent to which it has been? 123.111.94.195 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I to understand from the above that professional psychologists, when confronted with ethical questions about this test, respond only with ad hominems and complaints that replacing the inkblots would be too much work? Is there really no other dialog forthcoming? This test is used in serious decisions including those where a subject might be held against their will. Yet there are psychologists who think that it is still acceptable to administer the test, without any quantification of how many people have already seen the inkblots? That is preposterous! Would a meat inspector refuse to order a recall if they found that some unknown number of ground beef samples tested positive for dangerous E. coli contamination, even if, "most people probably will not be exposed?" Of course not! Both issues hold people's lives in the balance, because setting a dangerous patient free due to incorrect test results can be as bad as eating tainted meat.
For a test with serious controversies, I would say this kind of behavior from its advocates is just digging their own graves. And speaking of the controversies, WP:LEAD clearly states that the major controversies should be mentioned in the introductory section. Why is that not the case in this article? LKirkby 10:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I normally don't like to tout my credentials, but I'm an expert on the Rorschach and know hundreds of psychologists from all over the world who use the test. I have never heard the test pronounced "ROR-shack", with the last syllable rhyming with "tack". I've heard many laypeople say it that way, but not those who know about the test. There may be some who pronounce the name of the town differently, but that's not the same as the test. Please do not revert until others have had a chance to express their opinions. Ward3001 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Introducing second paragraph with the phrase "Critics have..." is quite a wonderful addition. It provides focus and perspective. I am afraid that I think the "Exner" sentence just invites addtional refrutation comments and so would acquiesce to comments that it be "reverted/deleted."
Is there any chance, however, that similarly rational criteria can be applied to the "External links" section. It is a clear hodgepodge of provocative and well grounded critcism (e.g., the Scientific American article) and inappropriately inflamatory and clearly inappropriate links (e.g., the Spanish languge site that reveal all images, in clear violation of the consensus to reveal only one image). Guess I am appealing to the Lkirkby WPlead to provide leadership here. Plskmn 08:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Somehow “effort to address concerns” feels a bit more neutral than “reduced some of these vulnerabilities to criticism”. Similarly “those who have contributed” versus “supporters of the test”. These more broadly correspond to and balance the "Critics..." that open the paragraph. Plskmn 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but here is my take: "...addresses..." left simple means "it's handled, done" and so reflects an opinion. Limiting it to "the Exner system" makes it sound proprietary and that provokes suspicion. Also, your version makes no mention of "others" (researchers) who have contributed to the supporting literature of the Exner system, people who exist in fact and give weight to the statement (without reflecting an opinion). Terms like "systematically" and "extensive" are unecessary and again reflect opinion. Frankly I like it reading "There are criticisms.....There is research addressing the criticisms." And leaving the opinions (e.g., about who is more right) out of the main article. You have helped me learn the wisdom of not provoking countervaling opinion wars. Can I return the favor? Plskmn 05:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds clean enough for me. Not that different than yesterday's, so maybe I over-reacted. I encourage you to put it in in either form. Plskmn ( talk) 07:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
And then what about a similar request to the "critics..."! However, I suggest that you simply put in the single best broad complilation from the Exner literature and let it sit. If the question does get raised on the other side, then one of the Lilienfeld ones. Obvious problem: the criticisms have been allowed to accumulate piecemeal, without citation and the Lillienfeld group has only specified some of those that are stated in the article here. Kinda messy. But all the more reason to try to keep it simple if possible. Sure it is not "fair" but at lest the defense side will have, at this point, a scientific cite to it's credit. Plskmn ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ward3001. I was the one who made a recent change to the Rorschach article, which you changed back with about 2.5 seconds. You then sent me a notice saying that I had been warned for vandalism, and that I would be banned from edits if I made another change. However, this is in violation of the wikipedia rules, I believe: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." In that my edit was well intentioned, I don't believe it would be fair to use your powers to ban me. What I said in the edit was "Exner refused to show his data to other researchers. This is considered suspicious in the world of science, where transparency is cherished, and is maintained through the peer review system." I was then going to cite this reference: Meyer, G. et al. (2001) Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist Feb Vol 56(2) 128-165. - As soon as I figured out how.
Though I am not new to the Rorschach (I'm writing up a Rorschach report right now, in fact), I am new to wikipedia, so please forgive me for my not proceding exactly correctly. However, do not ban me.
Further, I would like to open the discussion for adding my edit back in. It is a factual statement, and can be traced to a published, peer-reviewed journal article. Thanks! (I don't have a username yet - I will sign up today.)
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.176.213 ( talk) 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
It raises an important issue, namely whether or not Wikipedia should appeal to interests outside of itself, or censor or semi-censor certain things. There have been lots of debates on these issues, for example with the infamous controversial cartoons published back in 2005. In this case, the claim is that posting the picture somehow degrades the test and makes it less useful (although whether or not this is significant is debatable -- one point that has been raised is that the test, especially the first image, has been plastered all over the place. Plus that first image is the only one mentioned on the page here.), in the other, it's because people's beliefs may be offended by the material. In either case though we have non-Wikipedia interests affecting Wikipedia. Both are cases of a more general issue: should Wikipedia alter it's content to appeal to interests outside of itself? Also, I wonder about the interapplicability of the various solutions. For example on this article about the test, it is hidden. Should the same be done on other articles like that about those cartoons I mentioned? Also, how does this jive with official policy that Wikipedia is not censored? Could there be some problems with that policy, and maybe a change in policy is required? Wikipedia should never assume it's policies are perfect. mike4ty4 ( talk) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the JPMC? 209.77.205.9 ( talk) 09:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
(back left) I do not disagree that the test is supported by large numbers within the mental health community; I think that goes without saying since the test is frequently administered. However, I have to agree with the others who have pointed out that trying to censor the images is tilting at windmills. Why do you choose to advocate hiding the images rather than the creation and normalization of another set of blots which would be subject to copyright and trade secret protections that the ten 1921 blots lack? Is the effort of normalizing another set of blots really more, in your estimation, than the effort it will take to keep the current public domain blots hidden? MilesAgain ( talk) 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The current solution, I think, is a good one. People wanting to learn more about the test don't see the blot unless they make a deliberate effort to do so. After all, they can see all ten images from 15 seconds with Google if they are willing to make such an effort. As for the underlying questions you raise, I will just say that I think
WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy instead of just a guideline for very good reasons.
