Although I completely agree with you that the Rorschach images should not be shown (I am a psychologist), you are fighting a losing battle if you try to eliminate the image altogether. This explosive debate has raged for over a year now. There have been edit wars (some of them were archived) resulting in the page being protected from further editing several times. Sometimes the page was protected with the image showing, and no one could change it. Things finally settled down recently with a compromise to make the image available only if the user clicks a link (to allow the user not to invalidate the test if he ever takes it). Your recent removal of that process, although well-intentioned, technically violates Wikipedia's spirit of consensus that resulted in the compromise.
As much as I wish you were right that the images are under copyright, that sadly is not the case. The copyright expired 70 years after H. Rorschach created the images. The publisher, Hogrefe & Huber, has a trademark for the test as it is printed on the cards, but the images themselves are no longer copyrighted. That's another battle we have fought, and we even pulled Hogrefe & Huber into the fray, to no avail.
Although you are perfectly entitled to edit as you choose (assuming you don't violate Wikipedia policies), let me point out a pattern I've noticed in the long and messy debate over displaying the image. Most (if not all) of the advocates for showing the image tend to develop the attitude: "We are going to do it because we can." And I also think the next step in this argument has manifest also: "We are going to show you that we can do it because you don't want us to." If editors like you and me make "anti-display" comments on the Talk page (or even discuss the image without taking a side), it seems to fan the flames and the "display" advocates jump on the bandwagon and add the image (without the click-to-see). So my approach has been, if the image is not immediately seen when opening the article, I don't mention it. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but my opinion is that if you continue to discuss the issue, someone will soon start an edit war and the page will be protected from editing again, possibly with the image displayed.
That having been said, you are quite entitled to discuss any issue on the Talk page as much as you wish. I was making an observation from over a year of dealing with this issue. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk)
19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Since Nobody has commented on this interpretation, unless anyone has an objection, I will remove the current image at the top of the page and replace it with an inkblot that resembles the original ones. And the image should be clearly different from the originals when looking at them side by side. This will convey the same information to the wikipedia reader, without compromising the test.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
But I thougth I was following the guidelines. I read I should wait three days. I was planning to wait those same 3 days again before doing changes. I should have written that too. My assumption is that someone will come here and discuss why should I not do it, and we mantain consensus. And if everybody agrees with this new proposal then consensus changed. Please help me understand if I did something incorrect. -- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume that you and
User:24.174.8.32 are the same.
I understand the dynamics of discusions, and how people get tired. I personally very much appreciate the consensus that you helped achieve. I also think that the current consensus suffers from the same problem of people getting tired, and is not stable. I have read what was discussed before and I come fresh, plus I have not seen anyone propose the same thing I am proposing. With the benefit of hindsight it may be that if image replacement had been proposed before, a much stronger consensus would be in place, instead of what looks to be a compromise by exaustion.
