Dela Rabadilla

Rorschach

Although I completely agree with you that the Rorschach images should not be shown (I am a psychologist), you are fighting a losing battle if you try to eliminate the image altogether. This explosive debate has raged for over a year now. There have been edit wars (some of them were archived) resulting in the page being protected from further editing several times. Sometimes the page was protected with the image showing, and no one could change it. Things finally settled down recently with a compromise to make the image available only if the user clicks a link (to allow the user not to invalidate the test if he ever takes it). Your recent removal of that process, although well-intentioned, technically violates Wikipedia's spirit of consensus that resulted in the compromise.

As much as I wish you were right that the images are under copyright, that sadly is not the case. The copyright expired 70 years after H. Rorschach created the images. The publisher, Hogrefe & Huber, has a trademark for the test as it is printed on the cards, but the images themselves are no longer copyrighted. That's another battle we have fought, and we even pulled Hogrefe & Huber into the fray, to no avail.

Although you are perfectly entitled to edit as you choose (assuming you don't violate Wikipedia policies), let me point out a pattern I've noticed in the long and messy debate over displaying the image. Most (if not all) of the advocates for showing the image tend to develop the attitude: "We are going to do it because we can." And I also think the next step in this argument has manifest also: "We are going to show you that we can do it because you don't want us to." If editors like you and me make "anti-display" comments on the Talk page (or even discuss the image without taking a side), it seems to fan the flames and the "display" advocates jump on the bandwagon and add the image (without the click-to-see). So my approach has been, if the image is not immediately seen when opening the article, I don't mention it. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but my opinion is that if you continue to discuss the issue, someone will soon start an edit war and the page will be protected from editing again, possibly with the image displayed.

That having been said, you are quite entitled to discuss any issue on the Talk page as much as you wish. I was making an observation from over a year of dealing with this issue. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But the wikipedia has trascended that and is not represented by a few guys that want to do things "because they can".

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you based on much experience with Wikipedia and the Rorschach page. There is no legal protection for the images, and Wikipedia's "anyone-can-edit" policy puts those of us who try to follow professional ethics in the minority. Most other encyclopedias have the advantage of some degree of editorial control by experts.

I have even had to fight this battle with other psychologists who are anti-Rorschach because their understanding of it is based on the status of the Rorschach 40 years ago. You don't see this degree of controversy on pages such as the MMPI, and not just because the text of the items is protected by copyright; it's also because the MMPI does not have as many misinformed critics within the profession as the Rorschach does.

I think the way it is now (click-to-see) is that best that we will ever get. Even that is subject to change if enough uninformed (and uncaring) editors decide to stir things up again.

Thanks for your reply. Ward3001 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

if we took all the people that have issue with this particular page. The ones that would like to see the links to the images gone would win.

Anything is possible, but I think if that was true the issue would have been settled long ago. I applaud your efforts, even though I am doubtful that you will be successful.

it would be shown as another case in which self-regulation did not work

Maybe I'm cynical (and exhausted) from the battle (and this isn't the only page with this problem that I've had to contend with; it's just one of the worst in the field of psychology). But I think it is not entirely inaccurate that self-regulation does not work on Wikipedia. The administrator system helps, but not nearly enough. Even less controversial transgressions, such as blatant vandalism and POV-pushing are tolerated up to a point by many administrators. There seems to be an institutional attitude of "not biting the newcomer", or "vandals might change", etc. that takes precedence over developing a quality encyclopedia. Not that I think Wikipedia is entirely useless. For breadth and depth of coverage, it probably can't be beaten, not to mention that it's free. But for accuracy, I tend to be quite skeptical. Most editors like me don't have the time to take the battles to mediation and arbitration, which can be a frustrating and lengthy process. And it sometimes doesn't seem to help very much.

