User:Danglingdiagnosis/Request for comment/RorschachTest2010

Is publishing the Rorschach test images and responses in keeping with Wikipedia's mission and purpose? Does doing so make the article more useful or less useful? What do sources tell us?

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

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

Statements by National Health Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Purpose and Mission of Wikipedia

At both the left and the bottom of every article, there is a link to an article about Wikipedia that makes reference to the purpose of an encyclopedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The questions

The questions for consideration in this RfC are these:

Does the publication of the Rorschach test questions and answers (images and common responses) compromise the usefulness of the test?
Is the article more useful, or less useful because of the images and common responses?
Is the purpose and mission of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation maintained or diminished because of the images and common responses?
Should we remove the images and test responses from our article?

Statement and Questions prepared by Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous attempts at dispute resolution

Applicable policies and guidelines

Wikipedia:Public domain
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
WP:MEDRS#Respect secondary sources) Wikipedia Policy is to respect secondary sources, such as a statement by a national health organization, and to not use primary sources that "contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim."
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

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

Statement by DanglingDiagnosis

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

Users who endorse this summary:

Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ...

(Please add your point of view here. The more succinct it is, the more likely people will read all of it.)

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

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