Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images

Threaded responses here, please.

Productive

I believe this is a productive move forwards. Perhaps we can clarify the consensus on this matter and then abide by it. Chillum 19:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures very likely to remain on Commons

I thought it might be worth mentioning that the community on Commons has several times decided not to delete the images. Therefore, while it is possible to reduce the space given to these images, as long as there is a link to Commons, all the plates will be available to all readers. Samulili (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The plates are all over the Internet anyway, and they're readily available to readers as long as Google exists. That's not really the issue; the issue is about whether they should receive exposure in the article. --LjL (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to link to Commons for the inkblots when they can and should be in the article. The fact taht they are going to stay on Commons just shows the overwhelming support for leeting the world see them, which is the same reason they should be on the article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a general comment: There is a policy to assume good faith, but there should also be a policy not to assume too much. Your replies have nothing to do with my post and you are fighting windmills of your own fabrication. Samulili (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That they are on Commons is completely irrelevant to their use on Wikipedia. The two projects have entirely different scopes, even if the former serves to support the latter. They are on commons because that project aims to collect freely licensed media. Given the plates are public domain, they fit Commons mandate. That is in no way, shape or form an automatic endorsement of their use on Wikipedia. Resolute 15:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Image galleries

I see arguments referring to WP:IG. The fact that we have textual and referenced content that relies on the presence of all 10 of these images seems to indicate that they pass our image gallery criteria. Should we remove the images then the content regarding common answers that we have now, and the content that will be added later regarding the differences in answers amongst cultures will have no context. They are not there for decoration but rather to support the content of the article. Chillum 20:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking editorially, does a simple table adequately express how a patient would react to each image, or would we be better off discussing at length, in prose, the typical responses someone undergoing the test typically has, using one or two images as an example? As an aside, if we retain the table of responses, I think it might look better if the gallery was integrated, somewhat along the lines of the table at List of Alberta premiers. Resolute 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Have started such a page here.User:Jmh649/Sandbox If we do add more detail regarding the inkblots themselves we would have to create a subpage. If does not mean however that we cannot leave the main gallery in the main page and than discuss each image in more detail on a subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

II really really don't see why we would have (or should) create a subpage for that. It's fine on the main page. --LjL (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just added textual information in prose about responses elicited by the cards (from Weiner, the co-creator of the Exner system, a source used numerous times in the article). All of them, though. No reason why that should be limited to an arbitrary "only some". --LjL (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, anyhow, I don't intend to replace the table with that content; I believe the table is very indicative of cultural differences and gives an at-a-glance idea of the amount of popular responses for the various table. "Popular responses" doesn't really mean "how a patient would react to each image" (although I guess much of the media have treated it like that, by calling them "the answers to the test"). "Popular responses" are merely those content responses given by more than 1/3 of people. It's an arbitrary cut, but apparently one that's provide effective for at-a-glance evaluations.

As to your idea of integrating table, image gallery and prose in one list rather than three separate lists (isn't that basically what you meant?), I'll probably do that, have a look at this draft (although I guess discussion of that should be brought back to the article's talk page). --LjL (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I like this format.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That new table is superior to the current gallery. Resolute 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Display only some"

I'm seeing a few arguments that only some of the images can/should be displayed, on the grounds of WP:IG. I don't honestly see how that guideline may apply here, given we are talking about a very limited number (which cannot grow) of images that physically are the subject; but besides and beyon that, I think you are ignoring that there are reasons to display the individual cards, mainly because they are mentioned in the text of the article in contexts where it makes sense.

• As said on Talk:Rorschach test, at least one gray, one gray-red, and one multi-colored card should be displayed to give a valid idea of what these cards look like
• "popular responses on the first card include bat, badge and coat of arms" - "[...] the bat in card I appear to be characteristic of North America"
• "in Scandinavia, "Chrismas elves" is a popular response for card II"
• "For example, a bow tie is a frequent response for the center detail of card III [...]"
• "the figure of card IV is often called a troll by Scandinavians and an ogre by French people" - ""musical intrument" on card VI is popular for Japanese people"
• "French subjects often identify a chamaleon in card VIII"
• "[...] while specifically card IX's "human" response, [...]"
• "[...] the crab or spider in card X [...]"

Additionally, I can't imagine how a table that compares responses in different culture samples may be classed as unencyclopedic (unless basically every table on Wikipedia is)...

And finally, I don't see how displaying a limited, but significant, number of images (such as 5 or so, as has been proposed) may in any way reduce the "harm" perceived by psychologists: they would still complain and refrain from editing the article, given the bulk of the "unwanted" information would still be there, and the ones who'd like a complete article would miss out. Everyone loses. --LjL (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the image gallery on the pneumonia page [1]. I hope to add images of each of the lobar pneumonias eventually. I consider it encyclopedic. How are these images on the Rorschach test less so. More info is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Again I agree include the 10 images and include a discussion of the analytical methodology. The issue I have relates to where to draw the line related to the most common interpretations, referring to the image gallery for pneumonia does not appear to be a valid comparison as the degree of subjectivity in the response is greater. From an encyclopedic perspective I am struggling to see what this section adds to the article. I will look into this further, thank-you. Quasistellar (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree especially as all 10 images are already out there anyhow thanks in part to the APA themselves (how about we just pull the image the APA themselves put up on their web site and have then supporter explain if the blot were that improtant by the APA put the entire plate up on their own blast website!)!--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not, as far as I can find, currently on the APA website. Could you provide a link? Mirafra (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The link to an Internet Archive of the APA website was provided in the talk pages which is how I found about it though it wasn't labeled in the best manner. This is why I call people who don't do proper references for their links lazy because it creates these kinds of problems later. It is a lot easier to look for Internet Archive of APA site then this link here or [2] especially if there has been a lot in the talk pages. It also helps later editors looking at previous references and the links no longer work. It is being courteous to those who will edit this page in the future. Some editors haven't grasped that that taking the easy way out on talk pages cause problems later on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in internet archives. You're claiming that the APA doesn't actually care, because they put the images up themselves. I think the fact that they have taken them down suggests pretty strongly that they do care (as does section 9.11 of the ethics code), and that the posting was made before the not-very-internet-savvy-folks there realized the consequences of what they were doing. If you live in a small town and left your door unlocked, and someone stole something from your house, and then you locked your doors after that, this would not be evidence that you wanted the theft when it occurred, nor would it be evidence that you now want theft to occur. (To be clear: I am not claiming the use of the images as theft; I'm saying it's a violation of boundaries -- sometimes metaphors aren't perfect.) Mirafra (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, your three APA links above led me to the same APA website front page. Does one have to be a member? Am I missing something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanding scope of RFC

Elimination of content is occurring in other psychology related article such as Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure were an image of the test has been removed. Wondering if we need to expand the scope of this article to include all of psychology testing?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to focus on this issue alone here. If we reach a consensus here, I would presume someone could boldly apply the same result to that article. Resolute 03:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that a http://images.google.com/ search produced scholarly papers in which the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test image is included this is clearly a non starter:

Shin, Min-Sup Sun-Young Park, Se-Ran Park, Soon-Ho Seol and Jun Soo Kwon ((2006)) "Clinical and empirical applications of the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test" Nature Protocols 1, 892 - 899 doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.115

Jamus, Denise Ribas; Maria Joana Mäder (2005) Journal of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology vol.11 no.4 Porto Alegre doi: 10.1590/S1676-26492005000400008

If the Journal of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology don't consider revealing the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure image a comprise of test security then why should we? If we can find a similar paper for the Rorschach test images it would be totally relevant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the average user of the Internet is not going to read a highly-technical journal article. They're going to go to Wikipedia. The scientific community discusses things within itself -- if they didn't, you'd accuse them of being secretive and tricksy. But that does not mean that we think that everything that could compromise test security should be published on a highly popular general-reader-audience site like Wikipedia. Mirafra (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra, you totally missed the point here. I found those articles though a "rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure" search] through images.google.com and the very first picture I got when I did the search was from Nature Protocols. If the journals hadn't put the rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure in the articles and put those articles on the internet then http://images.google.com/ wouldn't have been able to find them and I wouldn't have been able to point your way to them. Simple logic and even told you how I found the articles in the first place above.

The same is true of the internet archive of the APA site. Showing that the APA once had a picture of the entire Rorschach test image plate in a resolution good enough to make out what the separate images were on its own web site would make their current claims look totally hypocritical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Showing that the APA once had this image on its own website would simply suggest that they had now removed it to avoid appear hypocritical, But they never have had this, or done this, have they? Their current statement still stands for what it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Censored

If we are required to pretend that Wikipedia is not censored, then I suppose that is the end of the argument, regardless of the extent to which we are destroying the purpose of the article's subject by describing it. Art LaPella (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that even WP:NOTCENSORED is not an absolute. The Biographies of Living Persons policy explicitly says it exists not just to avoid lawsuits, but because of an understanding that social responsibility needs to be considered. Mirafra (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How does WP:BLP go against WP:NOTCENSORED though? The BLP involves removing anything libacious that isn't backed up by a source or anything private (not public knowlegde, etc). How is removing that info at all censorship? The word 'censor' doesn't appear on the policy page, at all. Also, the main page isn't article space, so keeping porn off it isn't censorship either, it's good judgment. I just find it entirely bizzare how wrongly people use the the concept. Not having a picture of a penis in penis is censorship. Not having said article as today's featured article -- especially when one considers that there's more FAs than there are days -- is simply common sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth actually reading the whole page. It clearly states that WP has a responsibility not just to be accurate and non-libelous, but also to consider the real lives of the human beings who are being affected even by stuff that could be published legally. The section "Other considerations" talks about things like not publishing information, even if true and well-sourced, that could affect, for example, the children of celebrities, or the victims of crimes. It represents a voluntary restraint on the idea of all info all the time on any topic anyone wants, because of ethical considerations. I'm not the one introducing the word ethical -- it's used many times in the policy itself. Mirafra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

Our policy on not being censored has only the exceptions: Neutrality, Biographies of living people, and Florida law. The "other considerations" section of BLP mentions: Privacy, a figure being known or unknown, a person's level of notability, personal information, privacy of names and marital status. Nothing relevant. None of those three exceptions apply in this case. It is indeed a very creative interpretation of policy to read anything out of it that indicates that there is an exception to our censorship policies related to these images. Chillum 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the "whole thing" and as Chillum points out WP:NOTCENSORED has NO relevance to the issue of Rorschach test as Rorschach himself has been dead since 1921, the images are public domain so no violation of US law has occurred with regards to copyright, and the image description can be had through WP:RS so NPOV is not violated either. All we have had has been WP:SYN in one shape or another or OR out the wazoo.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is not that WP:BLP applies here. It's that WP has recognized that social responsibility is something that does need, at times, to be considered. We just disagree on whether the notion of social responsibility applies to this type of situation, destruction of test security. (To quote the old joke, we've already established that WP is that kind of woman -- now we're just haggling over price.) Mirafra (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Then please by all means, go propose a policy to that effect. Others have done so in the past and failed outright(See here), but perhaps you can convince people of such an idea. For the record I would oppose such a proposal. Chillum 15:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also add (although it's just my unsubstantiated opinion) that WP:BLP primarily exists to avoid legal issues; it contains rules very much unlike quite a few principles that Wikipedia generally applies. --LjL (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispensing test-taking advice?

I was rigorously trained in various Rorschach scoring techniques in graduate school and during my internship, but never use it as a professional. Since there are in infinite number of ways the results can be interpreted, it is not suitable for forensic work. A test in a similar situation is the Bender-Gestalt. There have been available for many years books on how to answer psychological test questions and interpret results, primarily some very good ones written for attorneys to use in cross examination to discredit psychological testimony in court. Psychologists are aware and usually able to detect false test results through experience and by comparison of test outcomes with ancillary information, other test data and behavioral observations. I am not overly concerned about the Rorschach cards, but I might worry about what is made of the information. It would not be true to say, for example, that such and such respond to Card I means so and so. That would be misleading to the general reader. If the Rorschach is going to be used as a "test case" for a general policy on Wikipedia about disclosing test data, then perhaps a more general discussion is warranted. I don't think Wikipedia wants to be in the business of offering medical recommendations nor suggestions on how to answer specific psychological tests. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't do that. Wikipedia describes. --LjL (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers medical recommendations of others. It recommends that alternative medicine is not recommended for the common cold.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you mean this from the common cold article, it is very carefully worded and backed up by scientific data. It doesn't say alternative medicine is not recommended.

Many alternative treatments are used to treat the common cold. None, however, are supported by solid scientific evidence.. Some alternative treatments, like echinacea have not been shown to have any effects on the frequency of infection, the duration of infection, or the severity of symptoms of the common cold. Other alternative treatments which similarly lack solid scientific evidence include calendula, ginger, garlic and vitamin C supplements.

—mattisse (Talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't give medical advice, we describe medial information then use a disclaimer to make it clear that this is not advice. Chillum 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not even worth considering

WP:CENSORED. There's really nothing left to say.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sort of. Art LaPella (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What about videos that cause epilepsy? I really would like too see everybody arguing this point to openly say what is their position on that.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought my stance on that should have been clear when during that discussion in the Rorschach talk archives I removed a disclaimer (WP:NODISCLAIMERS) from an article that contains a video claiming to have caused seizures. It was more than clear enough from the descriptive, encyclopedic caption (something like "This is the video that caused seizures in some people") there was a slight risk in viewing it. It doesn't take rocket science to realize, seriously, and same for Rorschach. If you don't want to view them, you won't. --LjL (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to that edit you mention. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[3]. --LjL (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your stance is clear, I did take the time to look at the video which does not play automatically. Just be open and state what you think in plain english.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not censored and uses no disclaimers in articles. My statement is perfectly consistent with policy here. If the video is relevant to the subject matter of the article, it should be included. --LjL (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians creating own scientific stance independent of the scientific community

While many Wikipedians argue about the likelihood of harm or the sources of harm itself. They are making an attempt of creating an original opinion about a scientific question that already has been resolved by the scientific community. Even as I know that people may disagree with me they should not shift the discussion from what is it that the scientific community believes to be true. We are not an independent scientific community. By WP:ORIGINAL the Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether harm happens or not. But what is the scientific consensus. We are not going to argue whether quasars are truly galaxies, and publish our own opinion disregarding the scientific community.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the question at hand has not been resolved by the scientific community especially regarding subjective potentially cultural biased tests like the Rorschach test. The following papers show a large amount of variance regarding the Rorschach test:

Adcock, Cyril J. and James E. Ritchie (1958) "Intercultural Use of Rorschach" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 60, No. 5 (Oct., ), pp. 881-892

Boyer, L. Bryce; Ruth M. Boyer, Charles W. Dithrich, Hillie Harned, Arthur E. Hippler, John S. Stone and Andrea Walt (1989) "The Relation between Psychological States and Acculturation among the Tanaina and Upper Tanana Indians of Alaska: An Ethnographic and Rorschach Study" Ethos, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 450-479

Edgerton, Robert B. and Kenneth Polk (1959) "Statistical Problems in the Intercultural Use of Rorschach" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 1092-1093

Hallowell, A. Irving (1945) "The Rorschach Technique in the Study of Personality and Culture" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1945), pp. 195-210

Mensh, Ivan N. and Jules Henry (1953) "Direct Observation and Psychological Tests in Anthropological Field Work" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 461-480

Moon, Tae-Im; Bert P. Cundick (1983) "Shifts and Constancies in Rorschach Responses as a Function of Culture and Language" Journal of Personality Assessment, 1532-7752, Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages 345 – 349

Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach."

