Wikipedia

Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

< Talk:Rorschach test
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Dela Rabadilla in topic The addendum
Learn more about this page

Report prepared by –xenotalk

Disclosure: I came to the article on May 14 with an eye to making a call on the RFC. Taking 7 days to review the history, I made the call on May 21. On May 22, I engaged in some limited discussion on the talk page at Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images. I also made this comment (annotated thusly) in another thread regarding my degree of involvement and began preparing this report shortly thereafter. This is discussed further in the body and footnotes of the report and subsequent to this report in #The discussion and #The addendum. —This statement added at 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The image in question...

The issue edit

The issue: For two years, Faustian (talk · contribs) and Ward3001 (talk · contribs) have argued for removing or suppressing[1] the image (by deleting it, removing it, hiding it, replacing it with a fake one, or moving it below the fold, for example) on the Rorschach test article to prevent possible damage to the results a hypothetical future psychological test the reader might take.

Being the top two contributors to both the article and the talk page,[2] they have been the most active participants in a debate over whether to hide the image somehow (to prevent harm) versus those that felt it should not be hidden in any way. Recently, many have been calling for a convenient display of the Rorschach inkblot image in the lead section. Wikipedia's guideline on images advises editors to display images "relevant to the article that they appear in" that are "significantly related to the article's topic." The article is about a test involving the viewing of inkblots, not Hermann Rorschach, thus the inkblot image is entirely appropriate for the lead section.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its first and primary goal is the distribution of information and spread of knowledge. Wikipedia has both a content disclaimer and a medical disclaimer. I note also that this statement was recently removed from the article, having been uncited since at least April 2008. Thus, no one has even been able to provide a reliable, third-party source[3] proving the test's integrity will be diminished by prior exposure to the images. Even if they were able to produce such a source, the psychological care of our reader is not within Wikipedia's remit and we should not make information harder to come by because of uncited theoretical damage to the integrity of a test most readers of the article will likely never take.


The history edit

The issue first came up as the very first section on the talk page (untitled) in early 2005. The main argument being used then was copyright, which was eventually dismissed as the copyright on the image has expired. See also Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1#My $0.02, for the opinion of a psychologist that stood without reply. Though he has problems with the Rorschach test itself, he "more of a problem when articles in WP are contentious" and thus argued for compromise in using a non-Rorschach inkblot image.

Then, there was a discussion started in November 2006, entitled "Outrage" where a "student psychologist" was "outraged by this page" stating

Faustian (talk · contribs) weighs in on the issue some months later in March 2007:

In May 2007, Ward3001 (talk · contribs) joined the discussion entitled "Keeping the inkblots secret" where he argued from reasons of copyright that the images should not be displayed, and should be deleted [8]. In July 2007, he expressed concern that viewing the image could do "serious damage" integrity of the Rorschach test [9]. He would later go on to clarify

One (presently inactive) user explained in June 2007 that

One more discussion occured in the infancy of the page -

  1. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1#Which image.
     
    Later in 2007 the issue arose again ... and again... and again:
     
  2. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#No reason to hide images
  3. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Should the image of the first pic of the Rorschach inkblot test be hidden? (the start of an RFC that was dominated by Faustian and Ward3001, that ran into the other sections listed below)
  4. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Thank you for clarifying
  5. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#We could have a consensus here if.....
  6. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Another problem with posting the picture
  7. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Enough!
  8. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Even the International Rorschach Foundation themselves are showing all ten images on the web
  9. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Please stop editwarring
     
    Archive 3 (November 2007 thru March 2008) is also filled with discussions regarding the image:
     
  10. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Question on Reaching Resolution
  11. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Copyright
  12. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#The question of the display of the picture and Wikipedia Censorship (a lengthy section that included an RFC on replacing the inkblot with a fake one)
    Ward3001's position seems best summed up here, "The "organization" would be the American Psychological Association, and secondarily the various state licensing boards (in the USA) that usually fall in line with APA's ethics code. (...) another set of blots with equivalent psychometric and clinically useful properties does not exist, and is extremely unlikely to exist in the next few decades. Secondly, APA's ethics code already requires a psychologist, as much as possible, to use tests that do not have compromised reliability and validity; to consider a variety of other test and non-test data (when possible) in making decisions (thus often more than one test, procedure, or source of data is used), and to exercise informed, prudent judgment in interpreting test results. Because there are no perfect tests, and no psychologist has absolute control over the many variables that might influence human behavior, conformity to those ethical principles has some gray area. Most of us do the best we can with what we have. But we can't do the impossible. (...)

    And here's something about a point that has been raised several times on this page but non-experts seem to be having much diffuculty grasping (that's not a personal attack, just an observation). There is a huge difference between collecting norms and developing a clinically useful personality test. If you gave me several million dollars, I probably could come up with some norms on a new inkblot test in a year or two. But what you would then have would be a set of useless norms; nothing else. Getting the norms is just the starting point. The norms tell you nothing about what the scores mean. Test scores do not interpret themselves. That requires research, and lots of it. Exner developed norms for the Exner system of scoring, and then spent the next thirty years (along with many other researchers) figuring out how the data from those norms should be interpreted. Norms are essential for most tests, but norms alone are useless. Ward3001 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)"
  13. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#why is there an image hidden in breach of policy on NPOV, discliamer, censorship etc? (included a straw poll that came out 15 to 6 in favour of not hiding the image)
  14. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Wikipedia Guideline Review
  15. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Poll: Who is willing to go to mediation? (they never went)
  16. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Stop the Edit War
     
    and much of the same in Archive 4 (March through August 2008):
     
  17. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#A more general discussion ?
  18. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#What about the article itself ?
  19. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Outrageous straw man for the straw poll
  20. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#The image is already public
  21. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Unhide Picture
  22. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Straw poll on mediation (7 to 3 in favour, informal, didn't seem to take)
  23. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#scroll
  24. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Rorschach Images have been in public domain for 50 Years
  25. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#New lead image (wherein Hermann makes his handsome appearance)
  26. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Image Discussion
  27. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#It is wikipedia policy to remove images arbitrarily
     
    And of course, the current talk page (December 2008 to May 2009) is pretty much still all about the image placement (with a rare, but heartwarming, moment of agreement wrt the article's title):
     
  28. Talk:Rorschach test#Location of the inkblot image (now archived)
  29. Talk:Rorschach test# RFC: Top Image - Hermann Rorschach or first card of the Rorschach inkblot test? (now archived)
    It was on the back of this RFC that I made this edit on May 21, 2009 and commented in the edit summary that "consensus seems to exist to move the more descriptive image, being the first inkblot, to the top of the page".
  30. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test#Interpretation of discussion (now archived)
    Chillum points out that Ward3001 and Faustian are still the only ones arguing against the images placement at the top of the article. I note, however, that Martinevans seems sympathetic to the position of "heed[ing] the reservations of the relevant professional body (APA) and protect[ing] the images". Nevertheless, three editors do not consensus make and Wikipedia is not bound by APA codes of practice.
  31. Talk:Rorschach test#What is Consensus? (now archived)
    An example of Faustian attempting to frame consensus.
  32. Talk:Rorschach test#Another compromise (now archived)
  33. Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images (now archived) (This discussion was my first experience with the talk page and editors in question. It should be reviewed with an eye to judging my level of involvement prior to drafting this report. I have only included comments from this section that occurred prior to my first comment and have not included subsequent discussions in this report, though they may be discussed in #The addendum)
  34. Talk:Rorschach test#New consensus has emerged (now archived)


The review edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago52 comments52 people in discussion

Faustian and/or Ward3001 have commented at length in nearly every single one of the above-linked discussions. I must admit their opinions are not entirely synthesized in the below, however, I have attempted to capture the essence of their arguments in drafting these results.

The below is based solely on talk page edits as found in the archives and current talk page, ending at this revision.


