Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? - New York Times Options

[LaraLove]

Those safeguards are routinely circumvented in some jurisdictions. The threat of commitment is frequently used, especially in smaller communities, to force unpopular people to comply with community pressures or leave town. If the judge (who, of course, is good friends with the prosecutor, chief of police, state-appointed attorney, and state-appointed psychologist) denies your request for an independent evaluation and you're locked up somewhere with no access to communication, and there is nobody on the outside to advocate for you, just how do you vindicate your rights?

The best description of Wikipedia I've read in a long, long time.

Jon Awbrey

It really is.

[GlassBeadGame]

Those safeguards are routinely circumvented in some jurisdictions. The threat of commitment is frequently used, especially in smaller communities, to force unpopular people to comply with community pressures or leave town. If the judge (who, of course, is good friends with the prosecutor, chief of police, state-appointed attorney, and state-appointed psychologist) denies your request for an independent evaluation and you're locked up somewhere with no access to communication, and there is nobody on the outside to advocate for you, just how do you vindicate your rights?

The best description of Wikipedia I've read in a long, long time.

Jon Awbrey

It really is.

So just replace ArbCom with a county probate court.

[Jon Awbrey]

The takeaway from this whole situation is that Wikipedia is routinely used as a forum for public debate. We knew that already.

It is not just that something advertised as an "encyclopedia" is really a forum for public debate. People can sit around debating whether a bridge, say, is safe. And if it's really an issue they can call in the engineers to test its trussworthiness.

Wikipedia is something advertised as an encyclopedia, one that is really a forum for non-excommunicant debate — but it goes way beyond that — it gives anyone among the mass debaters who chooses to do so the tools to pre-empt the debate by blowing up the bridge.

Jon Awbrey, 29 Jul 2009

[dtobias]

I didn't know Mensa didn't use full safeguards and rigors, including the use of licensed professionals administering the tests. It seems to me if you want to hold your members out as having a certain psychological attribute you would want to do so. Is it like fortune telling then? Does the Mensa wall plaque say "for entertainment purposes only?"

Mensa has a Supervisory Psychologist at the national and international levels to certify that proper test standards are used; he/she is licensed. However, the local administration of the tests is by volunteer proctors who have to undergo some minor training but aren't psychologists; that is why the psychologist profession insists Mensa not actually call the tests "IQ tests" or give a precise score from them.

[GlassBeadGame]

I didn't know Mensa didn't use full safeguards and rigors, including the use of licensed professionals administering the tests. It seems to me if you want to hold your members out as having a certain psychological attribute you would want to do so. Is it like fortune telling then? Does the Mensa wall plaque say "for entertainment purposes only?"

Mensa has a Supervisory Psychologist at the national and international levels to certify that proper test standards are used; he/she is licensed. However, the local administration of the tests is by volunteer proctors who have to undergo some minor training but aren't psychologists; that is why the psychologist profession insists Mensa not actually call the tests "IQ tests" or give a precise score from them.

So Mensa employees a psychologist who does not adhere to the standards of the profession for the purpose of administering the tests?

[Apathetic]

Fox video wherein one anchorman gives a mock Rorschach test to the other two:

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/good_day_la/The...h_Test_20090729

[Somey]

So Mensa employees a psychologist who does not adhere to the standards of the profession for the purpose of administering the tests?

More importantly, does this mean my own IQ score of 457 is likely to be declared "invalid" merely because the test was administered by Squeebles, my pet hamster?

Squeebles won't be happy about that... not at all.

[zvook]

I realized this had become very public when I read the wiki-curious Cohen writing about it in the NYT, but it was still a bit of a shock to see Jay Walsh by satellite link on the BBC's flagship current affairs programme, Newsnight, just now. An incredulous-seeming Kirsty Wark was asking him questions like, "Do you have a moral responsibility to society? Jay Walsh?" and, "If it could be shown that this was damaging, clinically, would you take the images down? I mean, you do have the power to take them down, it's not some sort of anarchic website?" (A clearly uncomfortable Jay Walsh: "It's complicated.")

I'm not of a miiiiind to fight the corner of Reichian mumbo-jumbo even if it is vs. Wikipedia, but it's true to say the Wikimedia Foundation came off as irresponsible and Walsh, incoherent.

[dtobias]

So far, it seems like in pretty much every one of these cases where people here on WR have declared Wikipedia / Wikimedia to have shown itself publicly as reckless, irresponsible, harmful, and all of that other stuff, the end result has been that the general public finds it mildly funny but doesn't really care, the techie crowd actively sides with Wikipedia, and everybody keeps on using Wikipedia just as much as (or more than) before. Meanwhile, whatever institution is on the other side of the controversy either backs off completely or reaches some kind of uneasy truce where everybody can let the fight simmer down. There hasn't yet been anything even vaguely resembling the decisive victory over Wikipedia that you guys have been hoping for.

[GlassBeadGame]

So far, it seems like in pretty much every one of these cases where people here on WR have declared Wikipedia / Wikimedia to have shown itself publicly as reckless, irresponsible, harmful, and all of that other stuff, the end result has been that the general public finds it mildly funny but doesn't really care, the techie crowd actively sides with Wikipedia, and everybody keeps on using Wikipedia just as much as (or more than) before. Meanwhile, whatever institution is on the other side of the controversy either backs off completely or reaches some kind of uneasy truce where everybody can let the fight simmer down. There hasn't yet been anything even vaguely resembling the decisive victory over Wikipedia that you guys have been hoping for.

Essjay. Seigenthaler.

[thekohser]

Essjay. Seigenthaler.

Doran. Marsden. Wikia Search.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 4th August 2009, 2:30am

[Malleus]

And if a psychologist gets you declared mentally incompetent ...

Psychologists don't have that power, unlike trick cyclists.

The Rorschach pictures should have been published long ago, and all psychologists depending on their secrecy for their mumbo-jumbo should be struck off and sent packing.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Tue 4th August 2009, 2:54am

[Milton Roe]

So Mensa employees a psychologist who does not adhere to the standards of the profession for the purpose of administering the tests?

More importantly, does this mean my own IQ score of 457 is likely to be declared "invalid" merely because the test was administered by Squeebles, my pet hamster?

Squeebles won't be happy about that... not at all.

The only proper IQ tests given by animals are administered by cats. Differentiate "I want out" meow from "I want a can of catfood" meow, and you pass. Barely.


Hey, I'm walkin' here!

[Apathetic]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rorschach_test_images

Lulzworthy comments from the talk page from (an apparent raging psychotic ;>) iridescent:

*Who is going to write the [[WP:ALT|alt text]]? —mattisse 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)

[Cla68]

Why don't psychologists want the Rorschach images freely available on the web? Some possible explanations:

- Psychologists feel that their profession and credibility are under constant attack and want to control/protect their methods and image as much as possible.
- There are too many psychologists out there competing with each other for a scarce amount of work and prestige, therefore they don't want any of their tools taken away from them.
- They genuinely believe that the Rorshach test is an effective tool and are trying to protect its integrity.

Compare/contrast this with polygraph profession. When someone "reveals" the "secrets" behind polygraphs, such as here, professional polygraph examiners don't appear to appreciate it very much.

[CharlotteWebb]

Is there any reason not to merge this with the previous thread:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24972

(or vice versa, I don't see how it fits in "support group")

[Apathetic]

(or vice versa, I don't see how it fits in "support group")

I wondered why it was moved to support group as well ... ?