MilesAgain (
talk)
20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Several people including myself have stated that the display of rorschach inkblots interferes with the practice of the mental health community, and therefore should be considered harmful and should be avoided.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This is only an issue if in fact image publication can be considered harmful. Otherwise it's a mute point.
In this talkpage people have expressed that the wikipedia policy says that the wikipedia is not censored. And that it has to be taken literally, regardless of whether harm is being inflicted to others.
But such a wide interpretation of the policy leads us to contradictions. As we can see in the text of the policy itself that reads "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content ... and do not violate any of our existing policies". A wide interpretation would mean that relevant information will be CENSORED if it violates existing policies. Along with the policy of "Wikipedia is not censored" and honoring the title of its' article page "What the wikipedia is not", there are several policies that say what should NOT be in the wikipedia. Or using the same wide interpretation what should be CENSORED.
A second interpretation that is not contradictory, is that there should not be an expectation of censoring by the wikipedia or any other entity. So if someone was to look for some authority that would censor a particular article they could come to this page and find this policy that reads "The wikipedia is not censored". Furthermore the policy also explains that such censoring cannot be done because of nature of the wikipedia, and mentions how consensus is done by discussion open to anyone interested in a given subject.
Also on the same page there is a policy that reads Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy saying that we should "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines" and that "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."
Lastly I want to offer examples of widely acceptable self-censorship that happen regularly. Phone numbers, addresses, credit card numbers ect.. are removed from articles, videos and photographs to prevent crime, harassment and to protect privacy. Competition organizers omit crucial details that would render their competition results meaningless. Scientists and other experts do not publish data that they judge inconclusive and misleading. All those are examples of positive self-censorship. While the Muhammad image example is highly controversial and censoring it might not be widely considered appropriate, using it to deem all self-censorship as inappropriate is a false generalization. -- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose to remove the current image at the top of the page and replace it with an inkblot that resembles the original ones. And the image should be clearly different from the originals when looking at them side by side. This will convey the same value of information to the wikipedia reader, without compromising the test.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
{{RFCsci | section=RfC: Should Original Rorshach test inkblot be replaced !! reason=Showing the image invalidates the Rorschach test. This test is used extensively by Mental Health communities accross the globe. Leaving the image is contrary to the purpose of the Wikipedia!! time=00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)}}
Sections " Harmfulness_of_image_publication" and " Interpretation of censoring guidelines for image publication that results in harm to others" describe the argument and put forward the proposal of replacing the inkblot image. To organize the discusion I added objection sections below, so we can discuss them independently.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A similar issue was raised at the List of sex positions talk page. And the solution was the same. To provide with images that were not "true to life". But conveyed the relevant information of the subject of the article.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who would Wiki those psychological analyses he plans or expects to undergo has likely already invalidated them. And so I don't see a compelling need to censor the images here. Someguy1221 ( talk) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Back at the beginning of october 2007 Faustian suggested this idea for the first time and DIEGO talk Agreed. At that time user High on a tree said "Such original artwork violates WP:OR." Back then Faustian clarified that the image proposed at the time did not represent original research. And I agree.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A psudo-Rorschach inkblot does not convey the same information as a real Rorschach inblot. Geni 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
By that sort of argument, would any old picture of a car do for the Honda Accord article? As long as it's a similar car, say another Honda, it's pretty much the same thing, right? It seems quite obvious that showing a "clearly different" automobile and describing it as a Honda Accord does not "convey the same value of information" -- how is this case different? Not trying to be snide, just curious as to the response. – Luna Santin ( talk) 09:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Refactored out of #Already in other websites objection, above.
The crux of my point wasn't "other people have done it, so we should do it, too," but rather that you haven't demonstrated that the image produces actual harm in a situation where the image is already available freely and widely, saturating the public awareness in a way that publishing this image is nothing new. – Luna Santin ( talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Refactored out of #Not the same information objection, above.
If there is a rub, that'll be it. I for one have seen the inkblot in Image:Rorschach1.jpg dozens of times previously, even before ever coming to Wikipedia. I'm of the opinion it's already pretty much saturated on the net and in general culture, and that's it's been plastered all over the place to most anyone who goes looking for the test. Without even getting into the grit of the argument, I suspect the damage is already done before a reader ever navigates to Wikipedia -- the ship has already sailed, so to speak. – Luna Santin ( talk) 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The current warning-headline is:
Click [show] (or here) to view the first card in the test (may invalidate the test).
I would suggest to change it with:
Click [show] (or here) to view the first card in the test (may invalidate the test).
In other words, we've to replaced a non-standard HTTP-LINK with a standard WIKI-LINK. Wiki-links are everywhere on wikipedia, and they all works fine with all browsers (just like a http link does).Btw, both kind of links are recognize even if javascript is turned off (in the internal wikipedia's subsystem, wikilinks differ by http-links only because they have a different CSS class associated with them) but for internal linking and interwiki linking, we MUST use wikilinks in place of httplinks because on wikipedia we must have wikilinks everytime this is possible.