Editors who have argued for removal, or otherwise suppressing the image edit

i.e. expressing a desire to delete it, hide it, replace it with a fake one, or move it below the fold for reasons other than compromise
  1. Faustian (talk · contribs) (as above, numerous arguments starting in March 2007)
    This edit seems to indicate[4][5] he is a practicing psychologist
    (22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "The test, like many psychological tests, requires that the person taking it is unfamiliar with the stimulus presented to him/her. For example in IQ tests subtests require analysis of pictures or construction of shapes using blocks (thank God those test materials are still under copyright so that such tests aren't spoiled gratuitously). In the case of the Rorschach it requires getting a first, immediate impression of what the person sees. Responses to subsequent cards often depend on the unspoiled impressions of the first inkblot. The test norms (see more info here: [12]) were built around this approach to the test, meaning that we can't compare someone's results to the norms and get an objective reading if the person has taken a test not in accordance with the way the normative sample did. So the image is inherently harmful because viewing it makes the viewer incapable of using it. And as noted elsewhere in the discussion page, this test is considered useful in the field." (12:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "The article is about the test, not the inkblot. Placing the inkblot in the front of the article perpetuates the false idea that the test is all about the inkblot, when it is all about the administration, analysis, relationship, etc. Does the article on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale include cubes from the block design subtest on top? No - indeed none ofthe test materials are pictured in the article. How about the Thematic Apperception Test which also uses cards. Again, no. And no images of the figures of the Bender-Gestalt Test either. The article on the SAT shows an example of an essay which is included an appropriate place in the body of the article, not at the top of it."
    In March 2007, engaged in a protracted edit war[6] with a few IPs and one user who did not participate in discussion, attempting to make a change in the status quo (citing this discussion) to implement a black-on-white retouched image of the inkblot rather than the the true shaded image. This edit war ended when a compromise was reached to use a collapsible table to hide the true image, with a disclaimer.
    Comment from Faustian to Xeno regarding his placement in this section: (16:09, 28 May 2009) "I believe that I ought to also be in the compromise section. This is what I have been doing consistantly. Along those lines, I object to your characterization of me as "argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed." This seems to be putting an inaccurate negative twist on what I have been doing. I have been arguing to integrate ethical concerns with the need to provide good information. While arguing against those who would have the image in the lead, I have argued for ways of integrating their views with ethical concerns." (in light of this concern, the below paragraph was amended)
    For some time, rather than strictly arguing from the irresponsibility of showing the image as he did in 2007, he has participated in lengthy talk page discussion with the ultimate goal of brokering compromises to balance the concerns of preventing potential harm with that of providing encyclopedic access to the image. More recently, has argued that Wikipedia's notion of consensus demands that we necessarily compromise in deference to a minority viewpoint, even where no such consensus to compromise exists any longer.
    Further to the above, he wrote at Xeno's talk page (14:49, 29 May 2009) "that we seem to have reached the point where no further compromise seems possible because there is nothing left for the minority to agree to other than a version that it 100% in the majority's favor. I thought consensus was compromise, not changing the goals posts every few months until in the end it's just majority preference with no minority input."
  2. Ward3001 (talk · contribs) (as above, numerous arguments starting in May 2007)
    Claims[5] to be a practicing psychologist. Does not deny he wishes the image suppressed to prevent theoretical damage, in fact, this often forms the bulk of his argument.
    (04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "My opinion was (and still is) that there should be no image of an inkblot anywhere in the article, but that point of view did not prevail in a very heated and difficult consensus that was achieved. So, given that consensus, my position is that if an image of an inkblot must be in the article, it should be in the most logical place: adjacent to "Test materials", and H. Rorschach's image is more appropriate adjacent to the discussion of overview and background, as I have repeatedly pointed out above. (...) The issue here is not whether there should be an image of an inkblot, but rather the most appropriate place to put it."
    Was the subject of a recent AN3 report [13], albeit filed by the other party who had made just as many reverts at the time of filing. The result of the report was an agreement brokered by an admin not to revert the disputed item for one week which was amenable to both parties.
  3. Goingape (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
    In response to the first edit to the talk page noting that "Psychologists prefer that the general public not see them so that it will not skew results when the test is performed": "As a pscyhologist, I have to say, that I agree ... I wish Wikipedia would honor the ethical requirements of the only professionals who have access to this material."
  4. Annalisa579 (talk · contribs) 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC) "I was shocked to see this image on Wikipedia (...) there's been decades and decades of blood, sweat, tears into testing the cards, norming data, running statistical analysis that are unimaginable to anyone outside of the field. (...) I spent years studying and administering it (...) Making images available on the internet will make it obsolete and we will have lost a helpful tool. (...) I encourage the person who posted that image to substitute [a non-Rorschach inkblot] in order to renew the sanctity of test"Reply
  5. Teenyshan (talk · contribs) 17:06, 2006 Nov 7 (UTC) "student psychologist" and initiator of the "Outrage" thread examined above. It was the user's only edit. "Regardless of whether or not these inkblots are copyrighted has absolutely no bearing on the ethical issue at hand"
  6. Monnicat (talk · contribs) 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Ph.D.[5], is a mental health clinician and researcher, the retired user who quoted the APA ethics code above) I deleted the image of the blot the last time I visited this page, but it was restored. I will continue to remove it every time I visit. Placing the image in a public forum compromises the validity of the test for all the reasons previously discussed.Reply
  7. Plskmn (talk · contribs) argued [14], especially from reasons of copyright, but also for reasons of restricted access; 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) "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." (17:32) "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." (17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) "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."Reply
  8. 193.65.1.44 (talk · contribs) (11:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC) "Definitely agree with Faustian" who wrote that [start of comment by Faustian] (21:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) "By placing the inkblot on the page you don't give anyone the choice - as soon as they go on the wiki page they see the image. There is already a link to those images on the page, so if someone really wants to invalidate the possibility of seeing the test for themselves, they can choose do so by going to the link. Placing the image on the page removes that choice. So, the image is inappropriate." [end of comment by Faustian] "In addition, copyrights are violated. I removed picture."[7]Reply
  9. Dela Rabadilla (talk · contribs) (formerly anon) was a user whose entire editing history is an extremely vocal four month period beginning in December 2007 during which time they edited almost entirely on talk pages[8] within the Rorschach area of dispute[9], even initiating a MedCab case in late March 2008 in which all three responding mediators agreed that Wikipedia policies supported displaying the unhidden image. (07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) "The reality is that this test is used by many psycologists, who have reason to beleive their efficacy in providing their much needed services is compromised by having these images available. (...) I find it completely contrary..." [to Wikipedia's goal to] "...promote knowledge and to benefit human kind ... to neglect the currect use of images for mental health by thousand of professionals. If anything Wikipedia should embrace psycologists that wish to censor this information." (17:53, 1 February 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."
  10. Kaldari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "This seems more akin to hiding the punchline of a joke before someone has read the question than censorship. If I was going to be taking a Rorschach inkblot test in the near future and I decided to check out the Wikipedia article, it would be nice to be warned before I actually saw the images. I certainly wouldn't object to the images being available, but it would be nice to not ruin the test for people."Reply
  11. Anakin101 (talk · contribs) (14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "I would have been bitterly disappointed if I'd glanced at the image before being able to read about it. Hiding it for a moment made it more interesting, and made the article about the inkblot tests make more sense. (...) Those who cry WP:NOT#CENSORED are missing the point – it's not frigging censorship. Censorship is unfairly burying or removing relevant information because somebody else doesn't like it. But here, we have the image box perfectly visible, with a note about what it is. All it takes is one quick click to make it visible. I also think that as a disclaimer, it's a fairly trivial one. I honestly do not think it matters that much whichever way it's done, though my preference is keep it hidden when the article first appears."Reply
  12. AAA765 (talk · contribs) (formerly Aminz) (02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC) "The main purpose of wikipedia is to provide information to the users, nothing more. Hiding the images will not deprive the readers from seeing it if they want to do so. Another point is that the very hiding of the pictures provides some extra information (the fact that seeing it will influence the test)."Reply
  13. Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) arrived in March 2008 and his initial talk page contributions seemed to support open display of the image. However later comments indicated he believes we should "err on the side of caution". As at 21 May 2009 his position had changed significantly. (19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC) "I'm not sure about the `harm may arise' argument anyway. Presumably this is harm to the purety of a psychometric test. But seemingly this would arise only in the case where a candidate for assessment, consciously or unconciously, sees a real ink-blot here, self-elicits their own responses, remembers them and then remembers again when actually assessed in order to give deliberately different responses (all the while not knowing how the responses are interpreted). This seems a little far-fetched." (17:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "The argument of "may impact peoples care" stlll seems extremely far-fetehed to me (my logic above) and I suspect that the only consensus you would find would be amongst those practitioners who use the test on a regular basis (for monetary benefit, I am guessing). (...) I'd argue that the Rorschach ink-blots are somewhat in a class of their own, their novelty being the very reason they ever became useful." (19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC) "I would not underestimate the pervasiveness of Wikipedia, however, copied as it seems to be onto countless echo websites. Just because people have disregarded possible harm in the past does not mean that we also should be careless. But then again, where is any EVIDENCE that harm has OR HAS NOT resulted over the past 50 years? I suppose it's a question of how significant one thinks Wikipedia is, compared to what has already been published. Maybe we are all psychologists already these days." (11:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) "At the risk of setting the debate back a step, I would remind (...) that there were plenty of editors who had doubts about there being an ink-blot image in this article at all. This has all been through dispute, edit war, protection, informal voting and seeking consensus. The current postiion was seen as a compromise." (18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "I fully agree with Ward3001, Faustian (and others) and for exactly the same reasons. In the original consensus I had (and still have) great difficulty in understanding exactly how scientific evidence could produced to show one way or another that displaying an image here could compromise the effectiveness of the test. But if we were to err on the side of caution, we ought to heed the reservations of the relevant professional body (APA) and protect the images. I also suggested that if the point of an image was simply to be illustrative, then a novel new ink-blot could be created for use here. As neither of these points seemed to be agreed upon, I saw the current positioning as an acceptable compromise. Since then, however, more convincing arguments over use of test materials in wikipedia articles have been made." (21:14) "I still think APA guidelines have relevance to this discussion - it seems a little churlish to dismiss them so glibly. Maybe wikipedia can show me how to produce scientific evidence of whether harm is produced or not - but if it cannot, then it should not be making a judgement here but erring on the side of caution, and I will prefer to take the advice of those who actually use the test for real, that's all." (21:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC) "I believe in my arguments, not in whether or not I am in the minority or the majority. I have seen nothing that persuades me that the image should be shown. But Ward, and others, have made a number of very sound arguments for why the image should not be shown at the top and I support them in those. I also believe that good arguments continue to exist even though they may not be constantly repeated." (20:05) "I don't want it to be lead image because I don't want it here at all. I haven't changed my position to now wanting it to be a non lead image."Reply
  14. Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs) 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) "Coming late to the discussion. I think it's fairly obvious that there should be an inkblot at the top of the page, as that is the most iconic image people have of the test." (16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC) "For purposes of illustrating what the test is about, I see no difference between a random inkblot, and an inkblot made by Roscharch. I would actually prefer a black and white inkblot at the top, as it is more iconic of the test. I still hope that a compromise can be reached, but if it can't, I see no concensus here for a change from status quo. The image of Card 1 as it is currently used should be in the criticisms section." "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter." 04:07, 22 May 2009[10] "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter."Reply
    Comment from Lawrencekhoo: (14:12, 2 June 2009) "I would like it emphasized that my position now is, consensus on this page should not be considered in isolation from consensus on other pages with controversial images. Wikipedia should have a reasonably standardized policy on controversial images. As it stands now, consensus on Wikipedia appears to be, to include clearly relevant controversial images, but to place them further down the article so that readers have some choice in the matter."


Editors compromising edit

i.e. those that acceded to some form of suppression in the interests of of compromise
  1. Rsugden (talk · contribs) (in the unreplied-to "My $0.02" thread) (31 August 2005 (UTC) "Sorry to return to the issue of having card one shown in this article. It seems unnecessarily provocative to post this, especially when there is a suitable non-Rorschach card to be in its place. And the issue is not copyright. I guess this doesn't matter in Wikipedia as long as someone wants to do this, no amount of appeal will prevail. (...) And as I psychologist, I have problems with the Rorschach. However, I have more of a problem when articles in WP are contentious. (...) Maybe I will add to this article but not if it is going to stir up the passions of the anti-Rorschach people. It's not worth an "editing war"."
  2. Saxifrage (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) "I am a student of psychology as well and I disagree with the dissemination of the inkblots in general, but while at Wikipedia I leave my bias behind as much as I can and edit according to Wikipedia's rules. One of these rules is that Wikipedia must remain neutral by not choosing sides in real-world disputes such as this one. Speaking as an editor, I think using a silhouette of only one of the inkblots is a good compromise between the camp that believes the inkblots should be known to all and the camp that believes they must be kept strictly secret."Reply
    Comment from Saxifrage: (23:51, 2 June 2009) "For what it's worth, I no longer hold the view expressed in my original comment. The inkblot in question is already extensively disseminated (Google Image Search). There is no prospect of putting this egg back into its shell, and it would be absurd for Wikipedia to undermine its editorial integrity to preserve a secrecy that is non-existent." (00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "The [clarification] categories are mostly about placement, which I don't have an opinion on. Rather, I just don't think the alleged secrecy of the image should be a factor in placement. I wouldn't "object" to it being put elsewhere than the lede so long as it was on grounds other than hiding it, so I suppose the best fit is prefer the lede, but I'd rather see the dispute end."
  3. Blue Leopard (talk · contribs) 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC) "I like the option of being able to chose to see the pics in the current state of the article."Reply
  4. Diego (talk · contribs) initially 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC) "Keep the picture. Don't hide it. (...) Showing one inkblot from the test will do no serious harm to the results should someone happen upon the picture prior to taking the test, since the results themselves are much more likely to be influenced by the interpretive whim of the examiner. If we are going to have an article mentioning inkblots, I think it is a good idea to show readers what an "inkblot" looks like." but later acceded to compromise 5 October 2007 (UTC) "Posting a picture of a symmetrical inkblot in order to show readers what an inkblot (not necessarily a "Rorschach inkblot") looks like does not violate WP:OR. The inkblot need not be an "interpretation" of the important features of a Rorschach inkblot. The caption could be written to make it very clear that it was just a picture of an inkblot, with no direct relation to the Rorschach. The important point is that it would look roughly and qualitatively similar to an average viewer. I think the proposal is an elegant solution that should satisfy those who seek to develop a multimedia-rich article and those who, due to ethical concerns, wish to keep the actual Rorschach image hidden."Reply
  5. Runa27 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [15], 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [16], "as someone who has a neutral opinion on the Rorschach ink blot test, I can perhaps provide some perspective, and will attempt to do so now: I LIKE the way it is now. It is both logical, and considerate to our readers. (...) it is considered to at least partially invalidate the test if one views the blot before they take it - but then still gives you the option of viewing the image, which is only of the first card."Reply
  6. MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk · contribs) initially 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC) "I actually don't see any problem with using the blot." (01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) "When I come to WP I want information. Having the blots is information." later (21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC) "The compromise of hiding the image with a warning that vieing it may invalidate a test is a very good one. I don't have a problem with that."Reply


