The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Is publishing the Rorschach test images and responses in keeping with Wikipedia's long-term mission and purpose? Does doing so make the article more useful or less useful? What do sources tell us? 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

August 20, 2010

This Request for Comment (RfC) raises an issue that has not been discussed in any previous RfC. As someone with a bias, I am writing this opening statement in as neutral a manner as possible, making every effort to present the facts in a manner that speaks for both sides of this controversy.

It is generally agreed that the Rorschach images are in the public domain and that it is legal to publish them. They are, of course, very relevant to the subject of the article, and it is not the practice of Wikipedia to censor material that is relevant to the article. (see wp:notcensored) Our allegiance lies with the subject of the article, not to any external organization or agenda. When we utilize external and reliable sources of information, it is always with the aim of furthering our own purpose and mission.

Statements by National Health Organizations

The Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), in response to the publication of the Rorschach test images on Wikipedia, published a statement saying that "Publishing the questions and answers to any psychological test compromises its usefulness." [1] (emph. added) The CPA considered "controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts" about publication of the Rorschach test material, but in its capacity as a national health organization, summarized scientific consensus (see WP:MEDRS#Summarize scientific consensus) by saying,

"Publishing psychological tests is like publishing driving tests or professional licensing exams. We then risk measuring not what the person knows about the activity being evaluated but what the person believes will ensure a particular outcome. Keeping psychological tests out of the public domain is about preserving the usefulness of the tests themselves..." (emph. added)

The British Psychological Society (BPS) echoes the the words of the American Psychological Society (APA) in its Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data (1996)

Availability of test items to an unqualified person can not only render the test invalid for any future use with that individual, but also jeopardizes the security and integrity of the test for other persons who may be exposed to test items and responses. Such release imposes very concrete harm to the general public – loss of effective assessment tools. Because there are a limited number of standardised psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose (in some instances only a single instrument), they cannot easily be replaced or substituted if an individual obtains prior knowledge of item content or the security of the test is otherwise compromised. [2] [3] (emph. added)

The previous Request for Comment (RfC) considered the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association, which in consideration of the above, asks its members to make reasonable efforts to maintain the security of test material. The consensus of the RfC was that the ethical requirements imposed upon members of an external organization bear little weight on the editors of Wikipedia, and that it's best that we follow our own ethical considerations.

This, of course, begs the following two questions: "What are the values or ethics of Wikipedia?" and "What is the purpose, mission, and values of the parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation?"

The Purpose and Mission of Wikipedia

Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come. (emph. added)

—  Diderot

Like Diderot, the bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation also considers the future.

The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. [4] (emph. added)

The Wikimedia Foundation's home page and statement of values also express concern for the utility of information:

An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. [5] (emph. added)

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in [use] the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. [6] (interpretation and emph. added)

The questions

The questions for consideration in this RfC are these:

1. Does the publication of the Rorschach images and common responses compromise the usefulness of the test? What do sources tell us?
2. Is the article more useful, or less useful because of the images and common responses?
3. Is the purpose and mission of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation maintained or diminished because of the images and common responses?
4. Should we remove the images and test responses from our article?

Statement and Questions prepared by Danglingdiagnosis ( talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Previous attempts at dispute resolution

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images
• User:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences
• RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content?
• Talk:Rorschach test/images
• Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Applicable policies and guidelines

• Wikipedia:Public domain
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning

What follows is a list of statements and endorsements. All other comments should be directed to the talk page.

By publishing the questions and answers to the Rorschach test, we are not sharing "the sum of all knowledge," as we claim to do. Instead, we are subtracting knowledge. I admit that in the short term, an article with images and test responses may be more useful to the reader than an article without them. However, in the long-term, this changes. The best possible sources tell us that we are compromising the usefulness of the Rorschach test, and by extension, the usefulness of our article. This is contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. If "the work of preceding century" is to become "useless to the centuries to come," it should not be due to the actions of an encyclopedia. Such an action is beyond our purview. Yes, it may be legal to publish images in the public domain, such as the Rorschach test images, and yes, other web-sites may choose to do so, but I think we can choose to act differently. We should do our part to avoid the tragedy of the commons, remove the images and common responses, and instead, develop an article that better maintains "the sum of all knowledge," in accordance with our mission.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Danglingdiagnosis ( talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. I agree. I support removing the images and common responses. Dolphinfin ( talk) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC) — Dolphinfin ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
3. Providing test images and particularly test responses will misguide the public and potentially harm test takers that rely on this information due to likely distortion of the test results for that person. 24.237.55.113 ( talk) 19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)— 24.237.55.113 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