A user asked me to get some "consensus" before doing this change...(lol), well what do you think? Bye!:)-- DrugoNOT ( talk) 20:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed a line about the Society for Personality Assessment from the article, and user Ward3001 reverted it, and threatened to ban my IP. I have put the edit back, and here's why: first, the Society for Personality Assessment used to be called "The Rorschach Institute," so the fact they use the Rorschach test is meaningless since they obviously have epoused it from the beginning, and given the organization's new official sounding name, it's also misleading. Further, this instutute isn't significant enough to even have a Wikipedia stub, so which methods they use is a matter of trivia, not encyclopedic content. -- 208.124.148.174 ( talk) 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The main issue here, is that if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but don't go threatening to ban my IP for a sincere edit. As to the case in point, I make no statements about the accuracy of the deleted bit. There are plenty of justifications for removing a true statement. My argument was that it didn't appear important or useful enough to warrant inclusion. If this group really is influential in the industry, then that information is worth something, and should be included in the article, and an article about SPA should be at least created. If not, it's trivial. -- 208.124.148.174 ( talk) 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That info would have been more useful than a template threat. Be nice. I'm not as experienced here as you appear to be. I use Wikipedia a lot for reference, and if I see something I think should be changed, I change it, following the "Be Bold" invitation. If somebody doesn't like my edits, they're free to revert them, and that doesn't bother me in the least. What does bother me is threats which violate policy:
The principle "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the policy of not biting and guideline of assuming good faith. If you prosecute and judge people because they are ignorant of our policies and guidelines, you are in fact violating our policies and guidelines! (from: Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers)
-- 208.124.148.174 ( talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Just so that the issue not devolve into a heated dialog between two individuals, could we go back to the central content of the edit? It seems to me that Ward has asserted that there are certifiable facts to support the cluase about the Society. The somewhat anonymous 208.124.148.174|208.124.148.174 has asserted that, since the Society used to have a name that contained reference to the Rorschach, their avid use is not a good reason to cite them in the article. So far, as an observer, I'd say that citing the Society appears ill advised. I'd like to see a cite referencing use by a group that is less biased (e.g., APA or other broad group of practitioners). Please note, I do not suggest that the article be changed at this point, I simply assert that, so far, I personally find the suggested edit to be a good one. Plskmn ( talk) 07:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a question of bias or ulterior agendas. Question of relavence to the short, opening section of the Rorschach page. If the instrument were less widely used, then reference to an organization as small and academic as the Society might be warranted. But then it might not warrent much interest on Wikipedia (and almost certainly would warrent less controversy). Realitically, however, it the instrument is not used solely for "personality assessment" and the opening section of the article should address things on the larger stage. As much as Ward and Irv Weiner may be right about legitimate uses of the Rorschach, there are, unfortunately, many times more weak, unsupported and unjustified uses. The opening section should be as scientific and value-neutral as possible, but it should reflect (be in relation to) reality. I have not seen enough discussion to warrent removing the cite, but I remain open to additional discussion. Plskmn ( talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The current version has been disabled so there's a link to the image so you can still view it with JavaScript turned off. The current version doesn't work with JavaScript turned off (it won't expand) - this is using FireFox 2.0.0.11 on Ubuntu 7.10 - Halo ( talk) 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a psychologist, have very little knowledge about the subject and just came by this article by chance. Still, I find the controversy-section of this article remarkably soft compared to the German version of this article and also considering that one of Germany's foremost journalistic writers on judiciary matters (Gisela Friedrichsen of Der Spiegel) referred to the use of the Rorschach test in court as "proven bogus" in an article I once read. It is of course possible that those two are wrong, but I find this discrepancy noteworthy. Malc82 ( talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article start with a hidden image? -- Fredrick day ( talk) 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Since one of my (minor) changes got reverted in the middle of this controversy, I thought I'd chime in and give my opinion. Short summary: I am strongly against hiding the image, and I am against a disclaimer (but not as strongly). I agree that we could have exceptions to the principle of not having disclaimers in articles, but this exception should be extremely well motivated, especially in the context of the Muhammad pictures. — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
I don't think either hiding the image or adding a formal disclaimer would be very helpful here. Are there really many people who would be looking for information about this test and would not want to see the image ? Either the person is not planning to take this test (or does not know he will be taking it), and he won't care about looking at the image, or he knows he is going to take it and I bet that he is even more likely to look at it ! — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
The whole article is about these inkblots, it is not very meaningful without the image. — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
There is also another factor that makes me think that the hiding is useless: I have never taken the test, and I have never searched actively for the images of the cards; however, I could have described pretty accurately at least the first card of the test, because I have seen it countless times in movies, comics, etc. To me, it is public knowledge, and I don't think it makes any sense to hide it. — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
Finally, a technical point: Wikipedia pages should be written so that they are as versatile as possible; hiding the image under a "show" button does not help very much if the article gets printed (I just tried — even if you expand the image first, and then click on "printable page", the page is hidden by default). And before anyone asks, there is at least one person who regularly print Wikipedia articles (me, obviously :-) — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
However, I am entirely in favor of adding to the article and to the description of the image a (sourced) note indicating that some people believe that viewing the image beforehand may invalidate the test; this is an encyclopedic piece of information that I think is very interesting; it should not, however, have any influence on our policies and the way we present this topic. Schutz ( talk) 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Roots of the Rorschach controversy Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 25, Issue 1, January 2005, Pages 97-118 Howard N. Garb, James M. Wood, Scott O. Lilienfeld and M. Teresa Nezworski seems to have some interesting and useful material in it, people (who have that sort of access) might want to read and assess it for inclusion. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 14:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There are several given reasons why not to hide the image of the Rorschahc inkblot. One of those is wikipedia guidelines. Let's look at this one issue, and either get it out of the way or not, rather than confuse several issues at once.
It seems many editors are basing their opinion to hide/unhide the images based on erronous or non-reading of wikipedia policies and guidelines, or ideas about those policies or guidelines that don't actually meet the guideline when the guideline is read. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states that "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow." The issue of disclaimers is a guideline, not a policy. Let's look at the disclaimer page. It states, quite clearly, Disclaimers should not be used in articles. All articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages. Further in the article, under the heading "what are disclaimers", it is written: For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages:
In other words, the guideline that no disclaimers should be used applies to cases when that disclaimer is covered by one of those five official disclaimer pages. Anything covered by the above should not be in the article, per the guideline.
Let's look at each of the five categories individually.
Wikipedia:General disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.
Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer states: USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS OR ILLEGAL. Some information on Wikipedia may create an unreasonable risk for those readers who choose to apply or use the information in their own activities or to promote the information for use by third parties...
Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE. Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.
The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor.
Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS. Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time — sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made on Wikipedia.
Finally, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE.
Some people are focussed on the idea of a spoiler. Please remember that for wikipedia purposes, a spoiler is defined as "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists."
Remember: For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages.
The question is whether or not one should allow a statement referring to the image of an inkblot, when seeing that inkblot spoils the test for the viewer seeking to take the test at some later time. The specific warning in this case is: "[show]First card in the test (viewing may invalidate the test.)"
Which of the five official disclaimer pages does this particular warning duplicate? If it does not duplicate any of them, then "for the purposes of this guideline" it is not a disclaimer.