Anyway, I again thank you for your efforts and will do what I can to help with the limited amount of time I have. Ward3001 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. To get more details about how the "sides" developed and the controversy developed, look through the Talk page, including the archives. In particular, look for headings such as "Image" or "Copyright". Ward3001 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach image

Since Nobody has commented on this interpretation, unless anyone has an objection, I will remove the current image at the top of the page and replace it with an inkblot that resembles the original ones. And the image should be clearly different from the originals when looking at them side by side. This will convey the same information to the wikipedia reader, without compromising the test.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't do that. The absence of a response does not imply agreement. Consensus has already been established to leave the image as it is, and you cannot change consensus with one person's opinion. That's not the way it works in Wikipedia. Please don't start an edit war. Ward3001 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But I thougth I was following the guidelines. I read I should wait three days. I was planning to wait those same 3 days again before doing changes. I should have written that too. My assumption is that someone will come here and discuss why should I not do it, and we mantain consensus. And if everybody agrees with this new proposal then consensus changed. Please help me understand if I did something incorrect. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Waiting three days is to give others an opportunity to comment. It does not imply agreement if there are no comments, especially when a consensus was already established. If there had never been any disagreement regarding this issue, you might be on more solid ground. But if you will look carefully at the talk page history (including the archives), you will see tremendous disagreement, discussion, arguing, edit warring, and protection of the article because of edit warring. And some of this disagreement was over the very change that you propose. In fact, a fake inkblot at one time was placed in the article, sparking more controversy. Eventually the consensus was for the compromise that now exists. And that consensus was hammered out after long and difficult debate. You can't unilaterally change consensus just because others are tired of arguing and have ignored your suggestion. I'm not assuming bad faith; you're intentions may be fine, but your methods are not in accordance with acceptable Wikipedia practice. In any event, since I have now expressed disagreement, there is no change in consensus with one opinion in favor of changing and one opinion opposed to changing. Ward3001 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you and User:24.174.8.32 are the same.
I understand the dynamics of discusions, and how people get tired. I personally very much appreciate the consensus that you helped achieve. I also think that the current consensus suffers from the same problem of people getting tired, and is not stable. I have read what was discussed before and I come fresh, plus I have not seen anyone propose the same thing I am proposing. With the benefit of hindsight it may be that if image replacement had been proposed before, a much stronger consensus would be in place, instead of what looks to be a compromise by exaustion.

I don't have time right now to find the fake inkblot that was used a long time ago. Another "semi-fake" image that was used is this one, which is a blackened version of Card I. Very similar argument: use an inkblot that is not a Rorschach inkblot. This (and the fake blot I referred to above) were considerations in all of the controversy and debate.

I still strongly favor leaving the image as it is now. One reason is that I don't want to start an edit war that will result in the current image ending up at the top of the page without the click-to-see option. That has happened in the past.

Don't make any changes unless other opinions are expressed and a clear change of consensus emerges. Ward3001 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Rorschach Page

"what if nobody types anything in 6 months?": As a general rule, no comments means no consensus to change anything. My personal opinion is to make no changes unless you get comments in support of any change. That having been said, sometimes editors post a request for comment to try to elicit opinions from a broader group of Wikipedia users. My concern is that would stir things up and the zealots who want an actual Rorschach image shown (in fact, all ten images) without the click-to-see option will use that as an opportunity to start their arguments again, probably resulting in edit warring and protection of the page. But it's your choice; anyone is entitled to post an RfC. Ward3001 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Rorschach wars are about to begin ... again (sigh)

As I predicted, the image-must-be-shown zealots are jumping into the debate:

"I'll be unhiding shortly unless I see some policy based reason why it should be hidden. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)"

Next will be the edit wars, followed by the page protection. Ward3001 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"I still think if we seek to side with common sense we are better off.": Based on a long, sordid history with this issue, I have to express considerable skepticism.

"I would love to see you voicing strong agreement with my proposal": As I have said in the past, I am war-weary from fighting this battle too many times. If it were put to a vote, I'd vote for your proposal at this point. But I don't have the time, energy, or intestinal fortitude to try to address the issue coherently in discussion. Feel free to lift any of my arguments from earlier talk page discussions. You have my permission.