"what if nobody types anything in 6 months?": As a general rule, no comments means no consensus to change anything. My personal opinion is to make no changes unless you get comments in support of any change. That having been said, sometimes editors post a request for comment to try to elicit opinions from a broader group of Wikipedia users. My concern is that would stir things up and the zealots who want an actual Rorschach image shown (in fact, all ten images) without the click-to-see option will use that as an opportunity to start their arguments again, probably resulting in edit warring and protection of the page. But it's your choice; anyone is entitled to post an RfC. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As I predicted, the image-must-be-shown zealots are jumping into the debate:
Next will be the edit wars, followed by the page protection. Ward3001 ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just interested in knowing, where is the fantastical evidence that seeing the inkblot produces tangible harm that can assigned with certainty to prior viewing of the inkblot, or at least evidence of a scientific consensus of such. All I've seen through the discussion are claims to that effect, and references to a single manual. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"You could maybe add some references": Thanks for your message, and your concern. The primary reference for not showing the blot is found in an Exner manual that raises ethical concerns if a psychologist posts from it. There could be other sources (and likely are), but I'm afraid I don't have the time or energy because of fighting this battle so much in the past. If I find something, I'll post it. But I think it's a losing battle anyway. I think if Exner and Hermann Rorschach themselves could be brought back from the dead and provided irrefutable evidence that the blot should not be shown, other agendas would prevail, as they seem to be doing now. Essentially, I am conceding to ignorance of science and lack of respect for this aspect of mental health care. I have my doubts that Wikipedia as we know it will survive a lot longer anyway, but I hope for the best. Good luck. Ward3001 ( talk) 03:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry it took me a bit of a while to reply. Informal mediation doesn't handle content disputes for the most part. I think WP:CENSOR applies, personally, but you may disagree. If you feel it is an important enough issue, you might want to take it to the proper venues (3O, project psychology, etc). For what it's worth, whenever I see a Rorschach inkblot, I always think of a pelvis ;-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand that you may have an opinion different that mine and that is why you closed the Rorschach image case. The thing that I am disappointed about is not that you used your personal criteria or anything like that, what else could you use. But that you did not engage me. If you refer to my case, my biggest complaint was the lack of communication, that once people thought of an objection they would not be open to discuss it with me. I understand that the wikipedia has no option but to work on the basis of consensus. And for that reason communication ought to be fundamental. At this point I do not know if you read my arguments of why WP:CENSOR does not apply in this case, or which one did you read, or maybe you read the 3 archives of talk page. Or if you thought the arguments were wrong. Closing the case like this is understandable from the arbitration committee, they have to make decisions because previous mediation steps already failed. But a you guys can take a little time with the parties and hopefully prevent cases from going to arbitration. -- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 13:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
From the way it was worded it seemed that you wanted to remove the images. If it is something different that led you to ask for our help, feel free to re-open the case and make yourself clearer. I apologise for my mistake. George D. Watson (Dendodge). Talk Help 13:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, – xeno talk 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Although I completely agree with you that the Rorschach images should not be shown (I am a psychologist), you are fighting a losing battle if you try to eliminate the image altogether. This explosive debate has raged for over a year now. There have been edit wars (some of them were archived) resulting in the page being protected from further editing several times. Sometimes the page was protected with the image showing, and no one could change it. Things finally settled down recently with a compromise to make the image available only if the user clicks a link (to allow the user not to invalidate the test if he ever takes it). Your recent removal of that process, although well-intentioned, technically violates Wikipedia's spirit of consensus that resulted in the compromise.
As much as I wish you were right that the images are under copyright, that sadly is not the case. The copyright expired 70 years after H. Rorschach created the images. The publisher, Hogrefe & Huber, has a trademark for the test as it is printed on the cards, but the images themselves are no longer copyrighted. That's another battle we have fought, and we even pulled Hogrefe & Huber into the fray, to no avail.
Although you are perfectly entitled to edit as you choose (assuming you don't violate Wikipedia policies), let me point out a pattern I've noticed in the long and messy debate over displaying the image. Most (if not all) of the advocates for showing the image tend to develop the attitude: "We are going to do it because we can." And I also think the next step in this argument has manifest also: "We are going to show you that we can do it because you don't want us to." If editors like you and me make "anti-display" comments on the Talk page (or even discuss the image without taking a side), it seems to fan the flames and the "display" advocates jump on the bandwagon and add the image (without the click-to-see). So my approach has been, if the image is not immediately seen when opening the article, I don't mention it. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but my opinion is that if you continue to discuss the issue, someone will soon start an edit war and the page will be protected from editing again, possibly with the image displayed.