Is anyone interested in actually discussing the actual rules here, rather than just saying "I know what they are?" or "I don't want to debate you." Faustian ( talk) 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Santin ( talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It is clear to me that there is a communication failure in the original inkblot controversy. And I think we all know that the Wikipedia is not a democracy. I also think this talk page does needs order and a mediator could help us. I should warn that mediation would not start soon, and it does require that the parties involved agree to participate.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Negative. Unless you have arithmatic problems consensus is clearly to remove hidden image which coincidently also goes along with policy. Images will be unhidden shortly and I Caution you against reversion.-- Garycompugeek ( talk) 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I used the straw poll per WP:STRAW:
"A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus... What a poll can do is give you insight into where people stand on an issue. Polls are typically used in somewhat more complex situations, where it might be hard to otherwise get an overview:
- Early or in the middle of a discussion, to determine where people stand, and who needs to negotiate with who[m].
- When we think consensus has already been reached, but we want to make sure we haven't accidentally missed any important opinions."
So this should also be considered. This wasn't to create consensus, but it was merely used to measure what type of consensus was forming. Cheers, нмŵוτн τ 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
While the article is temporarily protected I ask everyone step back and think about this logically. I have no personal vendetta in this just a desire to protect the encyclopedia. If we allow hidden images on this page how can we jusify not hiding them on the Muhammad page. We are condoning medical opinion POV on one hand while ostracizing religious POV on the other. My desire is to not only be fair but abide by policy. -- Garycompugeek ( talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You should also understand that unless you change policy editors will continue to come to this page to correct what seems a breach of policy. Consider this. Find another page in Wikipedia with a hidden image to support your cause.-- Garycompugeek ( talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The Rorschach card images are held in copyright by Hogrefe & Huber, based in Germany (hhpub.com). The Hogrefe family was has held the copyright for three generations and carefully renewed it in all international settings. I am a test development professional and, quite frankly, not a real fan of the instrument, at least as it has be overextended in use over the years. All of that academic and scientific controversy is quite beside the point however: the images are protected by international law. Public display destroys their commercial value and is both unethical and illegal. There is zero controversy that the images should not, ever, be displayed on Wikipedia or any public site. Plskmn 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have archived all material from 2005 through 31 July 2007. This talk page could use two or three more archives, but I opted to leave the remaining comments, given their possible relevance to the current discussion over the content of the article. I also moved several comments from the header, as indicated - please revert my moves if you do not believe they were proper. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Genie, in reading through recent comments it seems clear that people want to reach resolution on several issues, but that it is proving difficult to do so. Could you help me by clarifying what you believe to be an authoritative source of information on 1) copyright limits and 2) rectricted access.
Regarding 1) Do you need to hear from Hogrefe & Huber? Or do you need to hear from their legal representatives? I will be glad to provide you with specific contact information direct to the Managing Director's office, if that will be of assistance.
Regarding 2) The Rorschach pictures are sold in the US through no more than about four of five sources (Pearson, Harcourt, WPS, PAR and MHS). All are psychological test publishers. All have specific procedures requiring every customer to document their educational level, licensure, and coursework specific to the use of one or more tests (e.g., Rorschach, MMPI, Weschler tests). I work for one of the named companies, am a licensed professional, and--for several decades--have had specific responsibility for reviewing customer documentation when restricted tests of these kinds are ordered. Yes, if someone presents false credentials and lies about their background, it is possible that they may obtain materials improperly. The existence of improper access does not validate claims that access is free, nor justify Wikipedia's providing improper access.
Test materials of these kinds are also provided in university and other research libraries. For all cases I am aware of (e.g., several Ivy League, Big Ten, Pac 10 schools), test materials are maintained in separate, locked rooms. Students in training and other qualified people have access. The materials are not in open circulation. Yes, it is possible that some libraries are unaware of author/publisher/professional association policies on the release of these materials. That does not make faulty practice correct. Nor does it provide a good and ethical model for Wikipedia.
Regarding sales on ebay or other on-line sources. These are also improper. Ebay has a specific procedure, set up in agreement with the American Psychological Association and the Association for Test Publishers. Any listing of a restricted test is taken down immediately and without question. Yes, ebay is huge and No the ebay staff cannot be personally responsible for vetting every single new entry of this kind before it goes up. But in every case, when notice comes in from a proper source (e.g., publisher, licensed professional) the protest is accepted at face and the materials are immediately removed.
It seems to me that either of my points here is sufficient to require that the Rorschach pictures be taken down. At this point Wikipedia should be in "active proof" mode: you should have a specific written statement from Hogrefe & Huber, granting permission to display their materials, not flounder about trying to sort out conflicting claims from people who appear much stronger on opinion than in authoritative facts.
Plskmn
15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my second point was not a copyright point, it was regarding restricted access. And I note that you do not address questions of professional convention, established policy in major research instituions, ethical responsibilities independent of legal requirements, etc. On the other hand, I suppose your legal arguement regarding copyright--and I do accept it and appreciate the detail--may obviate the this second aspect. It simply puts Wikipedia in a fairly radical stance regarding materials used by mental health professionals. It is a problem regarding tests in general--for example, IQ tests, achievement tests, aptitude tests, etc. These all rely on evaluating tested individual's responses to materials under similar conditions--that is, in the absence of prior knowledge and exposure. Seems pretty clear then that the Rorschach's value more or less evaporated in 1992, since the absence of prior exposure, and so comparability of current responses to the historical research data base, can no longer be assumed. Guess to only solution is to develop, standardize and validate new (and newly copyrightable) test materials to get at that same information. Long time job security for test publishers. (Oh, that would be me?! Thanks!!). Plskmn 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
For those of you who claim that the copyright is still in force, can you point to a court decision which agrees? It would seem that if the inkblot in question was published before Rorschach's death, then the copyright has expired. Publicola 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I do think that the copyright issue is resolved. Genie was explicit: the Hogrefe and Huber concern, the sole original copyright holders, presented their evidence. It was found wanting and so the images are not, in that sense protected. Or at least until Hogrefe & Huber are willing to mount a more effective defensive of their claims. [And that is not to be cute: copyright claims are rather like "easements," if they are not vigorously defended, they become lost. So the burden now is, indeed, on Hogrefe & Huber.]