The only thing you get out of that mess is that there is no agreement within or across scientific disciplines regarding what the Rorschach test can reliable be used for.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Again you are trying to wedge into a scientific discussion by bringing articles about the validity of the test. The wikipedia is not about picking articles that agree with us to support an opinion. "Ritzler BA del Gaudio AC. A survey of Rorschach teaching in APA-approved clinical graduate programs. Journal of personality assessment. 1976". This is the kind of article you should be bringing forward. Studies that talk about the prevalence and validity of it's use within the scientific community. Feel free to bring a quote to an article that concludes that the test is not in use by the Mental Health community otherwise you are at fault by WP:ORIGINAL. In particular this article states that 81% of the schools place emphasis in teaching this test.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, could you specify which of the above seven sources directly address(es) the issue of reduced test validity caused by pre-exposure to one or more of the images? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering Ritzler, Barry ; Barbara Alter (1986) "Rorschach Teaching in APA-Approved Clinical Graduate Programs: Ten Years Later" Journal of Personality Assessment, Volume 50, Issue 1 pages 44 - 49 DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_6 showed some conflicts with the earlier study. Also both studies gave it "low ratings as a research instrument" (abstract of later study). This is all ignoring the fact that a 1976 or even 1986 paper have no merits on a 2000 that questions the uses the Rorschach test is put to or a July 30, 2009 news report made through the news section of an organization that publishes psychological journals that states that that 2000 report "remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach".--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that people are, for some reason, still thinking that policy (as opposed to article contents) should be dictated by sources. That is not the case, policy is primarily based on consensus, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not cite sources to back up their position. Their "position" is backed up by community consensus alone. --LjL (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The scientific community's opinion does not dictate the consensus of Wikipedians and choice of WP with respect to publishing content. If you cite a source in a policy discussion, then it's only done as evidence supporting a point or claim you are trying to make in the discussion. Wikipedia's editorial choices do not require sources, and they are not dictated or chosen based on what an outside expert community concludes about the appropriatness of publishing information about a subject. Only the article content itself requires sources (for the information in the included content). The Scientific community may very well have objections to subject matter/beliefs described in articles like Astrology and various Pseudo-science articles, since they may describe beliefs that are contrary to the scientific community's, nevertheless, such articles should exist in an encycloepdia. --Mysidia (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly, does this relate to the publication of the images? Resolute 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the main contention is whether the images produce harm or not. I think in a truly open discussion everybody should state their position. That is why there is a circular discussion. Because rather than openness people are withholding their opinions. I can't see how there can ever be closure on this issue in this precarious situation.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, that is only the main contention of the experts weighing in. The main contention on the Wikipedia side is "how many to display and where", given that they are public domain images of direct relevance to the article subject. And "closure" is relevant. The debate on the use of images in the Muhammad article, for example, has long since closed, but that does not prevent about three readers a week from coming in and demanding Wikipedia follow the will of the Islamic community. However, as in this case, the will of an outside community does not determine Wikipedia policy. We note the objections in the articles, but as I noted on the now rejected policy proposal, the supposed potential of theoretical harm being inflicted on a hypothetical person is not going to sway anyone's opinion one way or another on how we determine article content. Resolute 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No answer to a direct question, and you do attempt to engage in yet another chronic circular discussion that are like a plague to the Wikipedia. By avoiding a direct answer you place an undue burden on anyone that depends on rational argument to expose their reasons. What is a reasonable person supposed to do? Chase you and the other 20 rabbits bouncing around or else my words are worthless, I am no newbie. I have seen this many times before, you may be doing it in good faith. But I think it is a shame.--Dela Rabadilla (talk 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The supposed potential of theoretical harm being inflicted on a hypothetical person has certainly swayed my opinion on how article content should be determined here. But who's currently included in "we"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I was, of course, generalizing. On the whole, it has been pretty thoroughly shown that there is little support for overriding policy on a theoretical event. Resolute 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we've gotten away from the original point: The psychological community has made pretty unequivocal statements in favor of preserving test security -- every national psychological association has language in its ethics code about the importance of maintaining the usefulness of all tests through the preservation of test security. A representative from the Society for Personality Assessment came here to make the request in person. While Wikipedia is not legally bound by the professional ethics of psychologists (although the editors who are psychologists are!), for WP editors to be making their own claims about whether the APA and others really care about this, or to be making their own decisions about whether any given test is "invalid enough" or "already compromised enough" to be "not really a problem" smacks of original research. Mirafra (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Not only does this behavior smack of original research, showing the images also smacks of a non-neutral point of view. Neutrality dictates that we take a less-active posture, one that does not "reproduce" results favorable to any particular point of view about the utility of the Rorschach test. That psychological tests are so easily vulnerable to vandalism (see 1996 APA statement is unfortunate, but does not take away from our responsibility to be neutral. If you pick up a carton of eggs, you have to watch your step more carefully. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is, in fact, neither. Pointing out that the images are already widely available is no more original research than pointing out that the APA is not very happy with their publication. If Wikipedia is being accused of causing harm (POV) by making the images available, then yes, one can logically conclude that that ship sailed long ago when the images fell into PD, and are already widely available the internet. Your comments about POV are a red herring. Wikipedia would fall prey to a bad case of pushing a POV if it conformed to the POV of the APA. Neutrality dictates that we present the information available without bias. As the images and common responses are both a matter of public record, we are not in danger of violating WP:NPOV by simply stating what is already freely available. Resolute 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Psychological Association has issued a clear statement about the harm from showing test materials [4]. I think their end point "what is lost by publishing the content of psychological tests far outweighs what is gained" is quite clear.--Vannin (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There you go two national associations, how many do we need. Is the wikipedia going to ignore the consensus of the biggest scientific bodies. And create science on it's own? What is next will wikipedians challenge NASA on whether there was water in Mars. This is a scientific article, if we were talking of paranormal experiences we should also go with the accepted facts by the paranormal community. We would look at the word of the biggest paranormal associations and not create a fringe paranormal community within the wikipedia. Bad for encyclopedic business remember WP:ORIGINAL.--Dela Rabadilla (talk)24.174.8.32 (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove all medical pages as they could cause theoretical harm? Than again maybe we should just write an encyclopedia. By the way all this info and much more is on google books. Why don't the psychologists leave Wikipedia alone and go after google?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a straw man, nobody ever said theoretical harm. Any person that went to high school knows the implication of showing the exam ahead of time. There is no "theoretical" here. Also, your attitude against psychologists puts you in a particularly precarious place. Would you ask Mathematicians to leave you to write whatever you like about the algebra or group theory?--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

JMH - this is a distraction. No one is saying all information should be removed. The CPA has said that "publishing the content of tests" - not information about the tests -outweighs the benefits. It is also about your personal actions - you are not a puppet. You, personally, can make choices here. Just because "it is out there already" (or because you have "orders) does not mean that you have to put material on wiki and make it even easier to get to. --Vannin (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you're in the mistaken belief that WP:ORIGINAL applies to the consensus-building process to decide on policy and/or editorial decisions rather than article content. --LjL (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that it is OK to create a separate fringe scientific consensus to discuss about content so long the content does not reflect it? --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The concept of a WP:FRINGE theory doesn't apply to policy, but to content alone (it's a "content guideline" as its header states), so your question doesn't make sense as far as this discussion is concerned. --LjL (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So in the absence of a direct answer, and given the negative tone of your statements. We should assume that the answer is yes. That all the commonsense norms that have been established to guide the creation of this encyclopedia. Are worth zero when it comes to discussion pages, here we can censor, create science, publicize our own products ect ect...--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me clear something up right now: I do not appreciate your putting words in my mouth. I have already very clearly explained that I cannot give you a direct (or indirect) answer because your question makes not the slightest bit of sense. We are not creating any scientific consensus, we are creating Wikipedia consensus. The whole problem here seems to be that people like you are confusing scientific ethics with Wikipedia ethics. I'm not claiming that the test is or is not "harmful"; I'm claiming that doesn't matter here; it is none of our concerns. This is an encyclopedia. How people will use the information they find here is no reason to withhold them. --LjL (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did not mean to put words in your mouth, I was just trying to get you to answer a simple question. Which you probably won't answer, but it does not matter anymore. rtc just pointed to the solution. The harm done by the images and related information does matter, and it does because that fact will make it to the article content. And the reason that it will is because it's relevant, it's even made the article famous. And because it's current scientific thought, and being it an article on a scientific topic I couldn't think of anything more appropriate.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the Canadian Psychological Association states “The CPA’s concern is not with the publication of the cards and responses to the Rorschach test per se, for which there is there is some controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts, but with the larger issue of the publication and dissemination of psychological test content” says Dr. Martin Antony, CPA President." claiming that it relevance to the Rorschach test issue clearly getting into WP:NPOV issue as the paper doesn't say what people are claiming it says. If anything the "controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts" part raises even more issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The CPA says, "There is a large class of behaviors that we are very upset about. We're not 100% in agreement amongst ourselves that this specific behavior is within that class, but we are strongly in agreement that this class of behaviors (breaking test security) is what is problematic." That should not be construed to mean, "Hey, go have fun, break test security on any test as much as you want." Mirafra (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument I presented above is not a straw man. You claim that the harm is not theoretical yet are unable to back it up with any evidence only the position of your associations. One of the many issues is who would decide what info is to be removed and what info is to be presented? Some may say all of medical Wikipedia constitutes advice and others may say none it does. Weather some are in the middle. Who would get to draw this line?

There is not even any way to verify the self proclaimed psychologists editing here are even psychologists and none of the guideline accurately distinguish what is considered test material and what is not.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The CPA is very clearly not saying that disclosing the Rorschach inkblots will cause harm. I would say that, unless the APA and CPA specifically object to disclosing these inkblots, we should assume that there is no scientific objection to including them on the WP article. Roger (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But it does not matter in the end what the CPA and APA say. We want evidence that harm significantly outweighs the benefits.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The APA and the CPA are the most likely ones to claim that there is some harm. If they do not claim any harm, then that is noteworthy. Roger (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Until the APA and CPA, even the BPS, disown the Rorschach as a valid psychological test, the advice provided by these bodies about the protection of test materials in general is perfectly relevant. One would not expect these bodies to make separate statements about the protection of the materials from each amd every test. Nor would one reasonably expect statements comparing levels of potential harm when compared with the benefits of wikipedia articles. The absence of a claim about one single technique is not noteworthy at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not obliged to listen to their advice concerning "protection" of their test materials. --rtc (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Even as I know that people may disagree with me they should not shift the discussion from what is it that the scientific community believes to be true. We are not an independent scientific community. By WP:ORIGINAL the Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether harm happens or not. But what is the scientific consensus. We are not going to argue whether quasars are truly galaxies, and publish our own opinion disregarding the scientific community." That's right, we are not going to publish our own opinion on the rorschach test, disregarding the scientific community, either. We do not even publish any new position on whether publishing rorschach test image is okay, we publish the rorschach test images themselves, which are old. And we are creating a new position (that those test images should be included in encyclopedia articles) that is in opposition to some opinions within the scientific community and professional organizations, allegedly the majority of them, and practicing the consequences (that is, we actually include the inkblots). But we do not say within the article that this is the right or wrong thing to do, we simply do it! We are not bound to obey rules made by the scientific community, and we are not bound to reject rules that contradict rules made by the scientific community. PS: It seems to be taken as granted that the question is whether these pictures cause "harm" or invalidate the test, and that if they do, that's a reason for not including them. It is not. The question is whether the pictures should be included in the article, independent from harm it causes! --rtc (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We clearly agree and you bring up a good point that may have been discussed before in the numerous archived pages. LjL seems to concede that the consensus is based on a fringe position, but discounts it because it just so happens that the policies talk about the content not the discussion pages. In any case, the fact that the images and other text is thought to hamper the test is not just recognized by the scientific community. But easily understood by anyone who has taken the test. That should be in the article itself. Not only that, because these are known facts we can write them into the article without incurring in the extra disclosure policy. Because they are just mere known information about the subject. I don't know about you but I feel that this may be a bit of a breakthrough. Let me ask Xeno to read this to see if he recognizes some value on this.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer proposal by Kallimachus

When you propose using a disclaimer, you seem to forget there is a clear rule on Wikipedia about no disclaimers. It's true that, like all rules, it should be treated with common sense, but I doubt that Wikipedians at large are prepared to make an exception to this one, because of legal concerns among other things.

But there is a way out that is already applied in the article: there is not an explicit disclaimer, but there are factual, sourced (IIRC) statements about the possible harm of viewing the images.

A sane reader will make their own conclusions about viewing the "Ten inkblots" section after seeing that statement, I would assume... --LjL (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, was not aware of that, Wiki newbie here. So, it's not that disclaimers aren't allowed it's that they're assumed to be there already. I went back and looked at Wikipedia's policies, mostly at the spoiler text Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning, which I think is the most relevant here. Based on that, a real (and easily rectifiable) concern I see is that for this spoiler content, having the images plus the common responses plus the analysis under the generic section heading "The 10 Inkblots" does not imply the presence of common responses and psychiatric analysis of responses. From spoiler warning page:

However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

In the spirit of the spoiler policy page, I think a reasonable compromise would be to change "The 10 inkblots" section title to "The 10 inkblots with interpretation and analysis" to better reflect what the section contains and to better imply the presence of spoiler content. The way I've read the debate, potentially the most damaging content is not the images, it's the common responses because it could sway patient's responses. Kallimachus (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a bit complicated a story. Initially, there were only the images on the article that were not wanted by some; then, after I added textual information (including, but not only, the plates descriptions - basically, check all of my edits), there were objections about those, as well. I think this specific RfC is mostly about the images because the textual content is quite vague to limit, but the psychologists who want to "preserve test security" would want to strictly limit the textual content to "safe" descriptions only, too. You should check the talk page archives carefully for the whole story.

I'm not sure whether we should change the section title the way you describe... it's true that the descriptive text was added in a later stage, but it's somewhat natural for a Wikipedia article section to describe what its title says, not merely present it.