That having been said, you are quite entitled to discuss any issue on the Talk page as much as you wish. I was making an observation from over a year of dealing with this issue. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk)
19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Since Nobody has commented on this interpretation, unless anyone has an objection, I will remove the current image at the top of the page and replace it with an inkblot that resembles the original ones. And the image should be clearly different from the originals when looking at them side by side. This will convey the same information to the wikipedia reader, without compromising the test.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
But I thougth I was following the guidelines. I read I should wait three days. I was planning to wait those same 3 days again before doing changes. I should have written that too. My assumption is that someone will come here and discuss why should I not do it, and we mantain consensus. And if everybody agrees with this new proposal then consensus changed. Please help me understand if I did something incorrect. -- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume that you and
User:24.174.8.32 are the same.
I understand the dynamics of discusions, and how people get tired. I personally very much appreciate the consensus that you helped achieve. I also think that the current consensus suffers from the same problem of people getting tired, and is not stable. I have read what was discussed before and I come fresh, plus I have not seen anyone propose the same thing I am proposing. With the benefit of hindsight it may be that if image replacement had been proposed before, a much stronger consensus would be in place, instead of what looks to be a compromise by exaustion.
"what if nobody types anything in 6 months?": As a general rule, no comments means no consensus to change anything. My personal opinion is to make no changes unless you get comments in support of any change. That having been said, sometimes editors post a request for comment to try to elicit opinions from a broader group of Wikipedia users. My concern is that would stir things up and the zealots who want an actual Rorschach image shown (in fact, all ten images) without the click-to-see option will use that as an opportunity to start their arguments again, probably resulting in edit warring and protection of the page. But it's your choice; anyone is entitled to post an RfC. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As I predicted, the image-must-be-shown zealots are jumping into the debate:
Next will be the edit wars, followed by the page protection. Ward3001 ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just interested in knowing, where is the fantastical evidence that seeing the inkblot produces tangible harm that can assigned with certainty to prior viewing of the inkblot, or at least evidence of a scientific consensus of such. All I've seen through the discussion are claims to that effect, and references to a single manual. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"You could maybe add some references": Thanks for your message, and your concern. The primary reference for not showing the blot is found in an Exner manual that raises ethical concerns if a psychologist posts from it. There could be other sources (and likely are), but I'm afraid I don't have the time or energy because of fighting this battle so much in the past. If I find something, I'll post it. But I think it's a losing battle anyway. I think if Exner and Hermann Rorschach themselves could be brought back from the dead and provided irrefutable evidence that the blot should not be shown, other agendas would prevail, as they seem to be doing now. Essentially, I am conceding to ignorance of science and lack of respect for this aspect of mental health care. I have my doubts that Wikipedia as we know it will survive a lot longer anyway, but I hope for the best. Good luck. Ward3001 ( talk) 03:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry it took me a bit of a while to reply. Informal mediation doesn't handle content disputes for the most part. I think WP:CENSOR applies, personally, but you may disagree. If you feel it is an important enough issue, you might want to take it to the proper venues (3O, project psychology, etc). For what it's worth, whenever I see a Rorschach inkblot, I always think of a pelvis ;-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand that you may have an opinion different that mine and that is why you closed the Rorschach image case. The thing that I am disappointed about is not that you used your personal criteria or anything like that, what else could you use. But that you did not engage me. If you refer to my case, my biggest complaint was the lack of communication, that once people thought of an objection they would not be open to discuss it with me. I understand that the wikipedia has no option but to work on the basis of consensus. And for that reason communication ought to be fundamental. At this point I do not know if you read my arguments of why WP:CENSOR does not apply in this case, or which one did you read, or maybe you read the 3 archives of talk page. Or if you thought the arguments were wrong. Closing the case like this is understandable from the arbitration committee, they have to make decisions because previous mediation steps already failed. But a you guys can take a little time with the parties and hopefully prevent cases from going to arbitration. -- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 13:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
From the way it was worded it seemed that you wanted to remove the images. If it is something different that led you to ask for our help, feel free to re-open the case and make yourself clearer. I apologise for my mistake. George D. Watson (Dendodge). Talk Help 13:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, – xeno talk 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)