What I do feel is still open is whether the claims of licensed mental health practitioners, the conventions of major research libraries, the statements of major professional and trade associations, the views of serious academic researchers deserve consideration. Significant members from each of these groups claim that, for some specific and documented purposes, the Rorschach materials do have a legitimate, validation. Every such purpose is undermined when the images are provided for public view. Is there consensus that, absent specific legal requirements of copyright, there is an adequate rationale to deny these other individuals and institutions the value of the historical database that is the Rorschach legacy? Dothe contributors to Wikipedia feel sufficiently well-informed and justified that they wish to become a signficant tool in removing this venerable (even of ocassionally misused or abused) instrument from any role the field of mental health? Plskmn 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Copyright claims generally do not depend on whether they are enforced; that quirk belongs to trademark law. There is the doctrine of laches (equity), but Wikipedia policy never takes advantage of laches (for one thing, it's a crapshoot.) If all ten of the 1921 blots were not so easily available in full colour and high resolution from a few minutes of web searching, I might feel differently, but given the current state of affairs I see no reason to censor any of these images. If the members American Psychological Association wish to follow the spirit rather than the mere letter of their ethical guidelines, then they might advocate that a new copyrighted set of blots be normed for the test rather than clamoring to censor public domain information that any schoolboy could find in minutes. Publicola 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding publicola's comment on whether or not the images may be displayed, regardless of professional objection: I find them direct, ruthless, definitive. I like that and can live with it. I consider that there is consensus on the point that imaage may be shown. Next topic.
Now that we agree that the images may be displayed, perhaps we can address several topics that are now open for discussion: 1) What will be the purpose of displaying the images? The existing article, above the "Controversy" bar seems pretty succinct. Is that, as it stands, an adequate "general purpose encyclopedia" level discussion? Where does the display of one or more images fit in? Perhaps people may have some curiosity about what the images look like. Are there a more specific and salient reasons? While we are no longer discussing principle, we are discussing relative values: professionals have reason to ask that these images not be widely promolgated. There is some onus on those displaying them to develop a concrete and specific counter-rationale.
2) What should be the format of the display: how many of the 10 images, what size, what degree of image precision, outline or complete, with or without color? Again, with reference to countervailing concerns how extensive a display is _required_ to meet the objectives of the article.
3) What amount of additional text is justified to support the images used? Certainly this is not a test manual. Certainly this is not a document to describe the psycholgical meaning of any given response to any given image or portion of an image (in fact all such "meanings" reflect the impact of all other scores on all other responses to all other images and so, individually are quite improper). Any specific comment is likely to open a considerable controversy regarding the scientfic basis of the instrument.
So, where exactly are we going with this new found consensus?
I strongly urge that there be discussion and additional consensus on these issues before images are re-instated. Plskmn 01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, for example, there is an external link at the close of the article that explicitly (and accurately) states that is discloses all 10 cards in full color and detail. Why does that remain, given this current conversation?" And does it not seem strange that the link at the top of the article, where the lind to the single card occurs, the text explicitly states that going to the link has potential to invalidate the instrument? Recall, copyright aside, we are talking about a tool that many conscientious, serious professionals find useful. Such a tool should not be destroyed (that is what invalidated means to test) lightly. So, given that a great deal can be (is) verbally provided and discussed in relation to the test in the article, what specific and pressing rationale is there to show even one card. Earlier you suggested that the APA underwrite the development of new cards. As a subsequent writer stated (accurately although perhaps somewhat shrilly) that is a very expensive, very time consuming task and one that would be undertaken by an a large host of academic researchers or a commercial test publisher, not a professional trade association. Wouldn't it be better to show a similar card, created just of demonstration purposes, that could demonstrate what "ink blot" means without undermining the actual instrument? And wouldn't it be better for all if Wikipedia did not unnecessarily contribute to undermining a tool in which several thousand researchers and other professional have invested tens of thousands of hours over the course of now close to 100 years. That historical data base, one that cannot be reassembled in anything much less than a complete and equally daunting a recreation is what is being destroyed. Not something as nominal as a single image, inside or outside of copyright. Note, this is not an argument about legality, it is a discussion of a proper balancing of countervailing interests. It seems to me that the public's right to understand what the Rorschach is about can be easily satisfied without our venturing into explicit exposure of material that publishers, researchers, and professional groups all agree has a legitimate reason to be provided in a professionally restricted manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plskmn ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that the instrument has been seriously undermined since the advent of internet search engines or before; long before Wikipedia. And there is not even an attempt to quantify the extent to which it has been? 123.111.94.195 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I to understand from the above that professional psychologists, when confronted with ethical questions about this test, respond only with ad hominems and complaints that replacing the inkblots would be too much work? Is there really no other dialog forthcoming? This test is used in serious decisions including those where a subject might be held against their will. Yet there are psychologists who think that it is still acceptable to administer the test, without any quantification of how many people have already seen the inkblots? That is preposterous! Would a meat inspector refuse to order a recall if they found that some unknown number of ground beef samples tested positive for dangerous E. coli contamination, even if, "most people probably will not be exposed?" Of course not! Both issues hold people's lives in the balance, because setting a dangerous patient free due to incorrect test results can be as bad as eating tainted meat.
For a test with serious controversies, I would say this kind of behavior from its advocates is just digging their own graves. And speaking of the controversies, WP:LEAD clearly states that the major controversies should be mentioned in the introductory section. Why is that not the case in this article? LKirkby 10:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I normally don't like to tout my credentials, but I'm an expert on the Rorschach and know hundreds of psychologists from all over the world who use the test. I have never heard the test pronounced "ROR-shack", with the last syllable rhyming with "tack". I've heard many laypeople say it that way, but not those who know about the test. There may be some who pronounce the name of the town differently, but that's not the same as the test. Please do not revert until others have had a chance to express their opinions. Ward3001 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Introducing second paragraph with the phrase "Critics have..." is quite a wonderful addition. It provides focus and perspective. I am afraid that I think the "Exner" sentence just invites addtional refrutation comments and so would acquiesce to comments that it be "reverted/deleted."