Editors who disagreed with the suppression of the image edit

i.e. did not see a need to delete/remove/hide/replace/move the image below the fold
  1. DreamGuy (talk · contribs) 18:10, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) "All in all it appears to me to be yet another company trying to distort copyright laws to protect things that can't be protected. And, hell, even the ones under copyright can be used via Fair Use rules for comment and criticism."
  2. Wikibob (talk · contribs) 01:05, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC) "I agree that the copyright claim is spurious, is there a source for the claim? As you say, if the author was Hermann Rorschach and he died in 1922 April 2, then they are in the public domain, both United States and EU."
  3. 190.30.98.233 (talk · contribs) 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I think the inkblots should be available for anyone who wants to see them and understands the fact that he or she won't be able to take the test effectively after seeing them. The pretention of keeping them secret is like reserving the right of applying it to someone against his/her will: if someone wants to keep the chance of taking the test, they just won't look for the inkblots in the internet. They won't look for any kind of information about the test! (this argument was seemingly made while users were adamantly keeping the image off the page entirely, instead providing an external link to view the image)Reply
  4. Spindled (talk · contribs) 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) "I think fair use would probably apply in this case... also, i personally do not think that knowing about the inkblots, how they look, or thinking of what they might resemble will affect anything, as the psychologist would be looking at your impulsive responses and the way you respond, and not what you already know about the pictures. just my $0.02"Reply
  5. Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC) "The images are pd since Hermann Rorschach died in the 1920s. So life +70 has expired." (14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC) "I would argue that there is little point in haveing both images since one is simply a blacked out version of the other. I would favor haveing the shaded one since it accuretly depicts the blot" (03:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC) "There is no reason why wikipedia should be concerned about any percived damage to the test." (04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC) "A psudo-Rorschach inkblot does not convey the same information as a real Rorschach inblot." (15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC) "This is wikipedia. We are not censored for the benifit of professional codes or principles." (23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC) "The views of various academics and trade associations should of course be recorded in the article but beyond that are not something that really applies to us."Reply
  6. Mooleh (talk · contribs) 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC) "I congratulate Wikipedia on publishing this inkblot"Reply
  7. Halo (talk · contribs) 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not censored, which is a policy and you are trying to censor Wikipedia. See censorship: "Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body". How exactly have I missed the point?"Reply
  8. Drugonot (talk · contribs) 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC) "damage? what are you talking about?!? wikipedia isn't under psychologists or psychiatrists censorship. There are no damage at all by showing a couple of pictures! (...) I'll not censor (by hiding) a picture, because it may damage your unscientific work. (...) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia. Inside every good encyclopedia you'll find the REAL and ORIGINAL images, not a fakes or censored one!"Reply
  9. The Merciful (talk · contribs) 12:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) "==No reason to hide images== So i unhid it. See Wikipedia:Spoiler for comparison. (16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) "(...) Quite frankly I fail to see a reason for hiding the image that is not plain silly. It is just an ink spot, after all. It is not Rorschach images are hard to come by, but the current image has the added value of authencity, and should be shown openly, as is Wikipedia's purpose. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to cater, bend etc. to demands, aesthetics, morals etc. any particular group."Reply
  10. HaeB (talk · contribs) (formerly High on a tree) 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) "I don't see such a consensus" (to hide the picture through Javascript) "I personally think that "let those people just have their way, even if their reasons are wrong" is not a good motto for writing an encyclopedia. It amounts to bowing to whoever is arguing most vociferously instead of basing the decision on the best arguments." (14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) "I think we should go back to the solution from a month ago, before the edit warring started: Include Image:Rorschach1.jpg without the JavaScript code. As noted above, this is already a compromise solution, since from a purely encyclopedic perspective it would be desirable to show all ten cards (and also describe some exemplary responses and their evaluation)."Reply
  11. Itub (talk · contribs) 08:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC) "This is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to be informative, neutral, and uncensored. It is not bound by the norms of any professional organization, religion, or nation (...) This test does not need to be "protected" (...). Wikipedia already has a general disclaimer (...) Finally, regarding the [show] button, I don't think it's a good solution because it has accessibility problems (it doesn't work without javascript, for example), and IMO goes agains the spirit of the no-disclaimers-in-articles policy." (13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) "Some people have argued that the Rorschach test is actually harmful when used in forensic an occupational settings (among others) because such an questionable test may end up determining people's lives (for example, see [17]), Therefore, one could argue that exposing the inkblots actually helps people by invalidating the test. I don't expect Wikipedia to decide what is "good for the people". We just provide the information."Reply
  12. Publicola (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC) "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."Reply
  13. mike4ty4 (talk · contribs) made some astute observations and raised some interesting questions at "The question of the display of the picture and Wikipedia Censorship" (21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC) "It raises an important issue, namely whether or not Wikipedia should appeal to interests outside of itself, or censor or semi-censor certain things." He "wonder[ed] 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...? Also, how does this jive with official policy that Wikipedia is not censored?" While he didn't explicitly reveal his personal feelings on the matter, he argued at length with Ward3001, Faustian and Dela Rabadilla, perhaps in an attempt to cause them to expose flaws in their own arguments. He later asked (02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC) "where does one draw the line on what to censor and what not to? In the case of the religion, regardless of whether or not we agree with that religion, one has to take into account the _feelings of the people_ who follow it. Should those cartoons be "censored" ... or not? What about the Rorschach tests? Should they be "censored"? (...) Furthermore, we still have the issue of Wikipedia vs outside interest: should Wikipedia bend to outside interest or not, and if so, where is it appropriate?" (20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC) "...viewing the Rorschach image does is not damage the person themselves, it damages the usefulness of the test on that person (...), a test they may or may not be required to take. Since we do not know who is on the receiving end of the pictures, what they believe or may believe, or what they will do or have to do in the future, one cannot predict when real harm will actually occur with certainty. This therefore raises the question of whether or not the mere potential to cause harm, to even some individuals, is enough to warrant partial censorship, or if WP:CENSOR should be taken to the letter and these concerns thrown right out the window." (21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) "See, that's the rub -- we don't know oif they will or won't take this test. Should we defer to that risk there?"
  14. 88.65.139.108 (talk · contribs) (responding to mike4ty4's straw-man suggestion that the Rorschach decision be extended to other articles) (22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) "If you take that step, where does it end? If we delete something to help the psychologists, then why not delete something to help everyone else? I think publishing the images is a service to an extent, because the test is already spoiled because you can get all the images elsewhere on the web. Who knows how many people have? The fact that nobody knows means that the test is spoiled. The sooner this gets in to the heads of the people who don't want to bother with another set of blots that can be kept more secure, the better." (IP's only edit)Reply
  15. MilesAgain (talk · contribs) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) "Hundreds of editors have weighed in on the question, and the clear consensus is that Wikipedia is WP:NOT#CENSORED. Not for this, or any other article." 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) "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?"Reply
  16. Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 13:16, 26 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." (00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "it's not our job to protect the accuracy of this test. We don't plaster these images all over the encyoclopedia, ruining the test for hapless bystanders; these images are displayed on the article on these very images, and if someone is already trawlling the internet for info on the Rorscharch inkblot test, I don't think shielding his eyes serves a purpose." (19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Having the images present in no way forces people to see them. If they don't want to see the Rorscharch inkblots, they shouldn't have navigated to this page." (20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC) "If the bigger group did what it wanted to, the inkblot image would still be at the top of the article. Also, I don't quite see any encyclopedic purpose of placing the creator's image at the top of the article, aside from helping maintain stability of the article." (04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC) "The other articles that have been listed as examples of tests that don't put an image at the top are irrelevant. Only one of them even has an image at all, and that image has too much text compressed into it to be readable as a thumbnail. That said, this is an inkblot test. Seems perfectly rational to have a picture of an inkblot at the top." (02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "It's still boils down to the fact that we have one image that benefits a reader's understanding and recognition of the subject, and one image that doesn't, unless a person wanted to know what the inventor looked like. And also let's keep in mind that this putting a picture or Rorschach himself at the top arose pretty late in the main dispute over a year ago, and the main reason for moving or removing the inkblot was based on the unverifiable claim that it was medically harmful."Reply
  17. Chillum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [formerly Until(1 == 2) ] 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "If someone lookup up the test at the library they would see the same picture. If people are specifically trying to learn about the test then that is their choice and if that invalidates the test then that is the cost of the research they have done. We can't hold back information from people because we think them knowing it will harm them somehow, that is for them to decide." (20:06) "The suggestion that an image illustrating the topic causes harm does not seem credible to me, if the person chose to research the test then that is the cause of any harm, not the information source that has the pictures. If a person looks the test up at the library they are likely to see a similar image. It is up to the doctors to decide if the test is effective, not us. We are an illustrated encyclopedia, not a pop-up book. We also must not be giving medical advice, that is a big no-no, so even putting our dislike of disclaimers aside we could still not do it." (17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "Even with the hide template the image still flashes up on my screen for a moment, that near subliminal flash may do more damage than it showing steady. But as an editor that is not my determination to make, just as other editors should not be deciding if the image should be hidden or not based on their opinions about the test. We should just show the image and stop taking these strange measures. I understand the motives as sincere, but this is a place to present information, not obscure it." (17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "To put my point more succinctly, we should be documenting psychological practice not following it. Just like when we document a religion we should not let that religion's taboos influence our content. When documenting a school of thought we cannot follow that school of thought as the basis of our article. When we decide to let the precepts of the subject dictate our editorial actions we are committing original research and deviating from a neutral point of view. This is not something a scholarly work with the goals of this project should be doing." (02:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "People can use the information on Wikipedia to invalidate almost any test out there, that does not mean we should hide the information away. Policy is clear and I see no overwhelming reason or consensus to hide the image." (14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "It should not be hidden. Almost any test can be invalidated by having access to Wikipedia, I am sure I could have aced, and invalidated, many of the tests I have taken in my life if I had access to Wikipedia, that is hardly Wikipedia's responsibility, nor should others be inconvenienced to avoid this. I have no objection to having the image lower on the page for stylistic reasons, but please understand this is not to prevent people from seeing it." (15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC) "There is a pretty strong consensus to show the images. While a few people have stuck to the idea of hiding them, they simply do not represent the opinion of the community at large here. We don't hide the information we intend to present, we show it in an unadulterated fashion. The idea that this test is accurate is a belief held by some scientists(I assume at least as I have not seem a citation) and not held by others. The belief that the test can be invalidated by viewing the images is supported even less universally. It is a belief by a group of people, we should not let it effect our content." (00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC) "Consensus can change. I suggest we put it right up at the top. Right above the picture of Mr Rorschach would be consistent with how we do most article. That is to say leading with a picture of the subject." 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) "It is only natural to make the lead picture of the subject of the article. Not sure why there is any question." (16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "consensus can change. Just because a compromise was worked out before does not mean it is the perfect solution. We can still change that decision."Reply
  18. Luna Santin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (on replacing the image with a false one) (22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "I suspect it'll still be a point of contention in a case where we already have a "true to form" image freely licensed." (09:52) "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?" (21:41) "So a completely different car is acceptable because...? What, because the uninformed reader won't know the difference, anyway? That's quite an approach to take to academic integrity." (00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "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." (23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "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." (00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. Clearly we've decided to have an article on the test; clearly the image is relevant to that article." [Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is] (21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "a guideline which has years of respect (and even what you might call "enforcement"), including at the Foundation level. One major problem with in-line content disclaimers is that we'll then have to start justifying our failure to place them left and right, all over the place where people might find objectionable content -- not just in an editorial "why" sense, but also potentially in a legal sense. Calling this "just a guideline" is a bit like calling Evolution "just a theory" -- it entirely misses the point, as I see it. Is there an explanation for why we're intentionally violating this long-standing and well-respected community norm, beyond "it's just a guideline"? You say there's consensus for that on this particular page; given recent debate, it's clear that's disputed." 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer (22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC) "where's the evidence seeing the image potentially causes significant harm? It keeps getting mentioned, yes, but I notice the answers become evasive or repetitive when I ask for evidence." (01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC) "That's one reason I keep asking for evidence of actual or potential harm. Then we move from a bunch of random people quibbling into actual professional opinion on the matter. And I'll take this opportunity to once again point out that you've yet to provide any evidence of that sort, despite my having asked for it numerous times. "Reply
  19. hmwith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "I tried to remove even simply the disclaimer (not even the hide box) and I was promptly reverted. Wikipedia has no disclaimers. The policy doesn't need to be cited. It's the entire policy. It is a disclaimer, and Wikipedia "has no disclaimers", therefore, it needs to be removed." (21:07) "The one I am specifically talking about is Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. However, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, Wikipedia:Not censored, and Wikipedia:Options to not see an image are all relevant." (21:44) "All articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages." (18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC) supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ([hiding / disclaiming images is] "in breach of Wikipedia guidelines & policies") (20:02) "If one wants to actually take the test without knowing anything about it, he/she shouldn't research it on an illustrated, uncensored encyclopedia." [on new voices calling for unhidden display of images] (23:07) "it's better to have new, unbiased people voice their opinions rather than people with personal feelings on the subject matter."Reply
  20. Garycompugeek (talk · contribs) (21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "Hiding the pictures sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow it on this article we must allow it on all articles. It is understood why you are doing for respect for the test but in reality you are censuring the picture unless it is clicked on." (01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) This precedent will not stand. Consensus doesn't appear to favor hidden images. Policy clearly dictates against it. Why the revert? Your admins. Enforce policy." (20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) "I feel the entire article would be damaging to anyone who would be taking the test therefore hiding an image should be pretty moot." (23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Once again since the image is all over the internet, why is Wikipedia hiding it? (14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I feel current page violates numerous policies which could be rectified by unhiding the image." (20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "This matter has been talked up and down the pike. Consensus and policy clearly lean towards unhiding picture. I move that an admin unhide the picture." (15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Arguments are made and weighted accordingly." (17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) "I sympathize that seeing the images before the test may damage test results. Certainly if Wikipedia was the only place one could easily see the test images the above arguments would have much more weight but that is not the case. Not only have they been in the public domain for a very long time but are lambasted all over the internet. Trying to track down these images and having them removed or hidden seems virtually impossible and going to one particular site like Wikipedia (IF we were to remove or hide them) would also seem a pointless and thankless task. My point is the damage has been done and we cannot put the genie back into the bottle." (21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) "I would say consensus in this matter has changed (it has been talked up and down) to show the ink blot on top of the page (and maybe move Herman's picture to history section) and would say that a majority of us feel this way. I respect everyone's opinion who has commented on the matter regardless of whether or not I agree with you. I am moving both pictures but will not edit war and revert this change. The next step would be arbitration but before anyone goes there think on this... if you cannot convince us then I doubt they will prove different for this seems an unbiased group of seasoned editors."Reply
    Was the filing party of a recent AN3 report [18] in which he was the other reverting party, the result of which was an agreement to not revert over the image for 1 week.
  21. Fredrick day (talk · contribs) (00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "I don't see any consensus that the images are to be hidden - I see lots of argument about it, so I have removed the disclaimer and remove the hide - because if this page is in dispute, surely we default to (as noted by Luna) the long-standing and well-respected community norm. Otherwise, I think we'll have to get involvement from the wider community." (20:22) "The article has a disclaimer that breaches the spirit of our policies on disclaimer and I'd argue also breaches "no medical advice" - we have a general disclaimer for such matters. More broadly, there is NO consensus on this page to hide the images and therefore we fall back on accepted community thinking on such matters - images are not hidden." (00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "moving it based on a "scroll" argument is bogus because we have no stats on resolution, screen size, dimensions etc - it's based on an assumption, I see the image as soon as I log-on. So if you move it to cover landscape editors then you are making special allowances for groups of users - strictly prohibited by policy."Reply
  22. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk · contribs) (05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "You can add me to the list of people who believe the image should not be hidden. There appears to be a consensus emerging. Unless a lot of editors suddenly decide to support keeping the image hidden, the recent conversation here clearly indicates the picture should be unlocked." (23:00) "This image should clearly be openly available as per WP:NOTCENSORED, unless there is consensus to hide it per WP:IGNORE. The consensus emerging is to unhide the image, and I concur strongly with that sentiment."Reply
  23. Schutz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "I am strongly against hiding the image, and I am against a disclaimer (but not as strongly). (...) Are there really many people who would be looking for information about this test and would not want to see the image ? (...) 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. (...) 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" [as the image] "is hidden by default (...) 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." (17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "I feel that you have incorrectly reversed the burden of proof; we are building an encyclopedia, and we want it to be as comprehensive as possible, so by default, we are here to provide information. This test is an encyclopedic topic, and the image is without doubt of interest in relation to this topic (I don't think anyone disputed that); from this starting point, I believe that people who do not want the image are the one who must provide the definitive argument. I have read these arguments, and I think I understand them, but to me, given the evidence presented, they do not carry enough weight to go against this basic principle of providing the information. There will never be an opportunity to reach a conclusion (and I don't see how any objection has been proved wrong, on one side or another); I think all the arguments have been presented, and different people will take them into account in different ways and will make their mind accordingly." (19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) "Wouldn't the article itself be at least as damageable to a potential patient than the description of the test ? (...) A patient who has read this description would probably be very careful about not saying anything until he had thought long about it; would it be any less damageable than seeing the image itself ?" (06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "...the scientific community has no business telling people (...) what is good for them to see or not (if only because the scientific community can not pretend to know that)."Reply
  24. Bryan Derksen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (08:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "IMO it's ridiculous. Anyone who has enough interest to actually examine the inkblot in detail will do so, and those without the interest probably won't be "tainted" in any meaningful sense by glancing over it. But regardless, we shouldn't be making special exceptions to our standards based on the sensibilities and opinions of tiny minorities like this."Reply
  25. Oahiyeel (talk · contribs) (10:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC), supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("Agreed.")Reply
  26. MasonicDevice (talk · contribs) (02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) "Agreed. Don't censor/disclaim to benefit movie studios or medical field or religions."Reply
  27. Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (10:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC), supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("No way. Can't believe this is even getting this much delay honestly.")Reply
  28. Black Falcon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (14:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "In addition to the various arguments noted above, "the lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits" (quoted from WP:NDA). Moreover, the arguments used to justify the use of this disclaimer could justify the presence of a disclaimer on virtually any medical article. After all, one could argue that an encyclopedia article discussing the symptoms of a disease could be "fuel for the fire" for a hypochondriac. Should those articles have disclaimers? Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is unambiguous: no disclaimers in articles. No exceptions." (00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "I find it implausible that someone visiting the article and wanting to know about a test would not expect to ... well, actually find out about what the test involves." (06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "Since hiding the image constitutes a major deviation from established practice and policy, the burden of forming a consensus rests with those who advocate that the image be hidden, not vice versa."Reply
  29. Prolog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC), supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in psychology. Policies cited above are quite clear on this.") (23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "...the image should be shown inline per usual practice. {{linkimage}} was a template with a function identical to the wikitable currently used in this article to hide the image. The result of the TFD and the resulting DRV was that the "show/hide" system should not be used anywhere in the project."Reply
  30. Jahiegel (talk · contribs) (04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC) , supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("One is spared my usual verbosity here, as Black and Bryan, inter al., put the case quite well.")Reply
  31. Rossami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) ==The image is already public== "I have to say that I think this whole dispute is a tempest in a teacup. That image is already widely known and universally recognized as part of the Rorschach test. It's in pretty-much every Psych 101 textbook and in a vast number of pop psychology articles and books and has been for decades. To the extent that prior exposure to the image compromises that part of the test, any theoretical damage was done many years ago. Having the image on the page adds so little incremental exposure that the damage, if any, is in my opinion trivial. It's certainly not enough to deserve this level of debate and dissent among well-meaning Wikipedians."Reply
  32. Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "...looking over the recent debate, I tend to agree that consensus currently is to show the image by default. I will unprotect and unhide the image shortly, though I would not be surprised if warring over the image resumes." (15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "those opposing hiding the images have policy and guidelines on their side: WP:CENSOR, WP:No disclaimers in articles, WP:Content disclaimer, etc. Those wishing to hide the image are relying on a medical reason that is without merit under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That isn't to say that I don't understand the concern from your end. (...) However, after reading the debate, including the archives of the previous debates, I am of the opinion that consensus has changed, and that the image should be displayed until a better alternative is agreed upon."Reply
  33. Clpo13 (talk · contribs) (10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "It's one picture in a test that is widely considered to be pseudo-science. Even so, I still fail to see how the picture is a problem at all. I've looked through the talk page discussions and the only thing I can gather is that some people are worried that readers of this article will see the picture, note that the caption says something about a bat and a coat of arms, and then be influenced by that in the rather unlikely event that they take an inkblot test sometime in the future. If that's not correct, then it might be handy if someone outlined the problem so that newcomers to this discussion will know the whole story without having to go hunting for it. At any rate, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of certain groups. When your livelihood depends on images that are in the public domain, you have to expect that people are going to come across them. If not on Wikipedia, then somewhere else. The image illustrates the topic, and thus it should stay in full view in a position in the article where it is in context."Reply
  34. Dendodge (talk · contribs) (21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC) "The images are neither shocking nor explicit. (...) There is no way they will be deleted. There is much more (relevant) policy to support keeping the images than removing them."Reply
  35. Consumed Crustacean (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC) "The hell with that. The image positioning was the result of months of bickering between people who support the Rorschach test and believe that Wikipedia was somehow tainting the test, and people who realize that Wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Just because a large number of people can bully their version through on this mostly unpopular article does not mean it should be so." (04:33) "The removal of the image from the lead was done because the image was seen to be "objectionable or offensive" by a certain group of editors. That is specifically what WP:NOTCENSORED is about. There is no scientific or even ethical reasoning behind its removal. A fringe pseudoscience is not a legitimate justification for the modification of a Wikipedia article in a detrimental fashion." (05:12) "I think this is bullshit. If someone can provide me a peer-reviewed journal stating that there is damage if someone sees an inkblot, I will support this wholly." (01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "When a person thinks "Rorschach inkblot test" they think, and immediately care about the actual inkblots. The face of Mr. Rorscach is not immediately associated with the test, nor immediately relevant. It's not impossible to include an image at the top and in the relevant section, either." (02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "What does the head of Rorscach have to do with years of research? The only image we have that is relevant to the test itself, and quite relevant indeed, is that of the inkblots used within it."Reply
  36. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk · contribs) (01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC) "Another article's failings are not a good basis for decisions on what to do in this article. The inkblots are emblematic of the Rorschach test, recognizable to far more people than could even remember the name. Wikipedia articles tend to provide an opening image which helps illustrate, in the best fashion possible, the content of the article. On this article, the most helpful image to begin with is not that of the test;s creator, but that of an example of the centerpiece bolts used on the test." (01:27) "The best image we can provide, therefore, is one of the inkblots, without which the test could not be carried out. Your argument about them being part of the methods and therefore not worthy of being at the top does not hold water, because the blots would be included because of their value as iconic images without regard for their status on the test. It is like claiming that the main article on Windows XP should not have a screenshot at the top because Windows XP is so much more than the graphical interfaces and that you do not begin an article with specifics about GUI. The point for both that image and the proposed move of inkblots to the top, of course, is NOT to illustrate specifics before their due but to illustrate, in the best manner possible, the subject of the article, even if by doing so one happens to illustrate specifics as a side effect." (02:17) "If someone stumbles into this article without recognizing the name and glances at the picture of Rorschach, s/he is no closer to knowing what the article is about, but if you put the image of the blot at the top, chances are the average reader will immediately recognize the test. That's why the blot should be the top image." (19:29) "We should hold to WP:CENSOR. It is not Wikipedia's job to safeguard the sanctity of the test; it's job is to provide informative articles on the subject. This article can be improved by having a picture of an inkblot at the top, and that is all that should matter, not potential "harm" that can be brought upon people who may hypothetically take or would have taken this test at some future point in time. APA guidelines are for it's member psychologists to adhere to, not encyclopedias." (23:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "Even if the images cause "harm," wikipedia is not in the business of protecting it's readers from potentially harmful information. Even if we err on the side of caution and assume this test is very important, that showing the image renders it useless, and that every single reader who stumbles into this article wished to take the test at some point in the future, it would all be as irrelevant as APA's ethical guidelines. We are here to distribute information in the best way possible (where Wikipedia's guidelines and policies have been established by the project as what it believes is "the best way possible"). There is no guideline against moving the image to the top and it would be an improvement to the article."Reply
  37. Apoc2400 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "The blots, particularly the first card, are quite iconic. Having it at the top helps readers identify that they found the right article. Put the picture of Hermann Rorschach just below." (22:56) "Yes. People aren't going to go around reading articles about various psychometric and projective tests unless they want to learn about and compare such tests. Our job is to provide the best possible information to those to seek it." (14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "The idea that having an inkblot at the top makes readers think the test is only about inkblots still makes no sense. Also, we are not here to avoid editwars, but to create the best article possible." (09:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC) "Consensus is not just about counting votes, but it also does not mean that you can ignore anyone you disagree with. If we were sockpuppets or people who were recruited to vote a specific way, then you could ignore us, by we are not."Reply
  38. Shadowjams (talk · contribs) 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) responding to the RFC on the lead image: "The article is about the test not the creator of the test. The blot is a better representation of the test than an image of the creator."Reply
  39. Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC) (responding to RFC) "Support the inkblot image as the first one. It's iconic, and it is the image a user would most expect to see. The caption can be used to direct the reader away from misconceptions... but I think that whole exercise is somewhat ill-informed: Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs, it's just a place to convey basic information. Surely, the best way to remove misconceptions is to get the reader interested in reading the entire article, and the best way to do that is to make it clear the reader is at the right article (by starting with the inkblot image) and then encouraging them to read it by not having a preachy caption. This is not an article about Rorschach the man, also -- so an image of him first seems rather out of place, given that we have a more natural choice." (23:51) "It is the natural image to represent the test. I know test is more than the blot. But it does a good job visually representing the test, much better than a portrait of Rorschach."Reply
  40. HarryAlffa (talk · contribs) (16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) "My first thought was that if it's about the test, then the inkblot image is the one to use. If this was an article about the man himself, a biography, then the obvious image to use is of the man. In a biography you would surely use an image of an inkblot somewhere, and in skimming the discussion I gather that one image is considered by some to be iconic? I would guess this would be the butterfly one? Well they all look like butterflys! There can be no argument that a biography would use a portrait image, conversely then an article about the inkblot is about the inkblot, so better show an image of one of those please. Use a portrait later on. Why not have both images in the article?"Reply
  41. See #Additional voices