For example, If we had an article about aircraft instruments (a random example, just because I've mentioned those lately), would you expect, in a section titled "Altimeter", only an image of an altimeter, or a description of it? I'd say the latter, and without the section being title "Altimeter and its description". --LjL (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is complicated. In fact 'orignally` there was just one image - Plate I, to which equally strong objections were made, for much the same reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In `actual fact' the article started life with no image at all: [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the images, but the images are problematic. Accompanied by the text that purports to discuss not just common answers, but the ways in which answers are interpreted by the psychologist, they become even more problematic. In many respects, the text is worse, whether it's accurate or inaccurate. Mirafra (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Who is going to write the alt text? —mattisse (Talk) 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, can I have a go? [[File:Rorschach blot 04.jpg|alt=Fat chick on a motorbike... no, wait, a sheepskin rug... oh, hang on, it's a butterfly... or is it a flasher with an improbably long manhood...]] – iridescent 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright permitting, many Rorschach User Manuals, such as Bruno and Klopfer (1962) for example, could provide descriptive text which could easily provide the basis for such. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh Jesus... That might be the single greatest question ever asked on Wikipedia! Resolute 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely The Best Rhetorical Question Ever. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Resolute, it might well be, unfortunately. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New policy

Am attempting to create a policy pertaining to suppression of information / content to hopefully resolve this issue. User:Jmh649/Suppression of content Would appreciate any comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

an unwillingness to accept a consensus that you don't agree with is a form of disruption

I put this into my statement because I am someone who has not really been involved in the talk page discussions except iirc, an rfc response or two and perphas a couple comments. But I did visit several times over the course of the dispute and read the discussions. There was never a lack of consensus, rather there was a small group who simply would not accept the consensus. Asking the same previously answered questions over and over, raising the same rejected arguments over and over... As an editor on Wikipedia, there simply are times when you are not going to get your way. Posting RfC after RfC after RfC on the same question, for example, is not really dispute resolution, it is disruption. I was somewhat taken aback when someone misinterpreted this as meaning that people should not be allowed to retain their own opinions. Of course that is not what I am suggesting. In those instances where the consensus went against me - well I'm sure the consensus was wrong. But for me to continue to agitate against an established consensus, even one I'm sure is wrong, is counter-productive to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is disruptive. Many of the editors not accepting consensus also state that they will not contribute positively to these Wikipedia articles unless they completely get their way. And then only add the information they deem is suitable for public viewing. This goes again the principles of Wikipedia. specifically number 2 [6]

We are going to reach a point were strong measures need to be taken to deal with these continued disruptions.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that refusing to accept consensus can be disruptive, and in this case has been. This cannot go on forever and the outcome is clear. Stronger measures to prevent further disruption to the article may be needed, particularly against those who are unwilling to actually improve the article. Chillum 21:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be a case for the arbcom if this Rfc does not resolve the issues, which sadly looks like it won't.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No way arbcom will take this. Consensus is crystal clear. Those who refuse to accept consensus will be dealt with. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no chance in hell this will go any further than this RfC. It couldn't actually be any clearer which side is right on this occasion. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, so majority = right, minority = wrong. That's how wikipedia "builds" consensus? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What you should do, if you want to understand how Wikipedia builds consensus, is review WP:CONSENSUS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that, yes, have read this. Maybe I just feel enraged by the use of a phrase such as "no chance in hell" (which maybe does have a certain irony to it). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not without having discussed the issue and considered the merits of every point of view. No one could say this has not been done after seeing the number of bytes these discussions have taken up by now. --LjL (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They do sometimes take on cases even if majority consensus has been achieved. It would be a matter of banning, restricting editors. See here, point 5 "they will hear or not hear", i.e sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope Anyway hopefully the clear consensus will sort things out without having to go to any other steps up the ladder of wiki enforcement.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom cases about the behavior of editors are far more common than ones about content disputes. Chillum 23:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"an unwillingness to accept a consensus" clearly describes a behavior, and is entirely content-neutral. Dlabtot (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was my intention for that comment to support the plausibility of arbcom in this case, not discourage it. Perhaps we will all be surprised by the parties accepting this consensus and it will not be needed, but I will not hold my breath. Chillum 23:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement "an unwillingness to accept a consensus that you don't agree with is a ...(bad thing)" actually is a two way street. The Wikipedia is not that exceptional fairy place where the majority is never wrong. I don't edit-war because that is not something that I do. But if you really want to convince people that disagree with you, then you will have to do it on the merits. I do want to convince people that the current consensus is wrong, but nobody cares to have a rational argument. They have no incentive because they already "won". And nobody wants to lose face after all the time they invested in fighting this. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not turn this around. The writing of an encyclopedia is the default which involved the addition of content. It is our opponent who have to convince use that there is justification in this case to withhold / censor this information. They have not convinced use of the merits of their proposals and this is not do to a lack of rationality on our part.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make something very clear here. If an editor states that he cannot participate in the editing of a page because it violates the law and his professional ethical codes in order to do it, that is not a threat, nor is it disruptive behavior. It's informing other editors of a very real constraint under which we really do operate -- we don't have a whole heck of a lot of choice in the matter. We've been told that if we don't accept your "consensus" we should leave the editing to people who are not bound by law or ethics. Which I at least will do, if with a great deal of sadness and not a small amount of trepidation (mixed with a bit of amusement at the level of hubris). But to then turn around and retaliate against editors for being "disruptive" because we've been disagreeing with you in principled debate is pretty scuzzy (and surprising for people who claim to be in favor of free expression of ideas). You've made it clear. I'll leave you self-appointed experts to write the articles which violate test security, and I'll spend my time contributing to articles where I'm not risking the loss of my professional livelihood by doing so. Mirafra (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long tradition of letting disputes come to a reasonable end and not devoting inordinate amounts of time(that could be spend writing an encyclopedia, remember the encyclopedia?) to it. If consensus changes fine, but it is very clear what consensus is now and until it changes it does need to be accepted. I frankly think that if 8/9th of the people wanted the images removed and 1/9th did not want them removed that you would have not problem accepting the consensus. This is about you not getting what you want and nothing more sinister than that. Chillum 02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"you not getting what you want"... I guess you can phrase it like that. I would say "you disagreeing with the current majority consensus" which also is the way the world moves forward. I think the way this is going, this will not be the last Rfc. And I don't see the reason to complain about that. You are correct in not seeing anything sinister here, this are health care professionals concerned to do their job right, not fishy individuals with hidden political agendas. So if more Rfc are to come, let them come--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeating the same action and expecting a different result than the last many times? I think there is a term to describe that type of thinking, but it eludes me at the moment. Chillum 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Argumentum ad nauseam"? Or otherwise something else mentioned at WP:ICANTHEARYOU. --LjL (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If anything the people who risk being getting tired are the ones who disagree with the current consensus. So the "Argumentum ad nauseam" doesn't apply. I would just try to turn to the merits of the issue. If there was more order to this discussion, I would feel better that both sides are really getting the perspective of the other side. But there are too many tangents and lose ends. I can appreciate your frustration. But can anyone vaccinate against discussion? I would encourage to the people that want closure to be more organized on the merits.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If an editor states that he cannot participate in the editing of a page because it violates the law and his professional ethical codes in order to do it, that is not a threat, nor is it disruptive behavior not sure what this has to do with the subject of this thread. No one is suggesting that people who don't participate are being disruptive. My Aunt Millie is not participating - and she isn't disrupting. What are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about this and this. If psychologists really believe that people's mental health will be destroyed just so we can see our stuff on the Internet, then I wonder what "stronger measures" would be enough to stop them? Perhaps banning experts for quitting? That'll fix them! Art LaPella (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see how 'not participating' could be in any way disruptive. I encourage those who are unwilling to accept consensus to not participate. Of course, threatening to not participate is a different matter. Dlabtot (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the comment just a couple of screens above (seems to have been separated from its signature, sorry I can't tell who wrote it), that, "Many of the editors not accepting consensus also state that they will not contribute positively to these Wikipedia articles unless they completely get their way. And then only add the information they deem is suitable for public viewing. "

This is a complete mischaracterization of the position that the psychology professionals have presented. We have said that, because we are bound by ethical and legal codes to maintain test security, we literally cannot participate in actions which support or facilitate the breaking of test security. I am breaking the law in my state and I risk losing my livelihood if I help the amateurs destroy test security. That's why I can't tell them what's wrong with the page. It's not, "You have to play my way or I'm taking my toys and going home!" It's, "Listen, this is how the world works, whether you like it or not. You have the right to establish the rules in your own sandbox. I have the right to inform you of a consequence you didn't intend, which is that if you establish the rules in this way, I and others like me will be forced to leave the sandbox, leaving you to educate yourself in what is really the string-theory of psychology all by yourself. You can make whatever choices you want, but I would hope that you would make those choices with a more complete awareness of the consequences." I am not sure why some folks (not you, you make that position clear just above) have now come to the conclusion that they have any right to compel the participation of any editor in any editing process.

I was under the impression that the goal of WP was to write clear, informative, and correct articles. I was informing the group, who may not have studied the laws or ethical codes and may not understand how they work, that if they had been hoping that experts would help them in this part of their project, that we have constraints on our behavior that we cannot lightly set aside. Those constraints will likely have the result of the article's being less clear, less informative, and less correct.

We have been told quite openly that we are not welcome in the sandbox, and I personally intend to abide by your decision, however stupid I might think it is. I have at no time removed information from any article on testing, nor will I in the future. For this position to be mischaracterized as "disruptive editing" is just plain bullying. Mirafra (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's disruptive to keep saying the article is wrong without saying why (whether or not you believe you "can"; of course you can, whether you're not allowed to by some WP:Conflict of interest you have is none of our business, in case you haven't noticed). We've got it; the article is wrong. Now either contribute positively to make it right, or stop complaining; doing otherwise is disruptive.

Besides, this all sounds completely ridiculous to me. You know as well as I do what this site's license works like; so, you know as well as I do that, even if the article looked the way you wanted it to, all of your contributions could always be "edited, used, and redistributed at will" including to the extent of "harming the test" (at least in your opinion). You could never contribute to any site that uses a free license, according to your own strict reasoning (it was said you cannot contribute to, for instance, Citizendium, because we'd then take your contributions and copy them here, that is eloquent enough). --LjL (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think editing an article might be damaging to your livelihood, you have the option of editing anonymously, or using a pseudonym, make specific suggestions or alert about specific innacuracies on the talk page instead of editing the article, or refraining from editing entirely, whatever you are most comfortable with... Test security is basically illusory at this point. All the information currently in the article is already known to the public, and will be available online to the public at large, for a very long time, no matter what Wikipedia does with the article. Isn't inaccurate information prone to be even more "harmful" to the public than accurate info hypothetically would be? It should be possible to correct inaccuracies without "compromising" new information that hasn't already been published in books and papers anyone willing to go to the right library can read. --Mysidia (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, see, I follow the ethics code because it's the right thing to do, not just because I'm afraid of getting hurt. I don't want some clever trick that would let me anonymously break the ethics code. I don't want to contribute to the project that the folks here have taken on, that of destroying test security even more than it has already been damaged, because I think the tests are valuable things. I am not convinced by your attempts at minimization. I will contribute to WikiProject Psych in other ways that do not make me feel like I am causing collateral damage to the profession, the people who might need psychological evaluation, or the people who might be kept safe (or, conversely, allowed to stay with their loved ones) because of other people's need for evaluation. I have tried to convince you to stop what you're doing, but you're obviously not going to listen. Mirafra (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus achieved

Now I'm not suggesting someone close this necessarily, although an outsider is welcome to if they agree, but surely consensus has been made here in that there is an overwhelming majority in support of keeping all 10 images. The only remaining problem (correct me if I'm wrong or missing something) is how to display them. At present, I don't think there are many opposed to keeping things how they are. Any comments? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see it remain open for the usual length. –xeno^talk 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If only to avoid the wikilawyering and accusations that would follow. Verbal chat 18:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No reason to close it early. Although, in fact there was no real reason to open it in the first place, since no editor could possibly have in good faith not already have known what the consensus was. Nevertheless, let it run... Dlabtot (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the reason was to make an attempt to determine (or confirm, depending on your viewpoint) community consensus in an organized, rationale venue. –xeno^talk 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it, I just think it was unnecessary. If the goal is to produce a good encyclopedia article, a better path to that goal would have been to simply ban the disruptive editors from the article and talk page, rather than file an RfC to re-re-re-re-confirm an already well-established consensus. But that's just my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dlabtot. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm not suggesting we actually close this just yet, but I just wanted to check the vast majority of people knew what the outcome of this will be. Still Dlabtot makes a perfectly valid point, this should never have come here in the first place. I think it's important to review NOTCENSORED as per Doc James thread above. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions have asked if majority voting equates to consensus. We now seem to have replaced voting on a range of alternatives, with a first past the post result for the most popular statement. One which denies, in this case, any possibility of compromise with minorty views. But perhaps people see no place for compromise in consensus. After all, as we all know, "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked where the goalposts for an end to the dispute were, and based on the responses received, it doesn't seem that the two sides can achieve a mutually agreeable compromise. –xeno^talk 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While the consensus is clear, I suggest we leave it open to reduce the amount of wikilawyering. Dlabtot has also made an interesting suggestion on how to deal with wikilawyering. Chillum 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if anyone thinks the consensus is being abused please by all means seek further scrutiny from outside forums. There are several noticeboards that can be posted to if you think a group of editors is ignoring consensus. I am sure the consensus observed here will hold up to scrutiny. Chillum 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's so important...

If the secrecy of this test is so important to its users and proponents - then they should have planned for the change in copyright status. It's not as if Wikipedia is unique in publishing them - they are all over the web and in books you can find on the shelves of most public libraries. Knowing that the current series of inkblots were due to come out of copyright, they should have produced a new set (it's not exactly difficult) and proceeded to compare the test results from the new set against results obtained with the old ones before the old ones reached the end of their lifespan. That this has not happened strongly suggests that either secrecy is not in fact all that important - or that the proponents don't care either way. The strong - and quite believable - claims that these "tests" don't have much diagnostic value suggests that the latter is the case.

If the results of these tests and the attendant secrecy actually matter to anyone - then they are being delinquent in not replacing them in a timely manner. It is better that the courts and other people who have been relying on these tests become acutely aware of the loss of secrecy.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Delinquent"? I'm sorry that I'm unfamilar with the way the US legislature works. I can't imagine that the US Govermnent has ever been too concerned about The International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods (ISR), but were US National bodies such as the APA formally consulted during the drafting of the Copyright Term Extension Act and if so, how did they respond?Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why look, an elephant is in the living room! Who knew? Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a butterfly? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see an elephant. Chillum 19:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"It's not as if Wikipedia is unique in publishing them - they are all over the web and in books" - Indeed, in fact The Globe and Mail, one of the sources given for the alleged claim that "the test is undermined if patients have already seen the images and the most common answers" also gives several of the pictures! [7] Also I suspect that far more people will be aware of the pictures being here (or elsewhere) as a result of these news articles (see streisand effect). So I'm not sure the media are in a position to point fingers, and I'm not sure that removing the images now will do any good anyway. The cat's out the bag. If your test is dependent on showing people a certain set of images, whilst requiring that no one has ever seen the images before, it's fundamentally a flawed test that soon or later is going to be broken. I'd say 88 years is pretty good going. Mdwh (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not my test. It's not our test. That's the issue. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's our encyclopedia. --LjL (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's my gang's garage - so we can fill it with whatever I want, stolen or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the analogy with stealing meant to suggest we're doing something illegal? --LjL (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The analogy is to gangs, which have a reputation for making their own rules, legal or not. Is it really our encyclopedia, or does it simply belong to whom the majority decide it belongs? But perhaps you could explain why the "users and proponents" of the Rorschach have been "delinqent"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really am not following you. The good news is all this is probably not at all relevant. --LjL (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

@Oh well, never mind, forget my tortuous analogies. I was looking for an answer to the question (or claim) posed at the start of this thread by Steve Baker. Do you agree with him that the "users and proponents" of the Rorschach have been "delinqent"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh... well, "delinquent" is a very strong term in my native language, it implies a crime. I definitely wouldn't use it here, far from it. I do believe it was naive to think that test security could be mantained after the test materials went into the public domain, and I think it would have been wise to seek a replacement before that happened. But lack of foresight hardly equates to delinquency, for sure. --LjL (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a world of difference between the `public domain' of scholarly journals and public libraries, and the `public domain' since the web - we (or at least Steve Baker) seems to be charging the "users and proponents" with a lack of foresight regarding the later, when in fact they may have had very little or no control over even the former? But I happen to think that his suggestion is outrageous. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion to create a new set of inkblots, or the suggestion that people have been "delinquent"? I can agree that the latter is, at the very least, quite inappropriate. At least out of place on this talk page. --LjL (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the "delinquent" claim I have most problem with. The new set of inkblots suggestion just seems to dismiss 88 years of research as an unfortunate slip. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You could perhaps have a look at Template:Uw-defamatory1 and related templates. --LjL (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if I was feeling particularly litigious. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite how you mean in response to my comment - but if it's not our test, then all the less reason for us to worry about publishing the images. It's therefore not our job to worry about alleged affects on a test in the first place. As for the analogy - yes, we make the rules about our encyclopedia (where "we" is open to anyone on the Internet who wishes to join in), and we do so in accordance with law (unlike gangs in your analogy). I suppose you could compare it to a group of friends putting whatever they legally can inside their own garage. Mdwh (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison to a group of friends is perfectly reasonable and yes, of course, anyone is free to join. Regardless of copyright and the legal position, however, I can't help but see this test, like all psychometrics, as in some way, the `property' of those professionals who have been properly trained to use them. I guess there are many other tests the contents of which will be in the public domain, but which will still be owned by a special organisation or body. A country's Driving Theory Test, for example, will be "owned" by the relevant national or State regulatory authority, but it's component items will be wholly in the public domain. But the Rorschach and other such psychometrics, are unlike these, because of the aspect of priming. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They test is using property that does not belong to the test holders, the property belongs to the public. They have every right to use this public property in their test, anyone can use it for any purpose. They have no reasonable expectations that this public property will be exclusive to them, or to have any say in how the public uses it. The test holders had decades of exclusive ownership of these creative works, and by law this exclusive ownership has passed on to the public. This happened after decades of warning.

I refuse to accept that we are on ethically shaky ground because we don't accept someone trying to tell us what to do, or not do, with public property. They have no more justification asking us not to use it as we would asking them not to use it. Chillum 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there are many members of the public who would expect their mental healthcare provider to be able to use a test that has not been compromised by over-exposure through no fault of their own. Consider also Health and Safety signs, such as the images for "trip hazard" "slippery floor", "high noise levels" etc - are these copyrighted? surely these images are firmly in the public domain? But to use them indiscriminately where there are no such real hazards would be to dilute their value and make them essentially useless. This seems similar to the situation with the inkblots - to use them indiscriminatley, out of the contest for which they were specifically designed, will be to render them useless. Chillum, could you also please elucidate on the "decades of warning"? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So following your reasoning we should remove any articles about heath and safety signs (or road signs) from Wikipedia, because, even though Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus generally describes and, when necessary, depicts things, they are "out of the contest for which they were specifically designed", which risks "rendering them useless"; is that correct? --LjL (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

With the non-sequitur argument that attempted to draw a comparison between Rorschach images and safety signs, I feel there is no more to be gained from keeping track of this page. I'm taking this off my watchlist. My position is still: display all the images and describe their use as fully as possible. Ciao! Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Binks! Sorry if an analogy instantly being transformed for me into a literal comparison and thus a "non-sequitur" has frightened you away from such a dimwit as me. I was trying to suggest that the placing of safety signs all over an office or town centre, in places which are not dangerous at all, is analagous to the posting of inkblots all over the internet, in places which have no clinical value at all. No LjL, I did not in fact intend a reverse analogy to then make it seem as if I was campaining to get safety signs removed from Wikipedia ([off-topic comment removed by the author]). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[off-topic comment removed by the author] --LjL (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you must be absolutely 100% right about by shameful lack of ability, LjL. I must have imagined that a question mark made a question. But so glad that we're not straying "off topic" into an embarrassing show of personal mudslinging, or such. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikipedia, but Wikimedia commons has such signs: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slippery_when_wet_icon.jpg . Good luck in trying to get that image removed! Mdwh (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck in reading my comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your statement that "to use them indiscriminately where there are no such real hazards would be to dilute their value and make them essentially useless" can be safely read out of context, and Mdwh countered it quite effectively. Instead of answering sarcastically, answer this: according to the sentence of yours that I just quoted, what, if anything, makes it appropriate for Wikipedia to have that image around at all? --LjL (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not scarcasm. 1. It's a single example used in illustration. 2. It appears on a web site not a building site. 3. Most people would, I think, understand immeduately that it did not apply to any real hazard. 4. It's not a test item. 5. There is no risk of `primining'. 6. It's not copyrighted. So yours and Mdwh's interpretation of my comment would be the expected one? I don't have any problem with that image. If you do then I suggest you raise it on the talk page for the image or the article. I'm sorry if Mdwh genuinely misunderstood my point. But I'm not quite sure why you now wish to pursue what appears to ne a deliberate misunderstanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of these are pretty valid reasons why the illustration should stay there (in my opinion), but most of them are not valid according to the sentence of yours that I quoted (it's your sentence, not mine!): 1. you said nothing about single vs multiple 2. you never said where it would appear 3. maybe, but you just said "where there are no such real hazard", didn't specify "recognizably" or not 4. of course it's not; it's a sign; I thought your statement was about signs? 5. there rarely is any risk of "priming" with hazard signs, and you didn't mention this in your statement.

I realize that your analogy was meant to ultimately show things about the Rorschach test, and not hazard signs, so my retorts above aren't valid for the Rorschach test, but it's still hazard signs that you talked about. You can't make an analogy, say "to use them [signs] [...] would be to dilute their value", and then retract your analogy once it's shown to you that it's an invalid one.

I don't wish to pursue misunderstanding, but I do wish that arguments that go: a) X is like Y in being Z b) but Y is not really Z a) but X is could be avoided entirely, as they're a waste of talk page space. --LjL (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I say this:

"To use hazard signs indiscriminately where there are no such real hazards would be to dilute their value and make them essentially useless"

is analagous to:

"To use Rorschach inkblots indiscriminately where there is no real clinical setting would be to dilute their value and make them essentially useless"

How have you shown this to be invalid? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, one obvious difference between the two claim, that makes them not analogous, is that one is false, and the other... erm, possibly just as false. In that case, I guess you're right. But I thought you believed the second claim to be true. --LjL (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your tenacity and obvious sincerity, LjL. I'm just really not that desperate to prove I am totally right on every possible little point. If anyone finds that analogy useful, good. If not, so be it (and sorry if it seems like I just can't be bothered). But I still don't see the psychological healthcare community as the "delinquent" party here. I think we almost agreed on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You can take out the "almost" there, I hear about "delinquents" every day in the news, and it really doesn't seem like anyone involved in this even remotely fits the category. --LjL (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole hazard sign comparison is a non-starter. We are not tricking anyone into thinking they are taking the test, we are supplying information about the test. If make the assumption that both items are being used indiscriminately then yes, there is some common ground. But if you don't assume "indiscriminate", and instead use the context of using the images in an encyclopaedic article then the whole comparison means nothing.

It seems the comparison relies on context that is not present in this debate. An encyclopaedic article that shows hazards signs is not likely to reduce their value. I think LjL put it well with the whole X, Y and Z thing. Chillum 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, Chillum, we almost just stopped there, didn't we, with an agreement. My definition of "indiscriminate" for inkblots with respect to my analogy is "in a non-clinical setting", ok?? No one's tricking anyone, no one's assuming anything. I never tried to argue that "An encyclopaedic article that shows hazards signs is likely to reduce their value". Why do you still insist on continuing to mis-construe an analogy as a literal comparison? It's just an analogy. I used it to try and show that, in some other cases at least, "more does not necessarily mean better". That was my point. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that if I construe your analogy the way you are explaining it then it ceases to be an analogy. There is really not enough common ground between your two comparisons for we to gain anything meaningful from it. You are using one definition of indiscriminate for the test, and another definition for the signs. If for the test indiscriminate means "outside a clinical setting" then for the hazard sign it should also mean "outside their intended use" for the analogy to have any meaning. But you seem to be using indiscriminate as meaning "misleading" for the hazard signs and "outside clinical use" for the test.

The analogy just does not hold together, not if I take it literally, not if I take your personal interpretation. Sorry. Chillum 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You have wholly convinced me Chillum that you cannot "gain anything meaningful from" my analogy. Well done. Congratulations. So do you also think that the entire worldwide community of health-care psychologists are "delinquents" for not scrapping the original Rorschach inkblots, because of an unwanted and reckless change in US copyright law? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I sure don't remember saying anything like that. It is not my place to judge the actions, or lack of action of any field. Psychologists can act or not act based on their own motives, it really has nothing to do with Wikipedia or me. Chillum 23:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't, Chillum, but Steve Baker who opened this thread did. So I wanted your opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that psychologists actions regarding these images are no more my business than our actions regarding these images are their business. Chillum 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what change in US copyright law? --LjL (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Term Extension Act - that's why they were claimed to be delinquent wasn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I'm now officially confused. That act extends copyright duration - for new works only, though, and even if it applied to old works, Rorschach would still not be covered. I believe the "delinquency" accusation was originally to psychologists for now creating new inkblots (whether or not that'd be feasible, I'm not going to discuss this now), knowing that the copyright would expire after, if I'm not mistaken, 56 years. Later copyright acts only made that term slightly longer, if anything. --LjL (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something fundamental(and I don't think the Copyright Term Extension Act is it) then it would seem that everyone involved in the test should have been able to reasonably know precisely when its copyright would expire going back to the moment its creator died. That would be 70 years warning. It is not my business what they did with that warning, but I certainly cannot except that it caught them off guard. Chillum 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So, Swiss copyright expired in 1992 (but where does the coicidental "cut off of 1942" fot Switzerland come from?) and US copyright would have expired in 1978? Perhaps the Rorschach users were confused too? I'd still be interested to know when the inkblot cards stopped bearing any copyright mark. I suppose that it is feasible that readers of the books containing the inkblots might assume that the book's own copyright also covered the images? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, check the article about Swiss copyright, it's explained and sourced; as I told Chillum, give also a quick Google Translate to this explanation on the Italian WP. That Swiss copyright isn't (or at least wasn't) exactly the same as US copyright should hardly be surprising. "Cut-off dates" and other such changes and oddities arise from new laws that incrementally changed things, but the key point is that they all invariably made copyright duration longer, not shorter. So the worst that could happen is that the work might be protected for somewhat longer than a researcher would imagine. --LjL (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those useful links, LjL. Yes, I agree - longer not shorter. Maybe those "reseachers" assumed that the test method was safe in the copyrighted books and that the images themselves would be of no use without the method. And, of course, they could not really have anticipated the effect that the internet would have on access to "public domain" images (and the controversy which has arisen because of that). Naturally, none of these things is the fault of Wikipedia. I think it's just that the article and images here have become the focus of the wider debate which was previously either never fully realised or was confined to "specialist websites" and Swiss laywers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPAs

Lots of them about here. Should they be tagged? There is one that has made few, if any, edits on other topics since 2007! Verbal chat 09:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And you do, of course, intend to do this to everyone on all sides of the argument equally? And to determine whether or not you are just biting newbies? Mirafra (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum did put a few {{spa}} tags and did so neutrally. [8] –xeno^talk 13:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If I missed any by all means please tag them. I only spotted two obvious ones. Also Mirafra, tagging spas is not the same as tagging as sock puppets, it does not bite anyone rather it points out who has made few or no contributions outside this subject. Chillum 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern was more that Verbal seems to be calling for a lot of things that feel like retaliation, and that there was a lot of accusation of sockpuppetry and single-purpose-accounts etc earlier in the debate, in a way that was substituting for actually engaging in the debate. I was personally attacked myself, when what I am is a newbie, not a meatpuppet or single-purpose account. Much as though I disagree with you on this specific topic, Chillum, I think you seem like someone I could trust to be reasonable on the matter of who is allowed to participate. Mirafra (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, all are allowed to participate, the SPA tag is so that the comments can be appropriately weighted. Typically those who come to Wikipedia to participate in a single-issue are given less weight when determining consensus. This is done, in part, to reduce the effects of off-wiki canvassing. –xeno^talk 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case the effect of {{spa}}s is negligible. It merely changes the 41 in favor(87.804878%) and 5 against(12.195122%) keeping the images into 40 in favor(90%) and 4(10%) against keeping them. Of course we don't completely discount spas, so the support is between 87.8% and 90%. It really does not make much of a difference in the count. Even then it is not only the count but also the relevance of existing policy that applies when creating consensus. In short I would say the spas have had virtually no negative effect on the discussion and have been actually very helpful. Chillum 14:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's put the numbers in context - Xeno's review about a single image showed 40 in favor of it in the lead and 20 supporting some form of suppression - 66.66..% versus 33.33..%Faustian (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Context? A smaller poll on a different issue from months ago? How is that context? I know that 1/3rd is about the highest support this idea has ever gotten, but is not representative of consensus, it is simply your high score. Currently it is closer to 1/9th. Chillum 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How is a count of 40 to 20 (total 60) a "smaller poll" than a count of 40 to 5 (total 45). 60 is a larger number than 45. As susual, you are so focussed on your argument that you don't make sense. Xeno didn't do a poll, he counted up everybody's opinion for 3 years or so. The 40:20 number was the opinions of everybody over 3 years. I don't know what your poll is - there seem to be more than 5 people arguing against inclusion here now. Maybe it's your "high score." I suspect that the ratio of 2/3 to 1/3 is still about the same, if one adds all the people who have joined since xeno's effort.Faustian (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, though, the current count is more like 75 to 19. Please don't take these as exact numbers, because I've just used a simple spreadsheet I'm not even particularly familiar with, so I may easily have messed stuff up a little... Also, the 19 include those statements asking for a compromise, such as using disclaimers or only showing some images (some or all of them probably don't really belong there, and would be better perhaps in a separate count, since they are often "compromise if possible, show all otherwise"). --LjL (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I haven't been thorough but in addition to the 20 from earlier there was mirafra, the 3 guys blocked and unblocked, and some probably some others. Are you saying 35 more people joined the majority since xeno's review? It may be after someone got the article ionto slashdot where it was presented as a free speech issue (that's not canvassing - right).Faustian (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, try and invalidate the current RfC on who knows what shaky grounds now. --LjL (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, I don't think you would accept the consensus regardless of how sound it is. I am sure if the numbers were reversed you would have no problem seeing it though. You have more interest in your point of view than you do in consensus. This is all fine and well in the grander scheme of things, but on Wikipedia it is not appropriate. Chillum 06:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You are talking to the guy that was trying to forge a compromise of some sort the entire time. You are the one opposed to consensus because you refuse all compromises. Not everyone thinks like you do, you know.Faustian (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. I somehow doubt you really believe there is a lack of consensus at this point. If the numbers were reversed you would embrace the consensus quickly. It is more about getting what you want than how things really are. Chillum 04:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confessing your true feelings here. You have already taught us that 40 to 20 is a "smaller poll" than 40 to 5 - that according to you 60 is a smaller number than 45. With this impressive track record you try to read my mind. I have consistantly sought compromise on this matter in accordance with wikipedia policy that consensus is compromise. You choose not to follow that policy, instead believing that consensus is majority vote. I have already stated repeatedly that if the numbers were reversed I would never seek to totally disregard your POV. But thanks for basically calling me a liar.Faustian (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what's funny? I've typed "consensus is compromise site:en.wikipedia.org" into Google, and got zero results. --LjL (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fresh voices are always useful. Based on your analysis, perhaps the tagging is unnecessary and thus it is unbeneficial to tag them - in order to avoid any misinterpretation of the meaning of the tags, that is? –xeno^talk 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the tags as unnecessary. Given that this topic has been plagued with single purpose accounts, meatpuppets, and sockpuppets(yes it is true) I think it is a good idea to keep track of such things. Chillum 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Has Dela Rabadilla been tagged? Verbal chat 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dela Rabadilla has contributed to a wide variety of subjects since December 2007. I can't see how this user can be seen as a SPA. Chillum 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Woh, I was mistaken there, Dela Rabadilla does appear to be a very dedicated, long term, single purpose account. Chillum 03:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised. Verbal chat 17:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, how many are "lots"? Surely some editors may prefer to split up their activity into several SPAs? Why should they be victimised for doing this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If an editor splits their time into different activities Martin, it's not a single purpose account. Further who said anything about victomizing SPA's? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it contrary to policy for an editor to use one account for edits to one favourite article and another account for a different favourite? What is actually "wrong" with doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 August 2009

You can read about Wikipedia's point of view regarding SPAs here: WP:Single-purpose account. Brand new accounts showing up for the purposes of a single debate also raise concerns about sock puppetry. Chillum 19:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, thanks. But even that doesn't tell us how many "lots" is. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see 3 so far. That is more than normal, but not a remarkable number. Chillum 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

What's normal? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC) What's your point Martin? Chillum is obviously talking about his own personal experience encountering SPAs. Your behavior is looking more and more trollish and disruptive and I'm wondering how constructive this line of inquiry really is? (Rhetorical question) Garycompugeek (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC) My `point' is simply that I have no idea how many SPAs one would expect to see in a debate such as this, and so I have no idea if 3 is "more than normal" or not. I am politely asking Chillum to give us more of the benefit of his experience. Perhaps you know? But I certainly didn't initiate this thread of discussion and I'm interested as to why some editors feel the need to "tag" SPAs at all. This seemed a bit of an over-reaction, like the talk of "consensus enforcement" and the quashing of "disruptive behaviour" that we have seen recently. Why do my concerns make my behaviour either "trollish" or "disruptive"? Aren't all the questions I have posed on this talk page fair and proper? Please explain if you think they are not. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC) If you are wondering why we tag SPAs let me quote Xeno "the SPA tag is so that the comments can be appropriately weighted. Typically those who come to Wikipedia to participate in a single-issue are given less weight when determining consensus. This is done, in part, to reduce the effects of off-wiki canvassing." from the top of this thread or read WP:SPA again since you state you have read it already. You may also inquire at Wikipedia talk:Single-purpose account. Your behavior looks trollish and disruptive because it looks like you are asking questions to ask questions (disruptive). If Chillum says 1 is normal, so what? You would now know that in Chillum's experience one SPA's is normal. Continually asking for clarification is another form of trollish disruption which you have already been warned of. I've watched you for a couple of years on Rorschach and consider you quite intelligent so when you play dumb or act obtuse it looks more like a disgruntled editor acting trollish than an honest inquiry to help the project. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC) How nice to have been "watched for a couple of years on Rorschach" (?) (especially as my first contribution was only 18 months ago). So I "have been warned" about "asking for clarification" - now by both you and LjL. But this has never been WP:IDHT, but LjL has not apologised for an unfounded accusation. Regretably I can also assure you that if I had any real intelligence I would have given up on this page many months ago - but I guess that you, also being an intelligent chap, already know that. But I'd certainly never call anyone a troll. I can assure you that none of my questions are simply questions for the sake of questions. I have an interest in an editor's motivations as well as their arguments. As all the questions coming from this side of the house seem to have now been construed as filibustering, however, its kinda hard to prove otherwise. Isn't it? Am now starting to feel probably how Ward3001 must have felt just before he left. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC) WHICH unfounded accusation should I be apologizing for again? --LjL (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC) This one [9]? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Now tell me how on Earth that is an accusation, and how on Earth it is unfounded. Unless your idea is that, since among 'three diffs that I posted, one was a bad paste, I somehow have something to apologize about. ---> is the other one I posted also a wrong paste?!? <--- --LjL (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) How is this [10] IDHT, as you claim? Yes, think we are still on Earth. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Are you just trying to provoke me or something? Really, I don't understand. That was a mispaste; I removed it when I realized; there is another link, which is [11], which has these exact words: "at this point you are engaging in WP:IDHT|ignoring what other have been saying for three years". --LjL (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) You wrote: "Dlabtot obviously meant ... and this (as for IDHT)". How was this IDHT? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC) I see the problem now. I pasted the same ID twice. Do you see how I wrote "[...] 307792459 and 30792459"? Of course, I didn't mean to paste the same thing twice. I meant to paste 307737674. How was 307737674 an IDHT warning? I mean, seriously, I'm sure your Ctrl+F works at least as well as mine, and certainly better than my Ctrl+V. --LjL (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, how was 307737674 an IDHT warning (to me)? Please add to the Dlabdot thread on my talk if you need to. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) It was specifically in response to you (::::: vs your ::::), and said "at this point you are engaging in WP:IDHT|ignoring what other have been saying for three years". I don't see how it could be any clearer. --LjL (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC) You also claimed that this [12] was a "veiled personal attack" of Diabtot. Why? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC) I didn't claim anything like that. You were asking about 1) where you were referred to IDHT 2) where was what Dlabtot (not me) said was a "velied personal attack". Now, [13] says these exact words: "Please refrain from further attempts at veiled personal attacks" (emphasis mine), and refers to the comment it is indented immediately after. Whether that is a personal attack or not is none of my business; it's certainly what Dlabtot was talking about, which is what you had asked in the first place. And at any rate, I'm still waiting to know what my accusation was. --LjL (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) You wrote: "Dlabtot obviously meant at least this (as the "veiled personal attacks" go) .." Your comment supported Dlabtot's claim and was thus itself an accusation. Did you not intend that support? But we agree, it's none of your business. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC) I said what Dlabtot meant, I didn't endorse or support it. You're dreaming. And if you wanted it to be none of my business, you should have put it on your own talk page. --LjL (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Dlabtot wrote here, you added your support here, so I replied here. Less of a dream, I think, more of a nightmare. Please, let's not take up any more talk page space? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• (replying to the mess of argumentation above) I'm having trouble making out what you guys are even arguing about. Perhaps just drop it and move on? (collapsed in hopes that this is amenable to all parties, feel free to uncollapse if not) –xeno^talk 14:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not wrong, just not particularly recommended... but I think the point is that if someone decides to use a separate account for editing a particular article or groups of articles, then it's their problem if they're perceived as single-purpose accounts. It's what they're trying to be perceived as, after all. --LjL (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment. But I'm sure there are plenty of perfectly genuine editors who have no idea of how they "might be perceived" and who are not really trying for anything. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My statement

I have made a statement in this RFC. If anyone disagrees with it I invite them to create an opposing statement so that we can get to the bottom of this. Chillum 02:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposal would be refuted by a suggestion that had not being brought up in the past. I cannot find where anyone proposed what I am proposing in my statement, if you found a "significant" discussion of my same suggestion, then this argument would be invalid.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My statement does not attempt to address ideas that are new, or even ideas whose debate has not been exhausted and or rejected. My statement refers only to issues already roundly rejected by the community through multiple processes. The debate regarding the coverage of Wikipedia's involvement in this test in the article is still fair game. My impression is that we are waiting a little while to see if the coverage is lasting or just a passing fancy of the media(in the spirit of WP:Recentism). Chillum 02:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, sir. I'm not sure if your the one with the authority to answer my question, but please, sir, I think I raised two new issues in my statement. Do I have your permission to ask for comments? Will I be censored for doing so? I'm not sure if I have such freedom of speech. It's a little uncomfortable around here, lately. Specifically, I'd like to create a section to talk about my fear that Wikipedia will end up standing alone as the sole reputable provider of Rorschach images on the Web. That can't be good, can it? And also another section about whether our censorship policy applies to images that are not offensive, profane or obscene. These are new subjects, I believe. I promise to only use the subpage specific for discussion of the images, but I want to first ask your permission. I don't wish to have the discussions hijacked by procedural objections. There's also a question I'd like to ask about the juxtaposition of opposing viewpoints without any explanation. It's a little jarring to the reader, isn't it? It's makes the article harder to read, I think. I'm sure you'll agree that's a valid concern. Or maybe you don't agree and I should just keep my concerns to myself. Again, I'm sorry to have disturbed your thoughts. Pardon me, now. I'm going to just stop talking now. Okay? Unless, of course, you give me permission to speak. It's up to you, I think. Or is it somebody else. I'm so confused. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sole reputable provider of Rorschach images on the Web? In our debates didn't we have a whole section where people showed examples of professional websites and scholarly books prominently showing these images? I don't think we are in any danger of being the sole anything regarding these images. You don't need to ask me, you need to ask yourself "Has what I am asking already been discussed and rejected by the community multiple times?" If the answer is yes then it is probably not productive to bring it up again unless you think something has changed. Chillum 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I remember a lot of talk, but no actual sources. Maybe I was exercising personal choice and avoiding looking at them. Boy has that time, come and gone! Perhaps you could post one or two of those links in the main article under "external references" for our readers (and me) to verify. WP:V Again, it's really difficult to follow everything that's been written, especially when keeping one eye closed to avoid seeing the images. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No disclamers but current relevant scientific thougth

I think it is clear that the unseen premise of the Rorschach test, from it's very inception, is a very important fact. Just the fact that we have been arguing this for 3 years and that it has even made news around the world; is good evidence of it. An much as people seem to frown on the moral tone of "harm", I see consensus on the fact that the test is hampered by disclosing images as well as other information. So I think it would be safe to state very clearly the reasons why a person that thinks they may benefit from taking the test at some point in their life may not want to see the images. And let them make a decision, if we dislike the idea that the APA may dictate what we write, we should also think about not dictating what the reader should or should not read. I truly think that this would be more palatable to people who do not want the images, and is also relevant and accurate.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't dictate what the reader should read, they can always close the browser or go to another website. I have no objection to the idea of a neutral, informative, and relevant sentence or small paragraph based on reliable sources without the use of synthesis or original research. Chillum 02:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

1. The only reason this discussion has gone on for three years is a handful of editors--yourself included, I believe--who refuse to listen to the consensus, and keep arguing incessantly against the prevailing, stable, and unchanging nature of that consensus.
2. Wikipedia doesn't use disclaimers. This has been explained repeatedly when the same vocal minority keeps bringing it up, and up, and up.
3. Of course we dislike the idea that the APA may dictate what we write, because they may not dictate what we write, period. Should there come a (US) federal or Florida-state statute that forbids the publishing of these images, Wikipedia would comply given the legal jurisdictions in which it is a registered entity. Other than that, no body may dictate what Wikipedia may and may not be published. I have the feeling this has been explained to you multiple times before as well.

That about sums it up, I think. → ROUX ₪ 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain ROUX but I need to see where you agree or disagree about relevance and accuracy. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Everything you have said has been refuted many, many times over the past three years. The most important being "I see consensus on the fact that the test is hampered by disclosing images as well as other information." Information about the tests--including the actual inkblots and interpretations thereof--has been widely and publicly available for decades. So that argument very simply does not hold any water whatsoever. And we don't use disclaimers, period. So... yeah. This has been done to death before, and your continued refusal to listen has gone far beyond the bounds of good faith discussion and well into outright disruption. → ROUX ₪ 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that Della's argument does hold water, since two pre-exposure wrongs do not make a right. If harm has arisen because of previous image publication, further publication here will simply add to that level of harm. Furthermore, there seems to be a distinction between the accessibility of images and accessibiity of interpretations, even if both are deemed to have been "in the public domain" for some time. It think it's a lot more difficult to walk to the library, locate a book about the Rorschach, read about interpretations and also understand them, all by mistake. The same is not true for internet inkblot images, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The entire argument is known as 'shutting the barn door after the horse is gone.' The cat is well out of the bag, the argument has been extensively refuted for three years, and the fact that a very small group of you refuses to accept the consensus is neither here nor there; at this point you are engaging in ignoring what other have been saying for three years and tendentious editing. → ROUX ₪ 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire argument is known by you and fellow proponents as 'shutting the barn door after the horse is gone.' And that merely adds irresponsibility from wikipedia to that of those other internet sources who have published the images and the interpretations with no heed to the possible risks. If anything, expert opinion has been clarified over course of three years, e.g. the CPA statement. Refuting an argument is one thing, but where is the actual evidence to refute? Most people have agreed that such evidence would be impossible, or at least unethical, to provide. And I have ignored no-one's arguments for three years - since I joined the debate (on 4 March 2008) I have responded to arguments if I disagreed (even occasionally when I agreed). Just because most editors think that creating "the best possible Wikipedia article" cannot accommodate the advice of the relevant professional bodies and of expert editors, does not make my opinion wrong or of no value. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I summarize the above as follows: A says "The cat is out of the bag." B says "But the cat is still in the house, so why open the front door?" A says "The cat is out of the bag, and I've told you that for 3 years." I do agree that WP:IDHT applies here, and throughout the page ... Art LaPella (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Art, your summary does not seem unreasonable. But I find it difficult to see WP:IDHT since I cannot accept that "an error" has been made simply because there are more on one side of the argument than on the other. The cat was indeed out of the bag when I entered the debate, even before the article was even created. But that was not and is still not the issue. 18 months ago "consensus" deemed that a single inkblot should be shown and I demured as this was presented as "a compromise". Since that time "consensus" has moved on to allow not only all ten test items to be displayed in a gallery but also to allow a description of the most popular responses to each. But there seems to have been no concomitant increase in any supporting evidence for this shift, it has been based simply on more weight of opinion. If anything, professionsal advice has has become clearer, but to no avail - more and more editors have rallied round to demand that the "overriding principles of wikipedia" ae upheld. But I have yet to see any real evidence that logically damages the argument of risk of harm through prior exposure. So the argument is the same now as it was then. Simply saying "shut up, go away" doesn't really make the argument go away. Or maybe in Wikipedia it does? Because that seems to be what consensus has become here - simple majority rule. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed this for years, but we agree; it's Roux who should be unhappy with me. I meant that ignoring "But the cat is still in the house" by simply repeating that "The cat is out of the bag" is IDHT – which stands for I Didn't Hear That, even if he is the majority. Art LaPella (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I think Dela is talking about an informative section at the beginning of the article covering the positions of reliable sources regarding the publishing of these images. In the past this has come up and there was some agreement to do so, however what was arrived at was found by many to be original research through synthesis. I think there is still room for productive discussion on the idea of such a paragraph, but we must be careful that it meets the letter and spirit of our best practices. A disclaimer is right out, but encyclopedic content that just happens to has a similar effect is another thing(I think, perhaps, maybe)... I do feel a bit iffy on the idea myself to be honest. Chillum 03:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We had to piece together what we had before and perhaps it treaded too far towards synth, with the recent media attention on the Rorschach, we have many reliable sources to provide an informative paragraph that serves this purpose. –xeno^talk 13:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My only concern is that the same vocal minority will then push for serious prominence in the article for such a section, and then these arguments will begin anew, focusing on WP:UNDUE rather than WP:NOTCENSORED, and we'll be right back to square one for the next three years. → ROUX ₪ 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be okay with having the opinion of the APA presented along as it is perfectly clear that they APA or any other organization for that matter has no influence on the content of Wikipedia.

Bringing up the APA, CPA position on content over and over is irrelevant. If they want to decide content they can go off and create their own encyclopedia.

Also we should clarify that self proclaimed experts have no more authority than any other editor. A few of the people who claim to be psychologists repeatedly state that they should have more influence over page content than the rest of the editors.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that proven experts (bona fides provided to ArbCom, e.g.) should have more sway over articles which require in-depth education to understand and write (hard sciences, maths, linguistics, etc), but subject to policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED. → ROUX ₪ 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

By nature of of their experience and access to resources, they would naturally do so if they had a desire to improve the content. There is no need for Arbcom to "endorse" editors in this fashion. It treads a little close to granting a form of ownership to an individual or small group of editors. Resolute 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not endorse, merely serve as a confirmation that User:IAmAnExpertInSomething does indeed have the qualifications to claim expertise, avoiding the necessity of them outing themselves completely. → ROUX ₪ 17:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should we care whether a person claims expertise? That will emerge naturally via the nature and quality of their edits. The antagonism you mention below tends to exist because "experts" are viewed as being of the belief their opinion should automatically count for more. Legitimizing this belief is not constructive, imo. Resolute 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why; this is not Citizendium. --LjL (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, because experts tend to know more about subjects than non-experts? The idea that the masses can contribute effectively is all well and good, but there is an antagonism towards experts that is a significant problem, particularly since experts can provide more accurate information, better referencing, and should be able to override people who don't know what they're talking about, subject to NPOV, NOR, etc. → ROUX ₪ 17:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Override"? Not on Wikipedia, now. Again, you may be confusing this with Citizendium. --LjL (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is your only warning to stop being patronizing. I am well aware of which site is which, thank you very much. → ROUX ₪ 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Then either don't claim things that you know to be false (if your "should" was intended to indicate a fact), or discuss off-topic proposed policy (if your "should" was intended as a wish) on this unrelated page. Thank you. --LjL (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't a claim I knew to be false, you person making ridiculous and patronizing comments. It was very much a wish, the conversation had naturally drifted to the subject, and no matter what you still don't get to be patronizing. Jesus. → ROUX ₪ 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What you write is what counts not what your qualifications are.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... and if someone wants their identity and credentials vetted by AC, they are free to self-identify privately. –xeno^talk 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The other issue is that this particular specialty does not seem to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. They are trying to suppress verifiable information / content as per the wishes of their association. This is a discussion of the goals of Wikipedia vs the goals of psychology and who's goals should be perused. This is NOT a question of who has provided the correct inkblots or weather or not the most common responses are indeed the most common responses.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: "Verifiable information/conent" refers to cheat sheets, test answers and questions to tests that are being used to help vulnerable people. This is the only specific information anybody is objecting to. You are claiming that Wikipedia's "best interests" is to include a test's questions and answers in an article about that test.Faustian (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, you know how I said in my statement "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error"? Well this whole "cheat sheet" viewpoint of yours is one such example. We are simply providing information about the test, that does not make it a cheat sheet. You really are depending rather heavily on mis-characterizations for your argument. Chillum 03:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"We are simply providing information about the test". Don't be vague, Chillum, be specific. The "information" you are providing that the minority objects to is the test materials and test answers. Period. If you don't know what a cheat sheet is, here are some definitions: [14] "A document, especially a sheet of paper, containing information, such as test answers, used for cheating."Faustian (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"used for cheating", we are using it to write an encyclopedia, not for cheating. Chillum 04:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You'd say the same thing if you posted a found a way to post the cheat sheet for any other test on wikipedia. The bottom line is that the only "information" people are objecting to is test questions and test answers. So don't hide that fact by referring to it vaguely as "information" or grandiosely as "scientific knowledge." It's just the questions and answers to tests, absolutely nothing more.Faustian (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to predict what I would say, you are not very good at it. Chillum 06:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Binding commitment

I'd like to see this RfC, when it closes, become a binding commitment to sticking with what consensus has determined. I do not want to see RfC after RfC on the same topic, repeating what has already been said in a vain effort to disrupt the building of this encyclopaedia. After the full term of this RfC is up, I'd like to see the community and administrators hold the outcome as genuine, decisive and final. What are the chances of this? I suspect slim, given how much of a bitch it is to make anything final here, but I don't see why it's not possible. It's abundantly clear that consensus has been achieved, and I hope it's clear to even the minority of users against the images that they are fighting a losing battle. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also entirely confident that people will have something to say against this, so do reply with your responses. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't have a binding, final, consensus, because consensus always can change (even if in this instance the chances are infinitesimally small). To try to establish an unyielding consensus goes against the very essence of what makes Wikipedia, Wikipedia. But we can hold editors accountable for disruptively ignoring the present consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's more what I meant really. I meant that it would close the discussions at least for the near future, since there is really no more to discuss and then we can proceed to working on the article more efficiently. Obviously we can't stop people complaining about issues with the article, but we can discipline them for raising the same points over and over disruptively. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why "infintesimally". Yes, consensus may change - how long exactly is the "near future"? This article might need to change regardless of consensus - for example as the result of a successful law suit. If someone posts a single comment disagreeing with article content why is this "disruptive" - if the consensus is strong enough surely other editors may simply ignore it? The same point "over and over again" is only disruptive if other editors choose to argue against that point. Refusing to respond should be punishment enough and should also have the desired effect. I'd suggest that punitive measures should be reserved for those who engage in unexplained article edits and edit wars. To insist on further policing of a consensus on the talk pages is likely, in my view, to lead to yet more editors (who might otherwise make valuable contributions) leaving Wikipedia altogether. But maybe that's what the enraged majority here wishes to happen? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... The legal threats continue...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't expected a response from you in particular, Doc. Cheer up, my point was actually made in the abstract. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A completely random example, aye? --LjL (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To insist on further policing of a consensus on the talk pages is likely, in my view, to lead to yet more editors (who might otherwise make valuable contributions) leaving Wikipedia altogether. Let's hope so. They 'might' make valuable contributions, but based on past behavior, that result seems as unlikely as the overturning of the current consensus. It would be highly preferable for editors to voluntarily refrain from disruptive activities than it would for them to be banned. Dlabtot (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that punitive measures should be reserved... we don't employ punitive measures at Wikipedia. Note the period at the end of that sentence. Topic bans and other sanctions are not punishments, but rather, administrative tools designed to help produce a better encyclopedia. Proper editorial behavior is a means to this end, not the end itself. Dlabtot (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making your motivation clear, Dlabtot. Yes, of course, "administrative tools". I hadn't realised that it was only the editors with those tools that were trying to produce a "better encyclopedia". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He didn't say that, you know it, and your comment is absolutely irrelevant. Really, quit the offtopicness already. --LjL (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you would be well advised to refrain from casting aspersions or questioning the motivations of other editors. Secondly, what is I hadn't realised that it was only the editors with those tools that were trying to produce a "better encylopedia". supposed to mean? Of course I did not say or imply anything remotely like that. Please refrain from further attempts at veiled personal attacks. Failed or not, such efforts are inappropriate and contrary to our policies. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LjL and Dlabtot - I am not attempting to attack any person, Dlabtot included, veiled or not. Please point out where you think I have. I thought the topic of this thread was how to treat editors who disagree with the "binding final consensus" and who then make edits to express that disagreement. Perhaps you could clarify which editors you envisage using the "administrative tools"? I must have imagined that they would all be from only one side of this discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify which editors you envisage using the "administrative tools"? Those would be.... administrators. Gee. Dlabtot (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee indeed, Dlabtot. And how do all the admins line up on the sides of this discussion? Trust they've all identified themselves as such on the Rfc statements. They're all impartial, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is customary that administrators do not use admin tools in a dispute in which they have been involved. There are thousands of admins, a tiny, tiny fraction of which have perhaps been involved here. Dlabtot (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this particular behavioral problem is not new nor unique to this article or topic. You have been repeatedly been directed to the Refusal to 'get the point' section of our behavioral guideline against disruptive editing. If you haven't yet, you should review it. As for how to treat editors who are engaging in disruptive behavior, it's already well established practice on Wikipedia to use warnings followed by a gradually escalating series of topic and/or site bans. Dlabtot (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. I was asking this: "how many of the editors who have signed up to Rfc statements are administrators?" Could you show me where I was previously directed to WP:IDHT? And where exactly was that "veiled personal attack" that I made? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, and the question is irrelevant. As far as your other questions, you have the capability to review this talk page without my help. I'm unwilling to repeat myself, so I'm unlikely to respond further in this thread. Dlabtot (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are unable to clarify your accusations, Dlabtot. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unwilling, not necessarily unable. Dlabtot obviously meant at least this (as the "veiled personal attacks" go) and this and this (as for IDHT). --LjL (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, very willing indeed, now judging by my own Talk Page (where I think any further discussion might be better placed?) But I think mistakenly so. And are you sure you have read Art LaPela's explanation for his edit, which seemed to have been aimed at Roux. Yes I had misunderstood at first, too. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that after copying the link but then forgot and pasted it anyway. --LjL (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the thinly veiled apology. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology? Of course, I apologize for mistakenly posting a third link beside other two links that were completely relevant. So at the end of the day, no, I'm not really apologizing about anything, and I'd rather you didn't put words in my mouth. --LjL (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, not so thinly, then. Um, have you understood to whom Art LaPella's point was directed? But I really think that personal accusations belong, if anywhere, on an editor's own Talk Page, not an Article Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the recipient of Art LaPella's point has to do with anything at this point. --LjL (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with one of Dlabtot's accusations about me - [15].Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And what do I have to do with those? --LjL (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[16] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of a red herring. I would be willing to bet that the number of administrators that are planning to enforce this RFC through the use of administrative tools who have also endorsed statements is exactly zero. They will recuse, as they should. –xeno^talk 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you are right, xeno. But I think some ordinary editors, like myself, sometimes feel a little intimidated by administrators who make it very clear that they strongly support one side in a given discussion. Martinevans123 (talk)

It's best to just consider them fellow editors. Admins are supposed to hang up their hats when they become involved. –xeno^talk 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS censoring rights

Those more familiar with the topic of censorship (and circumstances under which it may be appropriate) are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#OTRS_censoring_rights.    M   20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A bad precedent

I'm more interested in magic, including the skilled illusion and occult kinds, than I am in the interpretation of Rorschach blots.

But in the stage magic pages, issues are periodically raised that we should not explain how illusions are performed; it's claimed that to do so spoils the trick. Consensus remains that these concerns are out of bounds; if published sources explain the illusions of stage magic, we are free to repeat them here. The concern that knowing how its done spoils the trick is simply alien to Wikipedia, both as official policy and as general culture. In short, we allow magic tricks to be explained here even if the explanation is imagined to harm the professional interests of illusionists.

The other sort of magician raises objections sometimes. The claim is sometimes ventured that the secret teachings of religious sects or ritual elements of various fraternities must be kept secret on Wikipedia as well. These opinions, too, are out of bounds under long established precedent. Wikipedia does not and cannot concern itself with the claimed spiritual harm that disclosure of secret lore to non-initiates might present.

It would set a quite bad example were we to simply yield to a claim that "exposure" of the public domain Rorschach images, or an explanation of how the test works and what literature says about their expected results. We aren't in the business of preserving anyone's professional or esoteric secrets. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What this really is about is releasing cheat sheets, questions and answers to a test. Nobody is objecting to discussions of how the test works as long as the discussion doesn't veer into the territory of cheat sheets, questions and answers. The ones who want to add the cheat sheet, questions and answers dress up what they are doing by talking about keeping "scientific knowledge" or "information" from being censored but all it really is, is cheat sheets, questions and answers to the test. The best analogy would be to leaking information about a licensing exam, or college entrance exam, etc. onto wikipedia. Legally it is different (the Rorschach, unlike next year's medical licensing exams, is not copyrighted) but morally it is the same thing. A medical licensing exam is used to help determine whether qualified people are practicing medicine and thus it helps to keep the general public from being harmed - if the cheat sheets were widely known people would have licenses not based on whether they knew medicine but based on their access to wikipedia. The Rorschach is used to help make decisions about thought disorder, level of risk, etc. Compromising it also harmful to the general public.Faustian (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's so important, then people relying on Rorschach tests should have planned for the images to become public. There should be fresh images every year or so. GRE, GED, SAT, CSAT, ACT, AST, UMAT, STAT, Abitur and all their cousins come up with a fresh test every year, why not Rorschach? A discussion of the history of Rorschach blot results enlightens the reader who is interested in how the human psyche works. Thanks to SteveBaker for the best rebuttal. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Psych tests are much more complex than the GRE or SAT. The GRE, for example, just gives you scores on 3 variables (Verbal, Quanitative, Analytic) and no interactions between them. The Rorschach or the MMPI have dozens of variables, interactions between the dozens of variables (someone with an elevation on scale 2 and 7 can be completely different than someone with an elevation of scale 2 but low score on scale 7), etc. How do we know what the scores and interactionsmean? Through research. This means that each test involves hundreds of studies. And, of course, the more studies that are conducted, the more we know about what the test does and therefore the more effective the test is at doing what it does. The scale of work involved means that a psych test cannot be simply recreated every year, it takes decades. And every time you start over you lose a lot of valuable information.Faustian (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The complexity of psych tests is a problem to solve, yes. Every time you start over, you build on the previous iteration and you have the chance to fine tune the test. The Rorschach cat was out of the bag years ago—it's high time for a scientific reorganization of the tests, to get fresh results. It is not Wikipedia's job, either way. It wasn't Wikipedia who waited so long that every Joe and Jane already knows what to say when faced with a blot. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So Binks, (part of) your motivation for publishing the inkblot images here is to "persuade" the clinical psychology community to replace the Rorschach test with a better one? Or is it just that 87 years of careful research should be hastily abandoned, in order that some large scale "fine tuning " may be performed? (Note: these are questions, not "putting words in your mouth"). Joe and Jane must be mightily bored. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What's my motivation? Sounds like "tell me more about your childhood." ;^)

I wish to publish the inkblots, and textual description of how the inkblots have been received and interpreted, because it is knowledge, and notable. Wikipedia publishes such knowledge. I expect the next revolutionary psychologist with enough gonads to replace the Rorschach test with something modern will first encounter an enlightened and enlightening description such as I imagine we can produce here. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The technique used is rather modern (developed in the 1970's and continuously updated). An entire new branch of forensic applications has been coming out inthe last 4 years or so with good results. The only thing not modern is the inkblots themselves. But the stethoscope has been used for 200 years too, there's nothing wrong witht he material just because it is old (indeed, its longevity is due to the fact that it works so effectively). So you are suggesting we scrap a very useful tool for something that may or may not be as useful (we won't know until we run hundreds of studies, so there is a chance the Rorschach has been compromised for nothing) not because something is wrong with it but because some people can get their hands on it and post it online. In other words, insead of doing research to better understand what is going on with people so we can help them, by further improving a useful test, we must instead do research and spend time and resources that otherwise would have gone to helping people, to instead compensate for the actions of wikipedians. All in the hope that maybe after 40 years of research we'll get back to where we are now after 40 years of research which you seek to render less usefull. As for your last sentence - so you expect that a psychologist working on something "modern" will somehow benefit from a description written semi-accurately by people with little knowlege of the test?Faustian (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that the stethoscope works even though pretty much everyone understands how it works. I imagine a youngster like you once were, curious about the psyche, reading encyclopedias and journals voraciously, finding a good Wikipedia or similar article on the Rorschach test and coming to a lightning realization that there is another way, one with ever-changing images. When that youngster turns into a research-and-developer, the current struggle will become the new foundation for the future. I think of encyclopedias, especially modern collaborative ones, as the way forward—more of our best people can learn about the methods in use, and improve on them. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your idealism and it makes sense from the perspective of someone unaware of how tests are created (no offence meant by that, it's not your field so you can't be expected to be aware of these things). Keep in mind that this debate is solely about the specific tests items and test answers being on wikipedia. Nobody is complaining about any other type of information. And pretty much any test loses its usefullness to the degree that the test taker knows the test questions and answers in advance. Ever-changing images wouldn't work as well because that would mean that there would be no standardized norms (which, btw, take years and lots of studies to establish in the first place), meaning that we can't say that according to research when people see a certain pattern on images 1 through 10 they have disordered thinking, if there is no image 1 through 10 but a series of ever-changing ones. And again, if someone decides to post the answers tot his new test on wikiepdia the next day that new test will be compromised as well, because any test is compromised when the questions and answers are leaked.Faustian (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was proposing ever-changing images based on a thorough understanding of how the normal Rorschach responses are elicited, so that a computer could generate a new "inkblot" and the test response would be just as predictable. The years of research would be the basis for this breakthrough. Based on your arguments, I see the current state of the Rorschach field as one that is blindered to the possibilities. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting comparison. Professional interests aside, however, how likely is it that the detailed explanation of a magic trick will be read and understood by accident compared with the accidental (or even unwanted) viewing of an inkblot image at the top of the Rorschach article? And if we do compare external professional interests, how comparable are stage illusionists with those in the field of mental health care (particularly where self-harm and/or suicide may be involved)? But yes, I agree, it might be a very dangerous precedent for Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If the issue is accidental viewing of images, as opposed to accidental reading of text (and as opposed to voluntary reading/viewing), then why did most of the side wanting the images removed also want text (descriptions, "answers", and misc.) removed as well - and repeatedly point out that a major issue is people voluntarily obtaining this information to "cheat"?

Perhaps because they judged that potential harm through prior exposure could also easily arise through reading lists of popular interpretations. I personally think that the "risk of cheating" issue has been overplayed. I have certianly never offered it as a valid argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, though, I realize that you seem to be agreeing that there is a parallel, except for this. I obviously don't agree with you thinking that the precedent is dangerous, however; you are just advocating censorship. --LjL (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I said that about censorship, did I? Ihcoyc seems to think it might be dangerous. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the reference to magic is very applicable to this situation.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientology apparently teaches that learning the tale of Xenu will kill you with pneumonia if you haven't undergone the requisite spiritual discipline. Stage magicians believe their livelihood is at risk if the secrets of stage magic are revealed to the general public. The truth of these claims, whatever their plausibility, is beyond the competence of Wikipedia editors as a body to decide. Any claim that allows Wikipedia's general principles to be trumped in this matter by claims of professional importance or that minds are at stake cannot be confined to the ink blots alone. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are countless groups out there that benefit from keeping something or other secret, we hear from them all day every day. Chillum 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored; a policy that decrees that 2+2=5 doesn't prove it's true. Here is a recent example of censorship. Although it was eventually overturned, outright pornography has never been allowed on the Main Page; when they want to censor something they call it "inappropriate". I recently heard on the radio the number of cars of Secret Service agents protecting Joe Biden, but I couldn't find that statistic on Wikipedia, even though "the cat is out of the bag". Hopefully terrorists don't listen to the radio. Art LaPella (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The main page isn't article space, so WP:CENSOR wouldn't apply anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically true; it says "articles and images", although that surely isn't what they meant. If you go by the letter of the law, removing the word "ain't" is censorship because there is no policy prohibiting it, unless you want to call it "obviously inappropriate" which could mean anything. Art LaPella (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A less technical answer would be to consider racial epithets. WP:CENSOR says "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." So that means we can only use racial epithets in an article about someone of that race! Meanwhile, back in the real world ... Art LaPella (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Another answer is nuclear weapon design. I would love to censor that article, but at least it doesn't name the conventional explosive that is used. Art LaPella (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What about what seemed to be my favorite example in past discussions, articles that discuss details of aircraft systems? --LjL (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been here long, but is this what you mean? The most obvious use of an altimeter description is constructive, not destructive. Here it is argued, I'm not sure how validly, that we are sacrificing mental health on the altar of our vanity, so wouldn't nuclear weapon design be a better, though more extreme, analogy? Perhaps you mean that Rorschach doesn't need censoring because readers would realize they are about to read something that will interfere with how their own future test results will reflect their subconscious minds. But I doubt if one reader out of 10 will think that through, even though the article says "it is feared that publication of the inkblots has rendered the test meaningless" before listing the pictures. Art LaPella (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was more like thinking of things like terrorists using detailed information about aircraft instruments to kill people. I had also mentioned that, after 9/11, Microsoft (among perhaps other) was criticized because of Flight Simulator, which was alleged to have been used by the terrorists to train. --LjL (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Without the diffs, I'm guessing you're talking about information that could be used for either constructive or destructive purposes. You would need detailed information about aircraft instruments to make them or perhaps to use them. You would need a Flight Simulator for training, or perhaps just for fun. I suppose you could use a cheat sheet for idle curiosity, but unless you're a psychologist who has other documents to use, the most obvious purpose of a cheat sheet is destructive. An ordinary calculator or most any information could conceivably be used for evildoing; but here it's hard to imagine the information being used for any good purpose, or at least that case hasn't been made. Art LaPella (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's where our views probably differ quite sharply: I suspect that "idle curiosity" accounts for the vast majority of Wikipedia hits (and its success, including that created by people actually editing it), and I believe it's a perfectly valid - actually, one of the most valid - reasons to provide information to people. "Idle curiosity" is what made mankind different than other animals. I wouldn't treat it as if it were something secondary or unimportant. --LjL (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Completely agree with LjL. But rather than refer to it as "idle curiosity" how about "intellectual curiosity". This is the main reason why most people go to University or read in the first place. Curiosity is how most of us figure out what we want to do with the rest of our lives. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of the previous comments, although I would think the main reason for a cheat sheet would be to cheat (deliberately or accidentally, depending on whether you know you are going to take a Rorschach test), not to learn about or to meditate on cheating. As authors, I suspect our judgment is clouded by our pride in seeing our work on the Internet, which also drives our consensuses and policies. Art LaPella (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly the one calling it a cheat sheet. Its detractors are, but that doesn't automatically make it one. --LjL (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a semantic problem with "cheat sheet", substitute a longer phrase like "text that could be used for cheating on a Rorschach test", which was my intended meaning. But I think "cheat sheet" is a good summary of that notion. Art LaPella (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one playing with semantics. Your sentence "the primary reason for a cheat sheet would be to cheat", which sounds very logical, stops working completely when the cheat sheet becomes something that merely "could" be used for cheating. --LjL (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well no, if the primary reason for x is to cheat, then "cheat sheet" is a reasonable name for it. We both agree that whatever we call it, it could be used for good or bad purposes, and I (but not you) have stated that the bad purpose is the obvious one. To my knowledge, I'm explaining my opinion as best I can. Art LaPella (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"text that could be used for cheating on a Rorschach test"?? Okay, here is ""text that can be used for cheating on a history test". Unless the test in an open book test, having access to the worlds most comprehensive encyclopedia is of course going to spoil most tests. Chillum 23:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no questions nor answers to any specific history test on that page. Bad analogy, sorry.Faustian (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw come on, read my whole context. Is the primary reason to study the images and explanations to cheat, or is it "intellectual curiosity" what the right answers are? That's the issue. Art LaPella (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And what would one read history information for? Either they're a historian, or they're intellectually curious about history, I'd say. Or they want to "cheat" a test. Anyway, the problem is that we are not and should not try to be mind readers as to what people might be wanting to use an article for. --LjL (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between posting history and posting the specific questions and answers to a specific history test. Posting specific questions and answers to a test is what makes something a cheat sheet.Faustian (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the subject of the article is the test. Of course there will be information about the test, what it is composed of, and how people respond to it. Chillum 04:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So if the subject of a wikipedia article is a test is is acceptable for you for the wikipedia article about that test to contain a cheat sheet (questions and answers) to it. Can you be honest and admit that this is your view?Faustian (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to go in circles? I already told you it is not a cheat sheet, it is encyclopedic information about the test. You of all people should know there are not "right" or "wrong" answers. The information just helps understand what the test is about. Chillum 04:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You should read more carefully and thoughtfully. Where did I say the Rorschach article included "right" or "wrong" answers. It included answers. And yes, any cheat sheet helps to understand what a test is about. If you don't like the word cheat sheet, use different wording to describe a test's questions and answers. But don't sugarcoat it by referring to it as "encyclopedic ifnormation about the test." BTW no other encyclopedia contains such "encyclopedic infromation" as the cheat sheet.Faustian (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the media did refer to it as a cheat sheet. We could add this to a section on society. Wikipedia however as Chillum said is a cheat sheet for everything.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We can and should be mind readers in the non-supernatural sense of determining someone's intention. In my nuclear weapon design example, the information is (insufficiently, in my opinion) incomplete because "mind-reading" determines the possibility that someone might want to build a home-made atom bomb. If it exploded, Wikipedia policies would quickly become academic. It's just where do you draw the line. Art LaPella (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree: I think we can't and shouldn't. Was there any discussion about this apparent incompleteness of the article about nuclear weapon design? --LjL (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of; I just looked through the article to see if that fact was there, and it wasn't. It's presumably classified, but I suppose a true Wikipedia hero of freedom of information wouldn't let such details stop him. Before debating "shouldn't", it would be easier to debate "can't"; determining people's intentions is a routine part of life. In criminal law for instance, accidents are not crimes (see Mens rea). Even in Wikipedia, accidents are not WP:Vandalism. Art LaPella (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a mind reader", it goes well with "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". As for "classified" material, Wikipedia follows the law as it applies in Florida. But that is really a non-starter because nobody has any legal claim to these images(or what people think they look like) whatsoever. Chillum 00:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As I just explained, we are all mind readers, and Wikipedia vandalism enforcement is an example. As I understand it, an uploader of classified material would violate the law (although he could anonymously get away with it, as someone here recommended psychologists could do), but I used the example because I believe Wikipedia wouldn't violate the law by displaying classified material disclosed by others (see Pentagon Papers). IANAL, and if I missed something I gave plenty of other examples of censorship at Wikipedia. Art LaPella (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia wouldn't violate the law, but such information wouldn't belong to Wikipedia in the first place unless it was previously published on a verifiable source. Wikileaks could do. A single Wikipedia editor simply publishing classified information won't work for Wikipedia. --LjL (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That is my point, the example is not apt because Wikipedia would not violate the law in that case. In this case there is no law to violate. As for being mind readers, I am not convinced that it is even possible, much less the basis for decision making. Pointing out a few examples of where we have failed to not be censored is not really convincing me to accept censorship. Chillum 01:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I missed your point. If Wikipedia wouldn't violate the law by publishing the name of the explosive in question, I am assuming that you would be happy to censor such obviously dangerous information, because if the bomb exploded, then all our Wikilawyering would be moot. I also missed the point that it isn't possible to be (non-supernatural) mind readers; for the third time, isn't Wikipedia vandalism enforcement an example? And pointing out examples of censorship isn't intended to prove that everything should be censored (eliminating Wikipedia altogether); it's to prove that an absolutist argument is indefensible.

And lest we miss the forest for the trees: My main point is that the majority appears to be more interested in getting congratulations from each other than in explaining their reasoning to the minority. If we just want to be famous, or at least have our writing be famous, come hell or high water, then why should the psychologists respect the details of our policies? I'm not even sure they're right; in particular I wonder if Rorschach is pseudoscience. I just want people to communicate. Art LaPella (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem may be that you have popped into this debate after it has gone on for over two years and has pretty much reached its conclusion. There has been so much reasoning explained that it is shocking. I suggest you look through the massive archives of this debate if you want more of an explanation of the reasoning. Even this very page contains volumes of explanation. I really don't think a lack of consideration is the problem, the views of the minority have been given extensive consideration and have been rejected. Those reasons have been given. Nobody is being ignored. Chillum 02:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I only hope the last two years haven't resembled this RfC. Art LaPella (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is all here: Talk:Rorschach test/Index of archives. It has resembled this RfC in that there has been a consistent consensus against the suppression of the images over the months and years. Chillum 04:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction: as here, there has been no consensus although a majority prefers to show the images.Faustian (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are starting to remind me of a person pointing at a zebra and saying "There is no such animal". You don't need to accept the consensus, everyone else will. Just don't disrupt things too much okay? Chillum 04:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I remind you of is irrelevant. What is relevant is that consensus policy is [17] "That said, consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered 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 restrictions." There is negotiation from my side but not from your side. There is no reasonable balance between the views. WP:WHATISCONSENSUS states "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. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions." Yes, you heard us and understood us, but the solution you created you created unilaterally without respecting those opinions whatsoever. Instead, you have chosen to make "consensus" simply the preference of the majority. Unfortunately, no matter how many times you say it, it's not consensus as wikipedia defines it. It may be there thanks to your refusal to compromise there may never be consensus on this article. But whatever the end result, it is not consensus. Faustian (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That WP:WHATISCONSENSUS page you cited also includes WP:NOTUNANIMITY, however. "Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia". You wouldn't want to filibuster the process, surely? Really, the current RfC shows consensus, and you're clinging on mirrors. --LjL (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the problem is that you are taking that one part of what consensus is and disgarding the others - basically cherry picking the part of the policy that seems to work in your favor, if not read carefully. Taken as a whole and included within the words you cite, a minority may not refuse to compromise and filibuster its position. The problem here is that most of the minority are willing to compromise. The only "hardened" position is that of the majority.Faustian (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That may partly be because the majority believes its opinion to be most consistent with policy (even part of the minority agreed, merely saying that in cases like this one policy should be ignored), and our favorite page does also talk about local consensus (or, I'd say, lack of it) not being an excuse to trump policy. Of course, policy itself is created by consensus, but it exists in order that when a minority express a contrary opinion in a specific instance, they can be referred to policy (otherwise policy just wouldn't exist, and decisions would be made by consensus, RfC's, etc, every single time). --LjL (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an accurate description as any of why there is no consensus on this page.Faustian (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean because the minority refuses to accept that there is a clear majority who is acting in accordance to policy, which results in the minority not agreeing to disagree (thus forming a consensus) as it would be reasonable to do at this point? Yes. --LjL (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, because the majority feel that policy is on their side they refuse to make any compromises and thus there is no consensus.Faustian (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's insisting on unanimity? The current RfC shows simply a clear majority for one side of the main argument. But it also clearly shows a lot of hostility both towards the minority view and towards the test itself, e.g. "quackery" Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should keep in mind that most of the endorsments come without a comment, and most of the endorsments go to statements that don't say anything about the validity of the test itself. There certainly is a component that [also] wants information to be spread because it considers the test invalid, but I really wouldn't say it applies to, err, a majority of the majority. Personally, I don't have an opinion against the test; I do believe that one of the many reason why information should be available is being better able to get an opinion about things' validity or lack of it, though. --LjL (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess a healthy chunk of those wanting to put the questions (inkblots) and answers here, that compromise the test, are for whatever reason people who are opposed to the Rorschach. The guy who posted the images is among those.Faustian (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely separate issues ought to be debated separately, otherwise editors may support the "spread of information" merely to discredit the scientific credentails of this particular technique (whether or not you personally have any psychometric axe to grind)? So you think that showing the images in a Wikipedia article can inform an investigation of test validity? I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, there is an RfC. The RfC is about publishing the images, and related textual content. The RfC has various statements by various people, some of which are pro and some against; among the ones pro publishing, some have a rationale, some have another. Editors are free to endorse the ones they agree with. This is "debated separately" enough, unless you think editors will just endorse those statements "having the effect they want", rather then those they actually agree with.

Do I think that showing the image can inform an investigation of test validity? Well, I certainly didn't say that, though your "I see" seems to imply I did. Fourth time or so people are putting words into my mouth in this discussion, yay! I was actually mostly referring to textual content, since that has also heavily been debated. --LjL (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of the RfC, thanks. So you think that adding textual content in a Wikipedia article can inform an investigation of test validity? ("Look", this is another question, not "putting words into your mouth", not a "thinly veiled insult", not "personal harassment", just a question). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a formal scientific "investigation of test validity", surly. Just people's own opinion about something. They're entitled to them (and to making them based on comprehensive content in an encyclopedia), surely? --LjL (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, how many editors need to accept a consensus to make it one? What makes you so sure that "everyone else will" accept it apart from Faustian? But that's assuming one is reached. And please don't just single out Faustian for being "disruptive" - as far as I can see, all of the points he makes above are drawn from standard Wikipedia policy, so quite the reverse of "disruption". Maybe that zebra is in fact the horse that you claim has already been beaten to death, but which has now been handily painted with some inkblot stripes by the majoirty of editors and is being paraded as a marvellous new find? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"filibuster"! That is the word I was looking for, thanks LjL. Consensus has been reached, and pretending that it has not been is not going to change things one whit(a whit is a very small amount). All that is left is to move on. Stop filibustering folks! Chillum 13:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, consenssu has not been reached for the reasons outlined above.Faustian (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the RfC was still running? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your denials are mere filibustering at this point. You are either experiencing denial or engaging in sophistry. You might as well be denying that the ocean is wet because you don't like the way your boat is leaking. Chillum 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not denials, Chillum, just questions. The last one was "how many"? What's the amswer? Oh, and is that RfC still live or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with someone who is not open to changing their point of view. It is enough that most people recognize the consensus. Anyone who does not accept it can either do so in a non-disruptive manner or find that consensus enforced by uninvolved parties. Chillum 00:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet you, not open to changing your point of view, persistantly argue yourelf.03:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs)

If consensus was against me, I would accept that. You can look through my 3 years of contributions to confirm that this is true. Chillum 05:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to argue, Chillum, just answer my questions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Still trying to understand how the current "consensus" meets: "and a solution is created that respects those opinions." As far as I can tell, the solution has not respected the opinions of the editors who disagree with the majority at all. And we've been accused of all sorts of malfeasance and threatened with disciplinary action if we don't stay quiet. Mirafra (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We respect your right to have an opinion. But having an opinion doesn't mean the article has to be edited to appease you, nor does it mean you should continue to ignore consensus and wikilawyer and forum shop and waste everyone else's time. That's disruption, pure and simple. Frankly, its obvious the only "consensus" you'll respect is a decision that agrees with you. That's not how consensus works. DreamGuy (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So you'd respect a consensus that might not agree with you, DreamGuy? That's good to know. And glad to hear that that's how consensus would work. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think an examination of DreamGuy's contributions will show that he, like any good Wikipedian, does indeed accept a consensus that goes against him. Even if he does not like it. Users who fail to accept consensus for an extended length of time are often seen as disruptive. Chillum 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, as I was asking, how many editors need to accept a consensus to make it one? Is there a percentage criterion for this "first past the post" consensus? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You already know very well this is not a numbers game. Your point of view has not managed to convince a significant number of people that we should deviate from our regular practices, what is more a significant number of people have reaffirmed our regular practices. I am not about to get into a philosophical debate about consensus with you when the issue is not even close to being hard to judge.

If you can look at the most recent RFC and not see a consensus then you are either blinded by bias, or have simply chosen to ignore it. Seriously man, it is not even close. Chillum 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, my ever more increasingly rhetorical question was "how close would it have to be" and I still see no answer. I'm still not sure how you can have "significant numbers" when it's "not a numbers game". Maybe we are way past the game stage, and also, it seems, now past the philosophical debate stage. So the fact that the point of view of "a significant number of people" has not convinved me to change my mind means I am "blinded by bias". It's looking to me ever less possible that the Wikipedia notion of consensus can accommodate compromise. Or maybe, as a non-believer, as you alternatively suggest, I am just ignorant. Man. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have established that you are not ignorant, just stubborn. Considering this matter is settled, little is accomplished by running in circles like this. If you think consensus is being ignored or abused then seek outside scrutiny. Chillum 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes me stubborn and you flexible exactly? Neither of us has been persuaded to change our mind, but beimg in the minorty means I'm branded "stubborn". And when have I indulged in any similar name-calling? If the matter is settled why is there any discussion and the RfC still open? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Because there are standard terms for an RfC and, even though the consensus is clear and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, not respecting them and closing the RfC early may easily result in unpleasant WP:Wikilawyering on the part of some, so it's better avoided. --LjL (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Was the consensus clear before the RfC was opened? If not, at what point did it become clear? Or are these questions just examples of subborn wikilayering which thus don't deserve any answer? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the consensus could have at least been strongly suspected before the RfC even opened, yes. Anyway you don't sound like you're wikilawyering... just stubborn. Since Chillum didn't want to start a discussion about the phylosophy of consensus here (and I can understand that), I will... but only briefly, it's hardly very on-topic.

There aren't any hard and fast rules about majority on Wikipedia; that's by design. 50% isn't the threshold, and neither is 66%, and neither is 90%... there is no set number. But that does not mean the required number is 100%. Often, in practice, what decides if there is "consensus" is an uninvolved administrator. Such an individual will generally declare "no consensus" if there is something close to 50/50, and start declaring consensus if there is something like 66/33, although that will also depend on their judgment about the respective strength of argumentations. For editors (or at least for me) to feel confident saying "come on, there's consensus", the criterion is: do I believe that the average editor (or administrator) looking at the debate would declare consensus? In this case, I do.

Of course, there isn't any exact Day:Hour:Minute:Second when consensus suddenly "became" exceedingly clear: it's fuzzy; fuzzy is the way it works on Wikipedia. And, of course, my reasoning could in theory work recursively: in case you didn't agree with my diagnosis of consensus, I'd have to wonder whether an uninvolved editor would agree with your disagreement, etc... but there's a point when it all starts becoming ridiculous, as I'm sure you realize.

Finally, I'd like to point out that several editors (again, "a majority") would argue that, in this specific case, the "publish them" view is consistent with policy, while the "suppress them" view would be an exception (even some editors pushing the latter view agreed with this). If this is the case, then the consensus-based argument is that there is no consensus to override policy, and that would work even in a close-to-50/50 scenario. --LjL (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the key detail here is that those who want content removed are suggesting a significant departure from our best practices. A consensus for this significant departure has never formed, what is more the community has rallied against this departure from our best practices. You are trying to convince us to act contrary to our project goals, so you will need to convince us to act different, which you have not. Chillum 13:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Q: How many Wikipedians does it take to change a light bulb?"

"A: As many as you like, as long as most of them agree there's a consensus that it has been changed." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And as long as they don't get sidetracked on the topic of whether the lightbulb looks more like a butterfly or a monster. --LjL (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I know some people say the light looks like something harmful like a monster, but I am pretty sure it is just a lightbulb. While some people have sought to change it I think the consensus hasn't been to pretend it has changed, but rather the consensus is not to change it at all as its light is helpful. Chillum 23:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a very forced analogy, but I did not have much to work with. Chillum 23:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Flagrant violation of WP:OR"

I would like to know from Hexagon1 what parts of the article, exactly, are believed to be violations of WP:OR (I think there is an inline tag you could use to point them out), or whether you think "looking like an academic paper" automatically makes it a violation of WP:OR regardless of actual content and, if so, why. --LjL (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a reoccurring theme for people to make such general complaints and then not point out what the specific issue is. Chillum 23:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, my apologies for not replying earlier, missed the question. I do find several problems with the "The ten inkblots" section. Not only do I find both the statistics of responses and the very notion of a "Comments" section rather unencyclopaedic, I am curious to know how the editors involved in the article came to the conclusions presented in the comments section. Taking them directly from the two books cited would present at least two problems, first any copyright violations that may be taking place (though I am unfamiliar with the standards for medical literature), second the fact that both of these books appear to have been written by the same author, an Irving B Weiner, which raises questions of POV and bias. Unfortunately this problem doesn't go away if we include two or more authors, as any analysis or evaluation, not to mention selectively picking interpretations to put in the article would be totally WP:OR. +Hexagon1 11:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I already said that I used about no more than about three words in a row verbatim from Weiner. If it's a copyright violation, anyway, that shouldn't be discussed here; there is a noticeboard for copyvios, and/or they should be removed immediately if one is very convinced they are copyvios. However, I'd like to point out that paraphrasing something that a text says is usually not a copyright violation, or we basically couldn't ever write anything on Wikipedia, so I find this point of yours moot.

As for the "Comments" section being, in and of itself, "unencyclopedic"... well, I cannot even remotely see why (perhaps you don't like the "comments" name and would like a more descriptive one?). Please explain why if you feel that way, because I really cannot guess.

"POV and bias" because the books are written by Weiner... what?! 1) Weiner is recognized by everyone in this article, including the psychologists wanting the inkblots removed, as an extremely valid authority, which is used as a source all over the article 2) If you have other similar sources to counter-balance Weiner, feel free to add them, but meanwhile WP:PRESERVE the existing contents: saying "it may be POV so it shouldn't be there" is a complete non-sequitur. --LjL (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In two paragraphs of three in your response, you have essentially challenged me to show the strength of my convictions by editing the article. I haven't the time nor will to enter such a warzone right now. Just to address a few of your points, WP:PRESERVE doesn't really apply if the problem is the presence of text rather than its contents. There is no way to make the Ten Tests section feasible. You will either have one reference, which will always leave you prone to accusations of bias, no matter if that reference is Mother Teresa, or you will have multiple references the synthesis of which would be inherently problematic. I hope I have clarified my position. +Hexagon1 12:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Complaints filled by psychology associations

Currently legal action is being attempting off Wikipedia against a Wikipedia editor involved in editing the Rorschach test [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsure why this is on-topic. Mirafra (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it might not be. If so, I guess you could always sue him for that. --LjL (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is an indication that this legal action was brought up by a Wikipedian then the administrative noticeboard is the place to mention that as action will need to be taken. Otherwise this really does not belong on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Chillum 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The noticeboard should also be notified if the legal action is being taken as a result of the editor's contributions (you haven't made this entirely clear), which may impact the project. PS: Missed the link, yeah, just report it. +Hexagon1 12:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is directly due to the addition of the images to this Wikipedia page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are willing to detail the precise threat, it does not belong. Roger (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in the papers. http://www.thestarphoenix.com/health/Moose+doctor+faces+complaints+posting+Rorschach+inkblot+test+online/1962639/story.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any legal action discussed in that article. In fact, you pointed this out in the article:

“These associations of psychology have little recourse other than complaining to my college to attempt to reprimand me for what they see as unethical,” said Heilman.

Perhaps you linked to the wrong article? Or maybe "legal action" wasn't quite the right phrase, which implies involving the law, courts, etc., rather than just the ethics and rules of your college. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The college does have legal authority over my practice of medicine therefore I consider this legal action. Have clarified the wording of the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Duration of this RfC

It has been mentioned a few times that this RfC has a term which should be respected, and the issue not considered closed until it's over... I'd like to know when is this exactly? --LjL (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure. What I do know is that participation has significantly waned over time. I would say pretty much every interested party has had the opportunity to participate. Chillum 14:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RFCs typically stand for 30 days. –xeno^talk 15:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the activity having tapered off and 30 days almost up, I've sought an admin to close this. –xeno^talk 15:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)