Is there any chance, however, that similarly rational criteria can be applied to the "External links" section. It is a clear hodgepodge of provocative and well grounded critcism (e.g., the Scientific American article) and inappropriately inflamatory and clearly inappropriate links (e.g., the Spanish languge site that reveal all images, in clear violation of the consensus to reveal only one image). Guess I am appealing to the Lkirkby WPlead to provide leadership here. Plskmn 08:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Somehow “effort to address concerns” feels a bit more neutral than “reduced some of these vulnerabilities to criticism”. Similarly “those who have contributed” versus “supporters of the test”. These more broadly correspond to and balance the "Critics..." that open the paragraph. Plskmn 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but here is my take: "...addresses..." left simple means "it's handled, done" and so reflects an opinion. Limiting it to "the Exner system" makes it sound proprietary and that provokes suspicion. Also, your version makes no mention of "others" (researchers) who have contributed to the supporting literature of the Exner system, people who exist in fact and give weight to the statement (without reflecting an opinion). Terms like "systematically" and "extensive" are unecessary and again reflect opinion. Frankly I like it reading "There are criticisms.....There is research addressing the criticisms." And leaving the opinions (e.g., about who is more right) out of the main article. You have helped me learn the wisdom of not provoking countervaling opinion wars. Can I return the favor? Plskmn 05:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds clean enough for me. Not that different than yesterday's, so maybe I over-reacted. I encourage you to put it in in either form. Plskmn ( talk) 07:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
And then what about a similar request to the "critics..."! However, I suggest that you simply put in the single best broad complilation from the Exner literature and let it sit. If the question does get raised on the other side, then one of the Lilienfeld ones. Obvious problem: the criticisms have been allowed to accumulate piecemeal, without citation and the Lillienfeld group has only specified some of those that are stated in the article here. Kinda messy. But all the more reason to try to keep it simple if possible. Sure it is not "fair" but at lest the defense side will have, at this point, a scientific cite to it's credit. Plskmn ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ward3001. I was the one who made a recent change to the Rorschach article, which you changed back with about 2.5 seconds. You then sent me a notice saying that I had been warned for vandalism, and that I would be banned from edits if I made another change. However, this is in violation of the wikipedia rules, I believe: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." In that my edit was well intentioned, I don't believe it would be fair to use your powers to ban me. What I said in the edit was "Exner refused to show his data to other researchers. This is considered suspicious in the world of science, where transparency is cherished, and is maintained through the peer review system." I was then going to cite this reference: Meyer, G. et al. (2001) Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist Feb Vol 56(2) 128-165. - As soon as I figured out how.
Though I am not new to the Rorschach (I'm writing up a Rorschach report right now, in fact), I am new to wikipedia, so please forgive me for my not proceding exactly correctly. However, do not ban me.
Further, I would like to open the discussion for adding my edit back in. It is a factual statement, and can be traced to a published, peer-reviewed journal article. Thanks! (I don't have a username yet - I will sign up today.)
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.176.213 ( talk) 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
It raises an important issue, namely whether or not Wikipedia should appeal to interests outside of itself, or censor or semi-censor certain things. There have been lots of debates on these issues, for example with the infamous controversial cartoons published back in 2005. In this case, the claim is that posting the picture somehow degrades the test and makes it less useful (although whether or not this is significant is debatable -- one point that has been raised is that the test, especially the first image, has been plastered all over the place. Plus that first image is the only one mentioned on the page here.), in the other, it's because people's beliefs may be offended by the material. In either case though we have non-Wikipedia interests affecting Wikipedia. Both are cases of a more general issue: should Wikipedia alter it's content to appeal to interests outside of itself? Also, I wonder about the interapplicability of the various solutions. For example on this article about the test, it is hidden. Should the same be done on other articles like that about those cartoons I mentioned? Also, how does this jive with official policy that Wikipedia is not censored? Could there be some problems with that policy, and maybe a change in policy is required? Wikipedia should never assume it's policies are perfect. mike4ty4 ( talk) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the JPMC? 209.77.205.9 ( talk) 09:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
(back left) I do not disagree that the test is supported by large numbers within the mental health community; I think that goes without saying since the test is frequently administered. However, I have to agree with the others who have pointed out that trying to censor the images is tilting at windmills. Why do you choose to advocate hiding the images rather than the creation and normalization of another set of blots which would be subject to copyright and trade secret protections that the ten 1921 blots lack? Is the effort of normalizing another set of blots really more, in your estimation, than the effort it will take to keep the current public domain blots hidden? MilesAgain ( talk) 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The current solution, I think, is a good one. People wanting to learn more about the test don't see the blot unless they make a deliberate effort to do so. After all, they can see all ten images from 15 seconds with Google if they are willing to make such an effort. As for the underlying questions you raise, I will just say that I think
WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy instead of just a guideline for very good reasons.
MilesAgain (
talk)
20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Several people including myself have stated that the display of rorschach inkblots interferes with the practice of the mental health community, and therefore should be considered harmful and should be avoided.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This is only an issue if in fact image publication can be considered harmful. Otherwise it's a mute point.
In this talkpage people have expressed that the wikipedia policy says that the wikipedia is not censored. And that it has to be taken literally, regardless of whether harm is being inflicted to others.
But such a wide interpretation of the policy leads us to contradictions. As we can see in the text of the policy itself that reads "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content ... and do not violate any of our existing policies". A wide interpretation would mean that relevant information will be CENSORED if it violates existing policies. Along with the policy of "Wikipedia is not censored" and honoring the title of its' article page "What the wikipedia is not", there are several policies that say what should NOT be in the wikipedia. Or using the same wide interpretation what should be CENSORED.
A second interpretation that is not contradictory, is that there should not be an expectation of censoring by the wikipedia or any other entity. So if someone was to look for some authority that would censor a particular article they could come to this page and find this policy that reads "The wikipedia is not censored". Furthermore the policy also explains that such censoring cannot be done because of nature of the wikipedia, and mentions how consensus is done by discussion open to anyone interested in a given subject.
Also on the same page there is a policy that reads Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy saying that we should "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines" and that "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."