The call edit

Based on this revision of this page. Additional comments based on amendments and new voices are noted at #The addendum

As I stated above, I came to the article with an eye to making a call on the RFC. Starting around May 14, I took what time I had to review the lengthy history on this matter. Then, on May 21, feeling sufficiently confident of community consensus, made this edit with the edit summary: "consensus seems to exist to move the more descriptive image, being the first inkblot, to the top of the page". I later engaged in discussion on the talk page, starting at Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images, a section began by Lawrencekhoo. He moved the image back the next day. Garycompugeek reverted him, and was reverted by Ward. A brief edit war [19] erupted which led to an AN3 report, at which time I felt it necessary to draft this report to demonstrate that consensus is clear on the matter. The initial "consensus" discussion began in May 2007 when Ward joined Faustian and a few other psychologists in demanding the suppression of the image. At that point, it was basically even, 6 mental health professionals arguing with 6 disinterested parties (4 users, 1 anon, and an admin). In the two year period that followed, users regularly edit warred over the images, causing the page to be protected 4 times [20]. During that time, only 7 additional voices[11], came out in support of suppressing the image. On the other hand, 37 additional voices (23 users, 13 admins, and an anon) agreed that suppression was inappropriate. The ideal place for the Rorschach inkblot image is unhidden, in the lead of the article. Consensus was actually clear as far back as March 2008 (36/12/3) after the failed attempt at using MedCab to enforce suppression. Yet somehow the words of a few interested parties continued to inform our editorial decisions despite the numerous objections (42/13/3) of disinterested editors.


The conclusion edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have no doubt that psychologists do good work.

Editors come from all walks of life including mental health professionals. However, they are all asked to check their biases at the door and edit with an eye to making the encyclopedia as informative as possible. The image is in the public domain, and germane to the article's subject.

Ward pleads, "do read the archives carefully so we don't have to repeat the same points again and again, as Faustian and I have had to do several times above. And of course consensus can change, but thus far it has not."[12] Indeed, Ward and Faustian have written many hundreds of kb's on the subject. Their arguments are often repetitive, and each has been refuted by disinterested parties.[13] The burden of proof lies with those wishing a consensus-other-than-the-norm.[14] The norm is to show the most descriptive image we have available in the lead.

It is clear that many disagree with the suppression the image in any way, shape, or form. It is also clear that it is a very vocal minority, perhaps acting out of deference to their personal and/or professional ethics,[15] who continue to suppress it. "Consensus does not mean 100% agreement."[16]

Consensus is built upon the voices of the many, not the voices of the few (or the two) - especially when half[17] of those few freely admit conflicts of interest. We must not compromise our ethics as encyclopedists for the ethics of an exterior body.

I agree with Ward that consensus has not changed. Consensus has been the same, all along. Based on this exhaustive review, and my understanding of Wikipedia's pillars, policies, and guidelines, consensus is clear to this heretofore uninvolved[18] admin that the true inkblot image should appear unhidden in the lead of the article.

–xenotalk 02:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply


The notes edit

  1. ^ "Suppress" has negative connatations on-wiki, so I am loathe to use the word. However, it is the best word to succinctly describe all the possible ways of acting upon the image in an effort to reduce potential harm caused by its exposure.
  2. ^ Edit counts: as at 28 May 2009: (contributions: article 53 / talk page 206 / first edit 2006-05-23 13:21 / contributions: 107 / 299 / 2007-05-26 00:18). currently: Article / talk page
  3. ^ A difficult-to-access first-party publication released by "Rorschach Training Programs Inc." [1] doesn't make the grade. Ward himself admitted that he "We might be hard pressed to find a source besides Exner to support potential invalidity from prior exposure" [2]
  4. ^ "I don't do billing but my impression is that the MMPI is more expensive than the Rorschach, though less time consuming for the practitioner. (...) the Rorschach is usefull is in inpatient settings, where people are often (in mine and others' experiences) much more likely to sit through a Rorschach than they are through an MMPI"
  5. ^ a b c These editors are presenting as professional psychologists or practitioners, and I don't have any reason to doubt any of them (especially in light of their familiarity with the subject), but this being Wikipedia...
  6. ^ Making 12 edits over a 6 day period. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  7. ^ This single edit to the talk page by the IP was overlooked in the initial report. It is placed here slightly out of chronological order (would be in position #5) to preserve the original footnoting of the report.
  8. ^ Their only two mainspace edits being as an anon trying to suppress access to the images and delete the image [3]
  9. ^ Including 121 edits to Talk:Rorschach test [4]
  10. ^ I did not include this edit in the initial release of this report because I had contributed to this talk page section. However, this comment appears before I participated, and in light of the clarity it lends to LK's position I am including it per a clarification request.
  11. ^ Of which include an employee of a the company that seeks to control these images, a single purpose account and three users who only made a single edit to the talk page to leave an RFC !vote
  12. ^ (17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  13. ^ On disinterested parties: "Something is wrong with holding your opinions as the only ones that mean something; the whole purpose of an RFC is to gather a wider array of opinions from uninvolved people. In fact, the alternate view may be just as good: editors heavily involved in a topic may be too close to it to see the issue clearly, and outsiders, above the fray, are better suited to help decide difficult issues. Plus, WP:OWN specifically goes against the idea. It's probably best if we just take everyone's opinion as valid. I see your point about this being all or nothing but the debate seems to be, largely, about whether or not to put the inkblot image at the top. I think we would all agree that the image of Rorschach is better than nothing... so if there's a way to compromise between these views please share it, I don't see one. I suppose this may mean abandoning an older compromise, but consensus can change." Mangojuice 05:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. ^ Chillum puts it best: 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC) "I am not counting votes, I am saying you have failed to convince the community of your point of view. Secondly, consensus can change so archives are merely a reference point for future decisions. Thirdly, too early? This has been going on since December and there are no more supporters of your point of view now as there was then. Just accept that you have not achieved your goal of convincing us of your beliefs. You can continue to argue your point of view. Right now the consensus is that the image goes at the top, if you can change that consensus then we can change the page.
  15. ^ "I do not represent the American Psychological Association here. I represent myself; I have profressional ethics that guide my opinions" [5]
  16. ^ Ward3001 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC) [6]
  17. ^ 1 thru 7
  18. ^ As mentioned earlier, I participated in some talk page discussion starting here, everything after revision 291659328 is not discussed in these results but may be mentioned in #The addendum.


The discussion edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago48 comments12 people in discussion
Archived from Talk:Rorschach test#The discussion. Additional discussion should be initiated at Talk:Rorschach test.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I'm basically staying out of this debate at this point, but I would like for Xeno to clarify two points so that they are not later misrepresented. I hope Xeno will make his statements here crystal clear:

  1. Xeno, are you expressing your opinion in your capacity as an administrator on Wikipedia? Other editors have made comments that "admin Xeno" said this or that, so I think everyone needs to know whether your above comments in this section are as an editor just like the rest of us, or as an admin.
  2. If you consider yourself a disinterested party in this matter, does the fact that you have previously taken positions in this debate entitle you to claim "disinterest"? In other words, if you're completely disinterested, you're simply summarizing the discussion and stating what you think the consensus should be, without having a prior opinion on the issue. Do you consider yourself to be completely disinterested, or are you somone who has expressed opinions on this issue (and thus not 100% disinterested), but you are trying to bring closure to the consensus process? Please note that I am not criticizing you either way. You certainly are entitled to try to bring closure, but do you feel that you had no opinion on the issue prior to this "review". Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. I have drafted this review and submit the results to the community to do with as they wish. Before I drafted this report, I wasn't willing to rubberstamp my edit as "adminly", because I hadn't made a full examination, but now feel that based on these findings any reasonable admin would come to the same conclusion. So yes, this review, and this edit I see Faustian has already reverted, can be considered as executed in the capacity of an administrator and I will submit the reports to WP:AN for review if editors still disagree.
  2. Last week I had a rough assessment of community consensus, so I made a single edit to place the image in the lead with a comment as to my assessment. After I made the edit, I engaged in talk page discourse as any good editor should after making an edit that could be deemed controversial. In this report I have excluded those discussions. Thus, other than that brief discussion, I would consider myself uninvolved and disinterested except insofar as I want to see community consensus enacted and put an end to the long running disruption to the same. –xenotalk 03:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Consensus is clear (42/13/3). I have re-applied the consensus edit and submitted the report to AN for review. –xenotalk 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I say this with no reference to the issue of image placement, and with all due respect to Xeno, I do not consider you (Xeno) to be an impartial, disinterested party because you formed an opinion and expressed opinions prior to your writing this review. I cannot address whether it is proper for you to function as an admin in this situation, but (and again no offense intended here) I personally think it would be best to have an admin who has not had any prior experience on this issue to fill that role if it is needed. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I respectfully disagree. I made a rough determination of consensus absent of my input as of 21:00, 21 May 2009. This review is simply the written form of my determination at the time of that edit. Afterwards, I engaged in talk page discourse, as any reasonable editor or admin should. However, I invite you to raise this concern at the appropriate venue, the Administrators' noticeboard: Wikipedia:AN#Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review. –xenotalk 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the massive effort you made. A few points of my own:

  1. You stated correctly that "consensus is built upon the voices of the many, not the voices of the few (or the two) - especially when over half[14] of those few freely admit conflicts of interest. We must not compromise our ethics as encyclopedists for the ethics of an exterior body." However, nor is consensus a majority vote. Wikipedia:What is consensus? states that "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Furthermore, "[21] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." As you have clearly demonstrated, we have a situation in which, according to the talk pages, the opposing sides have a ratio of 13:42 (with a further 3 arguing for a compromise position only). Consensus of course does not require unanimity, but on the other hand nor is it strictly a majority vote. The voices of 24%-27% of the editors involved ought to count for something and ought to be incorporated into the article. Where is the balance of competing views when they are not? I have initiated a discussion on the talk pages of consensus and am awaiting others' opinions: [22].
  2. Your counting seems to be off somewhat. At least one of the 42 people you listed as arguing against having the image hidden were not opposed to having it moved to a different section of the article (indeed, he is the one who first proposed moving it into the test materials section which you are reverting):[23] "...That said, would you object to moving the image to the "Test materials" section? In that section, the image would illuminate a number of points including: "the basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless", [s]upporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes", and "recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless". Black Falcon (Talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC) This is one person, at least, who should be moved from the show the image in the lead section to the compromise section. Not everyone who objected to the image being hidden also opposed the version that you have reverted and insisted that the image in the lead was the only way that this could be done. You seem to be mixing up people opposed to hiding the image, with people who want the image in the lead, and inaccurately presenting it as one group, which clearly it is not. While it is safe to say that all of those wanting the image hidden or replaced with a fake one oppose having it in the lead, one cannot assume that every person who doesn't want it hidden insists that it must be in the lead and nowhere else. We already have one example above. The high number of 42 you repeatedly list is therefore somewhat misleading and the total is probably not as lopsided as you suggest.
  3. Your numbers do not include those editors such as this one [24] who are not involved in the discussion but who have nevertheless removed the image. Presumably they ought to count also, no?
  4. You bring up "wikipedia ethics." Wikipedia is not amoral, and indeed a proposal to claim that wikiepdia has no moral code failed to achieve consensus: [25]. Wikipedia editors are supposed to "negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." There is nothing wrong with taking ethical considerations into account when writing articles. While certainly ethics codes - whose essential purpose is protection of the public good - ought not have veto power over wikipedia content, that does not mean we are obligated to ignore them entirely, either. One of the people on the "show the image" side wrote: [26] "We really shouldn't care (in our capacity as wikipedians) how many 15 year olds commit suicide because of this article; preventing the suicide of 15 year olds is not part of the mission goals, nor any consensus approved guideline I can remember. What IS our goal, however, is to create the best articles possible." I hope that this is not your view also.
  5. You seem to disparage the fact that one side happens to include several psychologists, based on conflict of interest (see my next point). Psychologists writing about a psychology-related topic should be considered a plus, not a minus. Is it wrong when actual biologists contribute to biology-related articles? When physicians write about medicine-related articles? If the goal is to have the best articles possible, one would hope that people in the field contributing to the articles on topics of which they are experts would be embraced, not driven away or their opinions disgarded when the actual article is created. One would think that the opinion of experts in the field would carry more weight than that of people who know little or nothing about it.
  6. You claim a conflict of interest among many of those seeking to not place the image at the top. If someone crosses the line from letting his or her background inform his edits to causing them to compromise his edits I agree. I have not certainly not crossed that line. I have striven to balance ethical concerns (which everyone, not just psychologists) should have with the goal of being as informative as possible. Knowing more about a topic and editting accordingly is not a conflict of interest. An admittedly rough analogy that comes to mind: some creationist putting a lot of stuff into the Darwinian article and then complaining that the biolgists opposing him are doing so out of a "conflict of interest."
  7. You seem to frame the debate in non-nuetral terms by referring to one side as seeking to "suppress" the image.
Xeno, the version you are reverting is the one based on compromise. If there is no compromise, there is no consensus. We know that more people prefer to have the image up at the top; however we do not know how many people actually oppose the compromise and insist that there is no other acceptable way. These are two distinct points. Remember Wikipedia:What is consensus?: "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority." (bolded parts mine). Your numbers do not address that point.
We ought to see how many people refuse to compromise, and then seek mediation if there is no resolution. I am restoring the previous version, which takes into account the opnions of both those who want the image in the lead as well as thjose who want it hidden, per these comments but will not get into an edit war with you over it. I hope you read and address my concerns before reverting. Faustian (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. I have read your arguments with respect to consensus, and the rebuttals. I am still of the opinion that consensus, broadly construed, holds this image should go in the lead.
  2. Wikipedians are, on the whole, nice people. So they often say things diplomatically, and speculate about possible compromises. When I placed those 42 editors in the column it was because they argued against suppression. As the support base grew, less and less people were willing to entertain compromises. If you would like to voir dire these numbers, I will ask the editors I've placed to re-affirm or clarify their position succinctly in light of the ongoing erosion of the various compromise versions towards the seemingly logical choice of showing the image in the lead.
  3. I have not as yet examined article space edits, though I am interested to see how those data shape up. I'm hoping someone cleverer than I might be able to run a query rather than me having to go through it by hand.
  4. I'm not particulary swayed by the hypothetical. I agree that there are certain ethical standards we should hold to as an encyclopedia - one of them is not allowing outside influences to inform our editorial decisions. I agree with you that our goal should be to create the best articles possible.
  5. In writing this, I was of course concerned that it may be viewed as such. I have no problem with expert attention to the article; I'm sure it has benefited greatly from it, however, they must bring with them an encyclopedia editor's hat.
  6. Fair enough, I'll accept in good faith that you strive to be impartial while editing the article.
  7. Suppress is simply the most accurate word I can think of to apply to the following actions taken on the image: deleting, removing, hiding, replacing with false or re-touched images, moving below the fold.
As I said I don't believe we should compromise our editorial integrity in this regard and framing consensus to suggest we should isn't a compelling line of argument. Some time later today I will send a note to the people I've referenced in the review and ask them to affirm or clarify their position at which time I will move and/or annotate accordingly.
I feel that consensus is sufficiently clear. Even if a couple of the 42 were to fall into the 3, it wouldn't change the landscape that much. I've said my piece, I won't be making any more edits to the article. I may, however, seek advice on other forms of dispute resolution. –xenotalk 05:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Further to Faustian's #2: I see what you mean. This should fix that, it was a mistake borne of lack of red bull =] I've also left Black Falcon a note. –xenotalk 06:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my points. I really do appreciate the considerable time and effort you put in, and the fact that you have definitely shown that the majority who have taken part in discussions prefer to have the image unhidden versus hidden. I've never doubted that, and indeed had mentioned that this was the case many times, but it's great that we now have it concretely shown. And indeed, the version I have been defending recently includes the real image, unhidden, in the test materials section. With regards to ethics, I think that wikipedia policy is clear in supporting a balance - putting on an editor's hat doesn't mean leaving all ethics outside the door. I find it unfortunate that others don't feel that way. Three problems still need to be addressed:

  1. We have no data on the extent to which the group wanting the real image unhidden refuse to accept any placement other than in the lead. I hope that when you ask those other editors, you frame the question appropriately - not "do you prefer to have the image in the lead" but "do you refuse to have the image anywhere but the lead", "are you open to image placement other than in the lead, such as the test materials section", etc. The former position indicates refusal to compromise in any way, the latter does not. Getting the answers to such inquiries would go along way to clarifying how people feel. Until we do, it is premature to declare based on number of opinions that consensus is to put the image on top. So far, we know only that a large majority are opposed to using a fake image or hiding the image. That's all we know concretely. The version that has been reverted does not have a fake or hidden image.
  2. As noted, we don't know how many people "vote" by editing - by removing the image altogther. This data would seem to be important. I'm waiting to see that.
  3. With respect to consensus, could you please outline your reasoning on why we shouldn't take the minority view into account? I've outlined the reasoning based on appropriate policy pages and essays about why we should. I'd be interested in your reasons why not.Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was asked to clarify what position my comments advanced, so here goes: I oppose in principle any form of suppression of the image undertaken for the purpose of suppression itself. Therefore, I oppose altogether any form of "hard" suppression, by which I am referring to actions taken to hide, replace, or remove the image from the article. That being said, I do not necessarily oppose "soft" suppression, by which I mean placing the image "below the fold", if there is a reason to do this that does not rely solely or primarily on a desire to suppress the image (for instance, if the image is more relevant to one particular portion of the text than any others). In other words, I think that the image should be placed where it would best serve to improve readers' understanding of the topic; if that happens to be below the fold, then so be it. I hope that this explanation helps to clarify my position.
On a side-note, I noticed that the article has seen about 12 reverts in the past 72 hours. While there does not seem to have been a technical violation of the three-revert rule, having so many reverts in such a short time does go against the spirit of the policy. I think that the best chance for positive dialogue aimed at resolving the issue would be to focus on having/continuing a constructive discussion and, for now, to pay less attention to the current location of the image in the article; the consensus reached in the discussion will ultimately determine where the image goes. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 07:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
The test is about much more than the inkblots; it is about the person's perceptions and the analysis of those perceptions. This article is about the test, not the inkblots. The inkblots themselves are necesary but are simply test materials, not test. The article on Astronomy does not have a telescope in the lead. If this were an article about the inkblots themselves it would be a different story. The idea of the test being simply about the inkblots is a popular misconception that is perpetuated by placing an inkblot in the lead. The purpose of placing the inkblots at the top is that they are "iconic" of the test and most easily recognizable. However, a google image search reveals that by far the most common and iconic image is the black-and-white version of the image rather than the actual image: [27]. I think that someone mentioned the possibility of having the black-and-white version at the top, indicated as such, and the actual one in the test materials section. It seems noone followed up on that.Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
(Responding to Faustian's 1,2 & 3 above at 14:21, 28 May 2009)
  1. I've pinged them, however if you feel they require additional pinging to break or vocalize their silent consent per your comments below, feel free.
  2. [28] Feel free to harvest these data. My off-the-cuff thoughts on this are that talk page comments are more relevant and compelling than edits alone. See also this request of mine to make this data into a human-readable table format, however you would have to coax someone into writing the program (or harvesting it manually - a laborious task no doubt) if you still feel its a relevant line of argument.
  3. Answered at Talk:Rorschach test#Preference Versus Compromise Regarding the Image: The Evidence [29].
cheers, –xenotalk 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, consensus is not a matter of numbers; nor is a matter of breath, which I fear Faustian and Ward have forgotten. Writing more does not make you more right. Screaming longer and louder than others does not make you more right. I've never seen anything to support the ridiculous claim that posting the image is unethical or harmful in any way, and frankly I'm tired of hearing that if you're not going to back it up. As I said before: we have an article, we have an image relevant to that article, and absent some compelling reason I don't see why it shouldn't be right where it so obviously belongs. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from insulting other editors by implying that they are "screaming". The APA deems it unethical to spread tests around. The purpose of the ethics code is to protect the public, thus the scientists involved in this matter collectively deem it harmful to expose the public to this image (along with any other test materials). You may personally feel differently of course.Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Does the APA have any opinion on this image, specifically? The apparent lack of one seems telling. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
The APA ethics code does not mention any specific test but covers all tests: 9.11. Maintaining Test Security "The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code."Faustian (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would also like to thank Xeno for this clear, painstaking and (largely) very fair, summary here of a great deal of debate. Re-reading my early comments it seems that I might more easily fall into a category of `editors who have changed their opinion'. My initial scepticism over protecting the image has largely been replaced by support for the two main protection protagonists, i.e. they have persuaded me with their arguments. But I still feel my most problematic issues (which I must admit are more general) seem to remain unresolved - that test materials should not be shown in Wikipedia and that `Goggle images' shoud not be used as the best yardstick of what is "in the public domain". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
But many books written by eminent psychologist also show the blots, such as this, p.1144. which shows much more than we do. Google books finds very many such books. If the APa want them to be secret, they are making very little attempts to enforce that with their membersYobMod 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if they know their work can be accessed on googleimages. Interestingly, usage of fake inkblots isn't a problem for Britannica or encarta: [30].Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
The one i linked to is also available in libraries and bookshops (including Amazon and B&N - googlbooks gives links). I have nothing against using "fake" images (at least for the lead - the real one was more useful to me next to the description), but holding wikipedia to a stricter standard than trained and accredited psychologists does not seem a good arguement for it.YobMod 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
As I commented elsewhere, placing images in books is not the same as online. The fact that this is becoming blurred with googlebooks doesn't change it, and I expect eventually something to be done about it. However the authors don't put the images on the cover of the books. Indeed I have one book with a fake image on the book jacket and real ones within the text. Faustian (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Yobmod, I'm sure if we deliberately go to a library, or even search purposefully on-line for a scholarly text, we can easily find examples. And your points about lack of APA action here are interesting. But my problem lies with frivolous, casual, or even accidental, browsing with a ubiquitous image search engine. For me, two (or several) over-exposure wrongs really don't make a right. Surely, poor control on one part of the web, is no justification for poor control on another or, particularly, here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
But you have not demonstrated that the APA or any psyhological association considers any exposure to be wrong. The lack of any response from the APA indicates the opposite. While this is obviously not conclusive, without a single cite to show that this is an ethical breach, we only have your (plural) POVs. Wikipedia cannot assume adding any information is a breach of ethics without any proof whatsoever that this is a widely held oppinion, or we could never add anything! Finally, i don't consider Wikipedia to be frivolous use - our not-for-profit disemination of knowledge is less frivolous than yet another psychologist writing a book for money and recognition. YobMod 08:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Here is the ethics code: 9.11. Maintaining Test Security "The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code." And I'm sorry, but the idea that people write books for "money and recognition" is insulting and sad.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Let me add to Faustian's response to Yobmod. The ethics code has been cited several times on this talk page (although in Yobmod's defense, he is far from being the only person to make this mistake here). And the APA's ethics code does not exist for "money and recognition". Furthermore, it is generally understood among writers and users of information in scientific journals (including but not limited to psychology) that publication is done to advance science for the common good, not for "money and recognition"; very insulting and sad indeed that someone would make such a misleading and uninformed statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward3001 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'd certainly write a book for "money and recognition", but I probably wouldn't choose the Rorschach for a subject. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
By "..frivolous .. browsing with a ubiquitous image search engine.." I was alluding to Google Images not Wikipedia. I have no professional knowledge of APA, so I would need to seek advice from those who do. Thanks, Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Xeno, regardless of what ultimately happens, I would like to thank you for the mammoth effort you have undertaken in reviewing and summarizing years of discussion Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The arbitrary break edit

Despite my disagreement with Xeno, I would like to thank Xeno for the painstaking work here.
I have tremendous respect for Luna Santin and intend no offense, but Luna Santin, you have simply made a mistake in your comment that "I've never seen anything to support the ridiculous claim that posting the image is unethical or harmful in any way". Regardless of Wikipedia's policies (which I am not disputing), if you read all of the discussion (including the archives), you will see ample reference to the ethical problems in exposing the image, and by no means is it a "ridiculous claim". I'm not really sure that you really believe professional ethics are ridiculous, but if you do then I would respectfully disagree. But otherwise, thank you for your comments. Ward3001 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not that I believe professional ethics are ridiculous, not at all; rather, to the best of my knowledge I've never seen you back up your claims of harm. You're doing it again, now: mentioning decisive evidence without actually quite providing it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Again with respect, Luna Santin, but your comment (perhaps unintentionally) did include the statement "the ridiculous claim that posting the image is unethical" (italics added), and the APA ethics code has been cited previously on this talk page. As for the issue of harm, if you'll look closely at my edits above, I gave a source that prior exposure to a Rorschach image can damage the validity of the results ([31]) and that tests in general (not just the Rorschach) should have a security level that avoids prior exposure because of compromised validity ([32]). I also provided evidence that the Rorschach can detect suicidality ([33], [34], [35]), and thus if the test validity is compromised there can be cases in which the test can miss detecting genuine cases of suicidality. If you include suicide as a form of harm, then compromising the results of the test can result in missing potential suicide. Now, if you want specific evidence of individual cases in which someone has suicided because he/she saw an image of a Rorschach inkblot prior to taking the test, I consider that an unreasonable demand for evidence because those data will never be available; psychologists do not routinely publish data about individual clinical cases in which test validity might be compromised. And we may not even know the patient saw the image until after the harm is done. But I don't think it takes a great leap in logic to see that if exposure of an image results in an invalid test, and an invalid test can result in missing a case of suicidality, then improper exposure of the image can be a factor in harm to a patient. And that only pertains to the worst case scenario. I have also made comments about less lethal, but nonetheless harmful, possible results from an invalidated test and consequent misdiagnosis ([36]). I hope this clarifies things. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, actually; I'm going to need some time to think on this. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Understood. This can be a lot of info to absorb for those without training in the test. Thanks for your efforts here. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yet again Ward I wholly agree with you. And you have explained part of my original scepticism over protecting the image - the "scientifc proof of harm" would involve unethical, impractical and maybe impossible measures. One group would need to be deliberately pre-exposed to images in a randomly assigned but controlled manner (knowing that this might compromise a later test/diagnosis) and one group not. Then a sufficiently large number of each group would need to be tested/diagnosed (double blind) for a statistically large difference to be demonstrated. But even testing for no genuine reason might be construed as unethical in itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
In an individual clinical situation (i.e., my patient whom I am trying to diagnose), testing for no reason would have ethical problems, unless the patient and I both are willing for the patient to be a part of a larger study and all the proper protections for research participants are put into place. In that particular scenario, I would not do the testing (another psychologist would), and it would be unknown whether the results would be useful diagnostically until I got them (if I could even get them; that would depend on the conditions determined in advance about release of the data). Much of the suicide research has been done in situation in which patients have been tested for clinical purposes, then the resulting data (along with suicide data) are given to the researcher after the fact (with all the proper confidentiality safeguards, of course). Combine that with the fact that suicide has such a low base-rate, and you can see why such research data are hard to get. And that's all the more reason that we want the data to be as pure as possible (i.e., uncontaminated by artifacts such as prior exposure to a Rorschach image). If even one Rorschach from such a data pool is contaminated, that can be a tremendous loss of invaluable information. The research problems with non-suicide issues are usually less dramatic, but it can still be incredibly difficult to collect such data. The Rorschach is a time-consuming test that isn't always administered in a clinical situation. If we use non-clinical research subjects (i.e., people who aren't being treated or seeking treatment), it can be a little easier to get the data, but then we have the problem of how useful the data are. We might demonstrate that the test is invalidated by prior exposure of an image, but we are not likely then to be able to relate that to "harm" because we cannot (ethically or practically) create situations in which the research subject would experience harm. Ward3001 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
My name was not added to the list. I too think that the image should not be suppressed in any way shape or form. A convincing argument has not been put forth to hide it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've added you to the addendum at #Additional voices. –xenotalk 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am glad that my prior interpretation of consensus is in line with this new interpretation of consensus. Sanity checks are always very helpful. Hopefully this edit warring will stop and that image placement consensus supports can remain now. Chillum 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
No need for words like "sanity checks", Chillum. There have been legitimate disagreements here, not problems with "sanity" (literal or figurative meaning). If you mean "accuracy checks", don't forget to count your own edits among those that have needed checking. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to a check on my own sanity. I often refer to a confirmation or a contradiction of my interpretation of things as a "sanity check". I certainly was not attempting commentary on anyone else(other than my comment about edit warring). Chillum 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Understood. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also want to say that I think this edit is productive and informative. I think putting the significance of inkblots in regards to the test as a whole into the caption for the lead image is the correct place for it as such an image needs qualification to avoid misunderstandings. I also agree that the common interpretations of the image belong in the body of the article for pretty much the same reasons. Chillum 16:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • It's been a long time since I was active on this page, but the same principle applies: we do not censor images out of deference to false copyright claims, or concerns that the info will somehow invalidate tests (info on other articles could change results on other tests), or because some people want to protect something related to their occupation. And this particular test is highly subjective anyway, and people taking it are supposed to make snap decisions upon seeing it (which wouldn;t be all that affected by having seen it earlier), so the odds of this screwing up tests for anyone to any meaningful degree are so low as to be ridiculous. (And are people even still using these? Seriously? It was a nice parlor game about a century ago, but I'd hoped the field had moved on by now.) DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    The above copied here from "The clarifications" as it was trimmed somewhat in that section. –xenotalk 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
A differing viewpoint further (copied from Xeno's talk page)

This debate reminds me of my previous attempts to edit articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group of which I am a member. After consulting with our world headquarters via snail mail, I accepted their view that "fighting" for a particular presentation of information and suppressing information which we believe strongly to be blatantly false or deliberately misleading would be a fruitless endeavor; we (JWs) have specific venues through which we disseminate information about ourselves, and while lies and misinformation exists, both online and elsewhere, our duty is to "defend and legally establish the good news" through the very basic venues recommended by 1st century Bible writers and our own publications. It is up to others to decide from what sources they will acquire information, whether or not such would prove detrimental; it is simply not our call.

The reason that I bring this up is that I feel that these professionals with an interest in suppression that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards need to take stock of the effectiveness of this fight. Such uses of these now-public domain images permeates our culture (see Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song)#Music videos), inasmuch as misinformation and disinformation thrive in legitimate venues despite the real and potential damage such can bring. These professionals may likewise encounter published bad advice, but attempts to suppress it would likely be ineffective. As Jehovah's Witnesses may attempt to reinforce "true" statements about themselves to individuals may come to them already having taken in misinformation, so too psychologists should promulgate their expertise in settings and using means that are in their legitimate control, advising the public to be wary of potentially harmful information, but accepting the reality that no one can effectively "win" in arenas so vast and prodigious. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to add that my decision for my own editing practices was to avoid editing articles about which I hold such a strong personal view, as such could compromise Wikipedia's highest principles, not simply because such an effort would be ongoing, fruitless, and unbelievably frustrating. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

A quick comment in response to CobaltBlueTony's comments: Though well intentioned, your comments basically are "preaching to the choir". Most psychologists would agree that they "should promulgate their expertise in settings and using means that are in their legitimate control, advising the public to be wary of potentially harmful information", which is why we have been doing that for many years. But does that mean we should not try to bring to bear our influence in more difficult areas where mental health is jeopardized, such as this Wikipedia article? You're right that it's frustrating, but that doesn't make it less important. Ward3001 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Cobaltbluetony, my efforts here may also well turn out to be `ongoing, fruitless, and frustrating' but none of those are good enough reasons for not making those efforts. I also think there may be important differences between the substance of our respective topics. But thanks for presenting a different point of view, which some may find useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The addendum edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago67 comments27 people in discussion

In this section, I will note clarifications requested and/or made to the review after posting, as well as any additional comments that I noticed after the cut-off revision of the review.

If there is anything in the review that needs clarification, please leave a note at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum#Clarification requests.

Degree of involvement

An important clarification request to address is with respect to potential involvement. The question was raised by Ward at #The discussion (a), and Faustian at my talk page (reproduced below). As such, I added a disclosure note above the review.

The report was also posted for review by neutral parties at the Administrators' noticeboard. It remained there for close to a week, and the conclusion was supported with no concerns raised as to the manner in which it was reached.


Changelog
  • [37] Minor changes within 2 hours after transclusion. Grammar, formatting, plus a few dates.
  • [38] Fixed Martin's entry as he was in the compromise section in an earlier draft.
  • [39] Clarifying header and description.
  • [40] Amend per Talk:Rorschach test#The discussion (permlink) cf. Faustian #2 & my reply .
  • [41] This change came after Faustian noticed a few missing voices and made note by editing the review directly.
  • [42] Added comment from Faustian per request below.
  • [43] Per clarification request below.
  • [44] Disclosure note as discussed above.
  • [45] Per clarification request, added LK's statement in a thread I had initially excluded, with some additional commentary re: involvement.
  • [46] Per clarification request, expanded on the AN3 comment to make it clear it ended in mutual agreement.
  • [47] To clarify the position of the IP added in change 5.
  • [48] Minor clarification plus date of comment, importing proper formatting and linking from original quote.
  • [49] Moved table info to footnotes and transcluded addendum.
  • [50] Per clarification request, split a section and clarified that the edit war was an isolated incident.
  • [51] Also made it clear that Faustian's approach has largely been one of brokering compromises between the two sides.
  • [52] A caveat about word choice and making it clear that the dispute has been a civil and rational exchange of opinions, fix a typo.
  • [53] Adding further comment from LK per clarification request. Minor format fixes.
  • [54] Adding further comment from Saxifrage per clarification request. Added difflink to LK's.
  • [55] Fixed one user from rename, added links to now-archived discussions.
  • [56] Added permlink in disclosure statement and transclude now-archived discussion about consensus review iteself.


Additional voices

In the original report, I cut off my review at revision 291659328 as after that point I had made comments. However, that doesn't mean additional voices should not be heard. I will note them below and add placeholders in the original report.

  • Jmh649 (talk · contribs) commented at Talk:Rorschach test#Arbitrary break: (13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Having looked at some of the literature I think the image should be moved to the top and the rest of the images should be added aswell in an image gallery at the bottom. (23:30) My comment about placement of the image in the lead is what I feel is correct per Wikipedia. We do not need convincing argument to put the image in the lead we need convincing arguments not to put it in the lead. I have not been convinced of the legitimacy of the above argument.Reply


The clarification requests edit

Since I have signed the report, I would appreciate it if no one edits it directly; however, I welcome suggestions for amendments brought up either on the article talk page, but preferably below (make each request on its own line prefixed with a *bullet and signed individually) and I will incorporate accordingly. –xenotalk 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you just want to make a quick clarification or affirmation of your position, see below at #The clarifications.

  • (none currently)


The clarifications edit

Below you can make a quick clarification or affirmation based on your current position towards the placement of the image. Simply add your name to the list. Brief commentary is acceptable, but for longer statements, use the clarification requests section.


I feel the image belongs in the lead and would object to it being moved.
  • Extensive explanation of my point of view is in the archives. Chillum 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Ditto. My opinions are in the archives (see a summary here.) hmwithτ 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • It's been a long time since I was active on this page, but the same principle applies: we do not censor images out of deference to false copyright claims, or concerns that the info will somehow invalidate tests (info on other articles could change results on other tests), or because some people want to protect something related to their occupation. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • My position is as demonstrated at Talk:Rorschach_test/2009_consensus_review. We can not possibly hope to accommodate every editor's personal viewpoint, and to try to do so would result in this project becoming utterly worthless. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) in the cylindrical shape of the neuron..Reply
  • Xeno accurately represents my position, which remains absolutist, in his review. Joe 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • [57] You summarised my position correctly and put me in the right group. Thanks, Schutz (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Accurate. In principle, I don't mind moving the image "below the fold" so long as we have an image at the top that is clearly appropriate, but since I object to the portrait, an outline, or a fake inkblot, I can't think what image could possibly satisfy me. I had indicated at some point that I was amenable to including an outline at the top but honestly I don't feel comfortable with it, and was saying that only to try to get the conflict resolved through a lot less effort than Xeno put forth in this review. Mangojuicetalk 01:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Xeno has summarized my position well. I have watched this page for years. First to get the image unhidden (was amazed we were actually hiding an image) then extensive debates to relocate it to most relevant location. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I am of this opinion. I came to this page after the compromise of having the page below the fold was already enacted, and still argued on the talk page for want of seeing it lead the document. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The image definitely belongs in the lead, a group of experts wanting to suppress the image in the public domain is not sufficient justification to hide / replace with a fake / etc. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Someguy1221 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • All the ten official inkblots should be shown, with at least one of them in the lead section. Prolog (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Halo (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm a bit late to the party, but I still stand by my earlier comments that the image belongs in the lead as it is a suitable depiction of the article's subject. --clpo13(talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am open to other options, if convincing arguments were put forth for moving the image, but presently feel it belongs in the lead.
  • My position is as expressed here and here, and as summarized by xeno. I would not object to moving the image to the "Methods" or "Test materials" section as long as that move was supported by a good editorial reason (i.e. better illustrating the text content of the section) and not just a desire to suppress the image. Having an image in the lead is desirable but, in my opinion, not essential. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Longer explanation in the archives but this argument by Black Falcon summarizes my position well. Rossami (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


I feel the image belongs in the "Methods" or "Test materials" section.
  • This follows wikipedia policy regarding consensus which calls for synthesizing the diverse opinions of various editors and reaching a compromise, taking into account the opinions of editors (not a tiny minority, but 1/3 of those involved) who feel that image ought to be limited for various reasons and those do not want it limited. Otherwise, consensus is reduced to just a vote, which is contrary to consensus policy. Plus, the article is about the test not inkblots and the materials or methods section is the most strictly accurate place for them.Faustian (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


I feel the image should not be shown in the article at all.
  • I believe that no real Rorschach inkblot image should be shown in this article, for the reasons I have already given. But if this is not possible I would support an image only in the "Methods" or "Test materials" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • When psychologists administer this test, the results are based (in part) on the persons spontaneous reaction to the blot. If they have seen it before (like on Wikipedia) that may well influence their response when taking the test. Therefore that person is then deprived of the opportunity to receive the best possible test results, compromising their mental health care. Monnica Williams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC).Reply
  • I believe that, even as unexpected as it may sound, in this case the images should not be displayed. There are precedents, and it is contrary to the humane reasons why people gather knowledge in the first place. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply


I am confirming my position in the original report
  • Hi xeno, thanks for letting me know about your review of the Rorschach discussion. I just write to confirm that I agree with your summary of my position. --Itub (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Looks like you classified me correctly. You may also be interested to note that there's been a bit of a history of attempts to delete these images from Commons, too: Commons:Talk:Rorschach inkblot test. Not sure how relevant it is as far as English Wikipedia is concerned but it involved pretty much the same reasons. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I have no preference where the image should be placed. My opinion being that as an encyclopedia, the image should not be removed/hidden for the sake of censorship. - oahiyeel talk 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


Although I prefer the image in the lead, I am willing to accept placing it elsewhere for the sake of compromise in order to accommodate other editors' opinions and bring an end to the dispute.
  • 


Other quick clarification
  • 


from Faustian edit

  • I believe that I ought to also be in the compromise section. This is what I have been doing consistantly. Along those lines, I object to your characterization of me as "argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed." This seems to be putting an inaccurate negative twist on what I have been doing. I have been arguing to integrate ethical concerns with the need to provide good information. While arguing against those who would have the image in the lead, I have argued for ways of integrating their views with ethical concerns. In fact, one of the compromisers, Diego, compromised with exactly the version that I proposed: [58]. Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    I don't disagree that you have been recently arguing from a position of compromise for some time, however your actual position was made clear with your earlier edits. I have included your comment below your listing. –xenotalk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    If you look at my history I have been calling for compromise on this article for a very long time, not recently. It's always been central to my approach of editing on any article and I've even been awarded barnstars for such behavior on other topics (just scroll down my user page). I've always valued the collaborative approach and have tried my best to be collaborative. This is why I take issue with how I was characterized.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    An approach to be admired no matter the dispute. When things settle down and I get through your other requests, I'll take a closer look at this. –xenotalk 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, please do. I consider collaborative editing to be very important and do not wish to be mislabelled. Although I do feel that it is irrespionsible and unnecessary to show the images, I have consistently for years worked on crafting compromises that take mine and other positions into account. Describing me as "Has edit-warred[5] and argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed" seems to ascribe to me motivations of bad faith and I hope that this can be reworded. Let me help you by diggin up examples of my consistent attempts to forge consensus through compromise:
    By September 2007, I went from my original position of preferring simulations of inkblots to defending a compromise version that someone else had created, in which the images are hidden and require a click: [59]. Here [60]in October 2007 I expressed openness (albeit with reservations) for a further compromise by another editor involving unhiding the image but placing it further down, although I continued to advocate for the previous compromise of keeping the hidden image:
    Not accepting hidden pic. Will accept pic placed down the page with warning at the top as long as warning flows with the text of the article.Geni 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    A pic further down on the page with a warning is better than one on the top with no warning. It at least doesn't automatically force anyone looking up Rorschach on wikipedia to see the image. It allows them the choice of not reading the rest of the article in order to avoid the image. But the fundamental problem is still there. By placing the image farther down, you are still not giving those who choose to read the entire article the choice of whether or not they would like to see the image. Shouldn't readers have the right to read the entire article without being forced to see the image?Faustian 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Yet another agreement to a proposed compromise solution, a few days later:[61]. In March 2008 I agreed to the unhide but compromised by moving the image further down: [62]:Oops, my mistake. :-) That said, would you object to moving the image to the "Test materials" section? In that section, the image would illuminate a number of points including: "the basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless", [s]upporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes", and "recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless". Black Falcon (Talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC) That would work, too, and I will move it there.Faustian (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) And with that latter compromise the page was stable for about a year, until the current bickering. I will note that we seem to have reached the point where no further compromise seems possible because there is nothing left for the minority to agree to other than a version that it 100% in the majority's favor. I thought consensus was compromise, not changing the goals posts every few months until in the end it's just majority preference with no minority input.
    Back to my point, again, I feel that given my history I ought to be in the compromise category. Hopefully the background I found for you will help you make a change sooner than later.Faustian (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    As for my edit warring, in the example you linked to I was reverting an anonymous editor who made changes without going to the talk page. My 2+ year history of involvement on this article has few edit warring incidents, so I feel it gives ann unfair impression of me when in my description one of the first said about me is that I "edit-warred". I request that you reword my description.Faustian (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
      Done [63] I believe I have addressed your above concerns, but let me know if I missed anything.
    Faustian, it is my honest opinion that you are in the appropriate section. The "Editors compromising" section is for those who, preferring open display, are acceding to some suppression in the interests of compromise/diplomacy/avoiding edit wars/etc. You, on the other hand, admit that you have been acceding to (increasingly open) display since editors, over time, no longer wanted to accept whatever form of suppression was in place. That is, your starting position is "prefer not to show at all". The fact that you broker compromises is to be commended, but doesn't change this fact. Am I wrong? –xenotalk 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Your description is absolutely correct (although my preferred position has shifted to wanting the image hidden with a click to see the actual image, although we have moved beyond that). I just feel that compromise can work from both directions - some compromise from the position of let's show it completely, others compromise from the opposite direction.Faustian (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Based on this: [64]MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk · contribs) also needs to removed from the "Editors who disagreed with the suppression of the image" and placed in the compromise section: "Umm, look, I think I've made myself clear. The compromise of hiding the image with a warning that vieing it may invalidate a test is a very good one. I don't have a problem with that." Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
      Done –xenotalk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    ThanksFaustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • In future edits, for the sake of accuracy, if you must use only 2 numbers I suggest you place compromisers together with no "suppressors". Incidentally, we seem to have a ratio of about 1/3 to 2/3. Is there any way of coming together or do the 1/3 people don't count when the actual article content is considered?Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    If I refer to numbers in the future, I will use all three numbers. I don't think we can lump compromisers cleanly into either polar side, some lean one way, some lean the other. Your question (does the minority not "count") is a good one, but beyond the scope of my report and probably best taken up at WT:Consensus#Is consensus compromise? and sometime in the future, when things settle down, I will try to compose my thoughts on this in further detail. –xenotalk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • And you probably should have included Lawrence Khoo's clearest comments: "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter." LK (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC).cheers,Faustian (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
      Done [65] I had initially not included this section as I had participated, but as this comment occurred prior to that, it should be fine. –xenotalk 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks!Faustian (talk)
  • Thanks for including my comments. Could you recategorize MarkAnthonyBoyle [some redundancy redacted] and could you remove Black Falcon from the list? Thanks....Faustian (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    No problem. Already   Done and   Not done per above and below, respectively. –xenotalk 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
wrt BlackFalcon
  • Based on his comments here: [66] in which he indicated no specific preference (and thus he cannot be categorized) Black Falcon ought to be removed from the list. Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    As I read Black Falcon's clarification, it seems to me sufficiently clear that he disagrees with suppression of the image strictly in deference to the potential harm argument. He is willing to entertain the moving of the image for editorial reasons ("if there is a reason to do this that does not rely solely or primarily on a desire to suppress the image"). –xenotalk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, however prior to May 22nd he did support placing it in the test materials section and since then he hasn't made a decision. Therefore he shouldn't be lumped together with those wanting it in the lead.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    In March 2008, he disagreed with the hiding (via collapsible table) of the image which was the issue at the time, so I think he is appropriately placed. However, if he tells me that he does not belong in that section, I will move him. –xenotalk 19:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    His solution to the hiding was to place the image in the test materials section, unhidden. If he feels that it truly belongs there his catgory should be swiitched. If he is unsure of where it belongs he should not be in any category.Could you ask him if he prefers being in either section or in no section as an undecided?Faustian (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    I will ask him. I am also pondering a suitably neutral way to contact all the editors I've counted to make sure I haven't misrepresented them. –xenotalk 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

As both of you have correctly noted, my position was and is that the location of the image should be determined based on where it best fits the text, regardless of whether that is above or below the fold, with the ultimate purpose of improving readers' understanding of the subject. I am not so much concerned about not having an image for the lead as I am about letting a desire to "soft suppress" affect the decision of where where the image is placed.

Part of me thinks that it may be worth, at this point, to compromise for the sake of compromise itself, just so that this dispute can be over. I do not doubt that most parties on both sides have pursued it in good faith, but I also think that it has largely run its course, in that there is little or nothing new to be said about the issue (desirability/undesirability) of suppression. Regardless of which particular column my name is added to, there is at least a two-thirds majority opposed to the very principle of suppressing the image. To me, this suggests that any continuing discussion about the placement of the image should leave alone the issue of suppression and focus on standard, editorial reasons. One mark more or less in a particular section won't make much difference.

By the way, I know that most of the discussion so far has considered the options of placement in the lead and in the "Test materials" section, but I would like to offer a middle-point: the "Methods" section, which starts with the following text:

There are ten official inkblots. Five inkblots are black ink on white paper. Two are black and red ink on white paper. Three are multicolored. After the individual...

I think that this could be a fitting location for the image—i.e. the place where the image best serves to illustrate the text. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree. However, I don't think it should be moved because it could harm readers. hmwithτ 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
So would you be willing to accept the image in the test materials section rather than in the lead?Faustian (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
If there was consensus that was where it fit best in the article and there wasn't a better image of the test. However, at the current time, the inkblot is the best image to use, so it should go on the top right (per WP:MOS). I can't think of an image that would be better in the lead, besides perhaps an image of the test being given, but if someone did find one, that new image could go at the top. This article should be treated no differently than any other article. The best image of the topic in the lead, others in relevant sections. Normal procedure. hmwithτ 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


From Ward3001 edit

  • I'm sure "Rorschach" is your least favorite word right now, and understandably so. Let me reiterate my appreciation for all your hard work. I know you have your hands full right now, but when you get a chance I would appreciate your considering a point I wish to make here. You mentioned the AN3 report on me (Was the subject of a recent AN3 report), which I think is acceptable, EXCEPT you have not mentioned that Garycompugeek is as guilty as I was of edit warring. I don't think it is sufficient to simply provide a link to the AN3 report without mentioning our mutual guilt in edit warring. I'm not asking you to accuse him of anything, but I think it is only fair if you mention the report about me, there should be some statement as to his involvement. This is not a vendetta against him, just a desire to have a fair and balanced reporting of the situation. If you feel it best not to bring him up in relation to that issue, I think you should remove any mention of it whatsoever. If you disagree, I would appreciate an explanation. Many thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for your comments Ward. I hope you, as well, realize I am attempting to remain as neutral as I can throughout this and am certainly willing to look at any instances including this one where you feel I may have fallen short of the mark. I would also like to re-iterate that I have no problem with professionals/experts editing Wikipedia articles in their chosen fields (it only makes sense... I edit video games - perhaps the only thing I can consider myself an expert on ;>). As to your clarification request:   Done [67] [68] Is this better? –xenotalk 20:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, quite acceptable. And I fully understand your comments about experts. I personally think that Wikipedia should have some degree of editorial oversight by established experts for some articles, but that's a much broader issue that goes beyond any disagreements (or agreements) between you and me. Thanks again for all your efforts on the Rorschach issue, including this most recent request by me. Cheers! Ward3001 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply


From others edit

From Lawrencekhoo

I would like it emphasized that my position now is, consensus on this page should not be considered in isolation from consensus on other pages with controversial images. Wikipedia should have a reasonably standardized policy on controversial images. As it stands now, consensus on Wikipedia appears to be, to include clearly relevant controversial images, but to place them further down the article so that readers have some choice in the matter. LK (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Done [69]. –xenotalk 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


From Saxifrage
  • For what it's worth, I no longer hold the view expressed in my original comment. The inkblot in question is already extensively disseminated (Google Image Search). There is no prospect of putting this egg back into its shell, and it would be absurd for Wikipedia to undermine its editorial integrity to preserve a secrecy that is non-existent. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    So, just to clarify, do you fit into any of the above pre-written statements? (If not, I'll just indent your section and include this comment below it) –xenotalk 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    The categories are mostly about placement, which I don't have an opinion on. Rather, I just don't think the alleged secrecy of the image should be a factor in placement. I wouldn't "object" to it being put elsewhere than the lede so long as it was on grounds other than hiding it, so I suppose the best fit is "prefer the lede, but I'd rather see the dispute end." — Saxifrage ✎ 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Fair enough. Based on the above, you don't move from your spot in the review, but I'll add your comments below your line item.   Done [70] –xenotalk 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test/2009_consensus_review&oldid=1037959407"