Good luck. Ward3001 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach, again

Just interested in knowing, where is the fantastical evidence that seeing the inkblot produces tangible harm that can assigned with certainty to prior viewing of the inkblot, or at least evidence of a scientific consensus of such. All I've seen through the discussion are claims to that effect, and references to a single manual. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well.... it got archived away. Please look it up on the last archive. I really wish this was more organized, at one time I had sections in place hoping that people would follow them but nobody did. What has been happening is that people for showing the image come and go. That is why you see fragmented exchanges so it's not fantastical evidence, you just can't find it in this chaos. That is why I want to go to mediation, I assume a good mediator would request order from all parties.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Rorschach page

"You could maybe add some references": Thanks for your message, and your concern. The primary reference for not showing the blot is found in an Exner manual that raises ethical concerns if a psychologist posts from it. There could be other sources (and likely are), but I'm afraid I don't have the time or energy because of fighting this battle so much in the past. If I find something, I'll post it. But I think it's a losing battle anyway. I think if Exner and Hermann Rorschach themselves could be brought back from the dead and provided irrefutable evidence that the blot should not be shown, other agendas would prevail, as they seem to be doing now. Essentially, I am conceding to ignorance of science and lack of respect for this aspect of mental health care. I have my doubts that Wikipedia as we know it will survive a lot longer anyway, but I hope for the best. Good luck. Ward3001 (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

re medcab

Hey, sorry it took me a bit of a while to reply. Informal mediation doesn't handle content disputes for the most part. I think WP:CENSOR applies, personally, but you may disagree. If you feel it is an important enough issue, you might want to take it to the proper venues (3O, project psychology, etc). For what it's worth, whenever I see a Rorschach inkblot, I always think of a pelvis ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, weird. I have no clue how that happened... I could just mark the case as new, and it'd appear back up top for other medcabers to look at (sometimes we forget to add our names to the medcab mediation template, so it's marked as open and we just assume someone's on it). I might look at this case, although right now I'm working on Aratta. If medcab isn't expedient (it remains as a "new" case, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases), you could go to Third opinion (or request for comment, but I typically advise against that).

Anyway, I thought George D. Watson (user:Dendodge) had taken that, but apparently not... I'll mark it as new. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal effort

Dendodge page

I completely understand that you may have an opinion different that mine and that is why you closed the Rorschach image case. The thing that I am disappointed about is not that you used your personal criteria or anything like that, what else could you use. But that you did not engage me. If you refer to my case, my biggest complaint was the lack of communication, that once people thought of an objection they would not be open to discuss it with me. I understand that the wikipedia has no option but to work on the basis of consensus. And for that reason communication ought to be fundamental. At this point I do not know if you read my arguments of why WP:CENSOR does not apply in this case, or which one did you read, or maybe you read the 3 archives of talk page. Or if you thought the arguments were wrong. Closing the case like this is understandable from the arbitration committee, they have to make decisions because previous mediation steps already failed. But a you guys can take a little time with the parties and hopefully prevent cases from going to arbitration. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

From the way it was worded it seemed that you wanted to remove the images.

I do not think that image removal implies censorship. There is lots of content removed from the wikipedia with no mention of censorship.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the material should be removed?

I'll write this backwards. The reason I think the censorship objection does not stand is because according to the wikipedia article 3 parties are required publisher, public and censor. China censors the wikipedia. I think what is happening is that we think of things that actual religious or political groups would censor, and we apply the word censorship. But when I enter the wikipedia as an editor I become part of the publisher and the publisher cannot censor itself. Again according the wikipedia article, a publisher could self-censor if it feels that he may be censored. But that is not the case here either. You may think "So what about the policy, nothing can be censored then". After reading the policy several times I think it actually agrees with this argument. It explains why censorship cannot happen by the very nature of the wikipedia, and I think it addresses the possible expectation from some people that a wikipedia censor should exist. You may also think "what about clear cases like the Mohammad image". I think that we can talk about how this is censored in other places, but ultimately it is an arbitrary consensus decision by the community of editors of the article. Secondly, there is policy that says that images should be removed if they are considered shocking or explicit, from this I gather that policy makers understood that there are cases that warrant removal or replacement of images. The judgment of images as shocking is completely arbitrary. In this case I think the original rorschach inkblot is inappropriate for the wikipedia, because it harms people. I already extended myself. I think that if you don't believe that this image produces harm you will most likely default to leaving the case closed. So if you have doubts on whether the image causes harm or not please let me know.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How does it cause harm? I actually like looking at them. I don't see how an inkblot could offend anyone.