Lastly I want to offer examples of widely acceptable self-censorship that happen regularly. Phone numbers, addresses, credit card numbers ect.. are removed from articles, videos and photographs to prevent crime, harassment and to protect privacy. Competition organizers omit crucial details that would render their competition results meaningless. Scientists and other experts do not publish data that they judge inconclusive and misleading. All those are examples of positive self-censorship. While the Muhammad image example is highly controversial and censoring it might not be widely considered appropriate, using it to deem all self-censorship as inappropriate is a false generalization. -- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose to remove the current image at the top of the page and replace it with an inkblot that resembles the original ones. And the image should be clearly different from the originals when looking at them side by side. This will convey the same value of information to the wikipedia reader, without compromising the test.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
{{RFCsci | section=RfC: Should Original Rorshach test inkblot be replaced !! reason=Showing the image invalidates the Rorschach test. This test is used extensively by Mental Health communities accross the globe. Leaving the image is contrary to the purpose of the Wikipedia!! time=00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)}}
Sections " Harmfulness_of_image_publication" and " Interpretation of censoring guidelines for image publication that results in harm to others" describe the argument and put forward the proposal of replacing the inkblot image. To organize the discusion I added objection sections below, so we can discuss them independently.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A similar issue was raised at the List of sex positions talk page. And the solution was the same. To provide with images that were not "true to life". But conveyed the relevant information of the subject of the article.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who would Wiki those psychological analyses he plans or expects to undergo has likely already invalidated them. And so I don't see a compelling need to censor the images here. Someguy1221 ( talk) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Back at the beginning of october 2007 Faustian suggested this idea for the first time and DIEGO talk Agreed. At that time user High on a tree said "Such original artwork violates WP:OR." Back then Faustian clarified that the image proposed at the time did not represent original research. And I agree.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A psudo-Rorschach inkblot does not convey the same information as a real Rorschach inblot. Geni 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
By that sort of argument, would any old picture of a car do for the Honda Accord article? As long as it's a similar car, say another Honda, it's pretty much the same thing, right? It seems quite obvious that showing a "clearly different" automobile and describing it as a Honda Accord does not "convey the same value of information" -- how is this case different? Not trying to be snide, just curious as to the response. – Luna Santin ( talk) 09:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Refactored out of #Already in other websites objection, above.
The crux of my point wasn't "other people have done it, so we should do it, too," but rather that you haven't demonstrated that the image produces actual harm in a situation where the image is already available freely and widely, saturating the public awareness in a way that publishing this image is nothing new. – Luna Santin ( talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Refactored out of #Not the same information objection, above.
If there is a rub, that'll be it. I for one have seen the inkblot in Image:Rorschach1.jpg dozens of times previously, even before ever coming to Wikipedia. I'm of the opinion it's already pretty much saturated on the net and in general culture, and that's it's been plastered all over the place to most anyone who goes looking for the test. Without even getting into the grit of the argument, I suspect the damage is already done before a reader ever navigates to Wikipedia -- the ship has already sailed, so to speak. – Luna Santin ( talk) 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The current warning-headline is:
Click [show] (or here) to view the first card in the test (may invalidate the test).
I would suggest to change it with:
Click [show] (or here) to view the first card in the test (may invalidate the test).
In other words, we've to replaced a non-standard HTTP-LINK with a standard WIKI-LINK. Wiki-links are everywhere on wikipedia, and they all works fine with all browsers (just like a http link does).Btw, both kind of links are recognize even if javascript is turned off (in the internal wikipedia's subsystem, wikilinks differ by http-links only because they have a different CSS class associated with them) but for internal linking and interwiki linking, we MUST use wikilinks in place of httplinks because on wikipedia we must have wikilinks everytime this is possible.
A user asked me to get some "consensus" before doing this change...(lol), well what do you think? Bye!:)-- DrugoNOT ( talk) 20:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed a line about the Society for Personality Assessment from the article, and user Ward3001 reverted it, and threatened to ban my IP. I have put the edit back, and here's why: first, the Society for Personality Assessment used to be called "The Rorschach Institute," so the fact they use the Rorschach test is meaningless since they obviously have epoused it from the beginning, and given the organization's new official sounding name, it's also misleading. Further, this instutute isn't significant enough to even have a Wikipedia stub, so which methods they use is a matter of trivia, not encyclopedic content. -- 208.124.148.174 ( talk) 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The main issue here, is that if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but don't go threatening to ban my IP for a sincere edit. As to the case in point, I make no statements about the accuracy of the deleted bit. There are plenty of justifications for removing a true statement. My argument was that it didn't appear important or useful enough to warrant inclusion. If this group really is influential in the industry, then that information is worth something, and should be included in the article, and an article about SPA should be at least created. If not, it's trivial. -- 208.124.148.174 ( talk) 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That info would have been more useful than a template threat. Be nice. I'm not as experienced here as you appear to be. I use Wikipedia a lot for reference, and if I see something I think should be changed, I change it, following the "Be Bold" invitation. If somebody doesn't like my edits, they're free to revert them, and that doesn't bother me in the least. What does bother me is threats which violate policy:
The principle "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the policy of not biting and guideline of assuming good faith. If you prosecute and judge people because they are ignorant of our policies and guidelines, you are in fact violating our policies and guidelines! (from: Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers)
-- 208.124.148.174 ( talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Just so that the issue not devolve into a heated dialog between two individuals, could we go back to the central content of the edit? It seems to me that Ward has asserted that there are certifiable facts to support the cluase about the Society. The somewhat anonymous 208.124.148.174|208.124.148.174 has asserted that, since the Society used to have a name that contained reference to the Rorschach, their avid use is not a good reason to cite them in the article. So far, as an observer, I'd say that citing the Society appears ill advised. I'd like to see a cite referencing use by a group that is less biased (e.g., APA or other broad group of practitioners). Please note, I do not suggest that the article be changed at this point, I simply assert that, so far, I personally find the suggested edit to be a good one. Plskmn ( talk) 07:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a question of bias or ulterior agendas. Question of relavence to the short, opening section of the Rorschach page. If the instrument were less widely used, then reference to an organization as small and academic as the Society might be warranted. But then it might not warrent much interest on Wikipedia (and almost certainly would warrent less controversy). Realitically, however, it the instrument is not used solely for "personality assessment" and the opening section of the article should address things on the larger stage. As much as Ward and Irv Weiner may be right about legitimate uses of the Rorschach, there are, unfortunately, many times more weak, unsupported and unjustified uses. The opening section should be as scientific and value-neutral as possible, but it should reflect (be in relation to) reality. I have not seen enough discussion to warrent removing the cite, but I remain open to additional discussion. Plskmn ( talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The current version has been disabled so there's a link to the image so you can still view it with JavaScript turned off. The current version doesn't work with JavaScript turned off (it won't expand) - this is using FireFox 2.0.0.11 on Ubuntu 7.10 - Halo ( talk) 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a psychologist, have very little knowledge about the subject and just came by this article by chance. Still, I find the controversy-section of this article remarkably soft compared to the German version of this article and also considering that one of Germany's foremost journalistic writers on judiciary matters (Gisela Friedrichsen of Der Spiegel) referred to the use of the Rorschach test in court as "proven bogus" in an article I once read. It is of course possible that those two are wrong, but I find this discrepancy noteworthy. Malc82 ( talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article start with a hidden image? -- Fredrick day ( talk) 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Since one of my (minor) changes got reverted in the middle of this controversy, I thought I'd chime in and give my opinion. Short summary: I am strongly against hiding the image, and I am against a disclaimer (but not as strongly). I agree that we could have exceptions to the principle of not having disclaimers in articles, but this exception should be extremely well motivated, especially in the context of the Muhammad pictures. — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
I don't think either hiding the image or adding a formal disclaimer would be very helpful here. Are there really many people who would be looking for information about this test and would not want to see the image ? Either the person is not planning to take this test (or does not know he will be taking it), and he won't care about looking at the image, or he knows he is going to take it and I bet that he is even more likely to look at it ! — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
The whole article is about these inkblots, it is not very meaningful without the image. — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
There is also another factor that makes me think that the hiding is useless: I have never taken the test, and I have never searched actively for the images of the cards; however, I could have described pretty accurately at least the first card of the test, because I have seen it countless times in movies, comics, etc. To me, it is public knowledge, and I don't think it makes any sense to hide it. — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
Finally, a technical point: Wikipedia pages should be written so that they are as versatile as possible; hiding the image under a "show" button does not help very much if the article gets printed (I just tried — even if you expand the image first, and then click on "printable page", the page is hidden by default). And before anyone asks, there is at least one person who regularly print Wikipedia articles (me, obviously :-) — Schutz 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (a fragment of this edit)
However, I am entirely in favor of adding to the article and to the description of the image a (sourced) note indicating that some people believe that viewing the image beforehand may invalidate the test; this is an encyclopedic piece of information that I think is very interesting; it should not, however, have any influence on our policies and the way we present this topic. Schutz ( talk) 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Roots of the Rorschach controversy Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 25, Issue 1, January 2005, Pages 97-118 Howard N. Garb, James M. Wood, Scott O. Lilienfeld and M. Teresa Nezworski seems to have some interesting and useful material in it, people (who have that sort of access) might want to read and assess it for inclusion. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 14:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There are several given reasons why not to hide the image of the Rorschahc inkblot. One of those is wikipedia guidelines. Let's look at this one issue, and either get it out of the way or not, rather than confuse several issues at once.
It seems many editors are basing their opinion to hide/unhide the images based on erronous or non-reading of wikipedia policies and guidelines, or ideas about those policies or guidelines that don't actually meet the guideline when the guideline is read. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states that "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow." The issue of disclaimers is a guideline, not a policy. Let's look at the disclaimer page. It states, quite clearly, Disclaimers should not be used in articles. All articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages. Further in the article, under the heading "what are disclaimers", it is written: For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages:
In other words, the guideline that no disclaimers should be used applies to cases when that disclaimer is covered by one of those five official disclaimer pages. Anything covered by the above should not be in the article, per the guideline.
Let's look at each of the five categories individually.
Wikipedia:General disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.
Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer states: USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS OR ILLEGAL. Some information on Wikipedia may create an unreasonable risk for those readers who choose to apply or use the information in their own activities or to promote the information for use by third parties...
Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE. Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.
The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor.
Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS. Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time — sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made on Wikipedia.
Finally, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer states: WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE.
Some people are focussed on the idea of a spoiler. Please remember that for wikipedia purposes, a spoiler is defined as "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists."
Remember: For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages.
The question is whether or not one should allow a statement referring to the image of an inkblot, when seeing that inkblot spoils the test for the viewer seeking to take the test at some later time. The specific warning in this case is: "[show]First card in the test (viewing may invalidate the test.)"
Which of the five official disclaimer pages does this particular warning duplicate? If it does not duplicate any of them, then "for the purposes of this guideline" it is not a disclaimer.
Is anyone interested in actually discussing the actual rules here, rather than just saying "I know what they are?" or "I don't want to debate you." Faustian ( talk) 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Santin ( talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It is clear to me that there is a communication failure in the original inkblot controversy. And I think we all know that the Wikipedia is not a democracy. I also think this talk page does needs order and a mediator could help us. I should warn that mediation would not start soon, and it does require that the parties involved agree to participate.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Negative. Unless you have arithmatic problems consensus is clearly to remove hidden image which coincidently also goes along with policy. Images will be unhidden shortly and I Caution you against reversion.-- Garycompugeek ( talk) 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I used the straw poll per WP:STRAW:
"A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus... What a poll can do is give you insight into where people stand on an issue. Polls are typically used in somewhat more complex situations, where it might be hard to otherwise get an overview:
- Early or in the middle of a discussion, to determine where people stand, and who needs to negotiate with who[m].
- When we think consensus has already been reached, but we want to make sure we haven't accidentally missed any important opinions."
So this should also be considered. This wasn't to create consensus, but it was merely used to measure what type of consensus was forming. Cheers, нмŵוτн τ 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
While the article is temporarily protected I ask everyone step back and think about this logically. I have no personal vendetta in this just a desire to protect the encyclopedia. If we allow hidden images on this page how can we jusify not hiding them on the Muhammad page. We are condoning medical opinion POV on one hand while ostracizing religious POV on the other. My desire is to not only be fair but abide by policy. -- Garycompugeek ( talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You should also understand that unless you change policy editors will continue to come to this page to correct what seems a breach of policy. Consider this. Find another page in Wikipedia with a hidden image to support your cause.-- Garycompugeek ( talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |