Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Note: Discussion related to disclosure of information related to the Rorschach test should be conducted at Talk:Rorschach test/disclosure. Please also review the archived discussions on this matter.
I've been using Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental large language model to create summaries for the most popular articles with {{Technical}} templates. This article, Rorschach test, has such a template in the "Population norms" section. Here is the paragraph summary at grade 5 reading level which Gemini 2.5 Pro suggested for that section:
People disagree about what's considered a "normal" score on the Rorschach inkblot test. Some studies found the test seemed to say too many healthy people had problems, like confused thinking or trouble getting along with others. This made some people worry the test made normal people look like they had problems when they didn't, while others thought the test might be right. However, a later big study looked at test results from many different countries. It found that the number of people with high scores for things like stress or thinking problems was about what doctors would expect to see in healthy people, suggesting the test might not be finding too many problems after all.
While I have read and may have made some modifications to that summary, I am not going to add it to the section because I want other editors to review, revise if appropriate, and add it instead. This is an experiment with a few dozen articles initially to see how these suggestions are received, and after a week or two, I will decide how to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. Cramulator (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was a policy, across the encyclopaedia, that LLMs were not to be used to add content? Getting other editors to add material you have produced is also frowned upon? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through WP:LLM and I believe this is an acceptable approach. "LLMs can be used to copyedit or expand existing text and to generate ideas for new or existing articles." I am open to alternative ideas for how to accomplish the goal of helping readers understand overly technical articles. Cramulator (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe technical articles need technical language. The sentence "However, a later big study looked at test results from many different countries" doesn't fill me with confidence. But I will let others comment. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martinevans123 (talk·contribs). This is an effort to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist. We don't need to dumb down scientific and medical articles so fifth graders can understand it. It risks creating inadequate (and possibly incorrect) information. There are numerous links in the article for readers who seek more information. This article has an ugly history of nonexperts trying to rewrite it. We don't need to add AI into the mix. As for use of LLM in general, this needs to be discussed by the entire Wikipedia community, not just those interested in one article. You can start at WP:Village pump. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just regenerated all 68 summary suggestions for ninth grade reading level here, because I've learned that's the target reading level for STEM articles, and I was planning to fold them in to these talk page posts before the fifth grade level summaries. I'll definitely start a Village pump discussion. Cramulator (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaaargh, have you added this on all your proposed pages? See Martinevans123 comment above. I would personally ask you to STOPPITT! - Roxy thedog17:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am retracting this and the other LLM-generated suggestions due to clear negative consensus at the Village Pump. I will be posting a thorough postmortem report in mid-April to the source code release page. Thanks to all who commented on the suggestions both negatively and positively, and especially to those editors who have manually addressed the overly technical cleanup issue on six, so far, of the 68 articles where suggestions were posted. Cramulator (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I am a clinical psychologist. I request removal of Rorschach card images and attendant descriptions of what they 'are'. On this page and in the Wiki Common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
The publication of these images and the analysis of the blots affects the validity of the test. The premise is that the presentation is new to the subject. So publishing these images and the attendant descriptions can ruin the usefulness of the test.
The APA, along with the psychological community, emphasizes that even though they are in the public domain, the Rorschach test images should not be published publicly or circulated outside of a clinical setting to maintain their effectiveness as a diagnostic tool. The goal is to preserve the test's validity and utility for clinical assessments. 23KMG (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Discussion related to disclosure of information related to the Rorschach test should be conducted at Talk:Rorschach test/disclosure. Please also review the archived discussions on this matter.
Not done: per the above response. Day Creature (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)