It causes harm the same way that interfering with a cancer test may cause harm. The diagnosis may be that the patient does not have cancer and the proper treatment or medication would not be provided, needless to say the consequences can be very negative. I say it is the same way, because the Rorschach is used by the medical community routinely for diagnosis. I know it is unexpected to hear that looking at an image could have such impact. I know of cases in mental hospitals were long held diagnosis and medications changed thanks to insights gained once the Rorschach test was administered. Lets examine this for a moment, the fundamental premise of a high school test is that all students have not seen the test prior to the exam so they don't just study the answers to the questions. The fundamental premise of the Rorschach test is that the subject has not seen the inkblots before, so their answers more closely reflect what is on their mind. As is, this premise poses research problems for retesting. But general availability of original inkblots with no time limit presents a much bigger problem. Even worse is the possibility that others might suggest answers and subjects might change the answers given during testing. We can elaborate if the harm has already been done by other websites, currently this test is still being used by the health services community around the world.

I don't think the images offend anyone, but if policy writers already think we should remove images if they are shocking of explicit (maybe that is why you mention offensiveness), then I don't see why we wouldn't do it if they cause harm. For a different situation where images cause harm see the article on Photosensitive epilepsy.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns with photosensitive epilepsy and I can understand your reasoning. Unfortunately, this falls under WP:CENSOR, despite your arguments that it doesn't. I would like to help but I'd be fighting a losing battle.

I'll be honest with you, my frustration is not that people disagree with me but that nobody wants to take the time to address my argument points directly. I have no doubt that you empathize with me, and this may be a time issue for you, but I feel I am placed at a disadvantage when people don't say what is on their mind.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing on my mind, just Wikipedia policy. Reading WP:CENSOR will show you exactly why I oppose the inclusion of the images.

I argued that there are three entities required for censorship to occur, and how the policy matches this argument. You clearly must have an objection to this. But you are not expressing any of it, this puts me at a disadvantage. As as said before, I've read the policy multiple times. I will open the case again, and see where we go from there. Thank you for your time.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My page

From the way it was worded it seemed that you wanted to remove the images. If it is something different that led you to ask for our help, feel free to re-open the case and make yourself clearer. I apologise for my mistake. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 13:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the material should be removed? I'll re-open the case if I'm satisfied with the reply. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 13:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How does it cause harm? I actually like looking at them. I don't see how an inkblot could offend anyone. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns with photosensitive epilepsy and I can understand your reasoning. Unfortunately, this falls under WP:CENSOR, despite your arguments that it doesn't. I would like to help but I'd be fighting a losing battle. Feel free to re-open the case but I'm sure the result will be that the images are kept. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing on my mind, just Wikipedia policy. Reading WP:CENSOR will show you exactly why I oppose the inclusion of the images. Wikipedia is not censored, it cannot offer medical advice and its articles should include pictures if they are available. I wouldn't know what was meant by 'Rorschach test' if I hadn't seen the image. The pictures are all over the internet anyway so removing them from Wikipedia would be pointless. As I said earlier, feel free to re-open the case but the chances are that you'll fail. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the frustration...But I think enough editors are going to try for its inclusion. Since no-one can own an article, and the inkblot is an image we've all grown used to, I just think it fails wp:snow.

I think if it's the case that originals are being shown, it shouldn't be hard to reach consensus for some editor to take a piece of paper, blot some ink on it, fold it, then scan it. If that's not the case... I just don't think you can censor all symmetrical ink blots.

(Particularly in the case if what psychiatrists are showing are in fact the originals) Xavexgoem (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently it is hard to reach that consensus because it has been tried more than once. And it is the case that the "original" is shown in the article right now. By the way, it's psychologists, not psychiatrists, who are showing them. And psychologists do, in fact, show the originals; it couldn't be done any other way. Ward3001 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xeno^talk 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Welcome back... Curious, was it the recent news flurry that caused you to return? –xeno^talk 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)