The previous RFC on this topic made the consensus clear. This RfC differs only in that it phrases the question differently. I believe we've established that the pictures and explanations are appropriate for Wikipedia, and that no Wikipedia ethics are violated by including them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I edit-conflicted adding a nearly identical statement, so I shall endorse instead. Note also that the Canadian Psychological Association does not believe that the disclosure of the Rorschach Test images is harmful [7] and that this has been repeatedly pointed out to the initiator of the RfC [8]. — Gavia immer ( talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. A few other questions need to be asked first. Is this test beneficial or harmful? (much literature comments on this) Does seeing the images before hand affect the test (seeing an eye chart ahead of time does not seem to affect the response)? In my experience people who are wishing help are not going to lie in an attempt to trick the examiner. The points brought up have been gone over many times and both Wikipedia and the world supports the inclusion as per the comments in the NYTs, the National Post, the Globe and Mail, and previous RfCs. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. Roger ( talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. Wikipedia's ethic is to be comprehensive, not to act as a "father-knows-best" moral guardian. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply
5. Nothing new being discussed here. The article and the encyclopedia are improved with images inclusion.-- Garrondo ( talk) 06:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
6. I can say only what I said almost exactly a year ago, the last time Danglingdiagnosis attempted this end-run around consensus thta has been established for four years now: You do know the definition of insanity, yes? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You're not going to get a different result, so why do you keep doing the same thing over and over, ignoring what everyone else is telling you? → ROUX ₪ 08:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
7. Wasting everyone's time. Again. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
8. When I don't even bother looking through the same "evidence" again, I think it's time to institute some sort of restriction. — fetch · comms 03:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply
9. WP:HORSEMEAT applies here. Insufficient new argument presented to overrule the very clear consensus from previous discussion. Danglingdiagnosis argues from "the test will be less useful" to "the encyclopedia will be less useful" which seems like a blatant fallacy, even if we accept the premise. I find this part of the nom so persuasive that it settles the issue: "It is generally agreed that the Rorschach images are in the public domain and that it is legal to publish them. They are, of course, very relevant to the subject of the article, and it is not the practice of Wikipedia to censor material that is relevant to the article." MartinPoulter ( talk) 13:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
10. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
11. —  MrDolomite •  Talk 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply
12. Also, I think the current descriptions are more educational than the almost-bare gallery that was in the article last July, and congratulate the editors involved in that substantial improvement. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply
13. -- Cyclopia ^talk 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply
14. Gigs ( talk) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
15. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
16. Yup. Fences& Windows 22:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply
17. Doc Tropics 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply

These questions highlight that there is room for compromise that hasn't been taken advantage of and a related matter of diminishing returns of usefulness.

First: yes, there is absolutely a possibility of compromising the usefulness of the test since it was designed around the assumption that the client would not be pre-exposed. Together with Wikipedia's policy of not publishing everything indiscriminately, this gives a good reason to be restrained in publication.

Precisely what usefulness does Wikipedia gain through publishing the complete set of cards and sample responses? Dummy cards and dummy responses would certainly communicate the nature of the test; what do "live" responses contribute (besides possible harm) that such mockups would not? And for that matter, what usefulness does publishing the entire set contribute that publishing a subset does not? Surely after one or two cards publication of subsequent cards is of marginal usefulness while maintaining the same possibility of harm.

Publication of the complete test and sample responses overlooks a number of reasonable compromises without adding significant encyclopedic usefulness, and it does so in the face of real world harm as well as a few of Wikipedia's own policies.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I don't want to force other editors to endorse this as part of the statement, but I'd go so far as to propose that many of the proponents of full publication are displaying NPOV issues, more or less explicitly declaring the test to be a fraud or the secrecy of the test to be a symptom of The Man, and using disclosure to promote their position on that rather than seeking to simply present information. That's just my perception from reading a lot of the arguments. Crcarlin ( talk) 10:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Danglingdiagnosis ( talk) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply
3. Agree. 24.237.55.113 ( talk) 19:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) — 24.237.55.113 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Publishing the Rorschach inkblot images has some obvious benefits. (1) It informs about a historically important psychological test. (2) It allows people to take the test themselves, and grade themselves. (3) For those who have been coerced to take the text, it allows them to assess the validity of the outcome. Three psychological associations (American, Canadian, British) have issued statements on the matter, but none of them say that there is any specific harm to publishing to publishing the inkblots, and they certainly do not present any argument that the harm outweighs the benefits. I personally think that it is obvious that the benefits of publishing the inkblots far outweigh any potential harm. If some psychological association were to offer some contrary opinion, then that ought to be considered, but no such opinion has been offered.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Roger ( talk) 14:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. -- OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply
5. Fences& Windows 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply
6. Doc Tropics 14:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply

IMO, this is blatant forum-shopping by Danglingdiagnosis in an attempt to game the system despite prior RfCs etc. which clearly show that the community is against censorship.

Wikipedia shouldn't/doesn't censor on moral grounds already! How much clearer does this need to be made? 'Nuff said.

Minor further comment added 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC): Those evaluating the logic and cogency of Danglingdiagnosis' arguments will probably find the talkpage conversation valuable.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Hear, hear Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. -- Garrondo ( talk) 08:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. Sigh Not again. The dead horse has decomposed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
5. Uh-huh. — Gavia immer ( talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
6. The horse has not merely decomposed, it has in fact helped fertilize a lovely field in which new horses have since been born, eaten the grass, and subsequently died themselves. This is an ex-horse. It has gone to sing with the choir invisible. Etc. Danglingdiagnosis needs to be, at a bare minimum topicbanned permanently from bringing this up or discussing it ever again. → ROUX ₪ 17:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
7. Per Roux's lovely imagery. I think a topic ban may very well be warranted due to this repeated RfC and a seeming unwillingness to accept that no one agrees with him and that we're not going by his opinion. — fetch · comms 03:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply
8. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
9. -- OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply
10. -- Cyclopia ^talk 09:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply
11. Gigs ( talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
12. This. We don't censor, this is educational, end of story. Fences& Windows 22:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply
13. Doc Tropics 14:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply
14. I'm getting the impression that no amount of consensus obtained through the standard procedure will satisfy the pro-censorship editors. MartinPoulter ( talk) 12:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Apparently, sadly, it needs repeating: Consensus Can Change.

This debate has felt a lot more eyes over the past two years, while the page itself has included additional sensitive information. It's entirely reasonable to probe for a change in consensus in those circumstances, especially with the evolution of the page moving away from moderation and compromise.

So please stop with the "this has been settled" nonsense.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. All of the related talk should probably be moved to the discussion page and off the main page. They are meta-questions. Crcarlin ( talk) 20:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Agree. WP:CCC says that "editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits." This RfC is different than the last. It has new sources, and those sources speak to the vision, values, purpose, and mission of Wikipedia. The last RfC did not address these specific sources and issues. Danglingdiagnosis ( talk) 20:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. Agree. An additional point that doesn't seem to be discussed much: If the article purports to present "common responses", it is either presenting information that is old/public domain and thus obsolete, or if the article seeks to present contemporary data, it is presenting information that is almost certainly under copyright, as court cases have demonstrated that normative data are protected by copyright unless explicitly released to the public domain. Thus, such information is either useless and misleading, or a violation of copyright...which should Wikipedia present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.182.119 ( talk) 7:26 am, Today (UTC−7) — 128.194.182.119 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The images are public domain and highly educational, so by default, they should stay in. The hypothesis that prior exposure to the images will invalidate test results is, I think, highly debatable and honestly not within our purview to decide. A more reasonable observation is that if your test really requires 100% novel stimuli, then that test is doomed in the internet age.

Whatever secrets the Rorschach held, the secrets are out. From now on, psychologists can't simply assume that a client has not been exposed to the images-- that assumption may have been valid 50 years ago, but it just doesn't hold in the modern world.

The images are public domain and educational. Let them stay. The psychologists will just have to adapt to the realities of the information age, they can't seriously expect an information age planet to self-censor just for the sake of their test. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 13:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Garrondo ( talk) 06:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. -- Cyclopia ^talk 09:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. yep. →  ROUX  ₪ 09:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. This addresses the "issue" spot-on. Otherwise, the only remaining problem is the user. — fetch · comms 03:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
5. Agree Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
6. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
7. Whether Wikipedia's publication of these tests affects their function is neither here nor there. Knowledge is increased by including them, knowledge of a very widely used psychological test. Suppressing that knowledge isn't tenable. Fences& Windows 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply
8. Very well put. Doc Tropics 14:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply
9. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

We have been through this before, many times. Move to close as there is quite obviously going to be no difference in outcome this time versus the last time Danglingdiagnosis tried this, or the previous times that other users have tried. →  ROUX  ₪ 19:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Nobody benefits from this continuing: not the community, not Danglingdiagnosis (who is putting him/herself through public humiliation) and not the readers of Wikipedia. MartinPoulter ( talk) 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
3. -- Cyclopia ^talk 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
4. No matter what danglingdiagnosis says this sounds awfully similar to previous RfC. It is so tiring hearing the same thing once and again.-- Garrondo ( talk) 21:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
5. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Suggest that User:Danglingdiagnosis be topicbanned from ever raising this subject again (though may non-obstructively comment if someone else unrelated to him raises it), due to various infractions of WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE. →  ROUX  ₪ 19:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
2. I oppose any early close of this RfC though; let this RfC be the final, definitive word on the Rorschach images issue. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
3. No more of the same please.-- Garrondo ( talk) 21:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
4. -- Cyclopia ^talk 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
5. Yes, enough already. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
6. Necessary in order to prevent yet another RfC on what seems to be clear consensus. — fetch · comms 23:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
7. Thanks Roux for getting to the heart of the matter. Let's do what's necessary to settle this properly. MartinPoulter ( talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply
8. Yep. I'm amazed to see this dug up again. Fences& Windows 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply
9. Support a ban for repetitively abusing our process and our patience. Doc Tropics 19:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply
10. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

In my view, debates about what we should or can do miss the point. We must consider whether it is in the bestinterest of the public that the Rorschach images are widely circulated, or not. I can think of no compelling reason to accept notion that it is in the best interest of society for these images to be readily accessible. They are easily available to anyone doing serious research on the method. To distribute them more widely seems to serve no purpose other than satisfying the idle curiosity of internet surfers.

There are a number of reasons that support the notion that the images should not be widely distributed. First, the Rorscahch is a very complex test, the complexity of which is lost in any brief description of it. Printing images of the blots with sample responses provides no more than a stereotyped caricature of what is actually a very complex methodology. People who read such materials and then take the test are quite possibly going to be influenced by their (mis) understanding of the test which may lead them to produce responses that yield misleading results that could, in turn, prevent them from receiving appropriate treatments for emotional problems they may have. Second, the Rorschach has a wide base of scientific research behind it. There is of course controversy about the validity of the method or, more accurately, what apsects of the methodology are and are not valid. However, no one who seriously studies the test has argued that it is worthless; even its most vocal detractors only argue that it has been applied in an overly zealous manner. Practitioners, with the backing of growing scientific knowledge, are refining and narrowing the focus of this method, making it more and more useful. All of this work can be lost, ultimately hurting those who come to pscyhologists with genuine problems needing assessment, if the test is relegated to being "tried in the court of public opinion". In short, in my view the advantages of producing the images are negligable whereas the dangers are significant. They should not be in the public domain and, more specifically, on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.39.109 ( talk • contribs)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I strongly agree and support taking the images down. I would like to see a fake blot as an example. Dolphinfin ( talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC) — Dolphinfin ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
2. Precisely. Not only does including this information fail to really add worthwhile information for the reader, but it actually does the reader a disservice through a poor treatment of a complex subject. Many in this discussion don't realize or understand that. Crcarlin ( talk) 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply
3. Danglingdiagnosis ( talk) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply
4. Re-signing under my username Elizabeth Koonce ( talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC) — Elizabeth Koonce ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
5. Yes, the test ultimately exists to help people who take it understand themselves. Casual exposure to the images and suggested responses undermine that purpose and trivialize a useful instrument. Rapidpsychler ( talk) 19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC) — Rapidpsychler ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
6. I strongly agree with this comment. Display of the Rorschach images serves no useful purpose and can be damaging to those who take the test in the future, because the authenticity and spontaneity of their responses will be lost. Individuals taking the test are often distressed, troubled, and seeking help, and it would be most egregious to deprive them of the ability to take this test under optimal, valid conditions. Because the test is widely regarded as most effective in diagnosing psychotic thinking, and is often used for such purposes, the Wikipedia article is likely to be most harmful to the most seriously troubled individuals who are least likely to be able to discern the problem and use good judgement. It is irresponsible for Wikipedia to compromise psychological assessment instruments in this manner.19:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)— 128.143.53.86 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
7. I agree with this statement. I cannot understand how this document is taken by some as saying the CPA sees no harm in publishing the test. IMO those supporting publication are simply exercising their enjoyment of giving the finger to humanity in support of anarchy. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

What's striking to me is the apparent lack of design with which the information about responses is included in the article. It is neither encyclopedic nor in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines to present information for the sake of information, to open a firehose of raw data for the reader to sort through, and yet the primary motivation for including these screens full of content seems to be precisely that. Clearly, I'd say, such a poor treatment of a topic diminishes the usefulness of the article and goes against WP's mission.

In an educational composition like a textbook or encyclopedia article the motivation behind pieces of content need to be purposeful and clear. The ideas to be illustrated need to be sorted out, and the illustrations thus included to best convey the ideas. And yet no matter how frequently I ask, I can find no reason or strategy behind this inclusion at all. That is absolutely un-encyclopedic.

It's further disheartening to look at the conversation behind this section. It's a complex topic that deserves real, good-faith efforts at editing, but all that I see in the talk pages is quibbling, namecalling, and headstrong misunderstanding. That is not the way to get educated, topical experts to take part in improving the article--it's not the way to make the article as good as it can be.

So yeah, let's skip the negative stuff, answer the damn questions this RfC proposes, and get this section of the article right. Right now I see little good faith work happening in this topic. Crcarlin ( talk) 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Danglingdiagnosis ( talk) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Signing under my username now Elizabeth Koonce ( talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)— Elizabeth Koonce ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

All comments not related to an endorsement, and all threaded responses to an endorsement, should be directed to the talk page.